Trump: Version 5.0

Time for a new thread. Ready, set, discuss!


Re: Trump: Version 5.0

it's Miller time!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Impeach the fake president.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-could-impeached-four-095033682.html

happiest girl
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

ROFLMAO

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Ronnie weighs in...

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Actually, ian...

Ronnie DID ACTUALLY weigh in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbPmu51w29g

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-10/trump-points-to-drudge-s-great-again-praise-of-new-jobs-report

235K new jobs - getting great again.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/us-created-235000-jobs-in-feb-vs-190000-expected.html

Wages up - greater still.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN16H0KA?il=0

construction - largest growth in 10 years.

Thats a pretty good first 50 days.

Take heed though - Trump said we are in a bubble.
Interest rates are rising now, and the market is way overvalued. the mean PE of the SP500 is ~ 26, with the 100 year mean of 15. My guess is the Fed is going to start raising rates aggressively, I believe starting next month. Which is OK as long as we get FISCAL STIMULUS! That means Congress MUST pass an infrastructure spending bill!

skippy skippy
Mar '17

At least it ain't Hillary!!!!


This is a good jobs report. However, yuge it is not....yet.

'235K new jobs - getting great again." Yuger than estimate. Sucks worse than Obama's last two years of February numbers and Trump admitted they sucked. But now sucks is great......Perspective I guess.

Amazingly, Turnip has forgotten his real fake numbers: "The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent." quote Trump on 4.9% last year......

"The payroll increase in February was actually slightly lower than the same month the two prior years -- jobs increased by 237,000 in February 2016 and by 238,000 in February 2015." Bloomberg

Construction: be careful. Warmest winter in 10 years too.....

Frankly at less than 5% unemployed, who really cares about the jobs number. Wages are where it's at. Given we are close to full employment (or full employment as I traditional define it), one would expect wages to rise. And they did, great.

January at 2.6% wage growth, this one --- yes in the right direction at 2.8% or 6-cents per hour better.... We need 3.5% to 4.0% to beat inflation so a ways to go.

And face it, this is a combination of Obama's recovery and business-expectations of Trump. There are no programs in place for change, just hyperbole not necessarily met by reality. At least according to Trump's record so far.

http://www.epi.org/nominal-wage-tracker/

Your warning is right: growth based on expectations can pop like any bubble. Instantly.

One issue for Trump is that he better be right that unemployment is Yuge at 30%. Because if he lied, I'm sorry. If it's more complex than imagined, then deporting 11 million workers with unemployment at 4.7% might work against his plan....

Another is the deficit. This guy's plans have a lot of spend, spend, spend. Cutting the government to cover means firing to hire, not exactly a bottom line gain.

But a good report and I would focus on the wages ---- that's the one that will really change our lives.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

I think if Trump goes, they'll net a lot of his administration with him. Either for the same conspiracy or lying about it. Flynn resigned to protect Pence, but how many more will do that?

Hillary looks like a saint compared to Trump. This coming from Never Hillary Liberal. Anything she's done, Trump's done worse, repeatedly, and tweeted about it proudly. (Okay, so he hasn't tweeted about directing officials to use personal emails...yet, but I'm sure that's coming! "Sorry losers, but my team will never have leaks, they use the most secure email ever - AOL."

Thanks Skippy for pointing out the residual effects of a great 8 years under Obama!

Check back in a year or two. He's performed no action capable of driving those changes. However, his propaganda and terrorist rhetoric is now responsible for several shootings of america citizens yelling "get out of my country". Congratulations, you're making the country white again by shooting anyone who isn't!

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Mar '17

Yeah, JR... your post pretty much reinforces mine. Thanks.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Hey I'm just trying to be rational about it
Definitely not yuge

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

There is something slightly enjoyable about watching leftists suffer under President Trump. I think the Germans call it "Schadenfrued" or something like that.

1988LJ 1988LJ
Mar '17

see - we start to have a somewhat intelligent discussion and now right away accusations of racism and rhetoric. A1B - Stop using emotional devices and ad homimem attacks to shut down reasonable discourse and we may actually come together as a country.

We had a huge recession. Obama's stimulus was the fiscal policy (the bailouts, etc). However, we lacked any fiscal policy beyond that (lower taxes, deregulation, etc.) The quantitative easing of Obama and Bush administrations had to materialize somehow.

The market WILL correct for the huge supply of money. Those who have it continue to spend (banks lending to huge companies, which in turn buy smaller companies, think EMC, Nimble Storage, etc.) it'll will rear its ugly head.

To this point the correction has been slow because wages have been low, so to the middle class - money doesn't have any more availability than it did. A lot of that money went into the stock market. Interest rates are so low that people are trying to find returns anyway they can, and the market's were they turn to - hence why we have a bubble on the horizon.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Check the tax rates Skippy. Lowest in decades.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

Skippy, this isn't emotion. This is logic, reasoning and fact, plain and simple. But you'd know this if you stepped outside your safe little bubble of Fox and Friends. Seriously, you can fact check anything I've said, and I would encourage you to do so, so long as you don't start with breitbart.

Stop supporting a fascist, xenophobic, racist, sexist, sexual assaulter (self admitted!) liar, scam artist, bad businessman, russian spy (and/or puppet - yes, for now, this is subjective), traitor, and maybe we'll consider hearing your point. Until then, you, and him are a threat to democracy and freedom and will be treated as such.

I just want to also add that new jobs does not mean good paying jobs and when unemployment is being reported as down, it can be affected by those who have been taking out of the unemployment pool by other means than getting a job (death, stop trying to find employment, disability, you get the idea) This was a problem during Obama's term - people would stop looking or their benefits would expire.

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Mar '17

No doubt Trump will take credit for these recent job numbers but the fact is he is benefitting from business decisions and planning decided upon 8 months plus ago. It really takes that long to have an affect. Where we are in 6 months will be due to Trump and his new policies etc....

Waiting to see what happens.


"I think if Trump goes, they'll net a lot of his administration with him. Either for the same conspiracy or lying about it. Flynn resigned to protect Pence, but how many more will do that?"


You know that's not how it works, right?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Come on. The jobs are what they are. A good report. Better than expected. Worse than Obama's Feb's two years running.

Wages up a bit. That's great at what, 2.6% when we need 3.5 to 4 to be ahead pf inflation.

Not based on Trump's actions but certainly based on expectations of Trump.

So come on. Be fair.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

so trump supporters - and me specifically are a "a threat to democracy and freedom" and will be treated as such." so I guess you advocate violence against such a clear and present danger to America?

skippy skippy
Mar '17

and the good reason for this would be???? http://resistancereport.com/politics/gop-bill-genetic/

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

Flynn resigned because what was found true about him, made a statement that Mike Pence made false. One of them was a liar and one of them had to go. Maybe Pence knew the truth and Flynn covered for him, maybe Pence did not and Flynn was a lone actor.

Jefferson: The claim is never been that Trump is acting alone. He's too stupid to act alone. If (and hopefully when) he's found guilty of whatever they actually charge him with, there will be plenty other heads rolling along with him.

His accusation of Obama wiretapping him only leaves a few options:
1) He's paranoid delusional and unfit to lead an orchestra. He tweeted without evidence, either completely making it up, or taking it from untrustworthy sources and believe it. There was no wire tap.
2) Obama is the dumbest man on the planet for illegally wiretapping a candidate, full knowing what happened the last time that happened. Obama or someone high up in his administration ordered or bribed the DOJ to issue wire tap him.
3) Trump Tower (Trump Tower, Donald Trump, and/or current or former members of his campaign) was legally wire tapped because a FISA court has probable cause to issue a warrant. While that doesn't make him guilty, he would sure as hell appear guilty.

It's a desperate man's play, or a very stupid man. Or both.

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Mar '17

"Yeah, JR... your post pretty much reinforces mine. Thanks."


except that in my post Ronnie actually DID SAY it. In your post, he didn't.

However, I agree- Trump is no libertarian, and he's no Reagan. Were Reagan here today, while I think he'd have some issue's with Trump's character, he would also be pleased by his populism, as Reagan also had to fight his own party tooth-and-nail, twice, to get the nomination: the GOP didn't want Reagan either. Too conservative, too much of a maverick. In THAT way, Trump is Reagan-esque.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Don't think so Jr.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Hard to see any Trump bump in the job numbers. Nearly identical to last two Februarys:
Feb. 2015: 238K
Feb. 2016: 237K
Feb. 2017: 235K

That's right the WH says past years were fake but these are real - LOL.


I am watching a DVD of great speeches and what Truman said about being elected reminded me of our most recent election. I had to go back and listen a few more times and laughed each time. In the clip it begins at the two minute point and concludes with Truman saying.
"....the election is over and I should be congratulated on the fact that I won the election, apparently this is too bad but it happened......"

AWESOME!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWQRUs9EkEg


Credit where credit is due. Trump single- handedly reduces unemployment from 30- 40% (he said that was the real number frequently) to 4.7%. A number now not challenged. This guy is amazing.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

I'm with bonv it seems like a normal February except for my S&P rant - CBGB you are the best

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Rex Tillerson is on a downward spiral.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/10/rex-tillerson-might-be-the-weakest-secretary-of-state-ever


He also recused himself from the Keystone pipeline project.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Not sure how you advocate for a foreign policy of "whatever". If you're Trump or Tillerson, pretty much any foreign leader you meet with will be more knowledgeable than you.


Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Come on folks....the jobs numbers were good. Not stellar but not bad either.

Thank you Obama for the parting gift.

Again ---- who really cares whether it's 4.9 or 4.7%. It's basically full employment. If not, what do you think full employment is....."Janet Yellen, the current chairman of the Fed, thinks America is pretty close; at 4.7%, the unemployment rate is quite low by historical standards." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/01/economist-explains-19

As to the "real" numbers, again who really cares except Turnip on the campaign trail and any idiot who swallowed his swill on employment numbers. The government prints the U-3 level of unemployment. Trump alludes to the U-6 definition which includes discouraged, those working jobs beneath their skill set, etc. These different views of unemployment track with the other, so if you want to use the one at 30%, then 30% is basically full employment.....(of course it was never that yuge except when pinhead told you it was; top value for U6 was 17% over the Obama years).

As to this great-average report is to Trumputin's credit, again Duckworth, unemployment is a lagging statistic and does not factor in expectations and that's all you got on this one right now.

As to why it happened ---- duh ---- a picture worth a thousand Trump tweets. (from Investopedia) HINT: Obama's programs....(which I still say should have been amped up if only Congressional Republicans felt about lawmaking as they do today).

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Mr. Trump as they say at the poker table, you've been called.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/323554-house-intel-committee-calls-for-wiretap-evidence-by-monday-report

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '17

Is karma finally on it's way?

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

Trumputin will probably say it was "just locker-room talk"
LOL

Which brings us back to those sex-tapes the Russians have ......
Sooner or later they'll come out too.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Let's see if this will post:
This is where I stand. The 45th President, his power hungry cronies taking positions of authority in his Cabinet and administration, and the majority of Republicans in Congress are a real and active threat to me, my way of life, and all or most of the people.
Some people are saying that we should give Trump a chance, that we should "work together" with him because he won the election and he is "everyone's president." This is my response:
•I will not forget how badly he and so many others treated former President Barack Obama for 8 years...Lies about his legitimacy and hatred for his principles and his attempts to work within the system.
•I will not "work together" to privatize Medicare, cut Social Security and Medicaid.
•I will not "work together" to build a wall.
•I will not "work together" to persecute Muslims.
•I will not "work together" to shut out refugees from other countries.
•I will not "work together" to lower taxes on the 1% and increase taxes on the middle class and poor.
•I will not "work together" to help Trump use the Presidency to line his pockets and those of his family and cronies.
•I will not "work together" to weaken and demolish environmental protection.
•I will not "work together" to sell American lands, especially National Parks, to companies which then despoil those lands.
•I will not "work together" to enable the killing of whole species of animals just because they are predators, or inconvenient for a few, or because some people want to get their thrills killing them.
•I will not "work together" to remove civil rights from anyone.
•I will not "work together" to alienate countries that have been our allies for as long as I have been alive.
•I will not "work together" to slash funding for education.
•I will not "work together" to take basic assistance from people who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
•I will not "work together" to get rid of common sense regulations on guns.
•I will not "work together" to eliminate the minimum wage.
•I will not "work together" to support so-called "Right To Work" laws, or undermine, weaken or destroy Unions in any way.
•I will not "work together" to suppress scientific research, be it on climate change, fracking, or any other issue where a majority of scientists agree that Trump and his supporters are wrong on the facts.
•I will not "work together" to criminalize abortion or restrict health care for women.
•I will not "work together" to increase the number of nations that have nuclear weapons.
•I will not "work together" to put even more "big money" into politics.
•I will not "work together" to violate the Geneva Convention.
•I will not "work together" to give the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party and white supremacists a seat at the table, or to normalize their hatred.
•I will not "work together" to deny health care to people who need it.
•I will not "work together" to deny medical coverage to people on the basis of a "pre-existing condition."
•I will not "work together" to increase voter suppression.
•I will not "work together" to normalize tyranny.
I will not “work together” to eliminate or reduce ethical oversight at any level of government.
•I will not "work together" with anyone who is, or admires, tyrants and dictators.
•I will not support anyone that thinks it's OK to put a pipeline to transport oil on Sacred Ground for Native Americans. And, it would run under the Missouri River, which provides drinking water for millions of people. An accident waiting to happen.
I will not "work together" to legitimize racism, sexism, and authoritarianism.
This is my line, and I am drawing it.
•I WILL stand for honesty, love, respect for all living beings, and for the beating heart that is the center of Life itself.
•I WILL use my voice and my hands, to reach out to the uninformed, and to anyone who will LISTEN:
That "winning", "being great again", "rich" or even "beautiful" is nothing... When others are sacrificed to glorify its existence.

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

Don't ever accuse anyone else of having a conspiracy theory - I believe if trump had a sex tape he would have had it as a campaign ad

skippy skippy
Mar '17

4catmom, saving America single-handedly. Oh THANK YOU!


Now, if you could just get it through your head that alot of people felt the exact same way about Obama & Hillary, and their FEELINGS (because that's all they are) are just as valid as yours, maybe we could all get somewhere.

That's why we HAVE elections.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

JR, some heartfelt feelings, yes. But also many specific policies identified that are antithetical to many of us.
Bravo 4catmom!!

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

do you actively disagree with most of what 4cat posted? I don't believe feeling strongly about such issues would be helped by knowing many citizens detested Obama. These issues aren't a single party platform. In my opinion, the sanctity of environmantal laws is of upmost importance to the future and current people that live in this land and something that all people can agree with and benefit from.

kepa
Mar '17

Excellent post, 4catmom!

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

JR thinks the words "I will not" is a *feeling*

LOL

Thank you 4catmom for your post.

We are exposing Trump and holding him accountable for his words and actions.
His forthcoming *explanation* of the "wiretap accusation" will go down in history.
Grounds for impeachment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-could-impeached-four-095033682.html

happiest girl
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Don't worry JR this is what passes for activism these days - the ladies just want to claim VA benefits for being veterans of the meme wars lol

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Nice job 4Cat. Jr's retort is a "sticks and stones" special and just does not make sense. I love the right's "alot of people felt the exact same way about Obama & Hillary" linking forever Obama with Hillary. Jr,, for example can't say Obama without attaching a Hillary. Here's a buck Jr, by a clue --- Obama was President, Hillary wasn't. And her last name is Clinton. Now if you want to compare Trump and Rex, oops, I mean Tillerson, against Obama and Clinton, alrighty then.

Or if you want to compare Turnip and Probama then let's compare:

First Hundred Days:
Trump approval rating March 2017 --- 43%, disapproval 49%
Obama approval rating March 2009 --- 62%, disapproval 28%

It took Obama close to 1,000 days to reach a majority disapproval rating; Trump 8 days. A new Fake Presidential speed record. He is number one in something., forever. Sure, beyond the facts, some people "feel" the same way about Obama. Most don't. And that's the point that should matter to Turnip and Jr.

Trump won the election, he won the electoral college. He lost the popular vote but is in denial claiming California does not count, his inauguration was the yugest ever and his DC hotel actually has lodgers who aren't looking for quid pro quo. His popularity floor is 40% which amazingly the number of Americans self-identifying as Rednecks. Just kidding but seriously, that's his floor, and while I can't find the number of people self-identifying as Rednecks, let's face it, today's Redneck is not yesterdays' poor, imbred, ignorant, Southern hick. We gots your yuppie besuited ATV riding Rednecks, frat house Rednecks, family-friendly Georgia Tech grad Jeff Foxworthy Rednecks, your racing Rednecks, golfing Rednecks; all postmodern Rednecks along with your famous stereotypes. Heck, I'm from coal country, used to tout the Rebel flag, drove tricked-out muscle cars cruising Saturday night on the loop, windows down, but blasting new wave ---- I got a tad of redneck in me.

The sad fact is, so far, it seems his basement floor seems to also be his approval ceiling. And that fact is based on his words and actions. Actions without consideration of all of America and words that boarder on pure propaganda at times.

Point is Trump's floor is 40% and these people are going to need a lot to be shaken off that branch. Lack of financial disclosure, lots of nasty personal behavior disclosures, no real separation from business, lots of conflicts of interest, fake propaganda-speak like wiretapping, Mexican Judges, selling Ivanka from the White House, Russian ties, Russian hack denial, etc. etc. etc. has made the faithful tremble but has not shaken them yet.

So sure, a lot can "feel" the same way, and it's still early yet, but point is that so far Trump has done absolutely nothing to cross the aisle, unify America, or anything beyond throwing red meat, really red, no hang time at all, to his base. So lot might not be shaken or even stirred but most of America can see, based on his words and actions, that his man is just not up to the job of Making America Great Again. There is no pivot, no reaching across the aisle, or even consideration of all America. At all.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/12/tom-price/tom-price-undercounts-obamacare-impact-getting-mor/

Trump and team thanking their voters...

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Wow. Skippy believes they tapppped Trump's phones and calls us ladies.....

That's low Skippy, even with an LOL.

Now here's a highbrow picture of LOL.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Just the beginning of Karma Time: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-lawsuit-canada-court-approves-legal-case-against-us-president-a7623566.html

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

Great post strangerdanger.

And yes, Trumputin has done nothing to unify America. He has no love of America or it's people.
He is ripping this country apart at the seams.
Anyone with a brain can see that. His goal is to make his family the richest people on the planet, whatever it takes.

happiest girl
Mar '17

It is horrifying that there are *men* like "skippy" that choose to demean women veterans.
Women served in the military in every branch of service and suffered the same sacrifices as men.
Women also have to endure the sexual abuse of men --- the very latest is the Marine Corp's nude photo scandal which *skippy* probably is enthusiastic about.

happiest girl
Mar '17

I think conservatives want may of the same things - we want equality for all people, a high level of education and health for everyone. We be believe in charity and helping the weak and those in need. We also want to take care of our communities and share our wealth by choice not through force and coercion.

I think Trump in his latest speech before congress definitely reached across the isle - and liberals responded like spoiled children.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/321737-trump-stood-to-unify-while-democrats-sat-to-divide

"President Donald Trump stood before America with an overarching message of unity. Meanwhile, Democrats sat firmly planted in their chamber chairs, still seething from their electoral pummeling."

anyone speak SJW libtard that can translate what HG is trying to say? this has nothing to do with veterans and everything to do with fake activism. posting drivel on the internet is not activism.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

"Women served in the military in every branch of service and suffered the same sacrifices as men."

You do realize *meme wars* are not actual military battles, right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Since were posting garbage from Facebook and not attributing it to any source.. looking at your 4 cat.

http://www.disclose.tv/news/are_you_suffering_from_trump_acceptance_resistance_disorder_tard/136500

Do You Know Someone Suffering From Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder (TARD)? Know the Signs, Spot the Symptoms, Save a Life

Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder is a pattern of pathologically dissociative and psychotic behavior, first observed in the late hours of November 8th 2016, and increasing in severity with passing time. Sufferers of Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder often exhibit pronounced cognitive dissonance, sudden bouts of rage, uncontrollable crying, suicidal ideation, and extreme pain in the gluteal area.

Signs and Symptoms:

People with Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder are characterized by a persistent unwillingness to accept that Donald Trump is going to Make America Great Again. Individual sufferers often display signs of paranoia and delusion; in acute cases psychotic episodes have been observed. Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder is different from being upset about the results of the 2016 presidential election; People with TARD are unwilling or unable to accept reality, despite irrefutable evidence.

According to the DSM-V, individuals with TARD exhibit most or all of the following symptoms:

Telling others they are moving to Canada
Fixated on fantasies about the Electoral College
Protesting an election no credible source contests the outcome of
Exclamations that “Someone” should do “Something”
Sudden weight gain
Acute change in demeanor from pompous and arrogant to fearful and combative
Claim that anyone who disagrees with them is some combination of Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, Homophobic, and Actually Hitler

Causes and Mechanisms:
Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder was directly caused by the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America. For many, both in America and worldwide, this was a shocking and unexpected outcome; their preferred news sources having failed to inform them that the alternative candidate was a criminal parasite in such ill health she got chucked into the back of a van like a kidnap victim.

Research is ongoing, but TARD appears to correlate closely with the following

environmental and behavioral factors:

Membership in the Democratic party
Identifying as a Feminist
Currently enrolled in college, and/or
Possession of a Liberal Arts college degree
Cuckoldry
Living in a densely populated metropolitan area
Massive student debt
Spotty or non-existent work history
Hipsterism

Diagnosis:

Diagnosis of Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder is straightforward. Ask the patient about the President of the United States of America. Some patients will become agitated, and may attempt to deflect. It’s critical you press them on the issue, even if they start babbling about ‘muh triggers’. A sufferer of TARD will begin to ramble incoherently, often displaying three or more of the symptoms within a short period of time.

Comorbidity:
A diagnosis of Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder is highly comorbid with Paraphilic Infantilism, Emotional Eating, Autism Spectrum, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and adult bedwetting.

Treatment:
The only known effective treatment is exposure therapy. The patient must be repeatedly exposed to reality, and should wear a Make America Great Again hat as long as they are able to tolerate it. Each exposure should increase in length, after a week the patient should be encouraged to be seen in public wearing the MAGA hat. Coach the patient to refer to Donald Trump as Mr. President.

Patients with TARD are very resistant to treatment, and dangerous in large groups. Any possibility of treatment requires that they be separated from their hive-mind support apparatus; they cannot begin the process of accepting reality in the presence of encouragement towards delusion and irrationality. Separation may require the assistance of law enforcement.

If you have a friend or loved one suffering from TARD, urge them to seek treatment. Together we can beat this scourge, and Make America Great Again!

skippy skippy
Mar '17

SJW takes down Sean Spicer!

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_cyorx2k7

Scottso Scottso
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Are you OK Skippy; you seem to have gone off your reservation and into JIT's gulch? Not really funny dude, not remotely.

Now here's some reality-based humor.

MAGA -- Make America Grope Again!

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Wait. I think I get it. I can see your view of the world clearly now.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Mark --
Skippy demeans women, and he is a meme head.

happiest girl
Mar '17

I sure did SD -the rehashed stuff that keeps getting posted on here takes away from actual discussion of real world It's pointless. Someone posts some unreferenced garbage and the sycophants all show up and say great post lol. If you guys don't want to have an honest somewhat intellectual discussion and throw memes and Facebook garbage then let's do that. It's moronic.
I'm a meany and a meme head whatever that is but certainly not demeaning to women

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Skippy you need to get some help fast.


skippy, you want honest, intellectual discussion, maybe try refraining from your constant use of "libtard". Grow up.

Tracy Tracy
Mar '17

Ridicule is a classic Alinsky tactic, all you are doing is following the lead of your constituency in issuing puerile schoolyard ad hominems and insults to further your agenda. So much for Liberals not being racist - you have no problem trashing Whites in the South and rednecks whom you regard as toothless, drooling mongoloids - you don’t base your position on logic or principles you simply take sides on an issue and trash anyone and anything that doesn’t agree

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Man just can't keep it in his sycophants :>) Enough with the name calling, not your style.

Why didn't you just say she copied it without referencing the source and, worse yet, she has posted it before.

Bad form 4catmom. Plagiarism BUSTED I think (unless that was your facebook and more.......)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

lol all good - my point it was not about plagirism. Tracy - stop calling the president a turnip and every other name in the book

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Skippy --
Don't know why you change the topic of Trumputin to how many teeth people in the south have, or their intelligence.
But if you really want the answer -- here it is!

Toothless those southerners are!

http://www.mychannel957.com/top-toothless-states-wha-huh

Less educated too!

https://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index

happiest girl
Mar '17

Serenity now

skippy skippy
Mar '17

skippy, please tell me when I have ever used the word "turnip" in that manner. Stop deflecting. Your constant use of the word "libtard" is disgusting and tactless. It's extremely difficult to take anyone seriously when they stoop to that level.

Tracy Tracy
Mar '17

Why need a source for my post when every word expresses my feelings? It is being shared with signatures on Facebook by those of us who believe it speaks for us.

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

Yes, skippy's use of "libtard" and also his disparaging attitude of feminists. Yet he says he does not demean women. What a loser.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Again, personally I have no issue with a little name jabbing at public figures. Not only did I cop to Fake President Turnip based on a turnip-looks-like-Trump photo I posted, I have been living with your (not you personally of course) Obama and Hillary pet names for 8 years now. Even longer for Hillary.

Back to our story......please......

Today, in a beautiful moment, Spicey said: ""If you look at the president's tweet, he said wiretapping in quotes. There's been substantial discussion in several reports," Spicer said, referencing "surveillance that occurred."

Then some other questions, Spicenut push back, combat, deflect and punt but handling relatively nicely when suddenly a quiet question: "what do you mean surveillance?"

Now we know the "tapping" means surveillance. Wonder what surveillance means.

Then he went on to bumble-fumble about potentialities before stating last question and exiting quickly, stage left. I vote black ops helicopter with window pane vibration detection equipment supported by vibration-to-speech SW algorithms code named -- glass-on-the-wall.

This story has some great legs.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Saddest..........please don't generalize all people that live in the south. Thought you were against profiling.

Philliesman Philliesman
Mar '17

Tracy
my constant use of the word? the twice I have used it (the site has a search function) - both towards little miss sunshine above? and I agree - you don't make disparaging comments about others - so to you I apologize.

HG
Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes. Only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them - not sure why are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression. On the International women's day thread (that I started) how do they account for women who agree with my viewpoints?
feel free to point to any disparaging thing I have said about women.

4cat you can post anything you want - links to the source material are nice. My point was that facebook posts such as that are what pass for activism these days (before this spun out of control)

skippy skippy
Mar '17

CBO numbers are in. Deficit down, so are people with insurance. By 24 million. It appears that by giving people more choice and increasing competition, less people get insurance, less people get tax credits, and the deficit goes down. What an improvement!

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

in 60 days without a replacement? I think that's a vestige of Aetna and other large companies pulling out of the exchanges

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Trump voters disproportionately get impacted negatively. Say thank you.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Yes, so let's not fix what's broken, let's roll out something that's Ryan-math-challenged, just like his budgets.

You can do the math. Trump voters -- screwed. Old people --- screwed. Rich people -- cool. Poor people -- screwed. How can the premise that you get credits based on age help? You need help based on income. How can providing greater access to insurance when you can afford it be better.

It's a disaster.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Exactly. Ryancare takes all of the hatred that the democrat party got for the unaffordable care act and transfers it to the republican party, without fixing anything. Better to do nothing than to do it wrong. If the GOP plan is just a another version of ACA with the same flaws, then when it inevitably fails we will get single payer shoved on us as a solution by an angry electorate that saw "repeal and replace" (actually rebrand and rename) fail to fix their problems.

I think people have forgotten that legislation is typically passed after negotiation, compromise, and some drama. It's best to judge the product that emerges from the process rather than get caught up in all the hand-wringing. Trump has repeatedly said it's a 3 phase process - hence the listening sessions. At least he didn't wast time submitting a final 4 bracket this time of year like his predecessor.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Trump, Ryan and the repubs in congress lied to the American people. The CBO confirmed today that at least 14M citizens will lose health insurance just in the first year. Millions more to follow. The middle class, seniors and the poor will be hit especially hard. The billionaires will benefit. It is worth reminding those interested that the CBO is a non partisan, objective office lead by a republican appointed to be it's Director by the republican congress in 2015.

Many of Trump's supporters are among those hit hard.

Are we great yet?


Skippy do you not know that groups have sprung up all over the country involved in and planning more activism. We're not just facebook "talk". If anyone local is interested in local activism - email me and I'll give you the connections.

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/politics/affordable-care-act-health-congressional-budget-office.html

It will also save $337 BB - I know your dying to point out a failure but let's see what happens.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Skippy, how many lies does he have to utter before you get it? I was in sales for most of my career and guys like you resulted in great comp checks.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Sure and there's even more of a tendency for people to post stuff like you did and call it activism - hence why millions of millilenials were shocked that their likes for Hillary on Facebook didn't win the vote. If you're involved in activism share that - that's a worthwhile effort - what you posted with no context was anecdotal.

YF I'm willing to give the guy more than 2 months to see what's a lie and what's not

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Skippy. I believe the deficit savings is due to insuring millions less people with credits and the fact the crdits are less than the ACA Think of what could be saved if we just skipped all the credits.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

Skippy quote:

"Someone posts some unreferenced garbage and the sycophants all show up and say it's a great post lol."

If that bothered you so much, Skippy ............ why do YOU post unreferenced garbage?????

Skippy quote:

"Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality - but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes."

The SOURCE:

https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com

It's right under the big Red & Yellow header.

That by the way is one of the most ridiculous things anyone can say.
Any person that feels mistrust, tension and hatred at the thought of women's equality and rights -- is a person that is against women's equality and rights

It sounds to me like Skippy is jealous so many people agreed with 4catmom's post.

And what's that you said to 4catmom about something being anecdotal??
lol

happiest girl
Mar '17

Please enough already. Where are the other Trumpsters to come to Skippy's defense?

From what I read..Skippy was just trying to make a point in a flippant way.

I'm not on either side..I agree and disagree with both, but ganging up on each other is making things worse. Just my 1 cent......

positive positive
Mar '17

positive ---
Wake up. Skippy is a hypocrite.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Hypocrite? Explain please....

positive positive
Mar '17

positive, really ????
It seems you are not following all the posts, or not comprehending them.

Skippy attacked 4catmom for posting something out of facebook, saying she posted something without referencing where she got it from.
Skippy then did the same thing himself with the stupid quote about feminism which he copied ......... without referencing ............. from the source I posted above.

Total Hypocrite.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Not condoning, but that is what I meant by flippant. He was just trying to make a point, but of course it was taken out of context with a full implosion and now he is a hypocrite according to you and others.

I've gotten to know Skippy through PMs and my daughter knows him and his fiancé from Quick Check. He is a good person whether you believe it or not.

How about sending him a PM? Than maybe you would understand.

BTW- This has nothing to do with you 4catmom, I certainly respect you and I think you know that...

positive positive
Mar '17

Nothing was taken out of of context.
He called someone out big time for something he himself does.

He is a hypocrite.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Closed mindedness is a real problem.....

positive positive
Mar '17

Sorry for your problem.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Very immature for your age, but than again..some people never grow up.

positive positive
Mar '17

Don't forget to kiss your beloved good-nite!

happiest girl
Mar '17

Since you were up till 2am on a school night trying to find something to screech about and that's all you came up with - I would say I won. BTW I got that from Reddit but that's a good site too thank for the link .

skippy skippy
Mar '17

How about that TrumpCare. Part 1 sucks but you just have to vote yes so you can see Parts 2 and 3.

Trust Trump.

At least Pelosi had a readable bill.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

Skippy's a hypocrite? At least he doesn't revel in the abuse and torture of people for voting for Trump.

happiest girl - "they voted for him, now suffer the consequences."

Which is why her name is now DeplorableGirl, as far as I am concerned.


I've stepped back from most of the Trump threads at this point, simply because, just like it was with Obama, (which taught me the lesson), it's much ado about nothing. Nothing will come of Russia, nothing will come of his tax returns, nothing will come of his cabinet departures, nothing will come of the wiretapping..... just like nothing came of Obama's birthplace, nothing came of Obamacare (the constitutional fight against it), nothing came of Benghazi, nothing came of the democrat party efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies and elsewhere....

Trump is president. He's not going to be impeached. No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. If you think DC is going to allow that to happen (which means you think the R's and the D's are actually fighting each other for real LOL), you are naive in the extreme.

Trump would have to shoot someone himself to get removed through impeachment. (And if it was in self-defense, he'd be justified and heralded.) A recording of a phone call between Trump and Putin would do it, too... still waiting for that one...

I'm done wasting DAILY life energy on crap that really doesn't matter in the end- all this minutiae doesn't matter, except to keep up the division and hatred between the 2 supposed "sides." You know what mattered? The election. It's over. Trump won. Unless the BIG picture changes (JIT has explained much of the big picture ad nauseum), nothing REAL changes. It's just the pendulum swinging back the other way, as it always does.

But I guess people need a "hobby". This used to be mine. I got wise and found better things to do with my time and energy. I do still check in and see how ridiculous the lunacy and hatred has gotten, but, for the most part, I just get on with my life, as there are actually things far more important than which RepubliCrat is lying to us now....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

So true JR. Skippy, you are wasting your time. Let them have their opinions, however rude and nasty they are. This thread will end when they are only playing by themselves. Defeat is tuff.

justwondering justwondering
Mar '17

Having lived through the 60's, I have a different opinion of "does government matter."

You know there are many things, good and bad, that government has done over the years.

I think how we came through the last recession speaks to it. Think about it. Both The Great Depression and The Great Recession started for similar reasons. Run up of asset "values" followed by a rapid downturn taking out financial markets servicing debt and equity. Both had attempted mitigation by government and we know the results of the first. And we know the results of the second ---- perhaps not as stellar as we would like but compared to the depression, I'd say government did change the big picture.

And how did it happen. Not by the oft-misused form of the term Republicrat which some seem to bandy about here under their own definition for the sameness of everything. Well, Republicans caused it, Republicans heroically initiated actions to stop the market collapse, and a Democrat took that ball, ran with it, extended it with the stimulus, and we recovered. I just can't imagine Trump in either of those partnering roles in government. Would be much farther ahead if Mitch McConnell in the Senate and the TPC in the house hadn't started the "whatever Obama's for, we're against it" do nothing Congress. Point is Bush was not the same as Obama and they are not even different faces of the same coin. But working together for America, they solved a problem that killed a lot of people and caused untold miseries the last time we faced it. Government helped, it mattered, it worked across the aisle and it learned.

Today Republicans are asking Democrats to work with them on healthcare. So they crafted a plan behind closed doors, sprung it on the House with votes in the middle of the night, and have the audacity to ask for a yes vote for Part 1 of a three part plan, future parts TBD. It's not even branded TrumpCare so you know someone is preparing the bus for Ryan to roll under.

Jr., a lot of people can be hurt by this bill and the current ObamaCare needs necessitation as well. The free market is not going to fix this because healthcare is not a free market, never has been. To me, it has always been about making sure that no hardworking American goes bankrupt just because they get sick. Families should not financially wither just because the breadwinner has some downtime due to illness. We are better than that and we can work together to fix it through government.

PS: funny how when your guy (yes, I know, you wanted a third guy) is in office, your posts get even longer than mine :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

I can understand your difficulty defending your vote. Hard to find the facts to do so :>)

Here's a fun one heard on The Last Word. So Trump announces he will be taking no salary putting back $400,000 each year to the US Treasury. Nice guy. Then he announces that instead he will have the press pick a charity for him to donate his salary taking out $400,000 each year from the US Treasury almost as if he got paid (at least as far as you, the taxpayer, is concerned).

That means he is taking his salary and he lied about not taking it. OK, not the biggest lie since he's donating it.

Wonder if he will take the $150,000+ tax deduction on the charitable donation line? If he does, that's another $150,000+ from you, the US taxpayer right into Trump's pocket. Guess we will really never know that tax return entry either...... Probably a Trump lawyer will come out with a letter signed by a Trump CPA proving what was done. Honest. Trust Trump.

Heck, since he divested his business, sold his portfolio, this deduction will probably get his the Earned Income Credit and Welfare......

So Mr. Trump Voter, you were up $400K in the Treasury and now Trump has reneged and you are down $550K or over $2M for the term.

Sure small potatoes but yet another lie.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

my guess is he has to take the salary as its part of the constitution article 2 clause 7. He didn't lie. He's not taking the money. I think it's implied by any reasonable person that it means "not taking the money for myself". in re the tax deduction - you don't have additional income if you donate 100% of it to charity soooo would you like him to pay the taxes in addition to forgoing a salary? thats not reasonable. He is even letting the press pool pick it - so it will probably go to something you know will get his goat - so you got more tweets to look forward to.

don't know enough about the healthcare stuff yet - if you could link some stuff your looking at I would appreciate it.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

SD:

1) republicans are bad and democrats are good. Got it.

2) alot of people were hurt by Obamacare... so now what?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Skippy, maybe this will help you to accelerate the process...

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien#

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

Defeat is tough, but realizing you've been scammed and slowly bent over by another billionaire is tougher. Don't worry, when we put a dem back in office, we'll fix healthcare the right way and make sure you can sit down again :)

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Mar '17

Skippy, since you mentioned school, you'll have to go back to learn some more lessons. What you did was plagiarism -- so you *lost*. Especially when you call someone else out for it. You knew it was wrong but did it anyway.
You lose.

JR -- you'll have to join skippy in school since you can't decipher what you read. My statement was a factual one which meant since the Trump supporters voted for him, the consequence is dissension. I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't condone violence.
Teacher also puts bad little boys in the corner for calling people names.
You get an "F" on your report card.

happiest girl
Mar '17

I'll definitely read it YF thanks

skippy skippy
Mar '17

HG let it go, please.

Skippy, good point that if he donates then he has to pay taxes on it. Of course he probably does not have to pay taxes, but who would ever know :>)

But no. He initially offered to keep the money in the Treasury; now he is taking it out instead, turning it into a donation and legally, if he chooses, can take a deduction. So the US Treasury, and you the taxpayer, will be out around $2M over the next four years. As far as what he has to do re being forced to take the pay, would love to know. Spicer sure did not mention it during the announcement.

I will source h-care going forward, just have been winging it based on general reading. It's a pretty shabby attempt. I just don't know why Paul Ryan seems math-challenged. I mean sure, you can reduce the deficit by throwing all sorts of people off Medicaid. You can reduce the deficit because you are not paying credits to folks who can no longer afford insurance. And then you can scream "everybody has access and this is freedom of choice!" Shabby.

Might just be trying to get twice the positive PR bang for a single action. Look, you voted for me because I turned down my salary and now you can love me a second time as I regift that gift as a donation. PS --- I took the deduction because it's legal. And you know how I love to leverage legal tax and bankruptcy laws.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Yankee ---- 101 and counting.

happiest girl
Mar '17

Yankeefan, that article's almost a year old. He has to be up to 1,001 by now...

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Well this is certainly interesting - https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=1489506030

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

:) I was giving Skippy the two month allowance and a little extra!

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

Hey I'm definitely interested in trying to understand your POV - I definitely read most of if not all of everything you link to

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Skippy, same here.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

cool - lets keep the lines open - I am really encouraged to hear that

skippy skippy
Mar '17

The bottom line is Trump is president because the electoral college says so despite losing the popular vote by 2.5M plus votes.

I will wait for 6 months to see how Trump does. Right now he is not off to a good start. Sadly most of it is self inflicted.


My commitment to Skippy doesn't change my vehement opposition to this President. He has demonstrated publicly, during his campaign and since his election, a disrespect for people of color, women, and the truth. His (Bannon/Miller's) policies are antithetical to mine. No need to give him 6 months. He is supremely unqualified intellectually and emotionally to lead America. My commitment to Skippy is to try to understand how he could see things so differently. No more than that.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

"The bottom line is Trump is president because the electoral college says so despite losing the popular vote by 2.5M plus votes."


You left out "...and because that's how our electoral system is DESIGNED to work, not being a true democracy." You may not like that, and by all means if enough people don;t like it I'm sure it can be changed...

So, the REAL bottom line is, Trump WON. Period. Fair and square (unless russia produces some actual evidence to the contrary.)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

"and because that's how our electoral system is DESIGNED to work"

We have to be careful about statements like this. The system as stated in the constitution as originally written was a compromise between the demands of large states vs. small states, that no one at the time was especially happy about, and it has evolved from there. Very doubtful any founder would look the election process in 2016 as being very satisfactory.


No caution at all: the statement is 100% true: the electoral college works as designed. No one said it was perfect. It works as designed. To keep popular vote, which is nothing more than mob rule, from making the decision. NOT mob rule is the whole POINT of a representative republic over a true/pure democracy.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

I have to disagree. It is back when the ELECTORS, upstanding individuals, that is, made the actual decision, that the mob was kept at bay. But we no longer want the electors to choose. Instead, we use popular vote, but in a hybrid way by state that can cause strange outcomes. No one really designed a system that has a minority of the mob outvote the mob's majority, so to speak!


Yup, Dump won! That doesn't mean he isn't unfit, mentally emotionally and socially. Dump won. And ALL of us lost, not just the lefty liberal crazies. ALL of us lost. Bigly.


That's right, RAS.
Eventually those who voted for him will realize that (or admit it if they realize it now)

happiest girl
Mar '17

I agree with JR.. and RAS. A state has so much swing in a national election, irrespective of whether a candidate wins by one vote or all of them... and Trump's a grade A scumbag.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

So the question is ..... now that Trumputin's 2005 taxes have leaked, will there be more to follow? I sure hope so.

happiest girl
Mar '17

@happiest girl, I think Trump may have just played Maddow like a fiddle.

Denis Denis
Mar '17

My primary reason for supporting trump was 2A related as I stated before the election. As far as his taxes - the one Maddow had said client copy - this is trumps way to bring up than bash the AMT. that was definitely leaked

skippy skippy
Mar '17

I used to be against the ECollege but can see the rationale and support it today. Yes, even post Trump. Jr. has part of the story but it's much more than just simple mob rule. Lots to do with State's rights too for example.

"Fair and square" Hardly. I don't think anyone would call what Trump did starting with the primaries as fair and square. Legal perhaps, but fair and square --- hardly. And that's before the Russian connection.

Taxes -- Denis is probably right, it very well could be a Turnip release to deflect from the issue especially since it shows he paid some significant taxes. However, what we found out is that Trump paid less than 5% in effective tax UNTIL he got caught by the evil AMT based on his massive deductions bringing him to 25%. We also know he took a massive loss earlier through a loophole close shortly thereafter allowing his to write off over $100M a year for 18 years or so. It's visible in this form.

Trump's tax plan does away with the AMT (I am for getting rid of it) and that would have lowered his 2005 effective tax rate to 5%. That's what you voted for -- feed the rich, starve the poor.

Trump's business loss tax write off isn't even based on Trump's money. He double-booked his investor's losses as his own as he lost all of their money, not his. That's the loophole that was closed. So sure, legal at the time. Basically says Trump is a brilliant businessman not based on hard work, creativity, or invention, but based on a tax loophole. Not exactly Making America Great with that move.

Until we see the other 200 pages or so, this information is basically window dressing PR supporting Trump's claim of paying taxes. Meanwhile, 2016 taxes are coming, Trump is filing, and he is NOT under audit yet. Where are they. How about 2006 though 2014, not under audit there.

Or how about THERE IS NO AUDIT. Trump has never shown the standard IRS letter announcing there is an AUDIT. There is zero proof of audit. Zero.

Obama has a birth certificate, does Trump have a complete tax form?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

The Onion reports on the GOP healthcare replacement and how to pay for it...

http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-recommends-americans-set-aside-income-one-thei-55515

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

Maddow's career committed suicide on national tv last night. LOL what a joke.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Interesting piece on how Donald could restore some sanity to the repeal/replace process...this could work, and then he could focus on the real winner, which has some bi-partisan support, which is infrastructure...


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/14/14923784/christopher-ruddy-medicaid

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

Hmm...let's see...

TRUMP: 2005 tax rate: 25%
OBAMA: 2015 tax rate: 18.7%
COMCAST: Avg. tax rate: 24%
BERNIE: 2014 tax rate: 13.5%

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Tell you what YF I'm researching but that plan doesn't look half bad sir

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Release all Trumps tax records so we can put this topic to rest. Trump should also complete and make public candidate the other financial reporting information other candidates release. Every recent presidential candidate has done this with the exception of Richard Nixon. The similarities here are ominous.

What is he hiding? The American public should have all the facts.


JR continuing to crank out the semi-coherent posts in spite of his claim to be retired...

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

And a little history for all you Ronnie fans...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/health-care-reagan-entitlement_us_58c89e11e4b01c029d774bcc?section=us_politics

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

"TRUMP: 2005 tax rate: 25%
OBAMA: 2015 tax rate: 18.7%
COMCAST: Avg. tax rate: 24%
BERNIE: 2014 tax rate: 13.5%"

Uh, Comcast is a business, apples n oranges on that one.

Jr, that's a cherry-picked spin for sure. First, Trump probably released this favorable stats. What kind of charlatan pulls that crap for self promotion and to take the pressure off the wiretapping. Other Presidents just wouldn't have the time to put that effort forward. Of course other Presidents wouldn't tweet a Breitbart "fact" as gospel either. Matter of fact they would knee-jerk tweet to begin with.

Second, if not for the AMT, a bogus tax brought on to patch loopholes, Trump would have been taxed at 5% as I noted earlier --- that's the real tax. Second, his 18-year tax loss write-down on other people's money is so shameful that they close the loophole a year later. Legal yes. Scumbag -- fer sure.

Think about it. He was really taxed at 5% but because he is such a loser and took such a whopper of a tax loss based solely on his loss of other people's money that he was basically punished with an additional 20% tax. There's no Making America Great Again in that formula. That's called take the money and run.

Without a full release of a complete, and recent, set of taxes covering multiple years, you got nothing to compare. He can start with his current 2016 returns --- no audit there. Let's see that self-funded campaign money --- Turnip should be proud-papa-proud of those numbers. What a target of his own groping (better known as a .....).

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

The Ruddy plan is a start given it is an attempt to work ObamaCare to turn it into TrumpCare and basically dump RyanNoCare. I say better to fix what is working than to blue-sky another ground start into this most complex of processes.

The issue is one of magnitude of change. If you instantly put everyone on Medicare, it will be a disaster just for the scope of the change. Companies offering healthcare benefits could drop them overnight, insurance industry could go belly up, and yuge massive influx of new Medicare subscribers could screw everything up even if rolled out nicely.

Another issue is when you dump Insurance and go Medicaid, you basically mandate government control on healthcare choices while removing insurance input into the system. Not sure that will pass as would be the issue with any single-payer system. Death camps, government sanctions, inefficiency --- same ole, same ole blockades will occur.

Plus I love my insurance company and have since ObamaCare started (timing is just a coincidence I think). My insurance company is giving me lower prices at the Drs., excellent service, reasonable deductibles (went up this year a bit) and 100% accurate tracking. I simply don't pay any bill I don't see on their website. And if there is a discrepancy, a simple call, they jump all over it, and next think I know I get a personal call with the answer. Just had Morristown bill for a private room when, to our knowledge, it was never asked for or approved. We did pay the bill (because it was on the website as payable) but now can at least follow up. And the insurance company said they will add explanations for the future so others would not be confused. Point was, I did very little, the insurance company proactively did all the work. Can't imagine such a journey with Medicare.

I say meet in the middle and offer exchange users the choice between Medicare and Insurance where, chances are, Medicare is cheaper for the consumer and taxpayer alike. Pump up the tax advantages to companies to be sure they don't jump ship and continue to offer non-exchangers healthcare benefits and now I say you have maximum competition between insurance and medicare markets. Plus you don't destroy the insurance industry.

But a much better start than DonaldRyanCare. At least it has legs.

Side note: some Congressman is touting freedom of choice in the competitive healthcare market. Shoot, there is no competitive healthcare market Senator. It's not a typical consumer market, never has been, never will be --- buy a clue... These guys are asses. Why are they promoting this crap.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Actually, the American Public should ask the Congress why there are so many loopholes that allow businesses to reduce their tax burden in the first place. That would be more productive than a witch hunt driven by legal activities imo.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

My Tax rate is just slightly less than Trump's for a boatload less - and most of his came from the AMT, which he wants to get rid of. Granted, this is an 11 year difference and tax brackets change.

Just remember, every tax break, tax incentive, etc is just the government asking all of us for the money instead of Trump or Apple or GE.

IMO, we should have a long list of mandatory requirements to get ANY tax break including but not limited to:
1) All employees must be above the poverty line, including those who work for subsidiaries. I'd even like to see that extended to vendors and suppliers so it doesn't become beneficial to split a company up by ownership to avoid regulations.
2) You must offer healthcare to all employees, picking up at least 30% of the tab.
3) You cannot have any unpaid interns
4) The business must pay always pay a minimum tax rate (25%?) even after all tax breaks are considered
5) No tax incentives are given to any company that stores money overseas.
6) You must not have any major wage or overtime violations.

I don't care if you put solar panels on your roof, if you can't take care of your people - the hard working people who make your company possible and make it money, you don't deserve ANY break - because in the end, a break for you means someone else is paying for the government services you have avoided paying.
Arguable, we could adjust these rules for companies under 10 or 50 people AND under 10 years old to give a new company a chance to get going.

Let's not forget how many things can be written off your business taxes when your run a business, let's face it, almost any cost can be. Tax on profit is just that, it's a tax on the pure profit after you've paid everyone, everything and

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Mar '17

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/-/Bernie%20Taxes%20Full.pdf

Bernie pays 13.5% - trump has effective tax rate of 25% - hows that cherry picked?

Warren Buffet pays 17.4

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/21/billionaire-warren-buffetts-secret-to-paying-a-low.aspx

its just how the tax code works

For transparency sake, the tax returns of members of congress should be publicly available for at least the time period(s) that they are serving. That'd be asking them to be ethical and accountable - senator pelosi with a $200k salary is worth $200 MILLION? Yeah, that's a story I'd like to see.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Retired from DEBATE, not retired from coming here for entertainment (it's fun poking the bear).

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

"senator pelosi with a $200k salary is worth $200 MILLION? Yeah, that's a story I'd like to see."


No crap.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Agreed JIT. I think in Trump's case it's hard to call it "business." Think he's got this weird business/individual thing going and then his business might be separate from which he takes a salary. In any event, his is a real-estate tax game on steroids.

I agree, close loopholes for all taxes,, business and personal. However, deductions and credits are not necessarily loopholes --- at least by definition

I bet you love a little bear poking you pesky patriot.

Wow, Skipster --- worth less than $75M in 2014, over $200M in 2016. Must have invested in TrumpCo. And it's $174K per year for a Senator, she gets the 200 for being "the leader of the pack" ROAR......

Nancy's Husband is a very good businessman. They invest a lot together. She owns a vineyard, back off :>)

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. It's OK, Donald says they are our friends....

Remember when the RNC rolled out their platform and the only change was the Trumpian request for removal of the Anti-Russian Ukrainian Position. I think Trump was trying to communicate....

"Those were the days my friend We thought they'd never end"

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

OK but why shouldn't every politician at the federal level release their returns

this guy has her max at 185 mm - but nobody knows.... why? no returns right!?!
http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/nancy-pelosi/

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Hey SD beats them all, he only pays a 12% effective tax rate.

Now lets stop jumping all over those rich democrats who happen to have very successful spouses.

kb2755 kb2755
Mar '17

You do know that its a progressive tax don't you KB.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

"Now lets stop jumping all over those rich democrats who happen to have very successful spouses."


Yeah, kinda' goes against the narrative, doesn't it? LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Thick as a brick. Her husband is a brilliant businessman and investor; she invested with him. And you feel it goes against the narrative or worthy of jumping on (yech, Pelosi -- not my cup o tea KB but to each their own). Sorry you didn't marry as well and have to feel so petty over it :>) ha ha.

But Melania ---- she makes it the old fashioned way, she really earns it.

I am at the 25% for that year, took 12% off for good behavior
Turnip is at the 40% rate that year, takes 15% off for bad behavior.

P r o g r e s s i v e.....

Melania earns it ? Make America Gag Again

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

https://www.scribd.com/document/341866712/Lee-Inhofe-Letter-to-Secretary-Tillerson

https://youtu.be/jzfHkrOIoXQ

GOP senators ask Tillerson to probe US funding of Soros groups abroad

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

and Obama had nothing to hide?

Scottso Scottso
Mar '17

When melinia is the minority leader of the house top representatives you can compare her to Pelosi

skippy skippy
Mar '17

TRO on second travel ban. Repeal and replace cratering within the party.
No evidence of Trump Tower wire tapping.
Tough day for Donald Dice Clay.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

I understand its a progressive tax but you must be doing something right to get you effective tax rate down to 10-12%. Thats pretty hard to do if you are making a decent salary which I assume you are. That being said, quite frankly I don't care what anyone's effective tax rate is as long as it is being done legally. Mostly everyone takes advantage of the tax code as it applies to their circumstances. Do I think the tax code needs to be simplified, yes I do. Do I think members of Congress because of their position are given opportunities for monetary gains, you bet I do, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on.

kb2755 kb2755
Mar '17

Yeah I think anyone elected to federal service needs to - agree

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Scottso,

Why on earth would you want to see Obama's baptism certificate?

And the last two items on that list are not even true.


Aye, I just love the smell of taxes in the morning. That time of year again.....

Yes, KB, you got me. Think it's looking more like 13% this year, yes it's legal, and based on a combination of things. First, much of my income is sheltered so less taxes. I can also expense a lot of income generating activities. Government pays me to save for example which might be good for all of us. Second, yes, deductions high because I take advantage of being small business, no employees simplifies things, can write off lots of stuff that I would still do if I wasn't a small business.

And yes, I am the first to say small business regulations and tax codes are so complex as to impede business creation. I agree, simplification is in order, reduction of loopholes is in order. Myself included. Sure I might deserve something for taking this risk of small business, but certainly not at this reduced tax level. I don't even have the risk of a store front. It's just the way it is.

Frankly, if I needed employees, I would quit over the regulation and tax complexity. I honestly don't see how small businesses can do it. Needs to change. That said, my leverage of the small business deductions is legal. But when I see the window washer driving his yearly new decked-out GMC Sierra, you can be pretty sure you're seeing some tax leverage that's legal too. I don't see the degree of immorality here as when Trump lost over 100 million of other people's money, was able to claim their loss as his own, and was allowed to write it off over 18 years. I am not even on the same planet as that action.

My metric for small business regulations and anyone's taxes: if a normal, 2-year college grad can't do the paperwork themselves, it's too complex. Simple.

Back on point. Trump probably leaked his own 2005 tax cover pages as a deflection for the shot-storm he is in across the board. Maddow jumped on them like a thirsty man in the desert sucks down a couple of drips of water not caring at all where the leak came from much less why. In 2005, my effective tax rate was 22%, a few points off Trump. It was a go-period for all of us, three years before the fall; I was pulling in three times the income I pull in today. It was a go period for Trump too.

If I was trying to spin you into believing my tax rate was normal, 2005 was a great year for me to release.

Like Trump, I too paid the AMT that year although not for egregious deductions. I paid mine the old fashioned way, based on income. Guess what? Point is It is better to pay the AMT and take the income or deductions (I've paid AMT on that too and that one really hurts) than to not take the AMT.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

So SD agrees Trump has done NOTHING ILLEGAL regarding his taxes. That we have FACTS for, anyway (2005). There's no point in GUESSING about other years. If FACTS surface that show he's done something wrong, so be it. Until then, he hasn't.

Trump's taxes are therefore a non-issue, until (if) actual facts become available proving otherwise.

Next.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

heres something I did not know - before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon. I seem to remember this from the Nixon movie ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113987/) and his talks with Henry Kaiser.

https://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/

Nixon created many of the current issues with healthcare, and started the "war" on drugs.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/

It's wild to trace back societal problems back 40+ years ago.

In re losses from partnerships - they were legal at the time Trump took the deduction. Thats the tax code - again not Trumps fault.

"taking advantage of deductions available to real estate developers and claiming losses from partnerships"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

He also get 39.1 MM in "green acres" deductions for his property in Bedminster.

"Mr. Trump was able to deduct $39.1 million from his federal income taxes in 2005 by pledging not to build on a New Jersey golf course he owned."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-got-a-big-break-on-2005-taxes-1458249902

again - change the code. Is it reasonable to believe someone who makes the kind of income to pay $3MM a month in federal taxes in 2005 shouldn't take every deduction possible? You admitted as a business owner you do - as you should.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Not sure where you've been Jr. I have said legal from the git-go. Like I said though, I am not even on the same planet as Trump's tax immorality though. Not even close.

"Trump's taxes are therefore a non-issue." Really? Wonder what you would have said about Clinton not revealing taxes? If Trump's taxes are of no importance to you, then what else don't you want to know?

I want to know the truth; the same facts that every President and candidate for President since Nixon has shared with the American public. I mean Nixon shared, who is this Trump to not? And why would you of all people not only accept it, but strangerdanger still, why would you defend it?

I mean even with this paucity of financial information from Trump what have we learned from Trump's 2005 tax return cover pages window dressing?

1. Bet is that Trump himself leaked them. He’s been a frequent leaker in the past. What kind of behavior is that.....allegedly.

2. His IRS claim was $998,599 in salary, wages and tips. With the SEC, he filed $2.2 million in salary from Trump Entertainment Resorts alone.

3. And there’s more income… potentially. http://fortune.com/2017/03/15/trump-tax-returns-2005-salary/

4. This alone should make you wonder about his current financial reporting veracity during his campaign. I mean if these two wildly different incomes were shown for 2005 under IRS and SEC scrutiny, then what financial reporting version was reported in 2016 without SEC or IRS scrutiny? The one that Trump supporters treat as gospel apparently. Spoon that swill. But wait, there's more....

1. Based on his income and deductions, his tax rate was not 25% but 4% or just over $5M in taxes on $150M of total income. That's 4% and that's a fact, Jack.

2. Because of his over $100M in losses, he tumbled into the AMT, an additional punitive tax especially for high roller deductions (and incomes), hitting him at an additional 20% or over $30M. Still better off than not taking deductions. But his effective tax rate on $150M in income was 4% or $5M. That's a fact, Jack. Only when the AMT is applied, does his rate jump to 25%; still 15% off his published tax rate.

3. The deductions are purported to be based on his taking the loss when his real estate, backed by other investor’s money, tanked and he could take the loss of their money as if it was his own. Legal, but morally he made money on other people's losses. Another fact, Jack.

4. Without schedules, can’t be 100% sure of this as well as many of the more pertinent financial issues and financial ties that every President since Nixon, except this Fake President, has released to the US citizens. Does he have Russian partners? Chinese investors? United Arab Emirates loans? Only his taxes will tell.
I agree with Trump that this release is Fake News. Of course, he can rectify that in a second. If only his supporters, all 40% of them, wanted to know the facts, the truth, the straight skinny. It does matter you know. At least I think it does.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

"based on his income and deductions, his tax rate was not 25% but 4% or just over $5M in taxes on $150M of total income. That's 4% and that's a fact, Jack."

ok so your discounting the fact that he got bit with the AMT and paid it - it's still tax.

"Point is It is better to pay the AMT and take the income or deductions (I've paid AMT on that too and that one really hurts) "

and he took the deductions to get them off his book and paid additional AMT..

"except this Fake President, " you know he was elected lawfully - he is no more a fake president than you are a fake American.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Since when does the left believe in "immorality"? LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

If insurance companies weren't publicly traded, things would be a little better. Got to keep beating earnings... even if by a penny. Cannot be infinite, but they try, by cutting expenses at our expense. Insurance, of any kind, shouldn't be publicly traded. Such a conflict of interest..." the golden skeleton", as they call it. One company even gave little gold skeleton keychains, to the attendees of one of their stock holders meetings. Healthcare... not insurance, needs to be accessible to all people. No one should have to suffer. Taxes are in place for so many things that may or may not apply to us. Healthcare applies to us all. Life, is a pre-existing condition. It's a fact. People will die, without proper medical care. Doesn't that matter? We all know about wasteful spending.... for friends to enjoy. Why is healthcare such a debate? There's several easy fixes. The ultra wealthy people, who are making the rules, will NEVER have to worry about healthcare, so why should we, the taxpayers and THEIR employers (supposedly), go without and suffer? I'm talking about human suffering, here. "For the people, by the people " and "separation of church and state "....yeah right.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

I get your position up until "separation of church and state " ....yeah right.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Can you expound of that, skippy? Do you believe that we currently have a separation of church and state?


I was asking sparks what that meant - did not understand where it fit in with their post.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Religion comes into play, regarding woman's healthcare and what the government feels is "morally" acceptable to provide assistance with. Darn! I was relieved that this Trump thread was finally losing momentum, then Skippy makes me put it back on top. Thanks, Skippy. Haha!

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Lol sorry

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Ban is banned by two judges using Trump's and Trump surrogates Miller's, Ghouliani's, and Spicey's own words. Trump instantly tweeted "why would anyone ever believe me? I mean when I said "Muslims," I meant any terrorist, bad guy (except Mexicans who are all rapists), or evil thinker, not Muslims. It just happens to work that way, or at least that's what Breitbart told me."

Trump Surrogate Ghouliani said "hey, I said it, I said it. #$#$#$, who cares, I didn't even get the job."

Trump Surrogate Steve Miller said: "I'm a joker, I'm a smoker,I'm a mid-night toker,
I get my lovin' on the run"

Spicey retarded, I mean retorted: "what ban? I don't see no stinkin ban."

If the man can't ban, then he must repeal and replace. Need more phases. Sulu, Chekov, set them to stun.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Apparently the Intelligence Committee called Trump a liar over wire tapping. Whitehouse doubles down. Turnip and Spicey have doubled down that illegal surveillance activities took place at Trumputin Tower.

Spicey clarified that "wire tapping" in quotes does not mean wire tapping, it means surveillance. Also, wire tapping not in quotes does not mean wire tapping when it means surveillance too. We don't know what surveillance means, probably wire tapping....

"Obama" does not mean Obama, it means any black guy probably not born in America.

George Costanza: "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

I believe we need to call President's Trump and Obama to testify in Congress. Trump needs to explain those "interesting things will happen over the next few weeks." We need to sweep Trump Tower, Mar-A-Loser, and the Trump One charter plane..at minimum. We need to call in all agents for questioning to ferret out the rogue agents that must exist. We can't have our President being bugged and we can't allow our past President's to bug illegally.

Meanwhile, the tenants of Trump Tower have all filed civil cases over what they are calling a mass invasion of bugs. According to Chinese tenant Qui Pro Quo, we see bugs everywhere, Dubai Tenant Shake Yer Booti said we don't have these bugs at Trump Tower Dubai --- come stay -- we have discounts this weekend. Russian Tenant R U Hacking said Без комментариев.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

exactly how much coffee did you have today sir :)

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Is it just me, or had SD suddenly turned into a comedian recently?

And yeah- we can do all that, right after we unseal all of Obama's records and find out the "truth" there. Doesn't matter if he's not president anymore, we could set a precedent that ALL presidents have to have their records UNSEALED for a full vetting before being allowed to run for president.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

He always "doubles down". New overused term although accurate. What else can we use to describe his insanity?


Bwahahaha! The U.K. gets apology for Spicey's fake spying claim! About friggin time someone got an apology from this loser administration.


I was talking with a few therapists, who are family members of ours. At a recent get together, they all said if Trump was in the waiting room, to be examined, they would just keep passing the file to the next therapist, saying "I'm not taking on this one. You do it!" LOL

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

I cannot believe how much damage Trump and his surrogates have done to US foreign policy, neighbors, friends and allies since 1/20/17. He pissed off the Chinese talking to Taiwan. Trump insulted the President of Australia. We all know about the Mexican relationship fiasco. He is advocating reducing the state department budget destroying our efforts to influence the world and creating an opportunity for China and Russia to replace us. And now his surrogate Spicey accuses our closest friend and ally the UK of spying on Trump. To put it bluntly the Brits were shocked and demanded immediate clarification and apologies. Fortunately representatives of our government took back the comments and apologized.

Assuming Trump and his surrogates are not stupid one has to wonder why Trump and his surrogates are doing these stupid things. I think something very bad is going here. Trump seems to be doing everything he can to confuse and anger our friends while weakening our alliances. This only benefits his friends in Russia and the Chinese.

The US government needs to launch a very deep bi-partison investigation of this activity.


"destroying our efforts to influence the world"

Wait... I thought foreign influence was a bad thing...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '17

"Wait... I thought foreign influence was a bad thing..."


ONLY for republican administrations, apparently...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Making friends and allies around the world and influencing them through sound diplomatic efforts, exchanges etc.. leads to better relationships, business and oh yes peace.

What is wrong with that?


Tax time skip. Less sleep. Need laughs.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

I think the U.S. has met its "Rome". Bye bye.


Lol no doubt SD good rant

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Scottso and Jr: "This is an example of mostly old baloney in a new casing."

In other words, you sirs are propagating a fabrication, a tall tale, a whopper.....a lie. A lie that has been vetted so many years ago it boggles the mind how you could have not seen the facts. Might even lead one to suggest you cancel your subscription to this purveyor of Fake News.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

SD,

Thanks for the link, SD. Always willing to be enlightened.

Are you?

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_141905/Factcheck_org_--_A_Fraudulent_Fact_Check_Site_Funded_By_Biased_Political_Group.html

http://www.floppingaces.net/2016/03/25/concrete-proof-that-politifact-and-factcheck-org-are-biased-liars/


There's always more than meets the eye on this stuff. ALWAYS. And you know that. But you're a pro at pretending not to, when it doesn't serve your purposes, just like all the other hypocritical liberals here.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Slash funding to Meals On Wheels.
Trumputin stealing food out of the elderly's mouths.
Make America Grate Again.

happiest girl
Mar '17

JR proving his "retirement" was fake news. Unfortunately his comeback is same old same old.
Meanwhile... http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58cc2b1ee4b0be71dcf4a17b?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Yeah!! Meme wars about meme wars. Like anything has changed one iota in 8 years.


Liberals and conservatives are not hypocritical. We just have different viewpoints and put another spin on things but we need to work together if this country is to be truly great again. That means moderation and no extremism which will eventually alienate the majority who are likely to reverse things anyway. One extreme eventually gives way to another until the moderates prevail. It just takes time.


"One extreme eventually gives way to another until the moderates prevail. It just takes time."


It's by design. That's the whole reason for our checks & balances system of government. Unfortunately, you have rogues: judges writing law from the bench, presidents using EOs to get what they want done when congress won't pass their requests, etc... and yes, it's both sides of the isle.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Thank you jono

skippy skippy
Mar '17

And consistent humiliation...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

+1000000 Jono!

positive positive
Mar '17

Jr, prove some fact I linked to is wrong.

And for showing you some facts where all you had was gossip, you label me a hypocrite.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

That's your opinion JR. When Trump and his cronies begin doing that I quess it will be okay with you. FYI checks and balances doses not take place when one faction/extreme controls all aspects of the government especially the Surpreme Court. The crazies know they will lose in the federal court system until they get their boy appointed to the SCOTUS.


SD, your opinion is not fact, as much as you want to believe it or as hard as you try to sell it. I'm here to show the good people for every "zig" you do, there is a "zag". And it's both sides of the isle. And the fact that you believe (and have shown repeatedly) that

"republicans = bad, democrats = good"

...only shows you either have no clue, are in denial, or are simply a liar. Wait- scratch that- not sure I can call someone a liar if they actually believe their own spin. Perception is reality.

Until people like you listen to people like jono, nothing will ever move TRUELY forward.

And as I've said repeatedly- I'm not defending Trump, he doesn't need my help; if he's ACTUALLY guilty of something, I'll call him out with the rest of you. The difference is, I'm waiting for him to ACTUALLY be found guilty of something. And also waiting for those of you on the left to be intellectually honest and call out your own who have also been shown to just as, if not more than, "shady" as Trump. Pelosi? "We have to pass the bill before we can find out what's in it"?? Guys, your intellectual DIShonesty (hypocrisy) is a big reason why you lost.

Pelosi
Obama "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
Clinton (both of them) "I did not have sex with that woman" / "Benghazi was caused by a movie"
Schumer "a moratorium on muslim immigration is a good idea [when Obama does it]", "a moratorium on muslim immigration is an evil idea [when Trump does it]

ok, back to my "retirement" LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Jono,

it's not opinion that our govt is designed as a system of checks and balances; I agree that malfunctions when 1 party controls all branches, but over the course of time ("in the long run"), the system has always righted itself, otherwise we would not be here, as the United States of America.

In 2 years it's likely the democrats will re-take control of at least one congressional house, which is the system righting itself. Remember, no system is "perfect"- that's not possible.

As for Trump specifically, my only "hope" is that people (of course most of them here won't) actually wait and see if his programs improve things. If they DON'T, then they've got something to complain about. But he's barely done anything, and people are screaming "impeachment"... it's hilarious.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

"The crazies know they will lose in the federal court system until they get their boy appointed to the SCOTUS."

Just HAD to add.... ditto to you lefty democrats. Zig = zag.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Justice Department delivers documents on wiretap claim to Congress - Reuters
https://apple.news/AA0m0KxSmQruoBnjr52SsPg

skippy skippy
Mar '17

No evidence of wiretapping reported.

But Trumputin STILL insists Obama wiretapped him.

What a freakin' lunatic.

happiest girl
Mar '17

I guess you can't disprove the fact check so now you call it opinion and start talking about something else.

Are you doubling down on your lie? How Trumpian. Have you seen the saucers?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

"But he's barely done anything"...LOL, good for the USA, that is. He did try to, though, however he doesn't know how to do anything, but act on TV. This whole "presidential" thing, takes many years of experience regarding politics. Oh, wait, I forgot. Trump supporters didn't want a politician, for president. Well, your prayers were answered. JR, if Trump did "nothing wrong", why won't he show his taxes? The American people want to know what our president is hiding. He makes other trouble, to use a diversion, thus getting people to forget his lies... one of them saying he would show them, after the audit. Not fake news. I heard him say it. Pretty long audit, so far.
He wants to cut Meals on Wheels. One trip, his daughter takes, to open up another Trump-resort/golf course, costs about the same as Meals on Wheels, to feed all the people who need it, for a year!... One gosh darn trip! (more lies: cutting wasteful spending and separating himself from business) And Trump wants the already beaten down to starve. Aarrgg... Good luck with that deranged, chronic lying, maniac. This little snowflake still can't believe a thing like Trump, could become president.
Great posts, Juno. RAS, you're right about the Rome thing. Hopefully this isn't the beginning of the end.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

JR, nothing better to "poke"?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Meanwhile...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/why_trumps_budget_cuts_could_derail_new_hudson_river_tunnels.html#incart_river_index

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

What am I doubling down on - I merely linked an article - don't poke the bear good sir since I've not been disrespectful

skippy skippy
Mar '17

"But he's barely done anything, and people are screaming "impeachment" ... it's hilarious" ----- JR

Well, he's done Plenty !!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-could-impeached-four-095033682.html

happiest girl
Mar '17

The government portion of Meals on Wheels budget is 3.3%.

kb2755 kb2755
Mar '17

Meals on wheels gets 3% of its entire budget from fed and not all of it is being cut
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/03/16/liberals-stop-saying-that-trump-will-kill-meals-on-wheels/#34e08eb83395

The real question is why was the government funding Sesame Street when it makes $1.8 billion a year in merchandising revenue a year?

skippy skippy
Mar '17

kb2755 ---

So what's your point?

It's OK to decrease your salary by 3.3%?

happiest girl
Mar '17

My point is everyone is saying that Meals on Wheels is being gutted. Clearly not the case.

kb2755 kb2755
Mar '17

"My point is everyone is saying that Meals on Wheels is being gutted. Clearly not the case." --------------- kb2755

Let's get the facts ---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/upshot/the-cost-can-be-debated-but-meals-on-wheels-gets-results.html?_r=0

happiest girl
Mar '17

From that article

"Despite expressions of alarm on social media, killing the community block grant program would most likely not kill Meals on Wheels. The financial statements from 2015 show that such grants amounted to just under $250,000, or about 3 percent of the total revenue for the program’s national resource center. "

Truth received - the free food will not come with condiments until further notice

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Perspective is relative kb2755. If anything involves the government it must be good. Voluntary human action must be bad then I guess. :-(

justintime justintime
Mar '17

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

The opening paragraph...

"FROM MSNBC POLITICS shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented."

Time to take a breath and reflect on what started the meme, and more importantly, why the meme continued(s) so fiercely: partisan politics. Or as I've come to refer to it, the Republicrat team mentality.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

I do agree the Russian thing is smoke right now, but you never known when a real fire might break out. Taxes would tamp it down or fire it up, but we will never see those. So we continue to pick at it to make it fester and hope that a full infection will break out. Will know more Monday as Comey takes the stage on the matter.

I really wish you would look up the word Republicrat and start using it correctly. You don't look real smart using it with your own personal definition for someone else's world.

Jr. You say you are the zag to my zig. First off, no you are wrong, I do not love everything liberal and nothing conservative. Just not true. Pretty true, but not true is....well, you know, don't you...

Second you say your Meme lie is the truth and when pushed, say it again. I printed facts indicating your fabrication and you say the organization is crooked and they are therefore not the truth. You say they are not facts, they are opinion. You're on sport.....

Your "fact" is that many Obama records are "sealed." My truth is that none of them are sealed, but most are confidential. There's a difference. Again, prove me wrong on the facts. Show us how a fact like this is really opinion. Step up to the line or be BUSTED.

College Records. You say its a fact they are sealed. The LAW says they are confidential and can not be giving out. Few Presidents, and candidates, have ever released school transcripts. Including your God: Trump. Would love to see those. BUSTED or step up to the fact line.

You say his nuclear disarmament thesis is sealed. The facts are it was not the type of thesis that is archived and no one can find a copy. Do you have copies of your college papers? BUSTED

You say his Selective Service Registration is sealed. I say it is public information under registration number 61-1125539-1. This is where you start crying forgery.... BUSTED and look at Trump's draft dodging before your throw stones on this one anyway. Freaking guy had a 5-year bone spur to keep him out: a new world bone spur record!!!!! Obama was 11 when the draft was over.

I can keep going but why. What is it when you are presented with facts showing your fabrications, that compels you to start calling people names, avoiding any debate of the facts, and doubling down on your ludicrous statements. If you can't dial your lies back, admit the truth, and instead, continue to have a lack of honorable discourse, I say you are a pretty lame zag.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

I do not know those who might come under the heading of liberal democrats nor do I know the Conservative republicans. Basically I am a strong on defense social progressive moderate fiscal conservative. And yes I do prioritize things against immediate needs and long term goals.

I am curious how does the other side feel and where do we have things in common so there maybe possibilities on agreement. A very good open exchange from both viewpoints without attacks, sarcasm, jokes etc.....might surprise us all.


If you are middle of the road who is the other side? Extremists - probably not much In terms commonality. People here - hopefully more so.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

"Jr. You say you are the zag to my zig. First off, no you are wrong, I do not love everything liberal and nothing conservative"


I'll believe that when your posts start reflecting it.

Meme? What meme? I posted 3 memes in this thread, one was Denis Miller, one about Pence and one was Obi-wan Kenobi... so I'm not sure what you're referring to being a "lie"? None of my memes made any "claims" that could be "tested" for being a lie?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

OH... are talking about SCOTTSO's meme? About the sealed records? If you go back and look, I actually thanked you for setting the record straight on that, as I'm always open to new information, as I am after truth... not conjecture, guesses, hopes, or dreams. Truth. Including the truth about so-called "fact/truth checking" websites, which have been shown to have their own biases.

Trust No 1

I'll tell you what: when/if Trump's plans start working, creating positive outcomes (be it jobs or security or the border or whatever), and you ACKNOWLEDGE it, then I'll start believing you. But I have a feeling your spin will be "all this good is actually coming from stuff Obama did"... we will see.....

During Bush's presidency, anything good was "thanks to Clinton", anything bad was "Bush's fault". During Obama's presidency, anything good was "thanks to Obama", anything bad was "Bush's fault". Now we've got Trump, he's only been president 2 months, and already it's "good stuff, Obama gets the credit, bad stuff=Trump's fault." It's never ending. And it's nakedly partisan.

I have seen some good stuff Obama did. I have seen some bad stuff Bush did. Can you say the same (the reverse?)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

To be fair that was scottso not JR

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Ohhh, dismissed by a what now has to be considered a consummate liar who can't even determine what meme he got BUSTED for..... "Meme? What meme? I posted 3 memes in this thread." And all those facts, describing your myriad of lies didn't help you identify what you. yourself, posted, as fact.

Don't let facts get in the way of your "thinking" Jr.

"so I'm not sure what you're referring to being a "lie"?" Really Jr. Perhaps try reading. See above. Others have realized your lies. And you call us libtards.....

"None of my memes made any "claims" that could be "tested" for being a lie?" Really, because I dismissed the first 5 or so, one at a time, with actual facts which I know are foreign to you so you probably have built a wall in you mind less any facts might immigrate into you brain.

No claims that could be lie tested? Is that what you really think? You basically said "Obama records sealed." And I showed you, over and over and over, that factually ----- you're BUSTED. You just won't admit it in an honorable way. Very Trumpian --- the chasm has been crossed. What's next, a little groping. Muslims on the rooftops. You finally admit your obsession with Hillary?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Jr. doubled down on Scottso, he's Scottso Jr on this one. Sorry.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Skippy the other side are not extremists to use your word. Just citizens with other viewpoints, priorities and objectives.. Lets start an exchange stating where we stand and without attacks, sarcasm, jokes and insults find out where they stand. Both sides can have some intellectual fun learning from each other.

Are you in?


I'm in - I wonder if Meryl Streep, madonna, or any of the other actors who have been so vocal against trump will be willing to donate 250K to meals o. Wheels..

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Frankly it takes both parties after a Presidential win to get their teams installed and make an impact. Honestly both parties in the WH benefit from what the other side did in their first six months. Beginning the 7th month that is when real change associated with the new party starts to make an impact.

JR would you be open to exchange opinions so we can go forward together and help each other. Once we agree perhaps we can set guidelines on the discussion so we can avoid the rancor.

Will you join me and help me convince others to do the same?


Jono,

I'd like to hear exactly what/who you would describe as an "extremist", or extremist viewpoints?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Salvation Army and Morris Mission provides food and assistance to needy families. Norwescap food bank provides many services to local food banks in this area. Hackettstown RMC may also operate the local Meals on Wheels in this area. Warren County Office of Aging has a home meal program. Meals on Wheels also takes monetary donations for their program, and volunteers can sign up to deliver meals and to provide some friendly interaction with these senior citizens.

Denise Denise
Mar '17

Thanks Denise great info on how folks can get involved

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Especially "happiest" who is so concerned about the cuts, volunteer or donate, don't just complain about Trump.

justwondering justwondering
Mar '17

JR, I would love to have a conversation with you over a beer. Unfortunately I do not have the time or desire to continue endless discussions that have no end in sight. Especially when you have to cut through the anger, sarcasm, insults and jokes from both sides and some people who are not really well informed. You are not one of them. I hope we can still meet one day for maybe more than one beer. We just put a different spin on things.

I said earlier that I was a strong on defense, social progressive moderate fiscal conservative. I prioritize everything I do based on immediate needs against long terms goals. I am not a ideologue but move with the times and needs of the day striving to negotiate win/win scenarios for everyone.


Strong on defense, social moderate, fiscal conservative. I prioritize most things according to individual liberties and the constitution, and the amount of fiscal strain that will be left on future generations. I thought Bernie was literally crazy- "free" college education???

I'm basically a libertarian. I thought Obama (especially 8 years of him) might be the end- the push over the tipping point. I was, thankfully, wrong... but only because we had the republicans stopping things in Congress (as the system was designed), and now have the pendulum swinging the other way with Trump. He's no savior, but he's the "righting" of the ship (no pun intended) after 8 years of a progressive (more extreme than liberal) administration. Political correctness has run amok.

I wonder if many here will be able to admit that they were wrong when Trump's policies start improving things, as I have been there- thinking the current jerk-in-charge would be our ruin- and was proven wrong. Over time, let's see who has the intellectual honesty to admit the same when 4-8 years of Trump doesn't destroy the country...

In the end, he's just another- as JIT has labeled them- "republicrat." The one difference is, he was not a politician, and neither party wanted him- the GOP tried to stop him- but the republican primary voters spoke, and forced the GOP to run him. That at least gives me hope that our election system hasn't been totally corrupted, YET.

I'm certainly looking forward to an ACTUALLY SECURE border (I don't care who pays for it), and a more safe/sensible immigration policy. As well as a stronger military for when it becomes necessary. And lower taxes. Healthcare is a total wash- it sucked before Obamacare, it sucked with Obamacare, and it's going to suck with whatever this new thing will be labeled. And also looking forward to no more federal attacks on the 2nd Amendment. Obama tried REALLY hard on that one, and the American people beat it back, with a couple of small exceptions like NY and CA.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

What's your thoughts on what if anything should replace the ACA jono

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Thanks JR and Skippy for getting back to me. I will need time to respond. Right now I am bogged down with March Madness and surprised that Villanova lost this afternoon but I will respond by tomorrow.

Look forward to a good exchange.


Can anyone dispute, right, left or middle, that Trump is a compulsive and unapologetic liar? Can anyone dispute that to date, he has
Ignorantly alienated Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany and at the same time consistently praised Putin? Can anyone who has reviewed Trumpcare dispute that it harms most the elderly and the poor? Can anyone dispute that his budget completely ignores rebuilding infrastructure while gutting the EPA and social programs relied on largely by those who voted for him?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Were you, perhaps, wondering what Trump likes to read, this speaks for itself: http://www.dailywire.com/news/14527/watch-tucker-carlson-asked-donald-trump-what-he-frank-camp

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

"Can anyone dispute, right, left or middle, that Trump is a compulsive and unapologetic liar? "



So was Hillary. And? YF, if you think Trump is in any way "unique" or "extraordinary" in the category of "liar", you haven't been following politics long enough.

It's easy to show EVERY president "lied". Even in recent history... just see my post above. ALL "liars", in one way or another. Frankly, I'm more interested in improving the country than debating who's a bigger liar. If a politician's mouth is moving, there's a percentage of lying going on. You'll have to get past that if you want to have any kind of meaningful discussion.

Or, if it makes you feel better, just continue with the venomous hate. Just don't expect to be talked to reasonably, when you aren't being reasonable, or maybe I should say, realistic.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

SD,

haha. Sorry to have gotten your knickers in such a bunch. You're not feeling well (politically) these days, are you? Believe us, we know how you feel, having just gone through 8 years of it.

Once again, I acknowledged your information on the incorrect meme posted by Scottso. What more do you want?

"Thanks for the link, SD. Always willing to be enlightened." -JR

That's not admission or honorable? What am I supposed to, come to your house and serve you breakfast in bed? LOL


Everything else you've got sounds like the rantings of a lunatic? What lies? WTH are are you even talking about? Because only YOU know at this point... (well, I'm guessing YankeeFan probably does too, lol)...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

We are a global embarrassment!


President Obama made the US a global embarrassment. thank you.

Denise Denise
Mar '17

Nothing can be more embarrassing than Trump. Even the Netherlands backed down on voting for a "Trump like character", after seeing how much Trump duped the public into believing all his lies, and his erratic, sociopath behavior. They know a nut job, when they see one.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Sorry but on the "embarrassment" scale no one beats Dump. Not by a loooonnnng shot. And to insinuate otherwise is well, embarrassing.


JR too busy making his Trump apologies to comment on the entirety of my post. Sure, we can agree that politicians generally are not always truthful. Either are any one of us...but Trump's lies indicate a total disregard for truth and reality...they are constant, they are utterly lacking in any documentation to back them up, and they indicate the inner workings of a very troubled mind. Very hard to believe that any thinking person can't see that.

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

let's see - he's pissed off England, Germany, Mexico - and who knows how many others - and there does not appear to be a fan club from any country - and he's beginning to lose those who thought he really would help them here - interesting

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

"Either are any one of us..."

Speak for yourself yankeefan ;-)

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Exactly YF. Okay yeah, most if not all politicians lie. It seems unavoidable if you want to keep your job. But he truly goes beyond the pale into some demented la la land. The look on Angela Merkel's face (the LOTFW) is very telling. The audience is laughing at Trump! The POTUS! Laughing at him not at her. She's just pointing out the absurdity of the moment. She's incredulous. In disbelief. As is anyone with a brain.


:) Even you, JIT...I'd be willing to wager that you occasionally are less than truthful. Possibly to avoid hurting someone's feelings, or to simply avoid conflict.

On the other hand, Trump's behavior is clearly pathological. At minimum.

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

".but Trump's lies indicate a total disregard for truth and reality..."


As did Hillary's, whom I'm sure you voted for.... and?

It's been said a million times over, this election (like all of them, but it seemed this one especially) was between the lesser of two evils. Who the lesser was it TOTALLY OPINION, and not "provable" by any means. If you think some kind of statistics prove Trump is a bigger liar than Hillary, you're just still in the "blindly partisan phase" of your political journey.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

“That's not admission or honorable?” No, not really. Especially in context. And no, you don’t even have a clue how I feel. Never will. You didn’t post the lie, my bad. You fully believed the lie, supported the lie and have not walked it back yet except with deflections, weasel-words, and a whole lot of name calling.

In your self-professed honorable “acknowledgement,” all you said was “Always willing to be enlightened.” While that is illuminating, it does not walk your complete fabrication back. In the very next sentence, you admonish me for your own personally tragic fault suggesting you have “concrete proof that politifact and factcheck.org are biased liars.” Wow, I bet you feel vindicated. And enlightened.

One on the links regales the reader with a tale of fact checking Carly Fiorina instead of fact checking the earlier CNN story Carly was referencing. Ah, I see. An error of time means the facts are biased. Of course Jr. didn’t read the fact check piece in question which noted the CNN story as well…. The other piece mentions funding and therefore they are biased. It throws in Bill Ayers name into the soup for some spice. In both cases, no proof of bias is actually presented but that fits Jrs. MO. Where's there's smoke, there's a liberal conspiracy.

Then the rest of Jr’s tirade of enlightenment talks about me being a “pro at pretending not to, when it doesn't serve your purposes, just like all the other hypocritical liberals here.” That’s enlightenment for you if you want to act like Trump. Deflect, denounce, denigrate. I really don’t think you walked anything back, will probably repost it in a few months, and just attempted to dress up your act with a 50-cent word.

Last, when you say “SD, your opinion is not fact, as much as you want to believe it or as hard as you try to sell it,” Wow, there's a fact fer sure. I say prove it. You always allude to my “opinions as fact,” spin, zigs, and other manipulative inventions, but you never prove it. Please do. I welcome you spilling some facts for a change.

No, that was not an admission of your fantastic fabrication nor even a sign of enlightenment. You did not walk it back. But then again, you believe Trump lies at the same level as other politicians. Think that says it all.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Back to the issues....

Trump’s budget woes start with a $52.3B increase to military spending which will true us up with the forces needed to fight two Wars simultaneously like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a massive expenditure with absolutely zero possibility of making us safer from terrorism and every possibility of being an asset waiting for an excuse to be used. Now how to pay for it.

First, we cut State by 30% or $10.9B as we close our doors to the world perhaps figuring we’ll just use military diplomacy instead. Trump the HealthCare reformer will then shake 16% or $12.6B from Health and Human Services. With TrumpCare we just won’t need it anymore. Good news is people will die at home and never make the street. Next up, Education for 14% or 9.2B since kids can now join the Armed Services to get their education and healthcare. Other big percentage hitters (another way of saying “close em down" include EPA at 31% because we won’t have anyone breaking environmental laws anymore. There will be no laws to break. Agriculture and Labor at 21% each, just don't need those. Justice at 20% because, let’s face it, under this administration there can be no justice, none at all.

Did you get smaller government for your vote. Lean, mean, no regulation team.

No, you didn't get smaller government. You just voted for a bigger military to replace your government. Traded butter for guns.

Total Budget Increase --$54B. Time to lock those teenagers away before it’s draft time. Saving grace is that this team probably can’t write a draft law without 8-years and multiple failures…. You got that going for you.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Why does JR keep bringing up Hillary. Isn't the election ancient history by now? The subject here is Trump.

And is Trump the biggest presidential liar by far? I would say instead that he is the biggest spreading of falsehoods, in that he seems to believe much of the nonsense he spouts. He seems on the one hand rather gullible for a man his age, and also not very interested in what is true. What he is interested in is himself. He has spent his life in furthering the Trump brand and wealth, and is doing that still.

Note: I acknowledge that he is not 100% bad and is not on the wrong track on everything. :-)


Wow, SD can't even accept a "thank you" when he corrects someone... I'd say you've got some deep-seeded issues, much deeper than arguing about a Trump presidency.

So I'll again leave you to your devices, as it's obvious you still aren't ready for reasonable dialogue. Unless people agree Trump is the antichrist and worst president in history, you're not willing to listen. Way to close those doors, SD (and YF, for that matter).

"But then again, you believe Trump lies at the same level as other politicians. Think that says it all."

And the fact that you don't, says it all (see my post above to YF).

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

"Note: I acknowledge that he is not 100% bad and is not on the wrong track on everything. :-)"


Bravo, jd2. That takes confidence in oneself. Now if only some others would be willing to admit that the opposite side (whichever side that is) has some good ideas...

There were some things Obama did that I applaud him for- one thing I remember was about animal rights. And he does get credit for getting Bin Laden, for all the good it did (that is not a reflection on Obama, the islamic extremist movement is like a plague, and no one knows how to end it). He could have easily NOT given the order to take him out.

I wonder if all the naysayers screaming about Trump (he lied! he's not going to build a wall! YOU will be paying for it! etc)... were yelling "liar!" when Obama never closed Gitmo?

Obama abandoned his commitment to "unprecedented" transparency.
Obama has failed on his promise to close GITMO.
Obama broke his promise to pursue a "tough, smart and principled national security strategy."
Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle-class.
Obama broke his promise to allow Americans to keep their plans and lower costs under Obamacare.

But then, I'm sure all that was the "obstructionist republican's fault"... right? ;)

The sooner people realize the parties are simply stripes of a different color, the sooner they will become wise enough to elect people to enact REAL change.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Uh, I think you mean "deep seated..." And I will let my discourse at this end. I said what I saw. You lied, you deflected, you claimed "enlightenment" while simultaneously slamming the source and any progressive in earshot. You are very Trumpian. I do not think you ever walked it back. BUSTED.

I will continue to speak to the issues. Like a +50B deficit budget is not the balanced budget Trump campaigned on and the budget is not what Trump the campaigner called easy to fix but is a very complex issue not fixed overnight. Just like his same miscalculation on ObamaCare, or his Muslim ban, or....

If that is you conclusion, you are welcome to it. Or course you're the guy who equivocates Trump's lies with Hillary's lies ---- and she wasn't even a President. Except in the popular sense.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

"I will continue to speak to the issues. "


I'm sure you will, as YOU see them, which is with partisan bias and spin. Which is a completely normal thing, of course... but it takes someone wiser and more confidant to admit it.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Drain the swamp...here you go JR, make a specious defense of this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/03/17/trump-administration-rolls-back-protections-for-people-in-default-on-student-loans/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.c5350de0b2b2

In the end, you're basically a one trick pony.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

So the trend in your referenced stories YF is that the Trump administration is *taking* away a *gift* from the previous administration? Just want to be clear about the line of thinking here... ;-)

justintime justintime
Mar '17

You dems should have elected Bernie, then all college would be "free" LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

"with partisan bias and spin" jr, I invite you to point it out when you see it. Try the budget piece and "swing away Merrill, swing away." Until then, feel free to keep baying at that "he's a bad, bad man" moon. Talk about twisted tighty whities.

Meanwhile, remember Syria. Seems almost like a dark shroud covered the region January 1st. We do know that the bombing has been stepped up, way up. Probably lost that tid bit in the tweet storms. Remember, early in Jan bumped to 20 sorties a day. Thursday, we flattened a Mosque killing dozens of civilians. Caught em during worship. We denied targeting. Then we said it was an Al Qaeda meeting. Funny, thought the US supported Al Qaeda in Syria. That must have been a surprise for them.

The Executive Order reducing the restrictions on bombing is working I guess. Only Trump throwing the military under the Yemen bus might slow it down now.

Think we are bombing 5 of the 7 countries originally targeted in the immigration ban. Makes sense they want to immigrate.

Did you catch the new Syrian operations?

Like we allow the CIA to make independent drone strikes now. You know, gathering intelligence by learning bomb with drones. Regular non-intelligence drone strikes are up 400%. Obama was about once a week, Trump is nearing one a day.

It's open season to bomb Yemen. "The coalition dropped 7,494 bombs, rockets and other munitions in Iraq and Syria during the first nine weeks of this year, up nearly 50% from 5,025 during the same period in 2016 and nearly double 4,100 strikes in 2015, according to Air Forces Central Command." In February, we dropped over 1,000 in a week. (USA Today).

Sssssh.... Can't say whether this escalation good or bad since there is a policy and theater blackout, but apparently we are in a real war now......can more boots on the ground be far behind? Guess we know how many tweets it takes to block out the sun :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

all spin, all.the.time , what a palooka

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

For JIT, so he can be "clear on the line of thinking".

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/25/1625243/-Betsy-DeVos-Ethics-Report-Reveals-Ties-to-Student-Debt-Collection-Firm

Did I hear the JR pony neigh? Did JIT leave the barn open again?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Sorry YF, not sure what the point of that article is. Clarify please, because I think I will be agreeing with you but would like to be sure.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Said simply, in my view, the Cabinet appointments (a majority certainly) are inexperienced billionaires (the pikers are merely millionaires), whose policies and directives to date likely benefit their associates while harming the elderly and the poor. In DeVos, you see a decision that could reasonably be seen to result in personal benefit. I'll repeat that the healthcare "replacement" objectively benefits the wealthy and harms the working poor and the elderly. Americans have no way of knowing how Trump's policies may be personally benefitting his organization. He ran on a platform of representing the forgotten working class. See any evidence of that happening? I see quite the opposite. He's surrounded himself with people smarter than he is, and now the wolves circle the sheep. A very dangerous time for America.
Other than that, he's doing a great job. :)

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

Trump wants to keep the poor, in that situation. It's a great draft deterrent. The "children for breakfast " program. What a shame.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Trumputin's approval rating sinks to a new low --- 37%.
His disapproval rating rose correspondingly hitting 58%.

No surprise there!!!!!!!!

happiest girl
Mar '17

Well, I don't disagree with that yf but I would add that the things you're concerned about losing weren't really solutions anyway; they were bandaids that simply "found" money (through taxation) for the things Trumps friends wanted to sell. It was the typical shifting of the deck chairs, moving the burden to pay from one portion of the economy to the next. The folks selling the overpriced goods, aka "Trumps friends", still get what they want under this scheme.

Now if there were talk if really fixing things rather than discussions of who we will be stealing the finds from, then...

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Spend money on more bombs (military), keep excessive aid to Israel, cut programs like energy assistance to the poor and PBS???


Labelling someone as a spin artist is one way to admit a lack of facts to eloquently argue your position. When you can't debate your position, attack the opponent.

For jr, who can't see the forest for the trees, I supported Trump's selection of Rex for Secret Secretary of State. As for the rest, come on, can you support any of then? Which ones? Also recently noted how Bush jr did the right thing, quickly, upon realizing the impending financial collapse of the United States, handing off the ball to Obama who ran with it. There's two recent ones....

Avoiding the tweet-storms, the scandals, the inexperience blunders, if you can tell me how you support the Trump budget with its HUGE deficit, unnecessary military expansion, the rape of healthcare, the rape of environmental laws, and the pillaging of education support, I would enjoy that discussion. Or how you support TrumpCare as the replacement for ObamaCare. Or the new secret wars in the Middle East, what do you think about that?

Have we seen any signs that Trump will create programs to Make American Great Again re: adding new high paying jobs to America?

Looking ahead, and knowing where I come out, how can you support Trump's pending tax plan?

Really, can you actually support any of the actions on the table or some of those more important ones expected to happen soon?

Meanwhile, think we are at $20M so far for Mar-A-Loser weekends. This guy will eclipse Obama's travel vacations in his first year. Of course, we are supporting the security for at least three Whitehouses now, NYC, FL, and DC. NYC might be up to $300M a year alone.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Meals on Wheels scam exposed by The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/article/curses-shouts-fist-shaking-meals-wheels-ringleader-55553

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

"There will be no "talk of really fixing things" during his (hopefully very short ) tenure. "


Are you still hoping for an impeachment? President Pence...... RELIGIOUS President Pence..... be careful what you wish for....


JIT, "where you are getting the funds from"... higher taxes for everyone, but especially on the rich. SOAK the rich. Which is pretty funny coming from (D) Bernie Sanders, Mr. Rich-white-guy-who-owns-3-houses.... again, it's the same old story.....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

"Are you still hoping for an impeachment? President Pence...... RELIGIOUS President Pence..... be careful what you wish for...."

While there is truth to that from a policy standpoint, it would be a welcome change to have a normal person as president with whom we can have normal disagreements. Trump, on the other hand, is making many of us crazy with......well, maybe this opinion piece gets to the crux of the matter:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/opinion/trumps-method-our-madness.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region


Hearings - Live on youtube: http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/james-comey-russia-live-stream-watch-testify-fbi-mike-rogers-congress-videos/

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

jd2,

While I DO get where you're coming from (I really do), you do realize that Trump's "unorthodox" methods are a big part of why he was elected, right? Because he's seen as NOT "business as usual."

I wouldn't have an issue with a President Pence, BUT... to me it really seems like this is all still just a bunch of sour grapes from anti-Trumpers throwing temper tantrums. "We don't LIKE him, so we want him out!" It doesn't work that way. He won, fair and square. I didn't LIKE Obama, but that's not a reason to impeach him. If Trump does something impeachable, I'm sure the dems will do everything in their power to accomplish it, but until then, maybe the left should start trying to learn to work with him, since he's not going anywhere, at least not yet.

It's been interesting, that's for sure, and I'm not impressed with most of his cabinet picks either. But for me, Trump needs to accomplish 2 things: immigration reform/secure the border, and get the economy moving again. If he can accomplish those 2 things, I predict all will be forgiven, by all except those like SD and YF who will NEVER stop. But he needs to be given time to try to do those things... just like the left "requested" with Obama... and that was AFTER he already had 4 years! "He needs more time, he inherited a mess, give him more time". Trump hasn't been in 4 MONTHS and people are screaming impeachment. Alot of people need a reality check.

(I'm not singling you out, jd2, just talking about the general consensus on the forum amongst most of the liberals/progressives/democrats. I actually feel I can have a reasonable discussion with you.)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

strangerdanger can you give me the cure to the common cold... You seem to know everything and I can't seem to shake this bug...

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

Metsman --- why don't you go to Trump. He will make you great again.

happiest girl
Mar '17

That was a disappointing comeback happiest girl. Perhaps the unicorns and fairies from Liberal-ville have a cure.

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

Sounds like you OD'd on codeine, seeing fairies and all.

happiest girl
Mar '17

While I don't necessarily disagree, Metsman... your initial jab wasn't exactly the height of rhetorical wit either, lol.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

so says the Pirates fan

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

Do you hear that, Metsman? I think it's the Algonquin Round Table calling.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Benchley, Parker, Coward and Metsman. I'd pay to see that...

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

I hope Keith Hernandez spits at you. LOL

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

Bad sign: someone's got some strangerdanger-envy going on. "Seem" is the operative word, feel free to add your own erudite discussion points. Can't wait to see one.

So you got bugged. So did Trump. No wonder you are a Trump-sort-of-guy in search of the truth based on facts...."I don't need to see no stinkin tax records, I don't need to know about frisky Ruskies, "wiretapping" means surveillance which means bugging which means it's very complex. I likey Donald, he's fresh..."

Does bug really mean "overall feeling of malaise." Wait, no quotes on the bug. I have heard that the UK bug is going around; if you get that, see the dentist. Or like Donald, you might have some bugging in common with the Germans. That's known as ObamaCold most often caught through poor cellphone health habits. If that's the case, I think you already have the cure. Just don your familiar tin foil friend, tune into Fox, and your fears of the bug will dissipate.

Ain't Mets Paradise, it's just Citi Field's Parking Lot....
Ooooh, bop bop bop Ooooh, bop bop bop

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

YF, just because I don't spend all my time bashing Trump doesn't mean that I am OK with all that's going on. I think you may misunderstand because of my regularly pointing out the hypocrisy of team politics. Both "sides" can be, and certainly have been, idiotic and they both ignore the really important big picture issues, specifically our monetary system because in it's current configuration both sides can abuse it at will. Now if politicians started dealing with that one you'd hear quite a bit more from me ;-)

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Because why not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-white-house-office_us_58d056ffe4b00705db520f50?8o4y262cy4rrbv5cdi&&

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

исследование (issledovaniye)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/fbi-james-comey-trump-russia-hearing-236265

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

As the sun rises on Monday, we hear those little birds of spring twittering away: “The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!”

Double down: "“The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!”

Well, Donald, for once we are right --- we will be looking for the leakers all right, the ones who leaked classified information in cahoots with your campaign to the Russians.

Wonder if we can still prosecute Deep Throat?

"FBI Director Comey confirms probe of possible coordination between Kremlin and Trump campaign" (WashingtonPost) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-to-testify-on-russian-interference-in-the-presidential-election/2017/03/20/cdea86ca-0ce2-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.134d3cc385e9

Trump confirms that he is still investigating Obama for wiretapping.... (twitter)

You choose the Fake News.....

Time to circle those wagons, bring on the consigliore. Ivanka moves into White House, gets West Wing Office, has no official job, just a volunteer (like Flynn) so not under ethics rules. What are her ties to the business? Where are those shoes made?

Trump has organized his life like the Mafia. Godfather runs it all supported by close inner circle of family and small number of trusted inside men. Career death to anyone with ideas outside the circle.

As he moves into backup mode, we can see that behavior intensifying. The difference here is Donald does not own the whole show; he is the ringmaster but outside his ever shrinking circle of trusted confidants he holds far less control than he did in his business. Also, he can not cut n run; claim bankruptcy, get a hand out, and resurface with a new business the next week.

He is losing his grip and it's oh so early.

Good job Trump voters. He is an outsider....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

The Onion covers proof of wiretapping...

http://www.theonion.com/article/aides-wrestle-drill-trumps-hands-he-tries-remove-o-55576

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

SD they don’t have any evidence that Trump worked with the Russians to sway the election his way. Time to move on…

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

As the rats ready to jump ship, I think Paul Manafort's denial of Russia was delivered at the speed of light yesterday... Within minutes of Comey's revelation as to the Trump Russia investigation, Manafort issued a written public denial of his involvement. Think his press release started: "I am not a crook." Amazing given this guy's known personal and business connections to Russia. Talk about distancing.

Previous denials --- lots of them --- wanna bet we see some walking back of these over time. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/

The current and ever growing list of potential connections: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-kislyak-timeline/519027/

Remember, this whole think started to smell when Trump at the RNC Convention changed the Republican platform to be favorable to Russia over the Ukraine incursion. When has a Republican ever been soft on Russia? Amazing that so many conservatives seem to gloss over the whole affair as "alleged" when actual actions have take place. Even our bear poker seems to fear the Russian Bear :>) Some folks seem to think this is just the same thing as the Democrats did over the past eight years. Wow. I wonder what party Benedict Arnold belonged to? Think that was the last time we were in this arena......

Wonder if we will see who Trumpy was cozying up to business-wise and investment-wise if we could only see those taxes.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

You did see his taxes... all two pages of them, from 2005. Fake taxes!

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Is this okay with you - the way you want your taxes spent? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/19/opinions/trump-taxpayer-injustice-opinion-obeidallah/index.html?sr=fbcnni032017trump-taxpayer-injustice-opinion-obeidallah0116PMVODtopLink&linkId=35640164
If that doesn't bother you maybe this will: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/20/the-foreign-workers-of-mar-a-lago

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

JR & Skippy,

My apologies for getting back to you later than expected. March madness and work are the reasons for my delay.

I support very strongly individual rights and privacy. To use a movie line I believe the needs of the one out weight those of the few and the many. However there are exceptions when we live, work and play in a pluralistic diverse society like ours when the needs of the one are out weighed by the needs of the few and those of the many. There are to many examples out there to list when this is so.

I believe the founding fathers came up with our great Constitution and the amendments because they knew the Constitution is a living document that evolves to meet the needs of the time. Things change, new ideas, new technologies, new circumstances require the ability to adapt and the learned founders understood that. Restrictions on the Constitutions ability to evolve and adapt to the needs of the time will create difficulties for our country..

More to follow today


According to Gorsuch, the constitution is dead, static, not evolving. Sorry Scalia said that but Gorsuch is a disciple.


With all this fodder surely someone has come up with a "six degrees of separation" game for Russia, wouldn't you think? ;-)

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Thanks jono

skippy skippy
Mar '17

RAS a judges job is to interpret the law not legislate from the bench. He sounds like someone who follows the law even if it conflicts with his personal belief. It is the job of congress to create the laws. If something in the constitution is outdated, then that is why we have the amendment process. A judge doesn’t have a right to make things up as they go along.

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

JR & Skippy,

I will try to be brief. I split my votes and am basically a moderate republican. I do not like Trump for lots of reasons. The electoral college says he is our president and I accept that fact.

I dislike the people he surrounds himself with like Bannon. He is as much of an extremist to me as Bernie is one to you. Trump, Ryan and the republicans control congress and will have the SCOTUS shortly. Combined they will be responsible for the direction they take the country and will be held accountable. There will be little if any checks and balances and I will wait and see what they do. I support the free press and media. I support the 2nd amendment but with reasonable restrictions. No individual needs assault weapons for protection or to kill Bambi. There should be background checks and waiting periods to ensure people do not hurt themselves or innocents. A majority of Americans support this approach.


I actually agree with everything you said Jono, except for this:

"No individual needs assault weapons for protection or to kill Bambi."

I would need to know what your definition of "assault weapons" is. Fully automatic weapons? "Evil-looking" weapons? Black weapons? I'm being serious. Most people don't actually know what a REAL "assault rifle" is... and it's definition has been used very loosely by those passing laws, as the term "assault weapon" garners a more emotional knee-jerk reaction than "semi-automatic rifles that have been legal since they were invented."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Thanks for your opinion interested to hear about healthcare

skippy skippy
Mar '17

JR that is a good question and you are right about the emotional response some people have. I have two brothers who are avid hunters and collectors of multiple types of guns and or weapons. Basically, I am concerned with these items when these rapid firing devices can kill easily and quickly. Large cartdridges and fast reloading only adds to the problem. When used by criminals, terrorists, sick and deranged people and just about anyone who is having a meltdown the horror begins. These weapons need to be controlled somehow and reasonable owners understand and agree with that.

What suggestions do you have to accomplish this?


IMO, Semi-automatic weapons do not need to be controlled any more than they already are. It has been shown time and time again magazine limits do not save lives. Semi-automatic weapons fire no faster than revolvers do: 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet leaving the gun. You can't pass more laws to keep criminals from breaking laws. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country and also has one of the highest homicide rates.

Don't want to get too deep into this here, there's an entire 2A (2nd Amendment) thread if you'd like to see others' viewpoints and discuss that issue further. And if you want all the data and stats that show more gun laws does NOT equal less gun crime, Mark Mc. is the one to read in that thread: he remembers numbers much better than I do...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

The term "Assault Rifle" appears in military documentation very regularly since WWII and refers to a man-portable automatic (the phrasing "Select-Fire" is used, meaning a minimum of two modes of firing, one being automatic) weapon firing an intermediary cartridge.
Civilian AR-15s (M-16 / M4 counterpart bare not capable of automatic firing. The term “assault weapon,” This one has been around since the late 1980s, originated as a political ploy by gun control advocates. look at the picture on the right taken from this site which has more info. http://assaultweapontruth.com/

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

"Large cartridges"

Ha...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '17

I do not have the time either to discuss gun control further and get to deep into it. But like it or not it is coming sometime in the future. I do not see a total ban but there will be restrictions.

For now let's agree to disagree.


"When you wake up in the morning it's a quarter to three
And your mind humming tweedle dee dee,
You brush your teeth ch ch ch ch, ch ch ch ch"

Raffi

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

https://youtu.be/ur07OFbHs9c Since you like music

skippy skippy
Mar '17

jono, i and many others agre with JR that there is no need to outlaw or restrict ar-15's and similar rifles, and there is no need to limit clip sizes or bullet sizes, the ar-15 is the 'brown bess' of today's world, It is a ubiquitous rifle for the everyday regular person. It is the most popular rifle sold in america today, it is the most popular hunting rifle sold. the 2nd amendment makes clear that these are the types of arms that the average citizen should not be prohibited from owning. the right to keep and bear arms is just that, 'keep' means to own, to posses, 'to bear' means to carry them about on your person. what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard for the anti-gun crowd to understand?

keeping with the music part of the thread and keeping with the idea that individuals can make their own individual choices i offer this classic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trcb0LZfuZA

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

Skippy, you asked for my comments on the current healthcare discussion. Here is my opinion. Today we have over 50 major healthcare ins providers all over the country. Each offering off the shelf and customized plans. Each plan offers various choices, options along with rules, regulations, policies, processes, procedures and exclusions. There is mind challenging duplication and complexities. Each firm has thousands of employee's to market, sell and support these plans. Then there is medicare and medicaid along with all the health care supplement Ins plans. Let's not forget dental and vision. I support a single payer system that is national and recommended to be mandatory. Everyone pays into it and is covered for everything. Those who choose not to buy in cover their own expenses or go without. Taxes and far more reasonable citizen payments will cover the expense. No more emergency room walk ins who contribute nothing. Those here illegally requiring care are shipped home to get what they need. No more write offs. Let the government negotiate deals with the hospitals, pharma, equipment providers etc...Work on tort reform, remove the lobbyists. Keep it simple. End crazy bonuses for Execs like the recent $10M given to the departing BCBS NJ Exec.

What are your ideas?


Thanks jono - I don't know what to think is a good idea - we definitely need to make sure folks have access to care but I am not so quick to break up numerous fortune 100 companies and create a huge drop in the S&P

skippy skippy
Mar '17

American Healthcare act = kill the poor.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/3/6/14826974/health-care-aca-philosophy-republican-obamacare

Philosophical question

skippy skippy
Mar '17

This whole healthcare issue is not so complex, just let the gubmint get out of it and let the insurance companies compete in a free market, including across state lines, like every other commodity. The only thing the gubmint should do is curtail the freaking ambulance-chasing lawyers

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

Isn't that just a bit dramatic sparks? Your equation implies that we would have had no poor prior to the ACA because without it they would have all been dead and never existed...

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Wall Street Journal (hardly a lib source) is losing faith...and Skippy, quite possibly the drop in the market yesterday is just the beginning as people start to realize the extent of Trump's deceit...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-presidents-credibility-1490138920?emailToken=JRryd/98ZHqRhtQ9bsw1kUUyY7IJB%2BKPWkiSJ2rHNknGtXjUvfPknvlk34Ls8TL1HQ%3D%3D

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

“we definitely need to make sure folks have access to care.” Skippy, you do know that is a spin statement of the first order that can be “mission accomplished” at any time. “Access to healthcare” could include ER/no payment access or healthcare that is accessible only if you have enough money for insurance when credits fall short of current ObamaCare subsidies. ObamaCare provides access to healthcare today.

You know there’s something wrong from the get go with the AHCA when access is the key, not coverage. Supporters hone in on the ACA's unaffordable coverage when actually they are selling the AHCA's unaffordable access. Which is worse?

In 2015, Turnip told us: ““Every other Republican is going to cut, and even if they wouldn’t, they don’t know what to do because they don’t know where the money is. I do. ”After arriving at the White House, Trump made a starting announcement: "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject…" and then “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." As I said then, if he don't know this, then what else don't he know?

First, the ACA is fixable. After the fixes, you can call it TrumpCare. It’s OK.

Or you can roll a new plan, a better plan. After over 8 years, one would think you could come up with a plan that meets Trump’s promises has been fully baked, tested, and has had a whole lot of tire kicking. Turns out that the AHCA will both break the system and represents a whole series of 180’s negatively affecting Trump supporters and violently differing from Trump the campaigner’s promises.

Early this year Trump said: "We're going to have insurance for everybody. Apparently this was a false promise. “I am not going to cut Medicaid and Medicare.” Seems to be a fake promise. Not true again. Trump also said “We're gonna come up with a new plan that's going to be better health care for more people at a lesser cost.” Another fake promise. And lastly, with a tear in his eye and Christie’s dear friend to remember, Trump said: “Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop.” The bill will drop people in rehab.

1. AHCA will reduce premiums and costs: it does not and the new bigger, better, unfulfilled promise is that the AHCA is phase 1 and you have to wait to see Phase 2 and Phase 3, as yet unwritten, to see the good stuff.
2. AHCA will not cut Medicaid: a lie. The AHCA cuts Medicaid
3. The AHCA will cover more people: another lie. Most believe it will cover less people
4. The AHCA will improve people’s healthcare access: if you are not covered, I don’t think so.
5. Drug epidemic will be over: the AHCA Medicaid cut-backs will gut programs targeting the Opioid epidemic.

TrumpCare is worse than ObamaCare and is a complete rejection of the promises Trump made to America.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Rasmussen had Trump at 50% approval rating yesterday.

A couple questions needing real answers...

Mr Comey testified under oath yesterday that the FBI has had an ongoing investigation on Trump/Russian connection since last July, how could Trump/Trump Tower not be under surveillance (ie: some type of wiretapping)? How then DID they get those conversations? Does the FBI investigate by Ouija board? Is it really not true that the Obama administration surveilled Donald Trump? After all, he was listening in on Angela Merkel - and many others with the help of the CIA and FBI.

Who DID leak the contents of conversations between a private citizen and a Russian. And who leaked the contents of President Trump's conversations with the Australian PM? Who "stole" the laptop belonging to a secret service agent - a laptop left in a car along with the key to open it; the laptop which "just happened" to contain information about Trump Tower. If there was no surveillance how did all that info get on the laptop? Did the Obama administration hire a psychic? Something is surely strange here - no? "

These are some questions I REALLY want to know the answer to as well, so I can make a true assessment of who is lying and who is not.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

Watch: Senator Dianne Feinstein asks Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch if he thinks the Second Amendment is unclear and in need of clarification.

https://youtu.be/MeP8cInVzsI

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

Got sources for any of that Heidi?

Meanwhile.....The grand AHCA plan, 8.5 years in the making, sucks by definition requiring not a second Phase but a three Phases to be complete. P2 and P3 TBD.

Now we are in the “art of the deal” part of Phase 1 of the AHCA. You know, dealmaking, where active listening, compromise, and a leader looking for that win-win across and up and down the aisle will emerge.

Instead what was delivered is a plan cooked in a back room by a small cabal from a single party, no outside expert review and inputs, forced votes in the middle of the night and pushing for passage at a breakneck speed that even would blow Pelosi’s dress up. If you thought the ACA passage was a rush job, the AHCA is going to set Congressional records for speed. Especially for a law affecting 20% or more of our economy.

By definition, the plan is less than half-baked. The plan is to deliver an incomplete plan. The ACA is half-baked on delivery, on purpose, as planned. It is an incomplete plan that depends on Phase 2 and Phase 3 to be comprehensive. P2 and 3 have not even been written yet. Obviously, no one has read them. No one knows even what’s in them. Not even a powerpoint set of bullet points. What were you complaining about with Pelosi? “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it ...” But with Trump you are accepting: “you must pass the bill and then wait for Phase 2, and then wait for Phase 3, so you can find out what is in it…..”

As it that would be bad, yesterday Trump the master deal maker added some deal advice for his teammates: "I honestly think many of you will lose your seats in 2018." As for the Republican leader of the plan’s opposition: “Mark, I'm gonna come after you," Trump said, according to multiple sources. Sure, it was a joke Mark…… Funny. Ha ha.

Is this the reason you voted for him: his innate ability to swiftly structure a deal beneficial to all parties involved? Sounds like 2x4 negotiations to me.

Bad deal, worse deal making. 24-hours to the vote.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

It is very clear, from watching this entire nomination hearing thus far, that the Democrats DO NOT understand the role of the Supreme Court. They want a judge who "agrees" with their ideology. They want to know the judge's stance on things, they want a judge who will make laws and change laws -- HOWEVER, that is NOT the role of the Supreme Court. The role of the Supreme Court is to look at the law as it stands, based on the Constitution and make their decisions sole,y on that. NOT their "opinion" or their "feelings" or what they think is "fair." The Democrats really need to go back and read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all the Founding Documents because they clearly have forgotten what the Supreme Court is supposed to be.

That is why these questions are totally irrelevant - but they still don't get it!

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

"Who "stole" the laptop belonging to a secret service agent - a laptop left in a car along with the key to open it; the laptop which "just happened" to contain information about Trump Tower. If there was no surveillance how did all that info get on the laptop?"

You realize that this theft happened recently and the"information about Trump Tower" on the laptop is the "current" Secret Service security plans for Mrs. and Master Trump's residence, correct? That it has nothing to do with surveillance of Russians and the Trump cabal?

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Wow. I like Gorsuch EVEN MORE now.

She tried to "gotcha!" him, but he wasn't having any of it, and he gave the exact right answer a JUSTICE SHOULD GIVE- my job is to follow the law [not to make law based on my personal opinions]... brackets added by me.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

ssssh, Iman, don't let the facts get in the way of the conspiracy......

Actually I agree with you Heidi on the waxing poetic of the Democrats in the questioning. Just looking for a slip up which will not happen with this gentleman. It's also some pay back for not being able to have Obama's legitimate and rightful pick come before Congress. And, IMO, that's some valid payback for some shameful actions by the folks you support.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

State Secrets Update: Yesterday I shared Rex’s opting out of a April NATO meeting preferring to meet with Russia, in Russia, instead. Bad optics I noted. Well, Turnip fixed it by announcing he will attend the May NATO meeting. I believe the NATO response was “Oh #%#%#%#5.” Can’t wait to see who does not turn up in May……

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Yes, I know that, ianimal. Don't you find it dangerous that "someone" now has the entire plan for the POTUS and his family's security detail? That is top-secret, classified info. Who has it? Maybe the Russians? Someone from the Obama Administration? A journalist? I don't care WHO the President is, that is scary. Don't you think someone could then use it to set up an assassination?

This doesn't speak to you of the lack of security in the CIA? This reminds me of a Laurel and Hardy episode - lost/stolen laptops, illegally leaked names of American Citizens after wiretapping/surveillance - but nobody knows who did it, people's private conversations being monitored without their knowledge, Comey saying in one breath that Trump was not being survailed, and then in the next breath stated that Trump has been investigated since July? How are they survailing him -I ask again - with the help of the Long Island Medium, a Ouija board? Or, is he being wiretapped?

That would be like someone stealing a laptop with a map of the inside of your home, a list of where all the important things are and the code to your alarm system. No big deal to you?



That's nothing to you?????

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

So, the security plan needs to be entirely revamped. The tax payers are already on the hook for half a million dollars a day to guard the queen and prince at Trump Tower, what's a couple million dollars more?

And you're right. I think a member of the Obama administration has been stalking this woman on the off-chance that she would be dumb enough to leave her laptop in her car in front of her Brooklyn home so that they could steal it and formulate an assassination plan. Makes perfect sense to me...

What does the CIA have to do with the Secret Service, which is a branch of the US Treasury Department?

If someone stole my laptop with that information, I would change my alarm codes. I'm sure the same will occur in this situation, although it's obviously a lot more complex and costly... but the concept remains the same.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

heidi said ; "It is very clear, from watching this entire nomination hearing thus far, that the Democrats DO NOT understand the role of the Supreme Court. They want a judge who "agrees" with their ideology."

spot on correct, they could care less about the law, they just want what they want and the rule of law be damned. and that's how they roll, it's the liberal mob in action. what they really want is one party rule, (that includes many of the regulars on this blog) , more sour grapes from sore losers,

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

Interesting to know that the Russia connection has been under investigation since last July with no mention of it until now, yet Comey felt compelled to share that there was an email investigation right before the election.


I am trying to figure out Comey's deal. I'm not quite sure who's side he's on. Just seems he is certainly not bipartisan like he's supposed to be.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

Heidi, it's starting to appear that he's on America's side. First, he made sure that Claire Undertaker didn't win the election and now he's going to take down the Great Pumpkin. If you would have asked me in October, I would have been completely in support of this ultimate end result, lol.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

"more sour grapes from sore losers" I am very sorry that you are so upset about the "liberal mob." Just busting me up inside. Wait, wait, I think I feel a crying jag coming on..... Can you be spot on incorrect?

Hopefully things will pick up and you will feel better soon.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's skip discussing issues and just talk about each other's perceived faults.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

I would hope that he would just be doing his job, sans any political slant. Hopeful, anyway.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

I'm in - I wonder if Meryl Streep, madonna, or any of the other actors who have been so vocal against trump will be willing to donate 250K to meals o. Wheels..

skippy
4 days ago

Here you go:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325101-colin-kaepernick-donates-50k-to-meals-on-wheels

Tracy Tracy
Mar '17

Meals on Wheels is booming on the Trump Meals On Wheels "Kristallnacht."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/03/18/meals-on-wheels-sees-donation-surge-after-trump-proposes-funding-cuts/?utm_term=.b0a5ff8bc8ef

You should see the ISIS recruiting sites!

Guy knows how to market....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

So Trump's team has been under investigation since July. That would mean they've been under surveillance and the media just focuses on the word wiretap. LOL.... So yes they've been spied on. Wiretapping isn't the only means to get information.

Metsman Metsman
Mar '17

Kaepernick? LOL, yeah it's not like he'd be doing it because he needed some good press for a change LOL. But credit where credit is due: he DID give charitably. And Trump DID pay his 2005 taxes LOL.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

"So Trump's team has been under investigation since July."

Which Trump team; the one that's there now or the one that just left?

Which investigation? The Russians? The Rape Cases? Trump University? The Trump Tower Mafia case? Trump Foundation Cases, both of them? The Flynn Case, The Manafort Conspiracy? Or some other case where Team Trump was talking, and hanging out, with people under FISA investigation and therefore an incidental incident?

I get confused, you just have to specify.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Tracy - II respect Kaepernick in that he put his money where his mouth is - he felt strongly about something and donated - bravo.

A lot of people don't seem to be understanding what Nunes said. He said that communications had been intercepted pertaining to the Trump campaign during national security surveillance.

Legally names and communications of parties not involved in the investigation must be removed. Ie: Bob is the subject of an investigation, Bob calls and orders pizza. The pizza guy is removed and what he said is removed. Bobs name and communication is not.

In this case the government failed to redact the names and communications of Trump and campaign advisors not involved in the investigation then turned it over to the white house and NSA/FBI unmasked. illegal.

Nunes also stated he "read reports, not the raw intel". Reports are generated by an analyst. So this is beyond the raw data of "incidental collection". An analyst developed a report about Trump and Trump team members and did not redact their information. illegal

skippy skippy
Mar '17

If there is an investigation into Russian hacking of an election and evidence of contact between the Russians and the beneficiary campaign in that election, that's hardly analogous to a case of "ordering a pizza". It's more analogous to Bob making a call and arranging a heroin deal; should the co-conspirator heroin dealer get a pass?

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Comey said there was "no evidence", multiple times. Did he not?

Or to be correct, he was asked multiple times, "any evidence?" and his answer was always "no." It's refreshing to get a yes or no answer instead of a diatribe or an "uh, I don't recall."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Its early yet. One might ask how Trump knew? I mean our guys couldn't find it right away because it didn't involve Trump as the subject. So which "subject" knew they were being bugged and then tild Trump. Sounds like the buggee.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

No but there's a process for that

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Did you expect a document that says "Wiretap Trump" -Barry. This "incidental collection" operated as designed.
1. Devise Russia connection
2. look for the "Russians" and "incidentally" pick up all this information.
Which means that this "incidental" collection is not very incidental at all.

Fact: the names of those involved were unmasked and the information, despite having no value to any "Russian" investigation, was widely disseminated.
These folks had an agenda. They plotted and executed, and are getting away with what amounts to a coups against a lawfully elected POTUS.

The SIGINT is executive branch, therefore CIC Obama is responsible ultimately for electronically surveilling the POTUS elect.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JD69qEnmTzk

This probably should go in the game show thread but it fits here much better, so why not? I figure many folks around these parts would enjoy the premise :-)

justintime justintime
Mar '17

I'm grabbing my popcorn and just going to sit by and wait for this train to finally go off the cliff.
I'm really hoping for no survivors. Let them rot, or execute them, for treason. I wonder what we can do as a nation to erase them from our history, they're stain will certainly stick around for a long time.

On the wire tapping, unless you are in a cult living off the land or have been homeless, for probably at least the last 10 years, you've been spied on. It doesn't matter which end of the communication, or what type of communication was spied on.

The fascist has certainly been captured in mass surveillance as he does business in other countries - but, and read his tweets, the accusation is the Obama did it, implying a personal order (or arguably an order from his administration).
Also, he said PRIOR, whereas the report today from Nunes seems to indicate it was after the election. Nunes also said the information was disseminated among the security community, which, to some extent is normal and would definitely be normal in the course of an active investigation. I suspect in the end, the "wire tapping" will be found to have been part of a legitimate, authorized investigation into treasonous individuals who will be arrested, tried and punished.

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Mar '17

"On the wire tapping, unless you are in a cult living off the land or have been homeless, for probably at least the last 10 years, you've been spied on. It doesn't matter which end of the communication, or what type of communication was spied on."

Agreed.

Curious to me, though, is how most team-based political arguments center around assigning the President responsibility for anything that happens in government, good or bad. Collectively we always place blame on the person in the office, do we not? So his blaming the previous President for surveillance is precisely the same mentality of what happens here and everywhere else on a daily basis.

And this brings us to the real problem with Trump: his lack of couth, negligible specificity in his comments, and his flair for making the obvious dramatic. Everything he says should be treated as if it were said by the attention-starved, arrogant child acting up on the playground. But he was elected as the "common folks" politician, and it shouldn't be surprising that his behavior (except maybe the outwardly arrogant parts) is what we see in pop culture in our society on a daily basis. Completely un-Presidential but all too common none the less.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

The "attention-starved, arrogant child acting up on the playground" can't gut healthcare, or the EPA, or damage long standing international relationships. He can't collude with enemy foreign powers. He can't attempt to destroy a free press or enrich himself at the expense of his country.
True enough that the President isn't responsible for everything that happens in government...his Cabinet and appointees share that responsibility. He does, however, set the tone and he is the symbol of America to the rest of the world.

Comparing a man with this much power and responsibility to a child in a playground is an analogy that woefully misses the mark. And equating his bad behavior to current pop culture and implying that makes it less odious (or that the country gets what it deserves) is equally specious.

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

Well expressed but sadly right on. Hopefully cooler heads can reign him in otherwise everyone is in for a rough ride.


Skippy: are you telling us something about your day job? Looks like you have the inside track on surveillance.

"for probably at least the last 10 years, you've been spied on." And it's always the President's fault. The President is uncouth, imprecise, and typical pop culture with is in-Presidential but all too common....

Oh come on folks. Of course, the man at the top is responsible for the parts. Always has been. In every organization. At some level. I question why do we give Hillary hell as a liar who told a few lies and a lot of precise legitimate weasel-worded precise truths and then you give Donald the imprecise, uncontrolled, continual consistent liar a buy because his behavior "shouldn't be surprising?" I am surprised. JIT and some others seem to think both parties are the same in this. Not so JITsofacto.

As for the spying: it depends. First, we store everything. Not listen, but store.
At least metadata. So everyone is spied on in a way, in a manner. Second we video lots of things, all over the place. Smile. Wear a baseball hat. We video lots of things, like your license plate which we can then feed into a data system and start a plate profile linking up all your trips..... In some places, like buses, we can even turn the audio on with the camera is buses and the like.

We spy on your credit cards as you leave purchase bread crumbs across the consumer marketplace.

Most, if not all, of our emails are foreign (because they travel off-shore to servers ty yahoo, gmail), and therefore they get "spied on" Does that mean listened to? Kind of. We search on certain words or phrases and only hone it on those, letting the rest flow unchecked. And when you signed on to gmail or yahoomail, guess what, you allow your emails to be spied on for marketing reasons. Don't believe me? Send an email with a product and see how fast the ads appear.

Phone calls. Again, even domestically there may be word/phrase searches, but most domestic calls are not scanned. It takes a foreign aspect or a criminal aspect, with a warrant, to listen in. And we store everything, at least the metadata.

But legal listening at the loosest level requires a warrant or a FISA warrant.

Your cameras can be used against you by lots of people. Tape a piece of paper over your pc cam or tv cam. That ends that.

When you put it all together, yes you are being spied on by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. For the most part, if you don't say the magic words or talk to the wrong people, they will look no farther. If you talk to the father-land, they will listen more intently. But in the end, the real heavy lifting spying on you is done by your good ole US retail concerns trying to separate you from as much money as they can.

Oh yeah, then there are those rogue agents. Sure. Everywhere.

This latest observation at Trump Tower lacks detail, was delivered/announced in a fashion so strange as to demand an independent investigation as the Congressional Investigation is clearly tainted, and this "spying" may be 100% off target, totally trivial, completely legitimate or all of the above. Like I said, it's early yet and all we really have is one guy saying "the sky is falling." Even Trump said "somewhat vindicated....." And that sounds like some pretty weak tea.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

good column - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/birth-of-the-biggest-lie.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

Senate Democrats and the anti-gun media have launched an all-out assault on President Trump's pro-gun Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Gorsuch has a proven pro-gun record

Radical Democrats including Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have already vowed to stall and outright defeat the President's pick.

Please sign the petition linked below; for freedom

https://nagr.org/2017/defendthescotus.aspx?pid=fb6nL

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

skippy said - "Nunes also stated he "read reports, not the raw intel". Reports are generated by an analyst. So this is beyond the raw data of "incidental collection". An analyst developed a report about Trump and Trump team members and did not redact their information. illegal"

+1 TO THAT !

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

and yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a Gorsuch decision: http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/03/22/1646072/-Unanimous-Supreme-Court-overturns-a-Gorsuch-decision-in-the-middle-of-his-confirmation-hearing?detail=facebook

For those of you who have or know special needs children - his ruling allowed for minimal opportunities for such students.............

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

There are many reasons that an incidental collected can be unmasked, legally, for certain reasons.

Based on timing, you have to wonder why Hillary or Obama would be involved in Team Trump shenanigans. Neither were going to get the job because of what they did or did not find.

Like I said, where did Trump get his information? Putin?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Is anyone who advocates discussions and negotiations to limit gun control a crazy liberal. What about the republicans, conservatives and democrats who want some sanity in our gun laws. Are they crazy to?


I am all for sanity in gun laws - why are folks forced to pin a 10 round magazine to 7 rounds? INSANE. I have issues with the phrases "common sense", or "sanity" in this context. It is being used to oversimplify a complex issue. It is condescending, offensive, ignorant, and stifles any sort of opportunity for a dignified debate by beginning it with a personal insult. I can't think of any other political discussion that involves regularly talking down to its' opposition.

It's a sophist attempt to be "right" first in any debate by asserting that your side is the only correct side, and anyone contesting your perspective should be on the defensive.
It's rhetoric; it's a trick, it's a pathological method to gain the support of the statist bandwagon here.

It's "common sense" and "sane" that any issue be viewed objectively with all consideration given to empirical evidence and quantifiable data instead your opinion of what is "sane" or not.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Schumer and Warren are radicals? Wow...the definition gets broader every day...

Here's a petition for those who believe we need more effective gun control laws. I certainly signed it.

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/gun-control-now-1

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

"Like I said, where did Trump get his information? Putin?"

You can bet Germany, Israel, UK, China, Russia, all surveilled both parties in the last election. It's perfectly normal, standard, and routine to do, but it's not normal to unmask the US Citizen they were spying on and spread it around. The FISA warrant wasn't to spy on Trump campaign, but was along the lines of "We have reason to believe X country is spying on incoming administration". which also explains the analyst report - this was most likely surveillance on surveillance.

"There are many reasons that an incidental collected can be unmasked, legally, for certain reasons. " - sure but that requires a new investigation that makes that party a person of interest - in the context of the investigation at hand the information was out of scope.

"Based on timing, you have to wonder why Hillary or Obama would be involved in Team Trump shenanigans. Neither were going to get the job because of what they did or did not find." - because the elitist neoliberal aristocracy felt there was no possible way they could have lost the election legitimately. fight or flight response.

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Tell me more about the gun show loophole referenced in that petition

skippy skippy
Mar '17

jono, I am for sane gun control, so is the NRA, we are all on the same page, what are you suggesting be done?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

"Schumer and Warren are radicals? Wow...the definition gets broader every day..."

100%, through and through!

Ok, maybe not 100% but they are both extreme on the progressive "we take what we want from those who have because we can" mentality, although I do give kudos to Warren for wanting to reign in the banking system. It's just too bad that her logic falls apart when it comes to the things she wants...

The word "equality" is really the radical term because equality in today's vernacular is defined based on who controls the levers of power.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

skippy said -

"It's a sophist attempt to be "right" first in any debate by asserting that your side is the only correct side, and anyone contesting your perspective should be on the defensive.
It's rhetoric; it's a trick,"

and this - "I have issues with the phrases "common sense", or "sanity" in this context. It is being used to oversimplify a complex issue. It is condescending, offensive, ignorant, and stifles any sort of opportunity for a dignified debate by beginning it with a personal insult."


and he's 100% correct, gun owners are in favor of good sensible gun control, all the ones i know are, over 5 million NRA members are, so let's start from that common frame work shall we? one of mutual respect?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

http://nypost.com/2017/03/19/chuck-schumer-calls-for-chaos/

Schumer is not a radical? I think he has an Alinsky tattoo

skippy skippy
Mar '17

This is from back in Feb, but it seems everyone has known all along, even before Gorsuch was nominated, that the democrats would filibuster ANY nominee...

It also appears everyone knows how this is going to end, with Gorsuch being confirmed.



During an interview aired on Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Senate Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that whether or not he needs to use the nuclear option to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court “will depend on the Democrats.”

When asked if he would have to use the nuclear option to get Gorsuch confirmed, McConnell answered, “That will depend on the Democrats.”

He’ll be confirmed. the issue for your audience, the issue you’re raising is, will we have to get cloture, in other words, 60 votes to advance the nomination? Senator [Jeff] Merkley (D-OR) announced we were going have to do that before he even knew who the nominee was. So, my assumption is, we’ll have to get 60 votes.”

McConnell further vowed that Gorsuch will get 60 votes, and that “In any event, Gorsuch is going to be confirmed.”

McConnell also praised Gorsuch, and stated that he agrees with Gorsuch’s concerns over President Trump’s “so-called judge” denunciation of a ruling against his immigration executive order.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Brotherdog, I assume you are a gun owner. Let's hear your suggestions first.


Skippy if you are so smart and sane what are your suggestions on gun control?


I am not smart and sanity is merely conformity.
over the past 50-60 years gun rights have been continually constrained and even removed. http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

There have been plenty of gun control actions in America through the 20th Century. Each one of them took away a little bit more freedom and infringed on the 2nd Amendment a bit more.

Gun control advocates were able to do this, because the restrictions they implemented affected only a relatively small number of gun owners at any one time, and the restrictions were small enough not to cause great discontent.

There was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the ATF in 1972, the Law Enforcement Act Protection Act of 1986, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, (which did nothing to stop crime, by the way, and expired), and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005--all federal laws designed to restrict the ownership of specific firearm categories, restrict ownership in general, or make us “more safe.” That’s just on the federal level. Of course, many state laws have also been implemented as a “compromise.” The permit process in many states includes high fees, required training, multi-page applications, interviews with officers, interviews with law enforcement administrators, officers visiting your neighbors, yearly reviews, and fingerprinting in booking rooms among other requirements.
And you’re telling me that gun owners haven’t compromised? my position is enforce the laws on the books

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Smart and sane people know gun control can't and hasn't stopped the crimes you are trying to stop. There is more than enough gun control on the books already, considering the 2nd Amendment. It is not "extreme" in any way to NOT want any more gun control. And alot of people (a majority of the country, if recent sweeping failures in the attempt to increase gun control nationwide is any indicator) would actually not only like to see NO MORE gun control, but would like to see nationwide concealed carry programs.

But seriously- the 2A thread would be a better place for this. I thought you said you "didn't have time" to debate gun control, Jono? the 2A thread is a better place. Gun control is not on Trump's radar, this is the Trump thread.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Agreed let's keep 2A over there

skippy skippy
Mar '17

I don't have time to debate gun control. I was merely asking for gun owners to make suggestions on how to improve things for everyone.


My sister married a guy from South Dakota, his family lives in South and North Dakota, Nebraska and some are in Montana. Last year we stayed out there (SD) for 3 weeks for our niece's wedding (to a Nebraskan guy). It finally dawned on me why the fight over gun control and the 2nd Amendment.

Out there (the wild west?) EVERYONE has guns. the kids have guns and hunt, the old people have guns and skeet shoot, the women have guns and they all carry. I am a gun owner myself and even I was shocked by it. As my brother in laws dad proclaimed - he would just as soon leave the house without his underwear than his gun. The wedding had 240 guests and I would guess there were about 200 guns. All the men (except my husband) sitting at our table of 10 had hand guns on holsters (not to mention cowboy boots, lol!). Part of our 3 week trip involved a small plane flight to New Mexico.

In all the above places people have gun holsters on all day long, and wear them everywhere. Apparently they don't have many (if any) gun fee zones, but the crime rate (and especially crimes with guns) is very low, even in the cities out there.

I have (maybe wrongly) concluded that this is why American's cannot agree on gun control; in middle america guns are a normal part of every day life, gun violence is rare and people see guns as a tool (for hunting), a weapon (for protection) and a pastime (for skeet shooting, target practice, etc).

People living on the coasts, throughout NJ, NY, CA,and in the poorer cities (Baltimore, Chicago, Newark, etc) where people don't use guns so much, other than for nefarious reasons, think people who want total access and the ability to carry and have whatever gun they want for whatever use they want as a bunch of crazy gun nuts and the people in middle America look at people from these coasts and cities and don't understand their fear and disdain for something they see as a useful daily tool for all the men, women and even children (I watched an 8 year old girl skeet shooting with a pink 22 rifle - even I was cringing and I skeet shoot all the time!)

I think it is simply two different ways of looking at it, and if you grew up in a household where guns were used daily (like I was and my brother in law was) you don't understand the fear and hatred for guns; However, people who live in Chicago or Baltimore watching their friends get shot in drive-by shootings everyday don't understand why anyone would fight for their right to have such a thing. I don't see how these two polar opposites can reconcile.

Just my takeaway from this interesting observation.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

jono said - "I do not have the time either to discuss gun control further and get to deep into it. But like it or not it is coming sometime in the future. I do not see a total ban but there will be restrictions."

we already have gun control, what is it that's coming? what restrictions are you suggesting?

i suggest that we enforce the existing laws, strike the unconstitutional laws via court challenges, recognize 'constitutional carry' as the law of the land, and in NJ, advocate for a 'shall issue' permit law for CCW, also permit open carry, and remove the restrictions on clip sizes and ar-15s, (that's just NJ)

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

Sorry for the above long post - I didn't realize how long it was. My apologies.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

Great post Heidi.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Heidi, I don't normally agree with you, but that was a very insightful post, and I think you nailed it.

Tracy Tracy
Mar '17

totally agree with you Heidi, great post, please do keep em' coming

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

I too agree with your thoughts Heidi.

I'd add that it's fear that drives nearly 100% of the desire to impose further gun controls, and that fear has also led to the "everyone around me is guilty and must be controlled" mindset that permeates political discourse today.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

North Carolina is open carry as well. Fort Bragg is a large Army base in Fayetteville, which we traveled to a few years ago. We stopped in at a large flea market in town and noticed most of the vendors carried guns. Kmart had signs on entrance doors requesting no guns while shopping.

Denise Denise
Mar '17

interesting video about this issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjwGCnfVu-w

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

"I have (maybe wrongly) concluded that this is why American's cannot agree on gun control; in middle america guns are a normal part of every day life, gun violence is rare"

I kind of agree with Heidiho except for the fact that, generally, you can't conclude anything based on a few anecdotes you picked up in the West. My family lives in Montana, most live in the city and they don't have guns. Others are avid hunters but, at most, carry via truck gun rack or whatever you use nowadays for that type of carry. When I lived more rural, guns were an everyday sort of thing. Same when I moved to NJ except I stopped hunting -- seemed artificial and too crowded. A couple of decades in, I stopped shooting off the back porch and put my guns away. Too crowded. Same guy but two different approaches based on environment, not sentiment.

Heidi, you really can't really claim this summarizes "middle America" which traditionally is defined as the middle class, not regional or Montana to begin with....middle America is not defined as the area between the Mississippi and the Rockies. Nor can your "conclusion" explain a place like VT which is hardly MT yet has loose guns laws and no issues. The anomalies to your conclusion run rampant.

I just have one simple question though for Heidi and for those like Jit who see her light: why? Why do all the people in MT, SD, ND, and NE feel compelled to wear guns all day, all the time? More important than underwear. Why would they ever go heeled to a wedding? Is it a fashion statement? Do they live in fear? From what? Wedding crashers? Do they feel they have just cause for being armed 24x7?

Meanwhile, back in the land of facts: the top twenty states for death by gun as measured by point/click/dead per 100,000 humans. AK 20.4, LA 19.2, AL 16.2, MS 16.1, WY 15.6, MT 15.4, NM 14.9, AZ 14.6, NV 14,5, AR 14.4, OK 14.4, TN 14.4, WV 14.1, MO 14, SC 14, IA 12.8, GA 12.6, KY 12.4, UT 12.2, and NC 11.6.

And the best states with HI at 3.2 and OH at 9.9 include HI, MA, RI, NY, NY, CT, IA, MN, CA, MA, IL, NE, NH, WI, WA, SD, MD, ND, DE, and OH.

OK, you score with NE, ND and SD but scoreless with MT, Meanwhile many of those "nefarious" feeling states rate much better than your "middle America."

Not that it means anything, among the best states, 17 would be considered blue and 3 red. Amongst the worst states, 18 would be considered red, 2 would be blue.

Again, the facts support Heidi but do not confirm her conclusion. The facts show how her conclusion excludes the many anomalies to said conclusion --- both on the gun-g ho and the gun-control aspects.

Why is Chicago so bad and Illinois so good? What's wrong with Alaska -- suicide? What's wrong with the people in the Carolina's (OK, we have some insight into that one :>). Don't go to the Gulf Coast, those people are gun nuts for sure. Is it the heat?

Not that it means anything, among the best states, 17 would be considered blue and 3 red. Amongst the worst states, 18 would be considered red, 2 would be blue.

Fact is, where there are more guns, there is more death. Generally, on average, numerically speaking. At least based on the statistics. Yes, death can be delivered without a gun, but based on the statistics, not as effectively. Yes, suicide is counted because without the gun, statistically speaking, there is less suicide. Gun laws aside, more is not better when it comes to guns. Murders, accidents, suicides, all generally higher given the number of available guns. It comes down to convenience and lethality. If you are going to be bad, you might grab what's convenient to help you with your problem. If you do grab for the gun, the lethality is so much higher than most other weapons that the chance of death is dramatically higher. It's just point, click, and problem solved. And yes, there are anomalies to that conclusion too.

Bottom line is that there are many stories like Heidi's, many anecdotes. These do not constitute averages or trends. With guns, there are also many statistics floating about, but literally none that don't exist without major anomalies somewhere. I mean Chicago is the gun murder capitol off the free world and Illinois is one of the most gun-safe states in the Union. VT has the lowest scrutiny on gun ownership and is very gun safe while the Gulf Coast is a freakin war zone. Anomalies abound.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

I'm a gun toting snowflake, myself. The bad guys won't follow laws. If they want a gun, bad enough, they'll find it. If everyone was packing, the bad guys would think twice before shooting. Cell phones and alcohol kill more people. JR...Yes we actually agree on something. Yay! Heidi is right.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Wow sparks nice!

skippy skippy
Mar '17

your individual 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on the crime stats or death rates, not germane to the enumerated right in the constitution.

'shall not be infringed' is too often overlooked by those who fear guns, you don't want a gun, fine, that's your personal choice, but what you cannot do is decide to make that choice for someone else. "my body my choice", "your body , your choice" , respect the different choices each individual is empowered to make for themselves. period.

Heidi is spot on in her post, explains a lot about the divide between the two Americas in which we now find ourselves,

the right is not conditional on either crime rates or death rates or the number of deaths in a state or locality. has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment protections on individual liberty.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

Don't we already have a gun thread elsewhere? What happened to Trump?


here you go Jono: NJ is behind the times and out of step with the rest of the nation:

quoted from the link below:

North Dakota Governor Signs NRA-Backed Constitutional/Permitless Carry Legislation into Law

HB 1169 eliminates the requirement to obtain a permit in order to lawfully carry. HB 1169 makes the current permitting system optional to allow citizens to obtain permits and take advantage of reciprocity agreements with other states.

This bill recognizes a law-abiding adult’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense in the manner he or she chooses. Self-defense situations are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate. Accordingly, a law-abiding adult’s right to defend himself or herself in such situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170324/north-dakota-governor-signs-nra-backed-constitutionalpermitless-carry-legislation-into-law

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

Wow and that was enacted in August 2017, almost a year AFTER I was out that way for the wedding. They must be even freer to carry than they were when I was there.

I agree that the powers that be, sitting up on their hill in Washington DC, should not be telling a bunch of cowboys from South Dakota or New Mexico what they "should or should not" be doing in their own state, with their own culture.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

I just hope we can work together on health care going forward. Its very complex.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

Even with a GOP House & Senate, Trumputin's Muslim ban failed, and his 'Trumpcare' failed.
Perhaps he'll waste a few more millions of dollars buying gold coffins to bury them.
hahahahaha

happiest girl
Mar '17

The Art of the Fail.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

I loved the Fox spin. Trump actually won, regarding his healthcare bill. He apparently "dodged a bullet ", thus making it a win for Trump. That's why, he not only gets most of his briefings, from Fox news, they will always stroke his huge ego. Fox and his "only" friends...LOL

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

This is not a win. And I don't blame Trump- altho I guess "the buck stops" with the current president, I blame the 2 parties for not being able to compromise enough to craft a bill worth passing.

Trump is going to need to start being the grown-up in the room, the maverick he has been in the rest of his life. He can't let the 2 parties run roughshod around him. That would be a disaster. He risks being sunken in "the swamp."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

I am one of the people that was hoping it would fail. I don't like Obamacare; my gyno and neurologist do not take it, my premium went from $686.00 per month, 8 years ago to $2,800.00 per month as of January of this year, and I always kept my deductible at or below $1,000.00 with my old insurance but it's now $5,200.00.

After reading all I could about Trumpcare, it seemed to me that it would maybe lower the premiums a tiny bit, lower my deductible a tiny bit and it would give me more choices (added companies across state lines). But, to me it was more like "Obamacare Lite". It only slightly improved a few things.

I want a radical change OUT of Obamacare/Trumpcare back into the private sector. My family left Germany to get away from Socialized medicine and both Obamacare and Trumpcare are nothing more than Socialized medicine with a cute name. The problem with that kind of government interference is that access to care always suffers and cost always increases, just like taxes.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

I agree with you Heidi... however, I don't think that can happen in today's political atmosphere. FOR SURE the democrats won't pass anything remotely resembling what you suggest, and I'm not sure the GOP would either, at this point. Too much fear-mongering going on with "hurting the elderly" and stuff like that.

ALTHO... Trump did campaign on "REPEAL and replace", so maybe it IS the case that he didn't go far ENOUGH for the GOP to get onboard. But here's the thing: the dems didn't want it because it was Trump's, and won't vote for anything that is Trump's, and if the GOP wants a full repeal (do they?), they risk political suicide unless they have something to REPLACE it with (which was not what "RyanCare" was). JUST repealing Obamacare might be popular with hardcore Trump supporters, but I think a majority of the nation would not be happy w/o something replacing it. "Something" could be a govt-sponsored healthcare plan, or it could be a completely new set of "rules" for private industry to follow regarding healthcare, which would NOT be popular in DC, I'm sure ALOT of those on the hill are getting $$$ in some fashion from big pharma/healthcare....

It is a disaster. It's been a disaster, Obamacare didn't fix squat, and I think this issue will continue to be a disaster into the future. Honestly, Trump should concentrate on stuff he can get done- "building the wall" would actually be easier than fixing healthcare lol. At this point, I can't imagine a scenario that would actually fix healthcare, with one exception: 100% complete govt-funded healthcare. Socialist medicine. Which of course IS the democrat's goal. And I might almost be OK with that (as the only solution): IF CONGRESS WAS FORCED TO USE THE SAME HEALTHCARE WE DO. I am a capitalist, but I do not think 100% private-sector capitalism always has the "right" answer, except to one question: to make money. Capitalism is still the model, it WORKS. But it does need to be regulated to a degree to prevent abuse/negligence/etc.

What a disaster the healthcare issue has become.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

right, if congress had to use the same health care insurance the rest of us do they would be motivated to actually to their jobs,

this is sad for everybody and the entire country, and both parties are to blame as well as these 'career' politicians.

so sick of all of them

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

for Jono :

Women On The Frontlines Of Campus Carry

In 2016, Texas became America's eighth state to allow for the legal carry of a concealed firearm on campus. While the anti-gunners have claimed the law won't reduce crime and have staged protests in opposition, a new group of voices has emerged to take back...

https://www.nratv.com/series/ginny-simone-reporting/episode/ginny-simone-reporting-season-7-episode-14-women-on-the-frontlines-of-campus-carry

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '17

I believe that now would be the perfect time for democrats and republicans to sit down together and identify the ACA elements that could be improved in a bipartisan fashion. A few suggested discussion topics:
Tort Reform
Drug Prices

If the kids play nice together, possibly additional improvements could be addressed.

And Heidi, I assume there are no health care analysts in your family that "left Germany to get away from socialized medicine"? Because by almost any measurement, including cost, quality of care, and access to care, Germany is superior.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/

yankeefan yankeefan
Mar '17

And the democrats aren't against anything trmp, they were against an even more terrible plan than the ACA.


+1000 Yankeefan, and not just for healthcare issues! I've got those special glasses on Again...

Spring Fever Spring Fever
Mar '17

Um, Yankeefan -- that "article" you shared was written by JASON KANE FOR PBS.ORG! Great job finding the most left-leaning Socialist Journalist out there! He was an Obama supporter and a big cheerleader for Obamacare and wrote MANY articles touting the virtues of Socialism. By the way, Jason Kane has NEVER LIVED under Socialism. If Jason thinks Germany is so great, maybe he should leave his cushy six-figure journalism job with PBS (a government job, by the way...) and go live in Germany. My guess is he would change his tune the first time he, or a family member had to wait 8 months for an MRI or the first time he had to pay his taxes to the tune of over 65% of his paycheck to cover his "wonderful" German health care.

It's easy for Americans to talk, but in American society we are very "I want it now" and most could NEVER survive under the Socialism they seem to glorify.

Heidi Heidi
Mar '17

"It's easy for Americans to talk," So true Heidiho, so true. And then with all that talk, just slap that Socialist label on it and it's off to the racists....I mean races....I mean horse races....

I didn't realize Germany was such a awful, terrible, place. Being in the top ten of almost every economic and social metric is bad, so bad......

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Heidi, he didn't make up the numbers...he sourced them. Something those on your side of the street have difficulty doing:

According to the most recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — an international economic group comprised of 34 member nations.

Rather than attacking the source, attack the statistics...which you can't, therefore you attack the source.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Mar '17

A lot of folks, here, complain about socialized healthcare, regarding other countries. My son, spent a semester, studying in England. He smashed his knee to pieces. They kept him in the hospital for three days, stabilized his leg, took excellent care of him. Their surgeon put a ton of metal in his knee and fixed him up, good. Comes home. Goes for follow up, around here. Doctor says xray "possibly" indicates one of the screws might not be in correctly. Of course, I couldn't see anything on the xray. So, after 3 hours, in the local surgical center, which happens to be partially owned by the doctor, they "re-did", whatever they did overseas. Bill? $16,000!. Our portion was $5000, after insurance. If he broke his leg here? The hospital would have tossed him, immediately after diagnosis and cast. They would say "go to your Orthopedic... bye!", and toss him right out the door. I never even saw a phone bill, from England. I think the healthcare, over there is not so bad, like everyone says. We should be looking at the way other countries have healthcare for all their citizens. Since we are the only country that doesn't have nationalized healthcare, there should be a lot of other countries to see how they manage it. JR is right, about congress having the same healthcare, offered to the rest of the country they work for. I'm all for capitalism. Just not predatory capitalism, like publicly traded insurance companies. Doctors having to order unnecessary procedures to "uncharge", praying on the elderly, because insurance companies pay very little to the doctors. Right there is a huge conflict of interest. Pay claims? The stockholders won't be happy, unless it's their own bill, of course. I would be, to. All they need to do is remove the SS cap, of only $128k worth of income and tax everyone equally. Any income, after the cap, goes untaxed. That's billions of dollars! Most of us pay more SS tax, than Bill Gates, % wise. A lot of folks are unaware or confused about the SS tax cap. I only found out, myself, about 5 years ago, that the SS tax freezes at what would be considered average middle class family income. Way too low$. That billions of dollars, earned by the big boys, that goes untaxed. So what, if they make too much, to collect SS. We are all taxed on things that may not apply to us, at all. We don't get to choose, what we want to pay taxes on. Neither should the ultra wealthy. I guarantee %99 of us would pay WAY less taxes, if they removed the SS tax cap on the ultra wealthy. We need a smaller government, and the public should be voting on healthcare, abortion, pot, or whatever bills they want to put through... in an easy to understand ballot. Kind of like the public questions, we occasionally see in our local ballots, now. Sorry this was so long. Hey!... wake up..haha...

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

I went to the emergency room in Scotland on Christmas Day a few years ago, and all I did was give the address of where I was staying and that was it! Turns out I only had a high fever and I was sent to the local chemist for some paracetamol. Never saw a bill.


For those of you who think socialized medicine is such a wonderful idea, what makes you think that somehow the QUALITY of healthcare is going to increase under such a program? (Actually, I think that you think both quality AND access [quantity] will increase)

I'm being serious, because whenever I've looked up "how good is socialized medicine" and then thrown away all the biased sources, and read a bunch of horror stories, it doesn't sound like a great idea to me. AND also based on the fact that, ANYTHING govt has total control over like that, never goes well! Look at the VA, what a DISASTER !!! I don't think the people of America would be very happy if they were getting the level of care the vets get at the VA... and no, "at least they'd have SOMETHING" doesn't wash... a disastrous healthcare plan is NOT better than what we currently have.

I'm sorry, there's just nothing that has shown me, in my lifetime, the govt is capable of running something like a nationalized/govt-paid healthcare program (which would, BTW, completely do away with medicare and medicaid, by design)... competently. I've seen no evidence to give me that kind of confidence in our govt.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

The sound bite montage on this one is amazing. SNL will be priceless.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

sparksjbc1964 - You are absolutely right. Considering that social security is actually a form of taxation, then it is a reverse progressive tax for those who make over $128k and pay nothing for income above that. I am trying to compile the data on how many billions could be garnered if the wealthy paid social security taxes without any income limits, thereby funding tax cuts for the rest of us and/or "saving" the social security entitlements.

I find it ludicrous that some of us who are collecting social security benefits after 55 years of contributions and are still working must continue to pay into a program that we cannot benefit from or recover, in some cases, until we are 90 years old, if we last that long.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

Exactly JR. Well put sir...

positive positive
Mar '17

Jr, you reached the point I was at fify years ago. Barry Goldwater comes to mind. I thought the Republiacns were for smaller goverment. Here they are fighting over another big Goverment program thats bound to fail.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '17

You know, this "President Trump" thing is one hell of lousy way for the country to get over the hyper-partisanship business that has been foisted on us by the two parties of jerks.

OK, we get it: go down that road where we act like we're not Americans and hate each others guts because we have different interests, and you get an ineffective, belligerent moron running the place.

MrCharlie
Mar '17

You forgot to say 'golfing' moron . Each time the Moron in Chief goes to his Florida retreat it costs the taxpayers 3 million for every weekend in Mar-a-Lago. Not to mention 500k every day for taxpayer paid security for Trump Tower and many millions more for his hell-spawn's business trips . If the idiot gets impeached the taxpayer paid security will continue in perpetuity . Are we winning enough yet ?

MeatPopsicle MeatPopsicle
Mar '17

Jeff, I agree with you, as with most things - people see what they want/ignore what they don't want - and "the grass is greener" effect is certainly real if you just take a quick and simplistic view of healthcare globally - nevertheless, healthcare reform is clearly needed - and if everyone recalls, "Obamacare" was monstrously difficult to get passed, with huge compromises, things taken out, things added - fundamentally altering some of the "desired" aspects of the plans -- What worries me most is that those responsible for creating/legislating/implementing change in healthcare - our elected officials - seem to know very little about it at all "'Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." Really? Really? No, some folks knew. The desire seems to be to dump whatever the "other" guy wants rather than to actually study and deal collectively with a national problem. Watching this "debate" and all its absurdity makes me feel as though we have a government made up of selfish children.

pmnsk pmnsk
Mar '17

I've read that solutions to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines would be beneficial, but I don't know enough about it to see the big picture.

Personally, I think we need a new industry that separates "health maintenance" with "health insurance", the difference being the predictability of care needed. Getting health insurance companies out of daily care seems to me to be a good idea, the only small consideration I would add would be to encourage a yearly physical to establish a baseline health record. Removing a guaranteed income stream always seems to induce more efficient industries.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Bartering and under the table deals are the ONLY way that working social security recipients can survive, unless or until an act of congress eliminates the $128k cap, which is very unlikely. Among the other problems for healthy, hard working, elderly people are the mandatory, automatic deductions from social security payments for medicare, which they also contributed into for many years, and may not even use. Nobody seems to care that "the art of the deal" is a way of life and livelihood for some of us..

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

I am sorry Danny; what did you expect from Social Security beyond a basic anti-poverty program? Did you expect the rich to cover your retirement? That they should give more so you could either give less, get more or both? And how do you know this --- personal experience?

I mean I am all for mean's testing but somehow asking someone to make basically, insurance payments, that they can never redeem no matter what happens or what they do, seems unfair. You already get all the illegal alien and undocumented worker SS payments, how much do you need to take from others?

Meanwhile, back to health care.....after over 8 years, 60 failed repeals, and one 8-years-in-the-planning yugest, bestest longest-cooked plan to ever fail, we finally know the answer.

We know you folks apparently don’t have a clue what replacement means. It’s so complicated that after this abject failure, Trump is tossing the entire problem to the Democrats to fix. That’s Presidential. I didn’t get my way so I’m packing up my marbles and leaving……

If this guy thinks the tax code is easier.......welcome to Washington Mr. Trump. Sure would be good to have some actual experience on your team.....

Given where we are, what our resources and talents are, our choice for action (if you believe the ACA is doomed, doomed I tell you) appears to be:

1. Field another home team plan. Run the Rand Plan up the ole flag pole.
a. After over 8 years, I think you just might fare better to say “it’s very complicated” and move on.
2. Do nothing and let the ACA “implode and then explode” to use Trump’s own words.
a. You folks have the art of doing nothing down but you will have to shift blame to the Democrats when you own the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Good luck.
3. Fix the ACA, call it AHCA TrumpCare and move forward with a replace plan that goes beyond repeal and is H-better than the ACA.

Ideas:
OK, the math should be relatively easy. Healthy people aren’t in the pool, they would rather pay the fine. People joining are sicker than insurer’s and the CBO (or whatever) estimated so it costs more to make them well again. We're going to need more money to cover. Boom: that’s the math. Put those taxes back, add some more, mostly to the advantaged, and move on. Meanwhile, more people are insured, more people are healthier, less people are hitting the ER, the poorhouse, etc. etc. etc. Then there’s mandate-hate and where’s the lower cost beef while I still gots to pay for what I don't use like maternity (men) and prostrates (women). Boom: oh what some feelings….can argue it, but it's a feeling....so try to address some.

How about:
1. Get rid of the mandate. Instead create a high-risk pool to protect the rest of us financially from these cheapskates and when they get sick, make infomercials showing how ruined their pathetic lives have become…..Seriously --- we have to find a way to get everyone into the pool…..that’s life. But get rid of the mandate by finding another mechanism to "convince" people health insurance is a must-have.
2. Offer big pharm expedited drug testing plans, call it ET or extreme testing, where the better you test (less errors found over time), the faster you can go through testing. New testing plans to include expedited testing for international drugs to be sold in the US --- win-win for pharma and consumers.
3. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines but don’t override state regulations --- think it’s a win for states rights and consumers, but it’s the same as today in all honesty. But if it makes you feel better......
4. Add choice of Medicare as The Public Option to all exchanges. Now insurance companies can opt to compete or not, who cares. There will always be The Public Option for consumers which will save taxpayers on subsidies too every time it is used instead of private insurance. Win-win for consumers and taxpayers. And the insurance companies get exactly what they asked for – freedom to compete..or not.
5. Add subsidies directly to insurers who opt to compete on the exchanges
a. Look, it turned out subscribers were sicker and the healthy ones paid the fine --- double profit whammy. So let’s work on getting the healthy to join us and let’s get the sick better so the prices can come down. Until then, pay em off to level the playing field on the exchanges for public and private insurers alike. Perhaps a progressive scale where regional insurers get more than single-state insurers.

There's a start where, working together, I think we could move forward to make our current system better. Unless someone has a better version that could actually become law. But to let the ACA die, and it's subscribers and nonsubscribers suffer because of that failure, is not why people voted for you.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

strangerdanger - I do not wish to get into an argument with you, since it will only precipitate another barrage of words from you, but I must reiterate a few points: First, for those who report income under $128k, social security is a tax, with minimal repayment upon retirement, while for those above $128k it is nothing, but they still get rewarded for paying into the program up to that level. Second, Medicare is something you can never stop paying into, even after receiving social security benefits. Third, if you are working on the books while receiving social security benefits, you are still taxed at the normal rate, so you are both paying into the system and taking out. Please tell me if I am wrong.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

DannyC...I Kew it. It's hard to explain. You're talking earning more, without in impact on the amount of SS you would receive. I agree. Let everyone collect, up to the max, without restrictions on how much you earn, this way, they can contribute back to the system, by paying SS taxes on your earned income. If someone who makes 10 million dollars, a year, really wants the extra $2300(aprox max), a month, I say let them have it. They would be taxed on the 10mil, way more than they could collect, from SS. Everyone else, pays taxes on things that may never apply to them, like schools, dog catcher, disasters, that may never affect you, restoring beaches, parks, etc. That's what makes a country work. Why stop at SS. That's the ultra wealthy picking and choosing, what THEY want to be taxed on. We don't get that choice.
Let's say, you earned a million dollars, And I make $128k, a year. I would pay the normal SS tax, on $128k. You, the one who earns a million dollars also, pays taxes on the FIRST $128k, on your income, only...and the other $800,772, that is earned, goes untaxed. For a billionaire? Same thing. They only pay, taxes, on the first $128k. The rest of the millions of dollars earned, goes untaxed. Across America? That's trillions of earned income, that goes untaxed. I could see how folks get confused with the income limits, regarding collecting it, while still working. They need to stop using the word "cap" and call it what it is....a tax BREAK, or actually it's an elimination of any taxes on any income OVER $128k. Get it now? Remove the "cap", and the remaining billions earned, would be taxed the same as everyone else. That's the way to fix SS, and would probably cover healthcare for all, also. I don't know why, this particular tax break, for the ultra wealthy, is kept so quiet. I had to have it explained to me, and I've been trying to educate people, about this break. They keep mum, about this particular tax break. Don't know why. Google SS tax cap for earned income, if you are still confused.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Danny, what you said is mostly true except perhaps the opinionated part. To me, Social Security is a very good program developed wisely by our government. To me, it's a self-funded, mandatory insurance program co-operative non-profit that profits all consumers to keep elder Americans above the poverty line.

Yes, it's a tax. And it's a mandatory insurance program too. That's because making it a tax is the one way the government can Constitutionally force you to do it. It's non profit, they don't spin profit off it, just use it to float your and my loans to America. You theoretically can get back what you paid or more than you paid depending on luck. That's the insurance game. Luck meaning live long and prosper or die young, stay pretty and thank you for your service to America's retirees. Your company, if you worked for others, may have put in close to 50% because you, the taxpayer, gave them a tax break to do so. By these rules, and I think they are very good rules, if you pay more in, you should get more back so not much advantage unless you out n out penalize the rich. I actually agree with that but suggest using means testing to stop payments all together, not just raise the tax on them. It's a nuance.

Here's the important part for SS. It is self-managing, that is, we can't, by law, dip into tax funds to bail it out. There is no auto-dip, it would require new law. That's the most beautiful part.

It's a poverty-avoidance pension; it is not meant to live on. If that's your plan, bad plan. Yes, the poor pay a higher percentage of salary than the rich; that's life for all things we pay for, for the most part. I like the set up; you work, you get a basic pension, you better find some more money if you want to live well, SS case closed.

It is a good program, it is financed smartly, it does what's intended. And it's a little under financial stress. People living longer is screwing up the math. But the concept works --- we are not increasing the debt or deficit with SS; it can be cured. So yes, I agree ---- fix the math. I say means testing for the rich, extend the pay-off years a wee bit for the young, and raise the tax a bit on everyone. That is --- we all start out about the same, paying the same, but some of us use talent or skill or opportunity and some luck to break the bank. At some point SS does not matter so let's mean's test it away and they can call themselves lucky. And that should fix it for now.

OK, I ran some numbers. First, if you wait till 66 instead of going at 62, you will receive a bigger monthly check. And all the "spin" suggests that's grand. However, you are giving up over 4 years of payments expecting to do better after that with a bigger payment. Run the numbers; it will be close to 10 years for you to make up the 4-years of payments you gave up. That means you will turn a profit at about age 76. Personally, I doubt the money will mean that much to me then.....

Second, I looked at my deposits, those of my benefactor (work), sprinkled some interest for them holding some of my cash for over 45 years, and voila --- looks like my total deposits run out about age 76 too. Average US lifespan = 78 approx. So pretty close guess for US Gov to pay-in, pay-out what I deposited to begin with. I am betting they lose (I just have to go with that :>)

Looks like pretty sound system doing what it is intended to do. Just needs a little shoring up to cover our longer lives.

Medicare/ciad is a different beast, it is NOT strictly a pay-in, pay-out system. It is not a self-funded insurance co-op. It is set up to have payments from multiple sources and deficits are paid for automatically by taxes, kind of like SS, but....and its a big but, with an auto-bailout if there is not enough taxes collected. So, unlike SS which would require new law to get a bailout, for Medicare we automatically grab what we need from the General Fund (income taxes) and all is well......well, not really. Blame the Democrats for that brilliant financial soup.

This is why Medicaid is in such deep, deep, financial doo-doo and nobody really cares that much. Much bigger problem, much more immediate need but not all that much pressure on it to fix. Stupid. So to start with, make Medicare/caid self-funding like SS and that will start the fix by putting the pressure where it deservers to be versus just giving the system yet another bailout for yet another year. http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/

Hope that helps.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

The poor, elderly and disabled are part of Trump's "new business", he needs to manage. They live in this country, as well. Remember, due to his 500 plus companies that he owns he's got an HR, department, that gets calls all the time, about discrimination, disability, workman comp, paid leave, medical insurance for employees (mandatory).... all things that annoy the hell out of him. That's why he's trying to run America, like one of his businesses. "Everyone will have excellent healthcare. Affordable for everyone. Will cover everything "...."I can run my businesses successfully and still be a president "..just another campaign lie. If people took a hard look at Trump's life experiences, along with his credibility, maybe he would've not been elected. I have a feeling his REAL agenda is to own the next "Exxon Corp", in Russia, partnering with Putin. There's lots of untapped resources there.... no pun intended. I understand Putin wanted Trump in, to "get back at" Hillary, who isn't fond of KGB criminals, however I think it goes deeper than that. Oil... again! Once he's a trillioniare, he will resign, and hide. His ego will be met. He doesn't give a hoot about all Americans. Only his rich friends and family.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

Yeah, TrumpCo HR. One person organization run by a guy named Adolph Stalin. He's a lawyer who believes in diversity. Likes to fire in different ways. Has one employee, a female Chinese lawyer, So Su Mi. In the case of a downsizing, strict diversity maintenance process is followed. First, the non-whites go, then the questionable whites go, then the tanned go, then the non-trumps, then the trumps-by-marriage, then the less beautiful trumps, the the ungropables.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

Minor sticking point, but SS is no longer self funded; it's already taking in less than is needed. Worse, the fund has to sell its debt to meet current demand, debt that has to be sold to someone else and that will likely just be transferred directly to the national debt.

Our problems are still much bigger than simple talking points. The structural issues need to be resolved, but that means pain. Unfortunately a lot if it. The sooner we acknowledge this reality the sooner we can actually fix stuff. Sadly this ain't gonna happen though....

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Just my thoughts:
A)-raise the max level of income required to pay SS tax.
B)-slowly raise the retirement age to claim benefits.
C)-means test for SS recipients
D)-slowly reduce the mortgage interest deduction down from present $1M
E)-reduce or at least freeze defense spending. We currently spend more ourselves then the next 20 countries combined- and some of them are our allies.
And finally;
F)-all citizens, regardless of income level, must pay SOME Federal Income Tax.
That's about it.

Stymie Stymie
Mar '17

Oops.
Also let me add that I think that trump is a spineless coward, a bully, a racist and is totally devoid of any moral compass.
While I wish for the best, I expect the worst.

Stymie Stymie
Mar '17

Spin Alert: JIT, that is sort of a spun sky-is-falling view of the numbers IMO. The fund needs help. It is not and will not be insolvent, meaning broke, until 2034.

I am not sure where you are going with the debt thing. I think we use SS funds to buy debt. We invest in ouselves. Ourselves is buying debt from SS. We need to fix that debt but borrowing from ourselves is doable, just weird. I've asked you before but you ducked; where would you invest the funds?

I stopped there; sorry.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Mar '17

Against my better judgement I'll engage you once more, but kindly keep on topic without the typical interjections.

There's no spin here. Zero. The SS fund has no actual money in its coffers, only iou's in the for of debt where SS had previously "invested" the trust finds. Agreed? Yes or no would suffice. I'm not talking about the idea of the fund profiting from iou's, only that there is no money there. Just the iou's, ok?

With that out of the way, the next question to ask is to whom will the fund sell its funds in order to get the actual money to be paid out?
Treasury securities. Agreed?

So the answer is that we the people, in the form of federal debt, own the debt in the trust fund - money that belonged to us in the first place, that we already own. In effect, we borrowed from ourselves, at interest, that again we pay ourselves. Shuffling the deck chairs is the best ability.

Anyway, the point is that we already carry debt, $20Trillion or so at this point, that will *never* be paid back. Any disagreement? Before you answer I'd ask you to look at historical trends before replying. SS is a component of intergovernmental debt, meaning the SS fund will maintain solvency only by shifting from igd to treasury debt. Shifting the deck chairs.

The bottom line is this: where is the money, not only SS but all of the federally funded social obligations? We're obviously over extended, for if we weren't we wouldn't have to run a continuous deficit, adding even more debt to the debt we have.

Recall my initial comment (that I suspect I'll regret making) was about the illusion that SS is self funded. It's obviously not self funded, and in reality can only continue to exist by the us government selling ever more debt simply to find the funds needed to pay recipients *today*.

Once more, I'm not talking about the excuses of why it's ok, that the US is good for it and whatnot, but about the reality of what it just is.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Stymie..I agree with everything you posted, except raising the retirement age. It's already too high. Not everyone ages well. Some people start to slow down, around age 50. Yes... I know some 80 year olds, that can run circles around me, however I think working in a high stress or physically demanding job, for over 40 years of your life, is too much. It depends on the job, genetics and general health. Work, for 45 years, only to enjoy retirement, for only a few more years, depending on health? I know people who did just that. They died three years, after retiring. That's just wrong. I think they should lower the retirement age, back to 55. There's a big difference, between working a cushy, comfortable, low stress job, and riding the back of a garage truck, in 0% weather, doing very physically demanding work, until you're almost 70?! Not a good quality of life.
So, really it depends on the health and type of job, how many precious years, you waited your whole life for, that you may enjoy traveling, grandchildren, or hobbies. Wasn't it 55, back in the 70's? I thought, "adult" communities, for folks over 55, were called "retirement communities", for that very reason. Then, as they gradually kept raising it, they changed the name to "adult communities". I've been working, since I'm 14, worked 40 hours a week, in high school. Worked two stressful jobs, and ran a home businesses, while raising my children, alone. Now, after almost 40 years, I'm beaten.... nothing left to enjoy, if I could even make it to retirement. Too many health issues. Probably, from going non stop, since I was a child, or bad genetics. I deserve to enjoy, what little life I have left. 55-60...would be a fair retirement age, IMHO. People who have very physically demanding work? They should be able to retire, whenever they want, after age 55. People born prior to the 50's, seem very resilient, while people born in the 60's and after, seem to be getting serious illnesses, and dying. I've lost three friends, myself, under age 50. Diabetes and sepsis, from botched back surgeries, after years of physically demanding work. Can't just put a number on people. Everyone has different types of jobs and "battery life". So... I say push the retirement age back... just a few years, so I, along with the rest of the middleclass working folks, can enjoy the last few years of our lives. Once again.... we suffer, so the ultra wealthy don't have to pay an extra 30k a year in taxes (average amount, for the wealthy). Then, I think about Trump, spending millions of dollars, a week, using government money, so he can go play golf, at Mar a largo. Makes me sick. I guess Camp David, isn't good enough for him. So that just sits there, sucking up millions in maintenance, security and the rest of the staff. See? He has no trouble, wasting millions, on himself, but doesn't care about the entire country. We are his tenants, and he's our landlord. Something is broken? The landlord, needs to fix it! Sometimes, landlords, have to cut back on their own lavish spending, to make sure all his tenants are ok. Trump's in good shape, for a guy of 70. He should retire.
Sorry, I'm kind of all over the place, here. Once I start on Trumperica, .... It's Miller Time, again.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

sparksjbc1964 - You rock!

strangerdanger - Here is "the opinionated part", based on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (yes, during the Reagan administration) which destroyed my technical consulting business, having been built up for over ten years, with several military and aerospace clients, by forcing me to work for a lazy, incompetent agent at 1/4 wage, under the guise that independent contractors do no not pay enough FiCA. Guess who forced this into the law, in the middle of the night?: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have hated social security ever since.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

Not enough money for current retirement ages so 55 for all???


Speaking of taxes, up early again......

Danny: I can't speak to your business, what you were doing, and why you got hit so hard by Section 1706. I can note that Hillary Clinton was in Arkansas at this time, not with Moynihan in the middle of the night :>) so I think you can let her off the hook for this one. Yes, parts of the tax reform bill of 1986 were passed at midnight --- by committee not by the Congress --- but the bill overwhelmingly passed both houses during the daylight. Both houses, both parties. One of the greatest tax bills ever to be passed sans section 1706 which targeted self-employed high tech workers attempting to gather payroll taxes. Problem was that it forced a lot of legal, high-tech self-employed who already paid their taxes, into being employees of contract houses or not be hired. Not sure how you got nailed --- as a self-employed or as the contract house --- one would think the former since most solvent contract houses just migrated to the new model.

The fact is that all workers should pay payroll taxes, get Medicare and social security, which I gather you are not going to take whether employed by others or self-employed. Section 1706 is problematic beginning with the $60M revenue hole it was supposed to fill: all guesses by lobbyists and probably never happened. If the entire bill was not supposed to be revenue neutral, as Reagan demanded, Section 1706 would have probably been cut. Just need to simplify it all.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Danny,

In 1986, HRC was First Lady of Arkansas. How was she responsible?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '17

Gadfly - You are right. Section 1706 was primarily Moynihan's doing in 1986, but HRC supported it in 1992 while promoting hillarycare and helping to defeat efforts by groups of scientists and engineers to repeal it.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

The spin I noted was your one-sided view on the subject which you did not support factually. Not that what you said was wrong, just that you did not tell the whole story; the blanks of which I tried to fill in. You did not dispute those facts, I guess it worked. You have now broadened the topic but with the same MO.

The fund is not insolvent and will not be for a few decades. Yes, it’s an IOU to us from us to cover our IOU for overspending. Yet SS has always been an IOU even when it was 100% cash.

Never thought I would see JIT defend the value of fiat money. What is the “money” you are talking about? Yes, cash money is generally thought of as money. Some say it’s not real money, it's fiat money, promissory notes. Sometimes called narrow money, M0 or the major part of M1. It is not the only "money" in town. When you go out a level, you get to near money which would include easily convertible assets like T-bill-based mutuals sometimes known as near money or M2. Actual T-bills, which is what the SS holds, are M3, a little farther out, but that’s because SS gets a deal on “special” T-bills giving us better rates and faster redemption for sale. But it's still money, just the M-3 version.

The SS fund has no actual money, just iou's. That's true. Some say it never had actual money, just fiat money, paper-based iou’s written on the US Government. Some say SS T-bills are so close to fiat money as to be one and the same, again written on and by the US Government. So, what is money? The definition of money including T-bills gives us between 2 – 4% interest. Fiat money loses value each and every day if I heard you correctly or 2-3% annually. What should be in our wallet?

I now come to the question which, time and again, you choose not to answer: what would you do with the SS funds? Would you just let it sit there, as fiat money, losing value every day? Or would you invest it in the safest, most reliable, fully guaranteed, investment in the world? The first investment vehicle used by all major governments to invest their people’s funds. What “bet” would you make?

As to shuffling the deck chairs, worthless IOUs, yes, we own the debt --- twice. Or we own the debt once and invested in ourselves once. Depends on perspective. Neat trick afforded by the difference between “we,” a group of people, and “we” the United States of America. Same people, different groups. As I have said before, works but kind of hinky. Many of us borrow from ourselves all the time so not exactly a unique concept. But still hinky. Shuffling deck chairs, most certainly. All I can say is it’s good to be economic king and it hasn’t hurt our investment rating or monetary risk level one bit. T-bills still the best lowest risk investment across the globe. Safer than most monies :>)

Lastly, yes, historically it will be many years to pay down the debt, we should put more into it soon. We have paid down similar debts before, historically, it can be done. And yes, we continue to spend too much; this guy seems to be hell bent on spending more.

Of course, if Trump holds to his campaign pledge or moves to “deal down” the debt, everything I have said is moot and we are all going to financial hell ----- twice. Of course since going the first time will be hell, not sure going again will matter much :>(

Here’s how SS answers your questions on the IOU’s: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

But Sparks-when S.S. was instituted the average life expectancy in the US was 58 years.
Now it's approx. 84 years.

Stymie Stymie
Mar '17

Danny....really??? What was 2007's Clinton co-sponsor of S.2044 - Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act of 2007?

Beyond that, I can find no Clinton reference to Section 1706 and not sure what relevance it would have to HillaryCare?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

In 1960, there were 5 people paying in to SSI for every person collecting. By 1975, that number had dropped to 3.2, where it remained relatively constant until 2008, when it started to fall again (probably due to the economy). 2013 was the last year for published data and it was down to 2.8.

It'll be interesting to see where that ratio is when the last of the Baby Boomers call it quits. If it gets below 2.5, I doubt it will ever be sustainable again. We need fresh blood and reproduction rates for Anglos are way down. Build that wall to keep the illegals IN (-;

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

When the federal government can run the VA properly, only then will I believe they are (maybe) capable of running a GOOD nationwide healthcare plan.

Trump said he was "going to fix the VA". He should, and then use that as a partial model. Because if the the feds can't properly run the much smaller VA healthcare program, they sure a hell can't run a nationwide plan (that will be worth a damn) that provides GOOD care....

And doubling down on Congress: every single govt employee should be required by law to be on the same national healthcare plan as the rest of us. PERIOD. Until then, the bastards have no skin in the game, it's all politics.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Ok, stymie.... now you're talking "averages". Putting a number on people. Yes, there was a time, that people had a longer life expectancy, but I think that now, it's propaganda. I see way more younger people dying, than 20 years ago. Maybe you don't read the obituaries or have experienced losing many people, you know, under age 70...or there about. Even if it's not propaganda, 70, isn't bad, if you are strong and healthy, and everyone in your family, lived to late 90's, and beyond. Then, they could at least enjoy maybe 10-15 of what's left of their health. I say keep it at 60, and be able to retire sooner, depending on health. Not permanent disability. Retirement. Disability is a whole other problem, I just can't get into, now.
SS is filled with IOU'S, from Dubya's mess. Keep giving tax breaks to multi millionaires,(Do they really need ANOTHER round? How much money can one use?) and it will never be solvent.... and yes, I paid into the system, for over 30 years, and continuing, like the rest of hard working folks. I don't see why this is so difficult to fix. Just remove the "cap", or what it really is... a tax break for the ultra wealthy. We don't get to pick and choose, regarding OUR taxes, remember?

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Mar '17

strangerdanger - HRC took 20 years to "reverse" her position on American technical talent, if you call S2044 a reversal. It is a "clarification", not a law, undoubtedly part of her 2008 run for president. 1706 is still on the books.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

From ianimal above: "Build that wall to keep the illegals IN (-;"

Good one. Like it or not, we do actually need a lot of those people to be here.


jd2 and ianimal - As long as they can read, write and speak English, and not resent people who do.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

Ianimal- troubled by your need to specify "anglos".
Anglo only refers to a subset of the American citizenry.
Many (soon, most) of the American citizenry will not be of "Anglo" descent.
Why your need to specify?
Also, regarding the life expectancy figures-while now at approx. 84 yrs.,
It is actually a potentially higher figure- lowered by obesity, drug abuse, automobile fatalities and gunshot deaths. So there are measures one can take to improve the length as well as quality of one's life.
If someone is still framing houses or doing concrete work into their 60's, I feel badly for them. Poor planning on their part.
Think that may be the rare exception and not the rule,
JMHO

Stymie Stymie
Mar '17

The link you provided says the same thing as I did, only in words that make the process sound all nice-nice. inflows are less than outflows, are they not? The exact mechanics are mostly irrelevant because the bottom line is that the fund *today* requires additional debt creation to meet current needs. And if that's not obvious enough, the government itself has set a date for when the fund expires completely, or put another way the date when everything that's been paid into the fund will have been directly added to our national debt. Shifting the deck chairs indeed.

And I never used the word insolvent, so kindly stop obfuscating the issue. You claimed it was self funded and that is clearly not the case today.

"Never thought I would see JIT defend the value of fiat money"
Huh? Did you switch topics or something? Not sure how you got there.

If you're saying that money=debt then by golly I think you've finally figured it out. There's a reason that, no matter how much discussion and angst there is on the subject, we will never pay down our debts. If we ever did our entire economy would collapse. So any talk of ever paying off our debts is ridiculous. The best the government can hope for when they talk debt reduction is to have government debt transferred to the private sector (or other governments). Total debt will never go down. Ever. Without crashing to economy, that is.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Wow, all that and you still can't answer the question.....

inflows are less than outflows, are they not?" Yes, since 2010 out of 80+ years of service. Although not quite true. When you put in the interest paid-in, I think we might have gone positive in 2016. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

"the bottom line is that the fund *today* requires additional debt creation to meet current needs." No, you are wrong on a couple of levels. The SS fund is, has been, and will be solvent until 2034. We do not borrow to keep the fund going because of the fund yearly deficit. Sorry I said that before but apparently not obvious. And the fund does not create debt, it invests in T-bills, it does not create them.

No, the fund has not "added" to the national debt. We invested SS funds into T-1 bill which pay for the national debt and SS has every expectation of being paid back the entire investment....with interest. Do you, of all people, actually believe if SS did not exist, that our debt would somehow be lower? Not sure what you mean "everything that's been paid into the fund will have been directly added to our national debt."

"And I never used the word insolvent, so kindly stop obfuscating the issue." Sorry. That's just the correct way to say out of money. You keep acting like a deficit equals being out of money. And you reject answering my simple question.

"You claimed it was self funded and that is clearly not the case today." Sorry again. It is self-funded, has been self-funded and hopefully will always be self-funded. That's how the law is written. Do you think we are getting money from somewhere other than by redeeming some previously purchased T-bills. There's close to $3T in the account. That is clearly the case today. Solvent. Has yearly deficit. Does not need a loan.

"If you're saying that money=debt." Not quite but I give you that one. I said promissory note which is a debt instrument but not necessarily debt. Just like a banknote is a promissory note but really just cash, not debt, in another form. Funny to see you honor fiat money as being more "real" than T-bills.

"we will never pay down our debts." That's just impossible for you to know. I just pointed to the history where we did pay down a similar debt and, low and behold, the economy did not collapse unless you consider Reagan to be collapse :>) And by the by, we already transfer our debt to the private sector, other countries, even individuals. So again, just not understanding what you are saying since it seems wrong.

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/real-story-social-security-deficits

That's enough. I will let you read up.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

No need to be troubled, Stymie. I'm aware of what an "Anglo" is and mention it in a strictly demographic sense related to the statistical declining birth rates... which, incidentally, is fueling the "majority-minority" future trend that you mention. Don't read any more into it than that.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '17

Gotcha

Stymie Stymie
Mar '17

What question?

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Think I like being ignored better :>( Let's see if I can find it.....

"I've asked you before but you ducked; where would you invest the funds?" first time, although you have been ducking this now, as noted in most of the askings, for well over a year....:>(

Second time, and a little longer to help you: " I now come to the question which, time and again, you choose not to answer: what would you do with the SS funds? Would you just let it sit there, as fiat money, losing value every day? Or would you invest it in the safest, most reliable, fully guaranteed, investment in the world? The first investment vehicle used by all major governments to invest their people’s funds. What “bet” would you make?"

And in closing: "Wow, all that and you still can't answer the question....."

Feel free to continue to ignore. There's the pretty obvious reason why you might have avoided it. Either you will look really stupid or you will agree it's being invested in the bestest, safest, place you can think of.....albeit a bit hinky to invest in your own bonds that cover your own debt. Companies buy their own shares and bonds all the time but I don't think they hold the bonds, just retire them. Stock on the other hand can be retired or they can hold it as Treasury Stock. Not quite apple to apples with the SS example though because in that case "we the people" are buying government bonds --- kind of, sort of, certainly a bit hinky....

But what would you put in your wallet ---- a big bag of cash? JIT's first billion is shown in the pic --- using hundreds. Think it's 10 pallets.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Now here's a third of what would happen when JIT recommends we keep SS as cash. It's a trillion dollars, 1,000 double-stacked pallets the SS account is $3T....that's 3,000 double pallets.

PS: the bonds fit in a desk drawer......

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

You're right, ignoring you is really the only viable option.

For instance, after all that chest pumping and self-aggrandizing you just did in order to make yourself look good and, by implication, making me look like an idiot you do realize that everything you wrote as a follow up was the basis for my commenting in the first place. Iow, my views wouldn't even be possible if the system weren't setup the way you described. I therefore bestow upon you a giant "DUH" award for replying without comprehending. Congratulations!!!!

Now if you really did want a dialog (you don't) please reread my comments from the getgo. I was merely stating the facts as they are, that SS is in no way self-funded at this point in time. The SS fund is selling more debt than it's buying, which by definition means that the government is then buying back more debt than it's issuing. The obvious conclusion is that additional (national) debt is needed by the government just to get the funds needed to buy back the SS-owned treasuries.

At the end of the day the mechanics are irrelevant to the issue of debt creation though, and if you read my earlier post I had alluded to that. I'm simply saying that the sell off of SS treasuries to make up the difference between SS fund receipts and disbursements necessarily will increase our national debt.

Bottom line is two fold: SS is not self funded today (the point I addressed) and the difference will show up directly in our national debt.

Oh, and in case you missed it my focus here was on the debt and the irrational belief that we will ever pay it down, not SS specifically.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Actually you continue to ignore, but not in a good way: you still can not answer the question.......you just can't do it.

"Few budgetary concepts generate as much unintended confusion and deliberate misinformation as the Social Security trust funds."

"Social Security has run a surplus in every year since 1984, as was anticipated when Congress enacted and President Reagan signed the legislation based on the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in 1983."

Try this one, it may help you understand the financial fundementals: http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds

All I have been doing is to correct your technical mistakes not errors of "views." For example: "that SS is in no way self-funded at this point in time" Yes it is. Totally. Read the links. There is $3T in the total account which at the estimated deficits will last to 2034 without changes. Funding mostly comes from payroll taxes and interest paid. If it is not self-funded, where do you think the funding come from?

"The SS fund is selling more debt than it's buying, which by definition means that the government is then buying back more debt than it's issuing." Again, like you or me, SS INVESTS in bonds, T-bills. We you buy and sell bonds, do you ever think of it as "selling more debt" than buying? For the purchased Treasuries, SS gets interest. If you want to call Bonds debt, OK, but the SS does not sell more debt/Bonds than it buys. Otherwise it wouldn't have $3T in Bonds...... The fund is still solvent, it's account is positive, even with the current yearly deficits. It is not in debt.

By the way, it is law that SS must invest in US Securities. It can not legally invest anywhere else. And like I said and linked before, these are very special Treasuries.

I think when interest is included, SS is still making money and will continue to do so until 2020: "Negative cash flow last year was about $74 billion, according to the latest trustees’ report, and this year the gap is projected to be around $84 billion. While the credited interest on all those Treasuries is still more than enough to cover the shortfall, that will only be true until 2020. After that, Social Security will begin redeeming its hoard of Treasuries for cash to continue paying benefits – as was the plan all along." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/

"The obvious conclusion is that additional (national) debt is needed by the government just to get the funds needed to buy back the SS-owned treasuries." Depends on the government's budget and SS inflows and outflows.

Last time: what would you do with the SS funds?

One last time, your original SPIN: "Minor sticking point, but SS is no longer self funded; it's already taking in less than is needed. Worse, the fund has to sell its debt to meet current demand, debt that has to be sold to someone else and that will likely just be transferred directly to the national debt."

Spin because yes, it is a self-funded program EVEN if it currently takes in less than it pays out (which may not be true if you include interest payments). Blah de blah transferred to the national debt. OK. When SS buys Treasuries, the Govt spends that money (debt). If SS sells the Treasuries to other parties, this does not crate new debt, it just transfers the owner. But legally, SS can not sell to third parties because SS Treasuries are special that way. If SS sell Treasuries back to the Govt, it retires debt, it does not double it. How the govt pays depends: that may or may not create debt --- it depends. I think your confusion comes from treating the entities as one. If you try thinking of SS as the ABC SS company, you might better understand the financial dynamics.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

justintime and strangerdanger - How does anything you are saying translate into lousy benefits, mandatory medicare charges and unfair punishment of those who work while receiving well earned social security benefits? Lofty macroeconmic arguments just don't work for me.

DannyC DannyC
Mar '17

Sorry DannyC, I usually only ever talk from the macro level because that's where the long term trends are. Far too often people can get stuck in the weeds bickering over short term happenings in the world, and more often than not I just see them as oscillations that don't really change the overall trajectory we're on.

The context of my posts are quite often debt-based. In our economic system money is essentially equal to debt, meaning that monetary inflation happens due to the creation of loans more than anything else (actually, I'm not even sure about the other mechanisms for money creation although I've read that they exist). What this means is that all the money we collectively seek to move about the economy is created by someone taking out a loan. Debt.

Obviously the more money there is in existence the more prosperous we feel, which causes us to think that we can spend willy-nilly on everything and anything. But if one looks at money for what it is - a representation of debt somewhere in society - then they might ask themselves if there are any consequences to the process? Well, for one thing we all get stuff that appears to be cheap, borrowing from the future to pay for stuff today. Ask anyone who loves our debt-based money system and they will defend it up and down primarily because of this reason, and quite frankly it's a pretty good reason to love it. But are there any negatives? I certainly think so; others not so much. IMO at some point there's simply going to be too much debt to shuffle around, and quite frankly I think that point is a lot closer than many may think.

So for the negatives you referred to, just because our monetary system functions on debt doesn't mean no one is profiting from it. The exact opposite, really, so again IMO I don't see any real solutions without changing the fundamentals behind it all.

justintime justintime
Mar '17

The Russian winter is long and cold.

Rex Tillerson to ask NATO to pay up.....but who cares.... Whiner Trump who tossed healthcare to those evil Democrats after his steller loss in TrumpCare now wants to work with everyone to make it happen....but who cares.. Ivanka takes Federal job for no pay....but who cares....

It's Russia Time!

The big news is Mike Flynn asks for immunity so he can spill the beans on Team Trump collusion with the Russians. Remember, in Flynn's own words: "When you are given immunity, that means that you've probably committed a crime." Ruh Roh Reggie..... At least 4 others, according to FOX, have come to the committee(s) asking to be interviewed.

Meanwhile, the facts are circling in on Kushner, Trump's Whitehouse Rabbi or consigliore, pick your choice. Apparently a Russian operative, under investigation by the Fed, was having his legal costs covered by a Russian Bank, which was determined to be controlled by the Russian Government. This was discovered about 2014 during investigations into the spy. In December of 2016, Kushner met with the bank's chairman, a Russian FSS (spy school) graduate who got his bank job from his Rabbi, Putin. The meeting was set up by the Russian Ambassador. Kushner admits this was not as a businessman but as part of Team Trump. The Bank says he was a businessman and not Team Trump. Wow, you don't even need a Foundation donation to get access with these whores.

Meanwhile... the smut dossier is back, this gent will probably appear before Congress, but one of his "facts" was recently vetted: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

Meanwhile.....the Senate hears how Russian claims and Trump campaign claims dovetailed Fake News, rumors and innuendo combined with internet trolls, bots, etc. influenced Trump voters during the election. Trump even quotes Sputnik Fake News stories during his campaign: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

Meanwhile, as a side note. Folks in Europe who might be instrumental players in this story are dropping like flies. Like dead. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/28/russians-suspected-of-aiding-investigations-into-hacking-are-being-arrested-possibly-murdered/21702243/

I mean really dead: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-19/

Point is ----> this is getting pretty far up the flag pole in terms of who is involved and it appears that we will find collusion at some level. Probably won't hit Trump but looks like we will get pretty close. Looks like Fake President elected by Fake News supporters who accept lies as truth and who will soon tell us the everyone does the same thing.... I say that it seems that the Russians knew which side would take the bait.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

"Meanwhile, as a side note. Folks in Europe who might be instrumental players in this story are dropping like flies. Like dead"


He must've taken lessons from the Clintons lol.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '17

Missed the lesson on how to set up his Foundation to avoid those messy Russian "access" meetings.

I have to admit. I have had some unliberal thoughts. I was feeling down. I was in a blue state.
Trump has Made Me Feel Great Again!

Keep up the good work Duck.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Mar '17

Meetings coming tomorrow and next Wednesday for anyone who wants to do more than talk here about extreme concerns - Message me if you want information please.

4catmom 4catmom
Mar '17

since it's a witch hunt he would be foolish to testify without immunity in any regard.

they can still court-martial him for “contempt toward officials.” Article 2, Section (a) (5): Persons subject to the UCMJ include “retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”

Article 88 of UCMJ
Any commissioned officer [and, under Article 2, this includes any retired officer] who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

so why would he get on the stand without a 'queen for a day' proffer? so Nancy Pelosi can rack up his legal bills and take his pension?

skippy skippy
Mar '17

Skippy, I have to wonder if the release of the cia's Marble Framework under Wikileaks Vault 7 collection is timed to provide the UD components of GC's beloved phrase FUD lol.

It certainly isn't helping the governments case ;-)

justintime justintime
Mar '17

Lol yeah definitely there to cast potential reasonable doubt on red team activities - all I know is I am trading in my car for a 1973 pinto with no computer - anyone want to trade an iPhone 7 for a flip phone ?

skippy skippy
Mar '17

"definitely there to cast potential reasonable doubt on red team activities." Yeah, all just Republicrats dealing with the Russians. Every politician does it.......

I think when you stand back, look at what we have learned to date, the concept of "politics as usual" or it's just "Republicrats" again seems very, very weak. Will we find malfeasance at the highest level. Normally I would bet No. However while Trump does not get his hands dirty usually (except for the tweets), Trump is a hands-on micro-decision maker so my bets off on this one. What is certain is that there was a whole lot of talking going on between Team Trump and Russia, Russia hacked our election to what effect no one really knows yet, anyone in Europe who could whistle-blow is suddenly dying, and so we have a whole heck of a lot of smoke and a few fires already breaking out.

And that's before you get to the sideshow "Obama put his hear to my bedroom door" surveillance fake allegations diversion tactic which is its own, yet connected, carnival.

Here's a good summary of why perhaps you should not be so dismissive as "politics as usual" on this one: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/russia-trump-explained/

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Red team activities in this context refers to offensive infosec activities. My post had nothing to do with politics and was in reference to the Wikileaks information released and the subject matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team

skippy skippy
Apr '17

I really hope it's true and all the negative msm is going to backfire on the same for many years to come. If Trump does some thing positive they come out hard with another negative story.

Forcefed4door Forcefed4door
Apr '17

Thanks. I think my acceptance of new business-tech-speak coinage slows after 2000. But I do know what farxiga, celebrex, bavencio, and xermelo mean :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Ha ha - I bet you know cobol and Fortran as well as pascal too

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Why does Trump feel it necessary to call people insulting names: his latest tweet this morning: "sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd", others: "Failed Mitt Romney", "Dopey Karl Rove" "Little Marco Rubio", "Lyin' Ted Cruze", "Low Energy Jeb"......."Overrated Meryl Streep", "Failing (fill in the blank: NY Times, SNL, MSNBC and more).

I don't get it.

summerrain1 summerrain1
Apr '17

Because he's s big juvenile delinquent at heart.

Anyway, looks like someone found the smoking gun that ties Trump to Russia: a direct phone line to their political subversion section ;-)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oDOGOPZrsb0

justintime justintime
Apr '17

I really like George W's nickname for Karl Rove: "Turd Blossom".

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/kushners-set-to-get-400-million-from-chinese-on-marquee-tower

This is a big conflict of interest, essentially a gift from China. Serious ethics violation here...


No wonder Trumputin is squirming in his seat.

Judge won't let Trump get away with inciting violence.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-denies-trumps-free-speech-defense-protester-case-214131776--election.html

happiest girl
Apr '17

Serenity now

skippy skippy
Apr '17

good editorial: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

4cat,
Yes - a good editorial of how abominable Trump is.

happiest girl
Apr '17

And yet,...... still better than Hillary would have been. ROFL

We've been reduced to having no real choices in our elections. THAT is abominable.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

No one but you is laughing.


RAS -- yes, at this point the only Trumputin supporters are the gun people or the racists.

happiest girl
Apr '17

That's because most of you haven't figured it out yet. You think there's actually still a "good" option, and that govt is inherently benevolent (well, to be accurate, most of you believe govt is inherently benevolent when it's democrat).

So far, none of this has surprised me. Hillary losing, Trump making an ass of himself, the democrats going hypocrite (Schumer: muslim ban "good" under Obama, "evil" under Trump) and fighting the president tooth and nail, all kinds of smoke but no fire with the whole "election hacking" nonsense, America will pay for wall, democrats calling budget cuts draconian, etc etc etc.... all this is just business as usual.

As is the filibuster the dems will do over Gorsuch, as will be whatever the republicans do to get him confirmed anyway (nuclear option).... all this stuff is business as usual. Same old partisan BS it always was.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

"And yet,...... still better than Hillary would have been." Ah yes. Jr and Putin --- like peas in a pod in their thinking :>) You got what he paid for, but that's OK with you: it's all the same anyway. Enjoy comrade.

"(Schumer: muslim ban "good" under Obama, "evil" under Trump)" This is not true except perhaps in your Russian MSM as total spin. A half truth at best and spin no matter what.

"all kinds of smoke but no fire with the whole "election hacking" nonsense," So are you concluding that it's all "nonsense?" That's a good one. Hillary needs to go to jail, but your Putin-putz is just a little smoke. Manafort Russian stooge --- gone. Flynn Russian operative --- gone. Sessions Russian confidant --- recused.

Sergei A. Ryabkov, Russian deputy foreign minister, said “Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Here's a few "close encounters:" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/us/politics/trump-russia-links-washington.html

"all this is just business as usual." Perhaps for you this is more of the same, but many would disagree as to any normalcy to be found in the current administration. I mean how did the leader of the free world, the master of the globe's largest economy, and the man on the front line of the largest nuclear force on the planet spend his weekend. Tweeting about fake wire tap news, leaks being the biggest problem we face, and Chuck Todd's endearing sleep eyes.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-updates-everything-president-trump-s-day-in-tweets-saturday-april-1491100961-htmlstory.html

Trumpy stayed home this weekend but did have time for some Sunday who-needs-Church free-advertising-for-my-arms-length-business-wink-wink-golf at TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF COURSE: Make Golf Great Again Memberships available (to the "right" people.) He played with Ran while they discussed ObamaCare replacement. Good timing Don. I would tell you more but Trump's National Golf Course web site is damaged....can healthcare be far behind?

If you think this is somehow, at some level, just more of the same ----- you are obviously smoking something that you should share with others :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"That's because most of you haven't figured it out yet." JR
It seems *you* haven't figured out that this thread is not about the government, it's about Trump.
Hence the name of the post ........ "Trump".
Now in it's 5th version.

happiest girl
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Memorandum Opinion and Order in that case HG. https://www.scribd.com/book/343736839/Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order Scribd

"The judge dismissed one of the plaintiffs' claims that Trump was vicariously liable for Heimbach and Bamberger's actions. The men weren't employed by Trump or his campaign and therefore weren't under his control during the rally, Hale wrote."

Nwanguma feared “unwanted touching.” is the basis of her complaint.

https://youtu.be/ILwalNSS3vY

here is a video of the incident - she was refusing to leave and was trespassing.

now HG you have supported violence by ANTIFA and other groups against trump supporters in the past stating "that's what you get for supporting Trump"

http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0326-maga-march-20170325-story.html

they engage in actual violence - pepper spraying people, striking them etc. no "fear of touching" - and they are not protesters - they are engaging in violence for political purposes - they are terrorists.

so stop - you only support free speech when the context meets your narrative.

"RAS -- yes, at this point the only Trumputin supporters are the gun people or the racists."

Liberals are the racists - they:
A) Purport to know what's best for minorities, overseeing them on the democrat plantation.
B) Support the racism of low expectations through affirmative action and quota policies in employment and academia. Telling folks they are hopeless and a victim of institutionalized racism, and entitled to reparations and government assistance
C) Claim to love "diversity", yet are intolerant of other social and political opinions, and sycophantically agree with people who think like them.


Racism is when the black unemployment rate is DOUBLE the national average but starbucks wants to give jobs to refugees.

America voted for an African American to be our president the last 8 years and liberals claimed America refusing to vote for his white successor is due to racism against Obama.

Calling Trump "orange" or "Drumpf" is inherently racist because it targets his skin color and ethnicity. Stop trying to rationalize and project your own racism.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Skippy --- why are you talking about Liberals. People of all political sides voted for Trump. And for the record *again* I do not support violence. My comment meant that because people voted Trump in, the result has been violence.

happiest girl
Apr '17

"at this point the only Trumputin supporters are the gun people or the racists."

That's an awefully specific brush you used to paint a large group of people. IMO you're allowing your hatred to dictate your reality.

1) The oft repeated Trump/Russia insinuation is wickedly presumptuous and most decidedly unproven, and
2) The oft repeated racism claim pointed toward a large portion of the population is just as presumptuous and represents a sickness in our society driven by the delusion that everyone should maintain the same belief system. Racism is a great scapegoat for disagreement, I get it, but it's simply not true at the level you're insinuating.


Both are glaring examples of the "if you repeat it enough it becomes truth" philosophy. I think there are partial truths in there, sure, but not nearly as broad-based as your statements imply.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

orange is a spray-on tan, not a skin color or cultural practice, skippy. Also his racial heritage is not of an oppressed people historically vilified or viewed as "other." No modern white or european racial group have ever been subjected to the systemic oppression of non-whites or Jewish people.

kepa
Apr '17

Once again Skippy has mustered some real original thought to sum up liberals perfectly. What an amazingly specific general assumption starting out with: "A) Purport to know what's best for minorities, overseeing them on the democrat plantation." Wow, deep for sure. No spin on that one, just cold hard facts.

What the heck is this skipidity? Just more of the same conservative communistic clap trap consuming the party. Putin's pals. Look at the emotion blended into Skippy's words. Yeah, let's call it "overseeing." Sounds like overseer don't it. Sprinkle a little plantation on top of that and we make them liberals sound like slave owners. Wow, Skippy, did you think all that crud up yourself. Because I just went to a blog and found: "[–]GueroLoco420 1 point 1 month ago

"Liberals" (mostly the white ones) love projection. They call Trump supporters racist when they: A) Purport to know what's best for minorities, overseeing them on the democrat plantation. B) Support the racism of low expectations through affirmative action and quota policies in employment and academia. C) Claim to love "diversity", yet are intolerant of other social and political opinions, and live in neighborhoods that are almost exclusively populated with other white people who think like them. But it's cool, we're obviously the racists."

That's so cool that you both wrote the same thing. You're not racist. You're a plagiaracist :>) An original thought might be nice. Or at least give credit where credit is due.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

LOL...spin....right.

2015: Schumer: Refugee pause may be necessary
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/260471-schumer-refugee-pause-may-be-necessary

2017: Schumer: "This executive order is mean-spirited and un-American" (nice crocodile tears, Chuck
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-tears-up-as-he-calls-trumps-immigration-ban-mean-spirited/article/2613299

Refugee pause 2015 under Obama: "may be necessary", 2017 under Trump: "mean-spirited and un-american." That fact anyone believes him is a clear demonstration of the willful ignorance of the American people.



"It seems *you* haven't figured out that this thread is not about the government, it's about Trump."


LOL riiiight. And if you actually think that's true, see my last comment above.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

The thread is about TRUMP, not government.... I mean, it's not like Trump is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES or something.... lol

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

IMO- The election of Donald Trump did not create the Left's hate, it revealed it. I remember the same hate from the left during the Bush and Reagan years. It's easier to be fashionable through hate than reasonable through logic.

auntiel auntiel
Apr '17

Totally stole that from Reddit - other stuff is original though and I'm not the first one to use others words to convey my thoughts - it's acceptable when folks on your side do it - at least I'm admitting it. Rest is original though

skippy skippy
Apr '17

So ironic how the party that cries racism all the time (Democrats) are actually the racist ones, separating everyone into their own special snowflake sub-group instead of coming together to rally around being American. Keeping minorities and immigrants 'down' and reliant upon their social programs, as the left does, is inherently racist.

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

auntiel- excellent observation.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

"special snowflake sub-group...." You do know what snowflake means don't you? How about oxymoron? Wait, let me give you an example: "special snowflake sub-group...." Actually, I think that one rates the oft sought after, rarely achieved tri-oxymoron label :>)

Pretty funny except said that you are out-racist-ing us 4:1 on this thread.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

I am having a chuckle over how Obamanian you are sounding. So 8-years ago. So snowflake. Gotta be current and start talkin some Trump.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Lol - point being supporting the president doesn't make you a racist - that's absurd

skippy skippy
Apr '17

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-donates-three-months-salary-to-interior-department-offsetting-0-005-of-proposed-budget-cut-211411816.html

12% cut or 1.6 billion. Why don't I hear about cuts in foreign aid? How is this America First?


Kinks in the armor (or at least the desired narrative lol)

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

justintime justintime
Apr '17

"Lol - point being supporting the president doesn't make you a racist - that's absurd"


Just like opposing one didn't make you a racist either (last 8 years). But the left sure likes to play that card alot, in whichever way it suits their fancy, don't they?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

But supporting racist policies does...

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

If supporting enforcement of immigration laws makes me a racist opposing that makes someone what exactly? Supporter of criminality? It's absurd

skippy skippy
Apr '17

+100 skippy

Heidi Heidi
Apr '17

Yeah, it's just non-logic being used to blindly support a narrative. SOS

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

JR, speaking of blindly supporting a narrative:

"I'm done wasting DAILY life energy on crap that really doesn't matter in the end- all this minutiae doesn't matter, except to keep up the division and hatred between the 2 supposed "sides." You know what mattered? The election. It's over. Trump won. Unless the BIG picture changes (JIT has explained much of the big picture ad nauseum), nothing REAL changes. It's just the pendulum swinging back the other way, as it always does.

But I guess people need a "hobby". This used to be mine. I got wise and found better things to do with my time and energy."

Like Trump, you just can't control yourself...arrested adolescence and all that...:)

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

SO true, yankeefan, so true.

happiest girl
Apr '17

The calling of liberals as racists for supporting social prigrams is as stupid as broadbrushing all Frump supporters as racists.

The correct way to say it is most racists support Trump.

Factually speaking that is.

As far as Trump being a racist, again, past and present facts would say, yes he is. At least some judges voted yes a few times over the decades.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

Nice try, YF. If you bothered to go back and look, you'll see I HAVE been scarce in this thread of late....

1 day ago, 4 days ago, 7 days ago.... much like yourself, I see.

Unlike someone else we know....

1 day ago, 3,4,5,6, 7 days ago and beyond..... someone certainly "can't control themselves" LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

SD Bernie doesn't even believe that

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326820-sanders-defends-trump-voters-i-dont-think-theyre-racists%3Famp

skippy skippy
Apr '17

https://youtu.be/fN1TtCBiYmE

"Hillary Clinton gave a speech to her fans and supporters at Georgetown University on March 31. During the speech, she criticized the Trump administration, signaling her return to the speech circuit and serving as a “leader” of the Democratic Party"

Are you guys seriously going to just let HRC nominate her self head of the party now? Because that went awesome last November.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Yes, Bernie said what I say. That all Trumpets are not racist.

He just didn't add that most racists support Trump because Trump had been penalized for racist acts and policies in the past and current. He's their man. But not all Trumpo's necessarily racist. Or gropers either.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

Or climate change deniers. Or Putin/Assad supporters. Or habitual liars. Or embarrassingly shallow.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

You folks crack me up, seriously!

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Got facts or you just talking out your asses ?

skippy skippy
Apr '17

let me know when you folks have gone through the first of the five stages of grief -denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and can finally say "Nah, I’m good dog, I’m going to stay here and get this tax break, see how it works out."

happiest girl - you are missing a band wagon to jump on - come in for the big win.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Right, Skipster, we all know who's getting the tax breaks. The ones who need it least. Keep drinking that toxic Trump kool-aid.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Still waiting to hear how supporting the current President is tantamount to treason and rampant racism.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Why do people keep thinking Trump will "be gone"? He won the election. He IS our president, and should be respected.
God knows, Obama wasn't the greatest.
After the Benghazi lies, he should have been ousted.
The Citizens chose Trump. They want him to keep his campaign promises.
It would be great if both parties would choose to work together for the good of the Americans who pay their salaries.
This protesting and nitpicking needs to stop.
It feels like Middle school!


Interesting. The Hill says Trump will resign to avoid being impeached.

http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/327279-low-approval-will-drive-trump-to-resign-before-he-is-impeached

happiest girl
Apr '17

Well, if we're talking OPINION pieces, don't bet on it...

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/2017/03/donald-trump-unfit-office-dont-bet-him-being-impeached

[this is a very liberal source, BTW: Fabian socialist, actually....]

Unless the republicans lose control of the House AND Senate (unlikely, but will depend on Trump's next year or so in office), the GOP-controlled Congress has no interest in impeaching him. You people seem to not understand: all of this is a GAME to them; they are not ideologues. They are playing a big reality show video game and getting a fat paycheck and perks to do so.... I think it is safe to say that EVERY president has probably committed an impeachable act of some kind... yet only 2 presidents have ever been (unsuccessfully) impeached:

"Article II, Section 4 of the US constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach but the Senate the sole power to convict. It also lists impeachable offences as “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours” – without defining what constitutes a “high crime” or “misdemeanour”. Speaking in 1970, Gerald Ford – who, ironically, went on to serve as president after Richard Nixon resigned from office to avoid near-certain impeachment – said: “An impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

"...there is no appetite for impeachment where it matters most. The president’s party controls the House of Representatives and, thanks to a combination of brazen gerrymandering and attempts at voter suppression, will probably still command a majority in the House even after the November 2018 midterms. As for the Senate, again the Republicans are in control, with a majority of four and with Senate Democrats, come 2018, having to defend seats in five “ruby-red” states where Trump won by double-digit margins."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

The Hill says no such thing: That's an opinion letter, not an article.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Hey guys Just a reminder. Trump lost the majority vote in Nov 16. The electoral college made him President.


Neither major party wanted or truly wants to change anything, so this statement means nothing.


"Just a reminder. Trump lost the majority vote in Nov 16."

Just a reminder, voter turnout was ~55% in the election, so the majority of Americans didn't vote for *either* candidate.

Trump won by the rules in place at the time.

Now, maybe we should change other rules too... like World Series Champs are the team that has the best scoring inning, even if they lose all the games (which is analogous to winning one state by a lot, but losing all the others).

In racing, fastest single lap time wins the overall race even if they crash out before the checkered flag...

Most yards in a football game but the fewest points...

Checkmate doesn't matter if you still have more pieces on the board than your competitor...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-rice-says-obama-administration-didnt-use-intel-against-trump-associates-for-political-reasons-1491331871

Susan Rice is apparently responsible for “unmasking” members of team Trump.

Per the WSJ in addition to Michael Flynn, at least one more member of the Trump transition team was “unmasked” in intelligence reports due to multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.

also - Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking, confirming there is at least one more high-level official giving “unmasking” orders.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

The Hill...Low Approval will drive Trump to resign...by Masood Akhtar, an American Muslim from India living in Madison WI who has reaped the benefits of living in this country. Has CleanTech Energy, winning grants from the Department of Energy in 2007 and 2008 for the state of WI. As an entrepreneur in the energy sector, his opinion piece may be slanted because of the new administration and the new Secretary of Energy. This article is only Masood's opinion. It is not The Hill calling for Trump's resignation or impeachment.

Denise Denise
Apr '17

One guy's opinion --

WRITTEN BY MASOOD AKHTAR - 04/04/17 05:00 PM EDT: "Based on what I have seen so far, I don’t see how Trump would make it through a full-term"

Yeah, that definitely is proof-positive that Trump is leaving, LOL!

Hey happiest girl...do some research on Mr. Akhtar before you make him your go-to resource for info.

Heidi Heidi
Apr '17

Interesting piece on 2018 election scenarios...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-special-election-in-georgia-can-and-cant-tell-us-about-the-midterms/

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Some type of reading comprehension is also helpful.

Denise Denise
Apr '17

"But I guess people need a "hobby". This used to be mine. I got wise and found better things to do with my time and energy."

"look, you'll see I HAVE been scarce in this thread of late...." " Unlike someone else we know" Oh, don't feel obligated to measure yourself against the standards of others. They didn't make your statement about how to be wiser....

" Are you guys seriously going to just let HRC nominate her self head of the party now?" I think she could head it up, but running again --- nada. I mean even if the Russians didn't stoke your fires with their fake news, she would have a rough go.

"Got facts or you just talking out your asses ?" Beyond the rudeness, you do realize that's the only way to get you to listen? You know, communicating in a commonplace form to the listener :>) But really --- you are looking for facts on Trump's racist actions? Hear that --- Trump's actions. Not necessarily saying he is your garden-variety racist, Trump is more about maximizing his own profit and fear of anything that might damage that.

From Huffington Post but you can check the facts if you fear fake news....(they are not MSM....)

"Trump seized on Ghazala Khan’s silence to insinuate that she was forbidden from speaking due to the couple’s Islamic faith."

"“He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN of Curiel. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.” But here's what you do about that: “Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a reaction to Trump’s comments, though he clarified that he still endorses the nominee."

"When asked whether he would trust a Muslim judge, in light of his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration, Trump suggested that such a judge might not be fair to him either."

"The Justice Department sued his company ― twice ― for not renting to black people"

"The New Jersey Casino Control Commission fined the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $200,000 in 1992 because managers would remove African-American card dealers at the request of a certain big-spending gambler. A state appeals court upheld the fine." That's in NJ!!! "“I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him" "Three times in a row on Feb. 28, Trump sidestepped opportunities to renounce white nationalist and former KKK leader David Duke, who told his radio audience last week that voting for any candidate other than Trump is “really treason to your heritage.”

"He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States" Crikey, he sent people to Hawaii to find out and, once again like he continues today, told us "the researchers “cannot believe what they are finding.”" Come on Skippy, what kind of crap is that and what happened to all that 'can't believe what they are finding" In 2016, Trump said “I don’t know where he was born,” bs.

In looking to open a casino competing with Native Americans, Trump made his case: "he told the House subcommittee on Native American Affairs that “they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”" WTF....

"He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of the Central Park Five"

"He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester"

"He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”" But his words don't matter, right. "“Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported,” one of the men reportedly told police officers." Did Trump correct? "“I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” Trump said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”"

"He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic meme created by white supremacists" OK, this was a bit weak, but still ---should of known better.

Even the Jews, some of whom are in his family, are not unscathed: "“Is there anyone who doesn’t renegotiate deals in this room?” Trump said. “Perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to.” Viva those stereotypes. It's like watching a sanitized version of Archie Bunker ---- but this one controls what used to be the free world.

"He treats African-American supporters as tokens to dispel the idea he is racist." " “look at my African American over here.” This is where the racist rubber meets the road. How often have you heard Trump say "the blacks love me," or "the Muslims love me." Even when he is defending himself against racist allegations, he sinks to those coded racist terms like "the Mexicans...." "“I love the Muslims." "“I have a great relationship with the blacks"

Here's the best summary of that from the man you all hated: "“It’s like eating a watermelon and saying ‘I love African-Americans,’” Bush quipped.

This you should have known before you cast your vote. Next we will deal with his post-Presidential racist acts.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Donald Trump Fought to Include Jews and Blacks at Palm Beach Golf Course in 1990s

http://www.impulsetoday.com/donald-trump-fought-to-include-jews-and-blacks-at-palm-beach-golf-course-in-1990s/

“Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”
"Segregation at all-white private country clubs in the South had been common and many businesspeople would have looked the other way. But Trump pushed for desegregation at the golf resort, which led to his bid winning."

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d2_1451242991

"VHS. Bkg: Donald Trump worked with the Rainbow-PUSH coalition to bring blacks and minorities into corporate America. As POTUS he will transform the crime-ridden inner cities with business development and middle class jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors through better trade deals and infrastructure projects."

Hires minorities in high level positions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY&feature=youtu.be

his National spokesperson Katrina Pierson

http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/republicans/katrina-pierson-and-her-story-are-what-the-republican-party-desperately-needs/

"Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally," wrote Trump. "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans-many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it." - Trump

skippy skippy
Apr '17

That's good stuff Skippy, you were sandbagging :>) Like I said, I believe at the root of Trump's racism is his driving need to profit. Certainly that's the case in your first story.

First, this was a private estate, not a commercial concern. There was no legal restrictions obviously on black and jews and no law in place that would force Trump to do so. Trump came in and basically infuriated everyone by 1) going commercial, 2) getting ready to block the Ocean view with his ostentatious home, 3) raise a HUGE American flag like a auto lot, and more. The town reacted with a series of restrictions. Trump did nothing until his bid faced restriction from the local authorities. He then launched his rainbow campaign, given the law, a publicity stunt at best.

Worse than that, to see what a total scumbag this guy is, read up on how he screwed the Post sisters to buy the place. Summarizing a The Constant article: "it's also another example of Trump weaponizing the law in order to turn a profit, exact revenge, or some combination of both. For a candidate who changes positions as frequently as Trump, this single-minded pursuit of money and status is a rare constant." I think that's where Trump draws his diversity line, but his words bespeak his true feelings.

But back to your story...."it's illegal in Florida for a club like Mar-a-Lago, a private club with more than 400 members that also hosts public events and functions for non-members, to discriminate against "any individual because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, handicap, age above the age of 21, or marital status." Sorry, he gets credit for grandstanding but the law was sort of, just kind of, in his favor......
http://fusion.net/donald-trump-keeps-saying-that-his-mar-a-lago-club-is-p-1793862259

Here's Jessie Jackson on not support Donald Trump for the reason of....nuff said: http://www.rainbowpush.org/commentaries/single/black_voters_have_plenty_to_lose_with_trump

Minorities in high levels: you got to do better than anecdotes. Got any real numbers?

Pierson --- You are kidding right? I mean if she is national spokesperson, then I don't watch the news...... But I did look her up and she's certainly a study in contrasts:

Kid of single 15-yr old mother, raised on Welfare which she wants to cut. She wouldn't even be here except for Grandad who stopped the abortion. Until birth, she was up for adoption.

Perhaps it was her mother's reliance on government which set Katrina on her conservative path. Yet her own unmarried single mother story at age 19 seems to mean it hadn't sunk in yet. A year later she married Dad, a year later she divorced.... And in the middle was arrested for shoplifting, part of her self-reliance program.... She was going for a job interview and needed new duds.

While she worked as a volunteer for Cruz, she pocketed $11,000 in unemployment. She then worked for Scampac, I'll let you look up that little beauty, but the bottom line was money. Remember, as late as 2010, she had a case for racial discrimination against Sanofi-Aventis for talkin trash to her. Probably called her "one of the blacks....." So if this is your case of Trump systemically working against prejudice, it seems weak. More like one person recognizing how profitable it is for certain people to become flaming conservatives baying at the moon for money and how another sees the profit in co-opting that person. But yeah, she's a racist too.

Didn't score too high on those Skippy. 3 whiffs and a sniff.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"Donald Trump's 'looming' impeachment stops me voting for his Supreme Court pick."
--------- Senator Richard Blumenthal

From Fox news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-impeachment-odds-chances-rising-fox-news-juan-williams-a7665006.html

happiest girl
Apr '17

you'll love president pence betcha betcha (jar jar binks)

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Richard Blumenthal, after 5 deferments from the Vietnam war between 1965 and 1970, joined the Marine Reserves as a last ditch effort to avoid going to Vietnam. He worked on local projects stateside....Toys for Tots. His deferments allowed him to attend Harvard, attend Trinity College (could make it across the pond to the UK but not Vietnam), and attended Yale with classmates Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also had to admit he 'misspoke' about his military service during the Vietnam war because he did NOT serve in Vietnam. Juan Williams is right up there with all the other liberals like Maxine Waters, Mazie Hirono, Chuck the Clown and Bob Beckel, that dried up drunk on the 5. That Dick Blumenthal lacks so much in integrity and ethics is found in abundance in Neil Gorsuch.

Denise Denise
Apr '17

Classy post, Denise.

Meanwhile, Syria solved, as reported in the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/article/alien-world-to-help-out-syria-since-this-one-refus-27620

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Denise , that's a pretty ridiculous post you wrote, considering Trumputin got himself FIVE DEFERMENTS to avoid military service. Your man Trump would applaude Blumenthal.
As Khizr Khan said to Trump, (whose son was killed in Iraq)
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."

happiest girl
Apr '17

Left not racist, well let's see.

35.6% of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on black women, however, black women make up only about 13% of the female population. Abortion is a racist institution. But the left is all about choice, right!

Unless we're talking school choice, then you get no choice. Forcing inner city kids to go to poverty and violence infested schools sounds pretty racist, the majority of those students are non-white you know.

But they'll be happy to trade you welfare for votes and make you think they are on your side.

With friends like the left who needs enemies?

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

Scottso, at least you are consistently incorrect, I'll give you that...

Fact is, abortion has everything to do with income, not race. The fact that African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately below or at the poverty line is a different issue altogether.
As for your incoherent statement regarding inner city kids and schools, the issue is again largely driven by economics.

The GOP tax breaks for the rich will surely trickle down and resolve these problems, right?

But don't let the facts spoil your narrative. The right is the champion of the disadvantaged.

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Maybe Scottso can get someone to read this to him...

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/06/gop-misogyny-on-overdrive-trump-administration-defunds-un-womens-health-program/

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

From the National Review, a conservative champion since it's inception...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446441/

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Hey, Scottso, that's some kind of logic that directly leads from welfare for votes to abortion through racism to blacks in bad schools all forced from the left. Bet you have a lot of believers for those thoughts.

How ever did you find those demographics on abortion? Which lobbying spin group brokered doctor/patient confidentiality to determine that? And from that you conclude abortion is a racist institution, not perhaps a poverty related issue fostered by racial prejudice like that which you are showing? But yes, for the most part, the left is about choice, but not all of the left. Are you all about not having a choice? Because your plan is to defund all Planned Parenthood federal spending even if it isn't for abortion services reduces choice. Your plan to defund all NGOs supporting abortions even if funding isn't used for abortions does not seem to increase choice. And that's just the EO's...

All I can say Scottso, is when are you adopting your first defunded black baby? Or are you aborting that idea?

But let me extend your thinking.... You say the left forces inner city kids to certain schools. First, that's just not true, but OK, about 13% of school kids are black. They are poor and in poverty and violence infested schools. Your Trump recovery plan....is to cut 13% of the funding for Education targeting the 13% of the poorest districts first. Is this to increase freedom of choice? To make the inner city schools less infested by poverty? Yeah, that will help the violence levels.....

And somehow you know that "they'll be happy to trade you welfare for votes." OK, the last giant cut to welfare was under Clinton. Clinton is a Democrat that you would call a liberal. But we wouldn't. The largest percentage increase was under Ford, your guy. And Bush Jr. really ran up the welfare charges as well. While it is true that when Democrats control the Congress, the spending on welfare is higher, at the Presidential level, it's clearly not just an issue of the left.

But let's say you're right. You have the baton, run with it.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

National Review link doesn't work.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Donald Trump had deferments from the Vietnam War, happiest girl. We all know that. Blumenthal implied he served in Vietnam but he never had active military service. Blumenthal likens the non appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court as a crucifixion. It wasn't. Obama got two Supreme Court judges during his admin and because 2016 was an election year, a nominee did not have to be appointed to a Supreme Court vacancy. And it's President Trump, not Trumputin.

Denise Denise
Apr '17

Chump has changed his mind about Assad and Syria.....wow. Lots of lines crossed. Still blames Obama, calls him out, seems to forget Citizen Trump yelling at Obama to step back from the red line and stay out of Syria. Nobody mentioned the Russians, wasn't it their plane? Tillerson added "I think the longer term status of President Assad will be determined by the Syrian people."

On North Korea, Tillerson was more exacting: "“North Korea launched yet another intermediate range ballistic missile. The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment”.

WTF? That's got to be the weirdest thing our Secretary of State has ever not said.

Meanwhile Bannon takes too much credit, is moved to back of bus. Bumped from Security, he just got handed TrumpNoCares. As Morning Joe summarized, Bannon just got the job of captaining the Titanic......after the iceberg hit.

Hey, if Bannon can take the public hit, fear must rule the day at the White House.

Nunes meanwhile has said he was alone at the White House when viewing the good stuff opening up a whole nuther set of "how are you alone at the White House on tops security computers..." This guy is toast, circling the bowl, and he doesn't seem to even know it.

Could a Whitehouse shake-up be happening? Do we got any more Trumpkids to fill the vacancies?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

for reference the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis linked above. This is why we need to keep abortion safe legal and free - to prevent unwanted children from being abused and growing into criminals of the future. One of the social programs I have zero problem with is Planned Parenthood. I would rather spend a $1000 now than millions over the cost of a lifetime of a child put through the foster and criminal justice systems.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

seriously Skippy? the solution for criminal behavior is to stop people from being born? How very Hitler-esque of you. Since 1973, 20-25 percent of the African American population already was never born. How many more abortions will fix the abuse and crime problem in your opinion? Abort half of all pregnancies? 75%? Abortion is already safe for the mother (physically I suppose but not mentally or emotionally in many cases & certainly not for the fetus) and legal. What if someone doesn't want to abort their baby, are you proposing we start forcing women to abort to lower crime rates?

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

not my hypothesis - the passage of roe v. wade is positively correlated to the sudden drop in crime in the 90s - read the study. Are you proposing that we force women to have children they cant or wont care for so they end up in a grossly overwhelmed and ineffectual public assistance and later criminal justice system - how short sited of you.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Scot..you totally took Skippy's words and spun it in the wrong direction. He said "unwanted" children, meaning a CHOICE, not something forced. Are you willing to feed, house, clothes, educate, coddle, love and raise that child in a loving, tight knit family, for the mother who cannot provide those necessary components to help a child get a good start in life? If not. Then, don't FORCE a child to be born, without the latter available. I'm pretty sure no woman would want to go through an abortion, unless she knew it would be in the best interest of the child. Then, there's birth control. Took my son's teenage girlfriend, there, for birth control. I knew I couldn't stop them from doing "the deed", but at least I saved them a lifetime of fighting, financial burdens and that poor child, falling through the cracks, as the prospective parents are now divorced. Yes...a lot of struggling people do CHOOSE to reproduce, and make great parents, but if it's FORCED upon them?... well, Skippy summed it up pretty well.
IMHO, Planned Parenthood saves many children, from a lifetime of potential abuse and the horrible domino effect that follows that child, for life. Scott, go to a hospital and volunteer holding, feeding, changing and coddling some of those sick, crack addicted babies and when they are old enough, take them all into your home, raise them with all the perks in life, provide all the expensive medical equipment, needed to help the child develop properly, and a 200k plus education, for each and every one of them.... then get back to me.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

on this we agree sparks

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Trump to tomahawk missiles:

"You're fired" (#You'reWelcomeNewYorkPost LOL)

Hmm.... I wonder what "Trumps best friend" Putin will think of this, him being "buddies" with Bashir al-Assad....

A sticky wicket, that geo-political thing....

PS- Hillary said the US should strike Syria as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

this establishes 2 things in my opinion:
Chemical Weapons are met with immediate destruction
This is counter to Russia's interest in Syria right now. Separates Trump from Putin
Trump responded to a chemical attack and targeted aircraft, fuel, and ammo. He didn't target any people and as far as I know no one was killed.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Glad Trump struck Syria. It will be a interesting Lunch today when Trump meets Xi. Oh to be a fly on the wall in this meeting.


well it definitely sends a signal to President Xi that the US is not afraid to use force. It also sends a message to the Russians they need to get serious about supporting moving Assad on into exile.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Juno - Agreed. The strike creates a powerful backdrop for dealing with Xi on the even more insane dictator in North Korea.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

Rent, for a fly, at mar-a-largo is $10k, per day, per wall it occupies (double occupancy rate). If the fly provides it's own food(bullsh#t), rent will be reduced by $2k. Maggots under 4 hours old, eat free!
Yup... it definitely would be interesting, that's for sure. Trump gives out more "secrets", there, in front of the public, than at the Whitehouse. I guess he's not allowed to communicate, via twitter, while they're all in the same room. The flies, maggots and the BS, they share, is available for the press.... "all of them"... Fox. Then trump will get comfy, in his bathrobe, get his small "twitter fingers" ready to go, and watch Fox, to find out what's going on in the world. Hilarious!

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

It's all for show really. We told the Russians it was coming and the Russians told the Syrians before the tomahawks were launched.

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

In big win for Trump, Senate approves his conservative court pick

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gorsuch-idUSKBN1791GR

Darrin Darrin
Apr '17

Indeed Darrin.

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

Syria crosses a Red Line.
Obama does nothing. (For 4 years.)

Syria crosses a Red Line.
Trump retaliates.

THIS President actually means what he says.


"In big win for Trump, Senate approves his conservative court pick." And a huge loss for our Republic. It was bad enough when the Democrats used the Nuclear Option for the lower appointments, now you Constitutional Conservatives have eroded the supermajority all the way up to the Supremes.

All that means is future nine's with be as polarized as the leading party can make them. No need to get along......

What's next: 51 votes to overturn the 2A......Roe v. Wade..... Let's just lower the bar to 51% for anything.

"well it definitely sends a signal to President Xi that the US is not afraid to use force." Oh come on. President Xi is a real politician who runs circles around neophyte Trump. With your statement, I am sure Xi would say: "bad move, but be my guest; just don't mess up my back yard when you flatten North Korea....."

"It's all for show really. We told the Russians it was coming and the Russians told the Syrians before the tomahawks were launched." Boom, Scottso gets one right!! (IMO :>) They are saying some died, but heh, the airwaves carry all sorts of breezes, some real, some just breaking wind.... Yes, needed to be done, but what's next is the crucial part. One missile barrage from the safety of the poop deck is not a regime change nor much of a punishment......especially given the crime. Almost if as it was set up to make good news for someone.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Sparksjbc- I guess you preferred having a puppet for President. And the first thing he did was to seal all of his records (Schooling and birth and background checks.)

Then Obama and his wife spent millions of taxpayer dollars on Vacations.

AND I recall numerous times when a befuddled Obama said,"I just heard about it on the news"-which was a LIE.

Trump is smart. He actually wants to make our country great again (Unlike Obama, whose main focus seemed to be golfing and reading from teleprompters-Most of which, he probably did not even comprehend.)

Obama left behind numerous trainwrecks, before he trotted off to cash his $65,000,000 book advance check.

Trump is REAL, and he's not in office to line his own pockets (with your $).

Open your ignorant eyes!


Lili - oh never mind

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

" I guess you preferred having a puppet for President. And the first thing he did was to seal all of his records (Schooling and birth and background checks.)" This is not only complete bulldinky but you can look above for the facts saying you are totally misinformed on this one.

"Then Obama and his wife spent millions of taxpayer dollars on Vacations." Well, now you got him......Of course you can't say that's a lot can you? It's just a lot to you, personally.... How about some facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/22/trumps-family-trips-cost-taxpayers-nearly-as-much-in-a-month-as-obamas-cost-in-a-whole-year/#34028d1936e4

"AND I recall numerous times when a befuddled Obama said,"I just heard about it on the news"-which was a LIE." Source please......Yeah, I thought so.....

"Trump is smart. He actually wants to make our country great again (Unlike Obama, whose main focus seemed to be golfing and reading from teleprompters-Most of which, he probably did not even comprehend.)" Sorry. At this point, I just have to say you just can't fix this. Even with facts.

"Obama left behind numerous trainwrecks, before he trotted off to cash his $65,000,000 book advance check." Wait....there's more :>) Somehow now you are saying Trump is better because Obama made some legal money working?

"Trump is REAL, and he's not in office to line his own pockets (with your $)." Oh man, you are in for the full Monty, aren't you. Let's do it anyway. Trump is real. Really, are all his statements real? Really? Hair? Marriages? Pussy grabbing? Blacks are lazy? Jews are good accountants? OK, you got it, it's all real.

Not looking for money? How would you know. See his taxes? See how many shoes got sold from the White whoreHouse. Just doubled his price at Mar-A-Lago but hey, that's not pay-for-access, it's just business. He doubled the price.... His tax program ---- his ---- will net the Trump family $4B in tax savings. If you roll in what his cabinet would reap, the total pocket lining pants job to America will be well over $10B.

I am sorry, but that's some major league pocket lining......Like why would he care about salary....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"In big win for Trump, Senate approves his conservative court pick." And a huge loss for our Republic. It was bad enough when the Democrats used the Nuclear Option for the lower appointments, now you Constitutional Conservatives have eroded the supermajority all the way up to the Supremes."



As if one were worse than the other- it's not. And the dems were the first ones to use the "nuclear option" in 2013 regarding lower court picks.

"In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees, after the nomination of Neil Gorsuch failed to meet the 60-vote hurdle for ending debate."

The opposition to Gorsuch, who was eminently qualified, was pure partisan politics- it had nothing to do with Gorsuch's qualifications, and everyone knows it- including those opposing his confirmation. It's all a game.

I would prefer neither side continue changing the rules (like this "nuclear option" BS), BUT... if one side is going to change the rules, then the other side gets to apply those same rules. Tit for tat. It's called politics. Stop crying.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

LOL! You can't fix stupid.


"Let's just lower the bar to 51% for anything."


The threshold for SCOTUS nominations (and most other issues) has always historically been 51 or more votes, unless there was a filibuster (which is what required 60 votes to break - not the nomination itself).

Samuel Alito - Confirmed with 58 votes in 2006.
Clarence Thomas - Confirmed with 52 votes in 1991.

Filibuster is a self-imposed procedural rule of the Senate, not a Constitutional requirement. McConnell just amended the Senate rules (with a simple majority vote) to disallow filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations.

If the Democrats didn't want that to happen, they could have just given Gorsuch an up or down vote and accepted the result. If I was them, I'd have saved their filibuster for the *next* nominee that will tip the balance of the court more to the Conservative side.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

What goes around comes around especially in politics. Changes will always occur when one group forgets the other. When moderates fail and any form of extremism reigns our democracy suffers.

Using the nuclear option was a mistake and will lead to all kinds of unforeseen consequences for whoever uses it.

God help our republic if the nuclear option is used in legislative matters.


"God help our republic if the nuclear option is used in legislative matters."


Actually, Mark is right... bills pass with a simple majority vote. Period. Perhaps the first "wrong" to have been done was for the filibuster to even be created....

Interesting history of the filibuster, and the cloture rule:

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Just for the record to compare to what he says and what he does, here is what he says:

"The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A."

"AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"


Hmm...

He said he would donate his salary to charity, and he has.

He said he would put a conservative judge on the court to replace Scalia, and he has.

Here's a good summary:

Promises Kept:
-Slash federal regulations
-Place lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying for foreign government
-Nominate someone from his list of justices to replace Antonin Scalia
-Stop TPP
-Save the Carrier plant in Indiana

In the Works:
-Impose a hiring freeze on federal employees
-Defund Planned Parenthood
-Approve the Keystone XL project and reap the profits
-Move U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
-Cancel all funding of sanctuary cities
-Have mandatory minimum sentences for criminals caught trying to enter the United States illegally
-Triple ICE enforcement
-Cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take undocumented immigrants back
-Repeal Obamacare
-Build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it
-Remove criminal undocumented immigrants

Stalled:
-Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton
-Suspend immigration from terror-prone places
-Compromise
-Enact 5-year ban on White House and congressional officials from lobbying

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/23/promises-kept-promises-stalled-rating-donald-trump/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Too bad John Kerry didn't double check Syria's inventory of chemical weapons in 2013.

Denise Denise
Apr '17

What's your point? You think Assad couldn't have made or acquired the gas recently?
Pretty shallow to politicize the poisoning of infants.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

This is how principles work: " if one side is going to change the rules, then the other side gets to apply those same rules."

And then you tell the other side: "Stop crying."

My point was it was wrong when the Democrats did it, and no Jr, it was worse to do it at the Supreme Court level; it is not tit for tat, it is escalation to the detriment of all of America. So yes, I am crying.

The question is: why aren't you?

As to the rest of the inputs, good stuff, I need some time. To quote a stupid man: "it's more complex than I expected......."

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

GC those comments and actions were 6 years apart in my belief

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Too bad Russia didn't make sure the regime destroyed all it's chemical weapons as was the agreement.


I have nothing to add to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/the-coming-incompetence-crisis.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

"Too bad Russia didn't make sure the regime destroyed all it's chemical weapons as was the agreement." Hey.....don't push on that one. Even though Russia guaranteed all chems to be removed as part of the earlier deal, they suffer no punishment in all of this? Makes you wonder......

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

I agree SD, what the democrats did for the lower courts is not the same. The republicans wouldn't even grant up or down votes to hundreds of Obama nominees. It didn't matter who the nominee was, they're only intent was to frustrate and thwart Obama any way they could. Period. It was their stated goal and purpose to do so no matter what.


Who benefits when the obvious outcome of any biological attack would draw intense world-wide scrutiny?

justintime justintime
Apr '17

The NYT has been failing for a long time. Frank Bruni went from critiquing restaurants to writing political opinion. Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist - had to leave Princeton. Everyone's an expert for a price. They stoop to all. I use it under the litter box.

Denise Denise
Apr '17

Agree JIT, no winners. A very scary prospect.

Danny, name calling is completely unnecessary...

positive positive
Apr '17

gotta love that National Enquirer eh, Denise - real news

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

Nikki Haley calling out Iran and Russia at the U.N. security council today.

https://youtu.be/JOEZOxOMZbE

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

Lili , some people, like yourself, fall easy pray to simple slogans, propaganda, twitter announcements, and outright lies, lacking the ability to see real transparency in Trump. I watch his actual (rare) speeches. I watch multiple news programs, listen to senate hearings, read and research the news. I choose to "open my ignorant eyes", to other sources, beyond simple propaganda slogans, via twitter. You said Trump is" real". You may want to re-read some of the posts, here. Trump is one big lie! (except for admitting sexual assault). I'll bet you think "The Apprentice" is real, thus giving Trump the political education, to appoint his staff. Kushner...LOL. If you have no problem with him hiding his taxes, which could contain very damaging and conflicting interests, or going bankrupt 9 times, while holding on to his own cash, and justifying it by saying "it's legal, so I might as well benefit from it", while contractors and investors lost their homes, having gone broke, because Trump "followed the law". Real nice guy. Shows real love for all people. I think I need more "ignorance". Ignorance is bliss. No wonder you're so happy with his behavior and intelligence.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

It's an OP-ED labeled as such. So what.

Skippy - It may be your belief, but those tweets are 3 and a half years ago, not six. Back in 2013 the exact same chemical weapon situation happened and that's what he said, it can't be changed. Non intervention is also all over his foreign policy written up by Sessions. And he doubled down on isolationism during the campaign saying Hillary would start WWIII by attacking Syria. Yesterday he threw all of that out the window. The claim that this somehow changed things is disingenuous.

Denise - You can take away every weapon that Syria has today, and within 48 hrs the Russians would simply resupply them. Sarin included. They haven't spent billions just to let it slip away. The Russian base on the Mediterranean is way too important to let anything get in the way of that.


Ok 3.5 years ago is dog years in terms of a conflict - and even HRC supported this action - what is your point other than OMG TURNIP!

skippy skippy
Apr '17

GC - So are you saying that Russia's ambitions are to get a Mediterranean port in Syria and a port in Iran on the Persian Gulf a well? That is interesting and it makes sense.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

skippy - The point is the hypocrisy of being totally against it and how horrible to attack another country's sovereignty, and to only concentrate on America First, and you're illegal if you don't get Congressional OK, and we can't be the world's policeman. Only now its the right thing to do, and justified retaliation, and why wait for Congress, and someone else was the bad guy for *not* doing it earlier even though that's exactly what you said they weren't supposed to do, and were now the world's policeman. It's not just Trump, it's all the others that have instantly flopped as well. That's the exact duopoly of whatever "we" do is perfect but when "they" do it it's unthinkable. Trump said the exact reason why Hillary can't be elected is she would attack Syria. And now he's Hillary.


Yeah but his current policy, well as of the day before yesterday, was America first, NO intervention. Suddenly he does an about face on a policy position he's spouted for months. He's wishy washy.


DannyC - Do you not know? Russia already has that base in Syria, it's not a matter of getting it in the future. The Russian planes keeping eyes on American ships in the Mediterranean fly out of Syria. That's why the Americans had to warn Russia to leave or get bombed. When the missiles hit, they destroyed both Syrian and Russian airplanes. Not just Syrian planes that Russia gave to them, but planes that do not belong to Syria. Why do you think Assad is still in power? He's propped up with Russian weapons. The only way Assad goes is at Russia's hand when they have someone else they know will continue their bases in Syria.


GC - I think you must be corrected on any Russian planes being destroyed in the air strike, only Syrian planes, 20 of them, precision targeted by 59 US tomahawk missiles. True enough, the question is now: Where do we go from here? Russia remains an aggressive enemy with territorial ambitions in the Middle East. Trump is not their friend.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

"AND I recall numerous times when a befuddled Obama said," I just heard about it on the news"-which was a LIE." Source please......Yeah, I thought so.....

Here you go.


http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/stewart-slams-obama-again-you-cant-keep-saying-you-found-out-about-news-at-the-same-time-as-us/

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

"only Syrian planes, 20 of them" and where do Syrian planes come from? and how much do they cost when Russia is giving them to them? And how do we know 20 planes are destroyed? Did you see them --- they're in tunnels.....

"Here you go." I just love the taste of shoe leather in the morning :>) Good retort, well said, and I take it all back. You are correct sir.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/china-united-states-agree-greater-cooperation-curbing-north/

certainly seems like Xi is on board to collaborate on control of the DPRK

skippy skippy
Apr '17

great news source kb2755 https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/clash-daily/

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

Really, Skippy? Any actual actions or measures detailed? Are they going to be YUGE?

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Sorry 4catmom, that info is available on many sites, time to take off your rose colored glasses.

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

"Mr Tillerson said on Friday that whilst no specific action had yet been planned, Mr Xi, had agreed the nuclear programme had advanced to a serious stage." - it't all YUGE

skippy skippy
Apr '17

LOL. They agreed it was at a serious stage? Wow. Pretty bold.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Some much for non-intervention preached by Bannon. Now it seems like the son-in-law is steering the ship?


strangerdanger - Does it matter where the Syrian planes were built and at what cost? How about other weapons supplied by Russia to brutal dictatorships? Trump clearly signaled that he is prepared to engage them as well if necessary.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

I was making the point that all the potential players in a Wag-the-dog conspiracy have possible upside especially for Assad if they were Russian planes.

Trump has signalled he would do violence to all sorts of people. Assadd was not one of them, remember?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

strangerdanger - WTF is the "Wag-the-dog conspiracy" you are suggesting? How is that documented and how does it work? You should remember that Trump's attack on Syrian planes was prompted by the horrendous poison gassing.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

Sparks- you sound dopey.
Yes,evil Hillary gave much more eloquent speeches. (AND she hired speechwriters).
I like Trump because he "walks the walk".
No, I was NOT a fan of "The Apprentice" .
I AM a fan of the man who wants to stop the current flood of corruption. I don't much like What has happened in America since the 1960's.
Not good for our children.
You should watch the "Ethos" on YouTube by Harrelson.
Then you might understand what "the swamp" actually is, and the reasons why the press will never paint Trump in a positive light.
His winning the election was a bloodless revolution. [He won, in spite of all the shenanigans.]
We want something Else- AND the status quo will NOT go down quietly.
Educate yourself.
Do some research.
Then start to appreciate the revolution that has occurred.(Unless you are one of the ablebodied,non working scumbags who sits back, and sucks from the taxpayer's teat.)


Trump wants to protect us. Obviously North Korea is a threat but they are mostly China's tool so they can be controlled through diplomatic relations with China.

The problem is the Middle East, again, where our "best friend" Israel may manipulate us to more wars. These wars just cost lives and money, and in the end do not solve the security problems in that region which are perpetual. Yes, Zionism again. BTW, does everyone know that all of Trump's children are either married or dating Jews (except the little one who is too young to date). Let's see how impartial this peace process will be in Israel/Palestine.


I don't know where you find your alternate facts but only one of Trump's kids is married to a Jew and converted herselves. The boys are not dating - they are married and their spouses are not Jews...............So I have to ask about any other "facts" you present to us.

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

LOL, 4cat...for iJay,

Unions+Jews= the source of all evil in the world.

I mean, doesn't everyone know it's really Ben and Jerry's Heath Bar Coffee Crunch?

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

One out of two ain't too bad ;-)

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Less than 1% of expected protesters supporting illegal immigration show up for 'Mega March

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-mega-march-2017-draws-a-disappointing-crowd-9355879


This is what I expected to have happened.
1. From just a practical standpoint the legal immigrants, refugees, mostly citizens all opposed this notion.
2. Only hard core leftist and the immigrants themselves see this as a good thing ( illegals were afraid ICE would nab them so they stayed home.) The impact on welfare, school problems, jobs available and a number of other things are all net negatives.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Really? I am hard pressed to imagine which one you think, jit. ok :>), you're excused....:>) Sorry, a little sensitive to Union bashing; they did change the w

"WTF is the "Wag-the-dog conspiracy" you are suggesting?" Nice DC. I had noted my thoughts above. I also noted it's tin foil hat conspiracy thinking which ought to be especially familiar line of thought for many here. As time has passed, I have modified my "theory" in that yes, the gas attack seems verified by a number of independent sources including Drs w/o Boarders (or similar), Opposition Syrian News. Seems legit although I dream for MSM coverage.... And remember, this is tin foil hat conspiracy level thoughts, there is no proof, just possibility.

Modification is that since the act happened, can there still be a "Wag the Dog?" Not really but then the question shifts to who might have participated and why? First, remember that except for the tragic victims where justice should be served, who benefits and who loses?

Assad -- looks horrifically tough to rebels, no real downside except a couple of planes, maybe junkers, a radar installation, and some potholes

Putin -- diffuses Trump bromance, Russian ties, builds some nationalism by blaming America, no real downside except providing a few planes and some radar equipment.

Trump -- diffuses Putin bromance, Russian ties, Obama wire tap ---all the current scandals on the news, proves him man of action, humanitarian, punisher, no real downside except providing a few Cruz missiles, a potential miss and some erosion based on the 180 in though from campaigner Trump.

Remember, the Russians were given advance notice to clear the area, as it should be IMO, and I am sure the Syrians got the message and perhaps with enough time to shield important equipment. Our attack was a pretty low risk affair from both sides and a major marketing moment for the Trump regime.

So who could have, might have, done it?

Assad himself --- what would prompt this lunatic to do this? I mean he's violating the Russian agreement, Putin would be pissed. He's got to know Trump will launch some missiles, I mean what do you think the chances of this are? Yes, he is capable of killing innocents but he would never have done this without Russian clearance which is tantamount to a Russian/Syrian act. I just don't think Assad's reward is worth this risk.

Putin himself --- he's got the personnel, the planes, the people, in place. He gets all the benefits noted above (which have occurred), and he cares less about innocents. He may or may not have included Assad because even if he didn't tell Assad, what's Assad going to do about it? Not going to tell, that's for sure. My take is that it's a Putin initiative implemented by knowingly complicit Assad.

Trump, Putin, Assad --- Before I would have said sure, but I really don't think, I mean I just can imagine, Trump would have agreed to the Syrians dropping Sarin. Given that, it seems that Trump may just be a pawn in Putin's game.

Ask yourself, what has Trump said about Russia in this affair? How many days did it take for his administration to even implicate them? Has anyone in Trumpland actually condemned Russia for their part in this? Hmmm. We will see more on Wednesday, but I am betting on weasel words about Putin demanding Assad act like a human. Now again, I don't think this points to any complicity, more like stupidity.

I do think Trump is being played by Putin. And played well Apparently again and again. Since he is probably in debt, one way or another, to Putin, for past "deals," I am sure to a degree he has had to put up with it. Now let's see what the shrewd master deal maker does now to extricate himself from the bromance now that it seems his Putin deal is all for Putin, all the time. Guess what --- he will get played by China too. These guys are premier political experts on the world stage, Turnip just popped out of the garden.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

My husband works with three recent (legal) immigrants to the US (two from Mexico, one from Honduras). He joked around about if they were going to march and all three blew a gasket! Not one of them is in favor of illegal immigration and even the two guys, Orlando and Miguel from Mexico, said that there SHOULD be a wall built. Eligio from Honduras agreed with them. My husband did NOT expect the reaction he got. It seems not everyone that's from that region is on board with open borders.

They also had a pretty lengthily discussion about the illegals in California working the farms and all three felt that the (already in place) Farmer's Work Visa Program should be used. It's already there and set up and only requires a small amount of paperwork on the part of the farmer and then they can have all the Mexican farm hands they need, they won't be hiring illegals, and the workers won't have to worry about being "deported" or rounded up for being here illegally, which seems to be the Left's mantra - there, problem solved.

Heidi Heidi
Apr '17

strangerdanger - You said: "I mean I just can imagine, Trump would have agreed to the Syrians dropping Sarin. Given that, it seems that Trump may just be a pawn in Putin's game." Now I know for sure that you are thoroughly nuts.

Heidi - Excellent solution...except...if the Famer's Work Visa Program does not increase votes for the left, it will continue to be opposed by them.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

AND employers who hire legal temporary foreign workers, under the H-2A visa program, are required to provide workers' compensation insurance or equivalent benefits to their employees which reduces folks defaulting on medical bills should they become injured.

Hoffman Plastics v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 122 S. Ct. 1275, 152 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2002), limits or eliminates benefits for undocumented workers in most states shifting the burden to tax payers.

btw - in re Snopes...

Ask a Science Professor: Is Snopes.com unbiased, reliable for skeptics or journalists to use for research? No!

https://ultratechlife.com/blog/ask-a-science-professor-is-snopes-com-unbiased-reliable-for-skeptics-or-journalists-to-use-for-research-no/

why is this an issue? Google will now be telling users which results contain "fake news" according to PolitiFact and Snopes.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/07/googles-fake-news-fact-checkers-include-snopes-politifact/

skippy skippy
Apr '17

The "Wag-the-dog conspiracy" was presented last week on the Lawrence O'Donnell show on MSNBC.

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

kb2755 - Now it all makes sense: the source of the unreal "Wag the dog conspiracy" being MSNBC. Sorry I missed it, haven't tuned in there for years. Trump is genuine and effective. WTF is MSNBC?

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

DC -- typo, should have been can't.

Check your dates, I beat O'Donnell on this one...weird huh.

"Trump is genuine." ha, ha, ha.... as genuine as his hair color. Effective --- prove it. Not effective for your healthcare. How's that ban doing? How's hiring going --- Flynn, Bannon, Deare, Crowley withdrew nomination, Wasinger over lobbyist pledge, Conway is hidden in the basement, etc. etc. Effective? Not at hiring.

MSNBC is a cable news and opinion network.

Once again Heidi is the queen of the anecdotal database, What is the number of people you have friends/family relationships with needed to prove a point as fact. This time --- three! You did balance your "statistical" approach this time with the "it seems" caveat. You're getting better at spin :>) Nicely played Madam.

I agree that most legals don't want illegals, mostly because of job competition which is probably not true in your husband's workmates case.

Is your husband a farm worker given the expertise of his workmates on California farming? :>)

Yes, I agree the Farmers Work Program could be used if I could only find one that existed. Do you know where to look it up? Otherwise, I think it's actually the H-2A program and it starts with "It’s not easy to get H-2A visas." It's a game for the bigger boys, paperwork-wise. And even for them the program currently sucks for speed and paperwork. It currently does not meet the needs of agriculture while completely failing at meeting the needs for smaller farmers or those with immediate needs. Needs fixing but certainly do-able. Trump should do this before he builds a wall; might not need one then, save the money. He is certainly savvy about the process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/farmers-await-trump-action-on-visas-for-temporary-workers/2017/04/07/5d0027aa-1afa-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.6c51695d6aa2

And no DC for your classic "except...if the Famer's Work Visa Program does not increase votes for the left, it will continue to be opposed by them." First, I don't think there is such a program. Second, undocumented "famers" don't legally vote to begin with, your point is moot. Un-nicely played madam, un.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

strangerdanger - Trump confronted the Syrian murderer after he crossed the "red line" that Obama made. Are you still sticking to MSNBC's "wag-the-dog conspiracy"? An insanely stupid position, madam.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

You need better reading conprehension skills. First, I said it, not sure what msnbc said. Second, I was pretty clear, multiple times, that it was a possibilty, a tin foil hat level cospiracy theory, third -- oh why bother...

You are wrong on all counts.

I wrote what I wrote and yes, I believe it the way I said it. Just not the way you read it

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

Unions + Zionists (not all Jews, only Jews that put Israel over all else -- including the land you are standing on right now).

As far as dating, Tiffany Trump is dating a Jew to round things out:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-daughter-tiffany-dating-jewish-son-of-real-estate-attorney/

So who is right now 4catmom?


twithood, ijay: does everyone know that all of Trump's children are either married or dating Jews (except the little one who is too young to date).

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

One should know the influencers of our President. Six months ago who would think that Bannon would be second fiddle? That a Jewish son-in-law who Netanyahu once slept in his bedroom would be the top influencer of Trump.

I don't like where this is going. I am about America first. Always have been, anything wrong with this? Born here and hopefully will die here. Zionists are about Israel first. This is a problem with me and should be with all Americans.


Yeah. I have a problem with you. About the same as you have wuth Zionists but not at the same level that you have with Jews.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

"I am about America first. Always have been, anything wrong with this? Born here and hopefully will die here. Zionists are about Israel first. This is a problem with me and should be with all Americans."


Isn't this hypocritical? Or at the very least, failing to understand that you think and feel JUST AS THEY DO?

I assume Mexicans are about Mexico first, Brits are about Britain first, Indians about India first.... not sure where the problem lies with any of that? Isn't that one of the tenants of patriotism to your country?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

"I assume Mexicans are about Mexico first, Brits are about Britain first, Indians about India first.... not sure where the problem lies with any of that? Isn't that one of the tenants of patriotism to your country?"

Yes, it is... but I presume that his point is that there are "Americans" who put Israeli interests above the interests of America.

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

patriotism makes you a nationalist which is akin to alt-right neo-con racist facism now that Trump is president. Gotta keep up with the narrative now.

""Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people?" - Ron Paul 2012

skippy skippy
Apr '17

""Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people?" - Ron Paul 2012

I don't know, Dr. Paul. You would need to ask Trump supporters. They're the ones who are bastardizing the word "patriotism" with blind loyalty as you describe so eloquently.

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

That's an assumption Iman.... Just like Ijay assumes that Zionists are racists who desire to take over the world. Fact is there is land contention between Israel and Palestine, a country that has never existed. However, the Palestine region, etc. and people do and have existed.

I think iJay is wrong and the issue is as I have stated.

Crikey --- he would go "Scanners" if Bernie had won the Presidency :>)

DC --- you would love this. Apparently the WAPO jumped all over Larry for WTD....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/08/msnbc-hosts-conspiracy-theory-what-if-putin-planned-the-syrian-chemical-attack-to-help-trump/?utm_term=.7f5463ed1614

And an op ed......
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-baseless-conspiracy-theories-about-trump-distract-from-the-truth/2017/04/10/3c2175d4-1e1a-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html?utm_term=.3b4ce89a3553

I disagree with WAPO on this. The value of what I, and then Larry, exposed, as a tin foil hat theory, has great value to Trump to realize that might be totally played by Putin. That possibility is a reality. For example, Sarin is tricky stuff, you have to mix it just before demolition, it has a very short shelf life, and everything must be protected against potential WMD-level accidents. This is not like rolling a metal cased bomb that has been stored for months in the armory and loading it under the fuselage before screaming down the runway. You will have guys in hazmat suits loading and flying the plane on this one. Putin, given the Russia's embedded nature with the Syrians, would have had to seen this coming at minimum. I say he orchestrated it because Assad would never go it alone.

Potentially. Maybe. A possibility worth investigating.

I also still say we had to act. Send a message. Not turn a blind eye or paralysis-through-analysis. But if Trump does not go for further intelligence to determine how and if he is being played, he is a fool.

We will learn more post the hands-off-the-Tillerson meetings this week. Putin has no reason to give on anything in Syria, Assad holds most the major metros. He looks to be winning. Will Putin give some of this up or just gf Trump and Tillerson. Time will tell, I vote he will gf them.

You do know the airport is running again?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"Yes, it is... but I presume that his point is that there are "Americans" who put Israeli interests above the interests of America."

Ah... ok. Interesting that America seems to be the only country this happens in... I don't see Germans in India putting Germany first, or Italians in Canada putting Italy first or...

Wait... there is ONE group of people that seem to be everywhere, and put their country/culture first... to the point of wanting their laws enacted in other countries... hmm... who is that.... trying to remember...

OH YEAH: Islam.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

A funny incident when I was working for a prime US defense/aerospace vendor: American/Israeli reps were trying to land a lucrative contract when they asked me who the purchasing director was. I told them Mr. Dunleavy. They were so disappointed to find that he was not Don Levy, and his first name was Mike. Just business.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

I am not so sure about that - one of the cornerstones this country was founded on is the freedom of individuals to hold government accountable for its policy, to question it and fight for change. A patriot reveres the Constitution, understands its original intent and meaning, and fights to see it upheld - they don't tolerate those who creatively interpret the Constitution. Liberals see the Constitution as outdated and want to deny the rights of other with a broad brush (see 2A). Liberals want the federal government to have broad, unrestricted power to redistribute wealth. Patriots certainly don't cheat in elections, get the questions ahead of time, riot in the streets when their candidate loses, or attack the police with violence. They work within the system to effect change - those who sought to change the Constitution to give women the vote and outlaw slavery were certainly patriots

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Wow, that's just an amazing part of human nature DC. Wanting to have a potential edge due to ancestry is sales. Amazing.

Can we get back to Trump? At this point, I don't think Jews or the Jewish State are going to have any more influence on him, or America, than any other modern President......

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"one of the cornerstones this country was founded on is the freedom of individuals to hold government accountable for its policy, to question it and fight for change."

I'm pretty sure that's why the "snowflakes" are out in the streets. You may disagree with their objectives, but at least they aren't apathetic about it.

"A patriot reveres the Constitution, understands its original intent and meaning, and fights to see it upheld - they don't tolerate those who creatively interpret the Constitution."

Interpreting the Constitution is the role of the SCOTUS. HOW they should interpret it is open to interpretation. "Original intent" is by and large an invention. The Constitutional Convention was comprised of dozens of white guys arguing for months. Do you think there was a single unified intent in any of it? Or was it just a composite of what they could get the majority to agree upon based on their individual self interests? It doesn't seem all that "sacred" when realizing the context behind it.

"Liberals see the Constitution as outdated and want to deny the rights of other with a broad brush (see 2A)."

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to accuse a large group of people of using a broad brush, no? Don't conservatives also try to deny the rights of others? DOMA, etc.? I agree with conservatives on the 2A; it's an individual liberty that needs to be protected. All other attacks on personal liberty seem to come from their side, though.

"Liberals want the federal government to have broad, unrestricted power to redistribute wealth."

The wealth is being redistributed all right... straight to the 1%. The numbers don't lie. Do you see any statistics that point to the poor and middle class becoming richer at the expense of the billionaires?

"Patriots certainly don't cheat in elections, get the questions ahead of time, riot in the streets when their candidate loses, or attack the police with violence."

No, they don't. However, the total number of people who engage in your listed activities are so few as to be statistically insignificant. I think you were just running out of steam and threw that one in there (-;

"They work within the system to effect change - those who sought to change the Constitution to give women the vote and outlaw slavery were certainly patriots"

Why would the Constitution need to be changed from time to time if it did not get "outdated"? Also, those who effected the changes you list were certainly "patriots"; they were also "liberals" (or "progressives", if you prefer) and not "conservatives".

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

"I'm pretty sure that's why the "snowflakes" are out in the streets. You may disagree with their objectives, but at least they aren't apathetic about it."

I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party is actually the original snowflakes :>) Don't see much difference except for the message.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"Do you see any statistics that point to the poor and middle class becoming richer at the expense of the billionaires?"


Becoming richer, no.... but getting wages and benefits for no earning it (work) of their own accord? Yes.

Welfare spending the largest item in the federal budget:
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget.pdf

Handy pie chart of federal spending

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

I am a libertarian - I am all for changing the constitution through lawful channels and interpretation by the SCOTUS. I don't think the constitution necessarily gets out dated - I think in 1789 there was as much debate as there is now as to what is right, and to your point that the constitutional convention involved numerous folks arguing for months, I think certain inalienable rights were not enumerated. I am all for adding MORE freedom to the constitution any day of the week.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

I'm pretty sure Paul revere was the original snowflake lol - I'm all for peaceable assemble and redress through protest. Antifa violence not so much

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Imagine how much higher that welfare allocation number would be if we outlawed abortion like you want to... do you have a solution to the poverty problem that you're withholding from the rest of us?

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

ianimal - Nice job parsing every sentence, one by one, from Skippy on the Constitution, not that I agree with any of your conclusions. What say you about strangerdanger's "wag-the-dog conspiracy" theory from MSNBC and now Putin?

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

Just pointing out FACTS, that's all. Inconvenient as they might be. We spend more money on welfare programs than anything else. Makes me feel better about military spending... ALOT of the welfare program spending should be re-routed to veterans, imo.

But then we all have opinions, don't we?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

here is a good start.

1, definitely keep abortion free and legal - but also disincentivize the impoverished among us from continuing to have children by eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.
2. Prohibit families with dependent children from receiving EITC and ACTC benefits if they are also receiving public housing assistance

why are we giving cash welfare grants to individuals who have no federal income tax liability? almost half of employed people pay no tax and get a refund anyway.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/07/in-2015-45-percent-of-americans-will-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/

and this goes for the "undocumented workers" as well
http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/02/irs-says-illegal-immigrants-eligible-tax-credits/

26 states also have their own additional EITC programs.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/earned-income-tax-credits-for-working-families.aspx

Richard Nixon invented it Earned Income Tax Credit; Ford Signed it and Ronald Reagan dubbed it "the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.

so yes - I am against a republican idea.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

What does this have to do with Trump jr? It was 2011, 3 years into our greatest recession since the depression thanks to your conservative Bushman. Yeah, yours....

How about a comprehensive view? For a change.... It's not like your hero, Racist Republican Attorney General, Jeff Sessions can add or is immune to spin charts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html?utm_term=.a04e56dad935 (Incidentally, given it's 2011, I probably would end up agreeing on this on, but let's face it --- Sessions just stinks.)

Politifact is right. That was a inaccurate spun version of budget numbers. It was 2011, we were all younger and sillier then. To make you feel better, I posted the correct version of your chart one year later. OMG ---- it's the same picture....almost What a difference the right numbers and a title makes! Enjoy.

And bye the bye ----- before you come at me that it's only discretionary and therefore not valid ----- check your facts ---- don't want to feel tiny this early in the week :>)

And ps ---- who cares about whether its 57% or 16% ---- both are way out of proportion and about to go farther South thanks to your vote, your hero, Mr. PussyGrabber In Chief.

And ps that ps ---- check out our defense budget versus the rest of the world. Shoot. they got peashooters against our ass-alt-rightfuls (I'm on a roll now) Why don't you roll up the pie chart for the top 20 in military spending and see what that looks like. OMG ---- US at 57% again!!!! What are we waiting for ----- let's mow it all done and take all the oil. It's our destiny. Make America Grate Again.

Eeeeeeee ha ===== it's happy hour somewhere. You know what the philosopher Calico said ----- the world is always golden looking through the bottom of my glass. And then I added, and when it gets clear ---- time for more gold!!!! Bring back the gold standard. Lithium ho000000

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

....but also disincentivize the impoverished among us from continuing to have children by eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit ...

LOL good idea...typical conversation between "the impoverished among us"??.

hey baby, how you doin'? you heard about that earned income tax credit though? word. lets make us some babies!

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

Wow, must've hit a nerve with SD, he's got his panties in a bunch again...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Sigh.

Guess ol' SD didn't ACTUALLY READ the 3rd link I provided, to politifact.com, which seems well-respected by both sides around here... specifically disproving the chart he posted....

again:
"Is federal spending on the military about 50 times higher than on food stamps? That’s the message of a pie chart now circulating on the Internet.

The pie chart is headlined, "Look closely at this chart of federal spending." It says spending on the "military" accounts for 57 percent of the federal dollar, with other categories ranging from 1 percent to 6 percent."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Scottso - you haven't noticed an entire predatory lending industry that popped up around tax refunds? everything from "rapid refund" advance loans to appliance rental places are based around the EITC.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

No sense arguing JR sessions has been branded racist - you lose the argument

skippy skippy
Apr '17

An update for Trump voters:
He said he wouldn’t bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria.

He said he’d build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now his secretary of homeland security says “It’s unlikely that we will build a wall.”

He said he’d clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses.

He said he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “wonderful.” You bought it. Then he didn’t.

He said he’d use his business experience to whip the White House into shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional, back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge.

He said he’d release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn’t, and says he never will.

He said he’d divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and copyright rights, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has more conflicts of interest than can even be counted.

He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration.

He said he’d surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in charge of education; Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in charge of voting rights; Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in charge of fair housing; Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.

He said he’d faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI’s investigation into collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election.

He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals did. You bought it. Then he green lighted a disastrous raid in Yemen- even though his generals said it would be a terrible idea. This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no useful intel was gained

He called Barack Obama “the vacationer-in-Chief” and accused him of playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer’s dime, not when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the world on Trump business.

He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times “fake news” and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars.

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

you're absolutely right - we all should have voted for Hillary who is the bastion of truth and honesty

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Pretty much sums it up, 4cat!! Great post.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Good thing everyone was allowed to "keep their doctor"... oh wait...

Well, good thing Gitmo has been closed.... oh wait....

Well, at least he gave us the "most transparent administration in history" ROFLMAO

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/obamas-long-list-of-broken-promises/

But...but... that's those wascally wepubwicans in congwess fwault!!!!

Uh..uh...uhh... BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!! YOU'RE A RACIST!!!!!!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

The greatest recession since the last depression thanks to your conservative the Bushman. Haha, you do know that the housing crisis was started by Barney Frank and Chris Todd who made Freddie and Fannie Mae loosen their lending criteria along with the Community Investment Act that required the Banks to do the same. You remember " Everyone is entitled to own a home". That led to the sharks on Wall Street to give mortgages to every Tom, Dick and Harry that walked in the door and then sell them back to Freddy and Fannie or put them in a pool and sell mortgage backed securities to so called smart investors. This was happening well before the Bushman took office. Could he have put a stop to it, probably but like with all these crisises, everyone turns a blind eye while everyone is making money on the gravy train until the crap hits the fan. Now I know there were other factors involved but this was the main reason in my humble opinion. Can we blame the Bushman for the Dot Com bubble?

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

"Sigh. Guess ol' SD didn't ACTUALLY READ the 3rd link...."

Sigh right back at you. Of course I read your turdblossom; and I even indicated "Politifact is right. That was a inaccurate spun version of budget numbers." Did you miss that? Perhaps jr is sr and needs some reading glasses :>)

And then I added my chart which, of course I said not-humbly, was accurate. Big mistake that was. I snookered myself. You are right. I think it's a similar bogus chart but with a 2012 date. Apparently I pulled a number of CBO data charts and then pasteed the one I pulled that wasn't. Sorry about that.

OK, let's go for real numbers for my chart's year: 2012 when SNAP spending was $106.9B and defense was $849.6B (oh let's just call it a trillion...we're all friends...) Sure ain't 50 times more but sure is a heck of a lot more.....It was even worse in 2011, the year you focused up on. Now if you wanted to say all welfare then the 2012 number is $411.2B

Point is we spend to much on defense, it's pretty clear on most vectors. If budgeting is your thing, that's where the lowest hanging fruit is....as I showed. First, we spend more than the next 15 or so countries combined. Some of those major spenders are our friends. To keep with the season, Jesus man, who couldn't trim that budget just based on those comparisons? Who's getting snookered now?

Second, the defense budget numbers are always bogus by definition both with date in front of our faces AND with sneaky data hidden away on other line items. Like the defense dollars hidden under "Foreign Aid" for example that you can't even see -- you know -- Ijay's bullets and bombs for Israel. But the bogus budget numbers are right in front of your face too. For example, using your 2011 date, scattered about is also Veterans Benefits and Services Funding - $57B, military retirement $55B, and Veterans Income Security at $79B. That's freaking bigger than snap right there.

You know. If we just quit getting so good with those MASH units, we could lower those dollars by 50% or more. Better than starving babies, right? (ok that was an aside but let's face it, much of war's expense is the aftermath, isn't it.)

So the real budget number before we add in those things that are hidden wasn't $849.6B but it's really over $1Tillion in spending. Against about $110M in SNAP and $400+B for all of Welfare including SNAP.

During, SNAP is down about 11% since it's height in 2013. Defense is down about 15% since it's height in 2010. However it's about to rise another 10% under Trump and for what? So the strongest nation in the world can be stronger? Than who? Those other 15 guys it takes to match our budget? Some of whom are our allies.

And remember, I think Congress might have a 10% cap on increases so think of it like your property tax. What percentage up to 10% do you think Trump will ask for next year? Especially once he sees the Syrian smack down gives him points in the polls?

I will say this: these are YUGE years for both of these budget line items due to the last time you conservatives decided to Make America's Great Recession Happen Again and while we were still engaged in a couple of little military fracases so yes both defense and welfare did actually come down in the following years under our last real President.....Obama.

Oh yeah, did you mention that Obama brought the deficit down by 50% over those years. That ought to let the air out of your doughnut. Roid rage. Incoming.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

One comment about the Constitution that I've always thought relevant: It's a framework that defines *how* the rule of law is to be implemented, with some basic (obvious IMO) protections thrown in.

Laws should be implemented using that framework, but honestly in most cases there have been loopholes created that minimizes the whole point of having the Constitution. And yes the SCOTUS has been the biggest abuser by not forcing the Congress to change the document that defines what the rule of law should be.

At this point the Constitution exists more for historical reverence than it does as the law of the land.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Disgracefully wrong.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/climate/trump-epa-budget-cuts.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer= https://t.co/R2qwclsdl9

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

For those interested in how "debt" and "deficit" are (wrongly) used interchangeably as wordplay in an attempt to win debates:

Keep this in mind:

Deficit=one year.
Debt=all money owed.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/27/debt-vs-deficit-whats-difference/


Not sure which "deficit" SD is talking about (that Obama cut by 50%), but the debt just keeps on going up, with no end in sight:

National Debt nearly doubles under Obama
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/17/budget-deficit-nearly-doubles-during-obama-years/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

That just means the credit card was used half as much as previous years to pay off the other credit cards.

Its meaningless really because we're still borrowing money just to pay the bills. Deficit spending can only ever add to our debt, and reducing the deficit just means the rate of debt increase slows a bit. But like I've said in previous posts, paying off debt destroys money-removes it from the economy-which would be detrimental to the system. So someone has to continue to take on more debt. The Feds inflation mandate essentially means debt mandate.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Which nation has benefited the most since Trump was elected? Israel. Coincidence? I think not...


"Haha, you do know that the housing crisis was started by Barney Frank and Chris Todd." Appreciate the IMO. But IMO, Nah. They participated for sure, but did not cause nor start. There were many reasons for the housing crisis, the subprime fiasco being a major part of it. You might even go back to the 2000 dot.com crisis and say that precipitated the 2008 crash. And the housing crisis was only part of the multiple reasons for The Great Recession. The CRA for example goes back to Carter. While the Maes expanded subprimes and held way too much, they did hold over 60% leaving about 40% held by private concerns not caused by Frank actions at the Maes. Just saying. But at the top of it all for the last eight years before it happened ---- Bush.

jr math :>) Yes jr, the deficit can be cut in half while the debt still rises. Very good. "That just means the credit card was used half as much as previous years to pay off the other credit cards." Jit gets it, however I would not agree with "Its meaningless really because we're still borrowing money just to pay the bills." Instead, I would say it's a step in the right direction.

"National Debt nearly doubles under Obama" Some more math for you jr.

"Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009."

"George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001." Uh oh....your guy sucks more pond water......

"Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993." My hero......:>)

"George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54 percent increase from the $2.8 trillion debt at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989." Another vote from jr.

"Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?" Geez, you guys just can't add, can you......

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

OK....before you go ballistic, bear in mind IMO the debt is one of our top priority issues to fix, will take over 30 years of hard work by all Americans, and requires all of us to pitch in which Trumpies are loathe to do. We not only need governmental fiscal prudence (cuts, less waste, and better investments that pay off for America), but more revenues (taxes) through both GDP growth as wells as higher tax rates, less loopholes, and a streamlined tax code. Basically all of the above, all hands on deck, and everybody into the pool time. Still will take decades to fix.

Hey did you hear the hiring freeze is off at the Federal Government? That didn't take long. Good news is I hear Trump is hiring temporary workers just like he uses at the Winery and Mar-A-Loser.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

iJay - So what? As long as Israel does not pull the US into an unnecessary war, who cares? Maybe they are just very good business people, like Trump?

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/ar-BBzJHz3?li=BBnb7Kz

Even WaPo, who would LOVE to make this a huge connection, is pretty ho-hum about the details (not the headline, those are what drives the social justice 'sharing')

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

Carter Page was the basis for the FISA warrant that existed since 2013. A guy who was never a Trump advisor, and received a C&D from campaign telling him to stop associating himself with the campaign. Best thing about it, Page never had his request to have a meeting with Trump granted. He did pro-bono work on policy memos; and met with Sessions, not Trump.

Killary and the Apple Dumpling gang used Page as a cover to justify widespread surveillance of a campaign he was consulting for - but hey she will absolutely win right? Nothing to worry about.


Obama had an advisor was in regular contact with Hamas, a straight up terrorist Organization.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/obama-sacks-malley-after-meeting-with-hamas/

Hamas themselves admitted they had an open thread with the White House which was still ongoing. Obama sent folks to meet with them in Hamas-controlled Gaza.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3620833,00.html

never saw that in a US paper - that would clearly have been racist and islamophobic.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Taxing the ultra wealthy, equally on all income, same as a middle class family, pays, percentage wise is not" redistribution of wealth", like stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It just a fair way, to make sure America works together, for all Americans, like a homeowner, with no children, paying school taxes. The "average Joe" doesn't have a choice, as to what they want to pay taxes on. That's only reserved for the ultra wealthy politicians. Trump promised to "drain the swamp", not pollute it more, literally and figuratively. He's making choices for what's in the best interest of themselves... not the entire country. It doesn't bother Trump, that the planet is getting destroyed, but his kids should have the brains to show him otherwise.
Anyone who still think Trump has a care in the world, for the upper middle class, and below, is living in a dream world. He has enough money for everything he wants, except a trillion dollar, personal military. Becoming president, insures him and his family, life time security, saving HIS family, of nine kids and spouses, hundreds of millions of dollars. He's already spent more money, playing golf, than Obama spent in eight years! Putin got his wish... divide and concur, making us a weaker nation. Trump is a train wreck. He started this out of an experiment, to see if his celebrity status, was still in tact. He really didn't expect to win. He's a menace to our nation, trying to start WW3. This is the scariest "nuclear" fear, since the cold war, with Russia.
He's got a lot of "dirty" money, floating around, in addition to combining his presidency, whilst still running his businesses. There's no way he'll ever show his taxes. The TV props, of manila folders, doesn't cut it. Pretty long :audit", we're waiting for, huh? Now we have to play "wag the dog", as a diversion from what Putin has on him, as well as his taxes. Mar a largo, is doing very well, financially, now. It's like America is Trump's personal ATM.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

"Uh oh....your guy sucks more pond water......"

Why, because of percentages from the previous year? That's funny math right there... if spending is equal year to year (equally sucking), the percentage gain will automatically be less year to year (as well as being VERY high if the initial balance is low).

The simple fact is that Obama spent 35% MORE than Bush ($7.917T vs $5.849T).

The only way Obama sucked less is if inflation was 35% or more between the 2001-2008 and 2009-2016 administrations to explain the increased dollar amount.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

sucks if your a statist but under Trumps plan most folks wont even pay taxes.

http://prntly.com/2016/08/14/trumps-tax-plan-is-right-most-americans-should-pay-no-income-tax/

"single people making less than $25k a year pay no taxes, couples making less than $50k a year pay no taxes"

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"NATO is obsolete". Trump campaign mantra.

Today:" NATO is no longer obsolete".

You can always tell when Trump is lying. His lips move.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Israel is good at business which is why they don't need the 750 million in economic aid. As far as pulling us into another war, that is just what might happen or something like the Oil Embargo in the 1970s where we were punished for supporting Israel.

Michael Scheuer - Time for you Hackettstown Lifers to get educated...

https://youtu.be/-4sBXwoVOW8

https://youtu.be/UJDb6dQTr8w

https://youtu.be/OHwp7uwK6bE

https://youtu.be/XHl1JnQoIWQ

https://youtu.be/JTgvm2fF0kU


As Trump said about Healthcare, and now says about North Korea, it's complicated.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/500192/

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

iJay - All of your videos are very old, most with Scheuer talking favorably about Osama bin Laden when he was still alive. That discredits both Scheuer and you.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

From the link above:

"While the United States’s new Memorandum of Understanding with Israel is historic in its own right, it’s most remarkable in its apparent inevitability: It is a foreign-policy move seemingly immune to the electoral politics around it."

I rest my case...


DannyC where were you educated? The videos are 1-7 years old, that's all. All the statements apply today.


iJay - Your anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and possibly anti-Jew position is now well known. What would you have our President Trump do to satisfy you in the context of today's Mideast (and global) debacle? Please be specific and show how the consequences of any actions would benefit anyone.

DannyC DannyC
Apr '17

Mulvaney interview...more of Trump walking back every position he took while running...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/trumps-budget-director-is-at-home-in-the-eye-of-the-storm.html?__source=yahoo|finance|inline|story|story&par=yahoo&doc=104400022

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Not anti Jew. Just because I don't give into your "right" to a homeland. BTW, I am not a fan of ALL religions but live and let live. I am about individual growth. Don't tell me what to believe, help me find my way...

As far as how to solve the problem, whew! This selfish Zionist passion has brought in big-brother USA and we are on the hook for a while. I doubt for too long though. The younger generations have no savings, homes so they are no really sympathetic to sending billions to Israel when they are told they will have to work until 75 years of age before they can retire...


Just means he's a true Republicrat after all....

justintime justintime
Apr '17

You guys are taking the cino off my capuchin.

"Just means he's a true Republicrat after all...." Really? All Trump is to you is more of the same Republicrat that all the other Presidents were too? Same level of lying? Same level of floppy flops, scandals, and the rest? Think you are lowering your low bar....

"I don't give into your "right" to a homeland." Really? So you feel that the Jews do not deserve a homeland on this Earth? What? Haven't put in enough time? Not enough effort? Just can't put a flag in the ground like the Catholics, Muslims, or Buddhists?

"Mulvaney interview...more of Trump walking back every position he took while running..." Well, many of his supporters said he didn't mean it and they knew what he really meant. So I guess this is it! Policeman to the world, yes-no-maybe, it's all complicated, let's give Russia a chance, no hire/hire for Federal Government, NATO bad - good - I fixed it -- me, me, me....

Well, "The simple fact is that Obama spent 35% MORE than Bush ($7.917T vs $5.849T)." Actually its the complex fact of both the percentage increase, the dollar amount, the percentage against GDP, etc. that one needs to look at, but yet Obama spent more so how can he suck less?

The spending increase ramp that Bush set was at the 100%+ rate. Faced with two ongoing Wars, The Great Recession, a failed world financial system, and more, IMO, Obama coming in at a 70% spending growth rate is a miracle. He not only knocked down the spending growth rate, he lowered the yearly deficit by 50%, and then look at what you got for your investment.....

Let's see, with Bush we got the 9/11 response including two Wars and over 4,000 of our kids gone. To cover that, he said jokingly, we got the Bush tax cuts on the rich, worsening housing problem, and The Great Recession to which he responded wisely with a $700B TARP bail job.

With Obama we had to continue the Bush spending but ultimately "downsized" both Wars, spent another $800B on --- the unemployed, the hungry, infrastructure stimulus projects, targeted tax credits for residential improvements, etc. pulling us out of The Great Recession faster and easier. By far, Obama got us through this better and faster than we cleared The Great Depression. A lot of people seem to have missed or have forgotten how bad off we were. They seem to have totally missed that under Obama, you had the lowest taxes ever. Lower than even Bush. Obama continued the Bush TARP deficit spending saving the financial world, saved auto and other industries, buffered our massive unemployment, etc. By the end of his reign, he's got the deficit reduced by 50%, a start in the right direction. It would have been better if he hadn't held the Bush Tax cuts, a major stupid financial move.

Bottom line: with Bush spending deficits, we had close to 5,000 dead in two Wars and The Great Recession. For an additional $2T under Obama, we downsized the Wars with under 2,000 dead Americans (still way too many) and we came through and out of The Great Recession. Many of you might feel bad about how long that took and how slow it was ----- but you didn't die from hunger, did you?

So yeah, IMO, what we got, what we "earned" for the investment "loan" under each President, is vastly different. One sucks, the other doesn't. Obama lowered the death toll and focused on eggs n butter while downsizing the war efforts, Bush spent our deficit on gunpowder and lead to protect us from Iraq while forgetting New Orleans?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

"He not only knocked down the spending growth rate"

Your sleight of hand isn't working... you keep trying to conflate the declining *balance* growth rate as a declining *spending* growth rate... they are not one in the same.

It is VERY easy to drastically increase the spending rate while drastically decreasing the balance growth rate.

If I (or Bush) start with $100 balance, it would take only $100 to double it ($100 spending rate - 100% growth rate).

The next guy (Obama) comes in and spends $150 (50% higher *spending* rate - but the $200 *balance* from the previous year only grew by 75%).


Your premise would even be marginally believable if, towards the end of Obama's term, the "slope" of the debt growth curve was leveling out (should I break out the calculus too?). But even that isn't the case...

Chart from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/?utm_term=.88e2945b87ab

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

"All Trump is to you is more of the same Republicrat that all the other Presidents were too? Same level of lying? Same level of floppy flops, scandals, and the rest? Think you are lowering your low bar...."


Actually no, it's just that you (and some others) haven't caught up to the rest of us yet... keep plugging... you'll get there (or maybe not)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

U.S. military drops massive 21,000-pound bomb on ISIS tunnels in eastern Afghanistan;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4409772/US-drops-biggest-non-nuclear-bomb-combat-time.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/13/us-drops-largest-non-nuclear-bomb-in-afghanistan-after-green-beret-killed.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html

skippy skippy
Apr '17

If "catching up" up to JR is the goal I'll assume this must be a race to the bottom.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Besides, SD- you don't believe in the concept of "republicrat" anyway, you've stated such several times... you're still stuck in "democrats=good, republicans=bad" land.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

I just use the proper definition Jr, unlike some on this site. And the good, bad part you know is not true. Close but not 100% and always with links :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

What is the proper definition- seriously I didn't know it was a thing until this thread

skippy skippy
Apr '17

We should not redo the world map in modern times SD! The ethnic groups and religions evolved over time. Science says we all evolved from an African, unless you don't believe in evolution. Nobody deserves a homeland, the Earth itself is the home of us all. We happen to live here but could live there...

Again, my main issue is US money and lives however I would be sympathetic to those loosing their land and freedom (i.e. Palestinians).


Definition of what Skippy?

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Republicrat

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Whatever Trump is, that is to say if there really is any real Trump, his base appears to be losing faith. "Catching up", as JR might say, although in truth, the big con is becoming clearer each day.


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Skippy, that's just my pet name for team politicians, those who blindly follow the party line without thought. Basically most politicians.

When I said it about Trump above my meaning is that he's now following the red team war mongerers mentality (which also seems to be the blue teams view these days as well) instead of sticking with his original views of non-intervention. He said one thing to get elected and now he's changing his tune. That's the hallmark of a true politician regardless of party affiliation, thus combining the words republican and democratic - Republicrat.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

That's what I thought but SD keeps saying he uses the proper definition - I thought I was out if the loop. Thanks

skippy skippy
Apr '17

I though Republicrat meant your true motivation is to keep the 2 party system in place above any particular political view.

I have no problem with people changing their minds based on new information. I can't imagine 'Trump the campaigner' had all the facts.

If we get a couple conservative Supreme Court justices then fine. That will have more of a lasting impact then any of this other nonsense.

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

Just the opposite for me Scottso, IMO two party politics is evil in disguise. Reality is masked by trying to force fit every view

justintime justintime
Apr '17

What's about to happen or not happen in/near North Korea? This is serious business.


No worries jd, scottso says a couple of conservative SC justices is more important than Trump playing "who's is bigger" with a nuclear power run by a lunatic.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

SD, do the Romani deserve a homeland? This would be in modern day Northern India?

"originating from the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent,[52][53][54] presumably from where the states Rajasthan, Haryana, and Punjab exist today"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

BTW, these were the second most persecuted ethnic group by the Nazis.

The answer like with the Jews is no. They migrated over time making new homelands (I hope), you can't go back in life unless they welcome you back with open arms or you go by force. We see the results of by force in Israel. Trillions of dollars and in excess of 100k lives and many more severely injured.


In my house when someone wonders what something means and asks, we say "look it up..." :>) I believe this term may have existing since the late 1800's so pretty hard to convince me that it's "just my pet name for team politicians" and it certainly does not mean "those who blindly follow the party line without thought." and it most certainly is not "Basically most politicians."

From WIKI. "Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a member of the Democratic party esp. in the southern states who supports to a large extent the policy and measures of the Republican party." Oxford Dictionaries defines the term as "A person whose political philosophy is a blend of policies and principles from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Nowadays it's usually the definition of blending that applies.

When polite, we sometimes like to call that a "centrist," but Republicrat is a pejorative term. Probably the real reason JIT loves it so.

Now how in God's name is Hillary one? She's a liberal, remember. Or Donald Trump? He's either a Republabortion or Democrazy. I mean we are talking blending, not a plank here, a plank there and a whole lot of crazy in between.

As to the rest and really not that you're wrong, but just another vantage point or perspective : "Trump...following the red team war mongerers mentality (which also seems to be the blue teams view these days as well)" This is a myth in that I am pretty sure you will find, and always have been able, that both wage war equally. The difference is in the mongering. The reds monger, monger, monger; they like to talk tough, build great armies and then pick a fight. The blues talk little, end up in a fight and then build great armies to win. It's a nuance.....

"instead of sticking with his original views of non-intervention. He said one thing to get elected and now he's changing his tune. That's the hallmark of a true politician regardless of party affiliation, thus combining the words republican and democratic - Republicrat." This is actually a flip-flop or a flippity floppity. I don't seen where his war mongering has flipped him into the Democratic Party or merged Red/Blue policies into a Trump policy. Trump has few foreign policies at all at this point except insulting everyone and embarrassing Americans.

"That's what I thought but SD keeps saying he uses the proper definition - I thought I was out if the loop. Thanks" Wow, talk about acceptance of whatever ink is on the paper :>)

But wait, another definition....."I though Republicrat meant your true motivation is to keep the 2 party system in place above any particular political view." but that can't be right because the reality-based definition is "Just the opposite for me Scottso, IMO two party politics is evil in disguise."

In my house, we would say: "look it up." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicrat

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Not a comprehensive list, but indicative of Trump's incompetence relative to understanding the complexities of issues large or small, and complete disregard for speaking honestly. In fact, given a choice of telling the truth or lying, he instinctively prefers the pandering lie.
Do Trump supporters simply pretend that this is what they voted for?

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/04/12_ways_president_trump_is_different_than_candidat.html#incart_river_home

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

And to say "he didn't really mean that," or "it's just locker room talk" or to broadcast your meaning into words he said that didn't mean what you are thinking is condoning this behavior. Worse yet, voting for it. The best is after he filp-flops to a concept, plan, or belief that was always obvious to the casual observer is to then rationalize this 180 into "see, I knew what he meant all along" as complete ignorance of what's really going on.

Never is the history of our Republic has a President so consistently and fragrantly obscured the truth in order to either gain votes, get elected, or gain popularity with such impunity. It's beyond a mere list and will soon be its own encyclopedia of falsehoods in a world where:

a grope is not a grope
a grab is not a grab
a pinch is not a pinch
they asked for it.....trust me
wiretapping is not wiretapping
a ban is not a ban
a wall is not a wall
I will spend on military, infrastructure, war(s), walls, deportations, bans, give you the Yugest tax cut in history and you will be better off
I will bring coal, buggie builiding, butter churning, and Opie back to America
Obamacare will become trumpcare but not ryancare
what is easy is now complex
trumpcare is coming
what is broken is now fixed
what is fixed is not broken
whistleblowers and leakers are bad, bad, bad people
everything I like is tremendous
everything I don't is a sin against all mankind that must be obliterated from the planet

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

The Libertarian Party was created in 1971 to embrace the true ideals of the Republican Party which has been long lost. It was due in part to leaving the gold standard, Bretton Woods system in 1971 -- going to fiat currency. When your currency is backed by nothing why not print more, "give" more. Take a look at our spending 1971 to the present...


Trump pre-election:"I can do it all! I know more than the generals do! I can be president and still run my businesses, that's how good I am!"
Trump post election:"I didn't know healthcare and military decisions were so complicated. So many numbers".
Well...th-th-th-that's all folks!

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

I think the Libertarians are more progressive than Democrats on social issues and more conservative than Republicans on fiscal issues. If that's the true idea of the Republican party, then all righty then.

You are confusing fiat with gold standard, a common issue. The first fiat money in the US was printed in 1862 ---- another artifact of War. Remember greenbacks? So popular they were that after the War when the government tried to return to the gold standard, the Greenback Party emerged. The notes continued in some form into the 1990's, believe it or not, in competition with gold-back currency.

Yes Nixon moved us away from the gold standard to a fiat standard or free float which is actually not free but a modified free float. Try this: https://quizlet.com/189036347/i-bus-300-lecture-7-foreign-exchange-flash-cards/

It not only expands our economic potential but also adds monetary policy tools and flexibility not found in a pegged-monetary system. It's just that with great power comes great responsibilities where we don't always do so great.

I say again: without our monetary system, how would we have come through The Great Recession so unscathed? Or would The Great Recession somehow just not happened under the Gold Standard.

On the first question, the answer is ---- we took out a yuge loan and spent it fairly wisely ---- could have been better, but no too bad. On the second question, nope, under the Gold Standard, The Great Recession could have happened ----- and then what would you do?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

We take a loan and pay who back? Much of the remainder of the world has not advanced. In theory the "give and take" can work. In reality, it usually doesn't. In our case, I still believe in a hyperinflation period in the future which will wipe our debts down. The fallout will hit everyone but people on fixed incomes the most.


Drain the swamp?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/us/politics/trump-appointees-potential-conflicts.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer= https://t.co/L1ytbJOqc7

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

China prepares to claim world leadership and moral high ground over US.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-success-helps-china-emerge-as-global-climate-leader

Are we great again?

Now that's funny in a entire-world-destruction sort of way. Not to worry, climate change is not global warming is not due to US pollution will probably not get us. Let the kids worry about it.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Sound and fury, signifying nothing...
http://theweek.com/articles/692146/president-trump-still-hasnt-made-consequential-deal-not

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Say what you will, Obama had one of the most transparent administrations in history. Far from perfect, he also tightened the clamps in some areas. Today, IMO we need to be openly (or virtually :>)concerned that we are going back to a Nixonian-level of transparency.

- Will not voluntarily provide White House complex visitor names. Over 6M visitors including businessmen, lobbyists, whatever, will now be shielded.

Nixon.

Thrimp, 2012 “Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President — ever — and he ran on transparency.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/14/trump-to-discontinue-obama-policy-of-voluntarily-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs/?utm_term=.32a3bda3537c

In early March, it was leaked that Treasury Sexy Mnuchin told his team that leaks will not be tolerated. Basically told everyone that we will be listening. Computer system access is being restricted to higher and higher levels. Earlier leaks on Sean Spicer demand that aides cough up cellphones to be hacked looking for calls/texts/videos to evildoer Press. Wikileakers were OK though :>)

Nixon.

In another anonymous leak from Thrimps administration: "There is a climate of intimidation, not just about talking to reporters, but also about communicating with colleagues,"

Nixon.

Memo access, information access, access...is all being restricted to the chosen few, much of which is ex-military. "Under a change made after Thrimp took office, staffers now cannot choose who may see and edit a memo. Instead, access is approved by the office of the NSC executive secretary, retired Army lieutenant general Keith Kellogg."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-secrecy-exclusive-idUSKBN16A0GD

For me, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Thrimp overturned the prohibition on lobbyists joining government agencies they lobbied. That's called building a yuge brand new swamp of profit.

When you look at this administration's hiring practices it starts with building a Mafia-like core decision team with the family at the helm and a small number of trusted consigliore's in the next ring surrounded by a raft of solid soldiers. Next comes the agencies filled with businessmen, lobbyists, consultants, lawyers -- many of which are regulating the very concerns they profited from. No baggage there?

Ethics violations and administration waivers on ethics are at an all-time high for Thrimp.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/us/politics/trump-appointees-potential-conflicts.html?_r=0

Now....about those taxes.... :>( Ivanka gains three China Trademarks during the day, dines on three courses with Chinese President Xi Jinping that evening. Her company is going gangbusters, Chinese imports up 200% already. “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff" as advertised by KellyAnne Went-a-way direct from the Whitehouse. Thrimp himself, who still owns his own company, has over 30 new branded items coming in from Mexico and China.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Any possibility you can summarize SD? Your posts need to be 3X smaller :)


"Say what you will, Obama had one of the most transparent administrations in history."

Thankfully I was able to digest my lunch before reading that.

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

"Say what you will, Obama had one of the most transparent administrations in history."


aye-aye-aye.....

And Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman, not a single time"

And Nixon "was not a crook" (well, he wasn't a crook, but he was a liar)

And George Bush 41 "read my lips, no new taxes"

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Why no thread about the Frenso 'hate crime' shootings?

thecoach thecoach
Apr '17

Stranger is right, but part of that is just due to technology, it is a lot easier to be transparent posting information online than printing it out and sending it to reporters or keeping it available in a file for use upon request. So far only 4 presidents have been in office with the internet, and arguable Obama was the first to really us it.

Trump, is without doubt the least transparent presidency. These aren't opinions anymore folks, but fact.
But why does he need to be transparent after all, he's only spending all your tax money which you hate paying, while trying to cut the few taxes he pays.
And he can do everything himself, regardless of how it benefits him or screws you, because his 70 years on earth as an tax avoiding, scam artist has given him insight beyond that of 44 previous lawyers, generals and peanut farmers who have held him job before him, and thousands of elected official who have run for the office and serve in congress. Yep, he's smarter than all of them. He can solve all problems. He's got such a big brain, and a big wang, and the best ideas and the best people (seriously, is there one appointee without a major scandal?).

Seriously, how can anyone believe this cheeto? There's people in padded cells who are saner than him. You all need some serious help.

alpha1beta alpha1beta
Apr '17

I don't think we have seen such corruption with a daughter (and son-in-law) of a President. The Chinese are just doing Chinese Politics 101by paying off Ivanka and Jared, and possibly the other Trump kids as well.

This is not unconditional giving by the Chinese.


"These aren't opinions anymore folks, but fact. "


Riiiiight........

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

The Onion reports on Trump's tax returns...

http://www.theonion.com/article/cackling-trump-reveals-dinner-guests-theyve-all-ju-55794

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

jr thinks it OK for Turnip to hide who he sees and what is said because Bill did fess up an affair, Dick was dirty but not a crook (actually Jr, he was a crook in a number of ways -- getting away with it does not mean your innocent), and Bush raised taxes after he said he wouldn't (a good and brave thing). That's a cogent argument.

Turnip: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/17/politics/donald-trump-transparency-visitor-logs-taxes/

Personally I feel there should be as much transparency as possible. More not less.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/314548-presidential-secrecy-and-transparency-in-the-age-of-trump

Obama's level of transparency, perhaps the most ever, is a bad thing to Jr and somehow delivering less transparency is a better thing for Jr, then he's in for another three grand years of knowing less.

How do you think Easter Dinner went? Think the cabal of three discussed government secrets over ham? Or the business Trump's never talked shop with the world-leader Trumps? One thing was sure, there was much laughter all the way to the bank. Keep smiling jr, you voted for it.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/democrats-georgia-ossoff-237348

Democrats begin to wonder: When do we win?

http://theweek.com/articles/692863/there-no-real-evidence-that-trump-voters-are-turning-trump

There is no real evidence that Trump voters are turning on Trump.

Hate to tell you this guys - folks in the fly over states are tired of the liberal agenda. Blue collar white Christians are extremely unsatisfied with democrats and are distrustful of their candidates - folks are tired of being demonized for their beliefs. It's clear from posts here that democrats STILL don't understand why your candidates continue to loose. These folks are fed up with being marginalized and ignored.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?utm_term=.2a0433380469

SD even WAPO doesnt believe that.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Nothing to add other than recollections from years past, and this headline is closer to what I recall than comments being made by others in this thread:

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Of course folks in the agro states love NAFTA so you have anomalies all over.

Yes, it would have been nice to win GA, the rest were long shots and firing some shots across the bow seems like a victory given history. We'll just have to settle with having the most disliked President, the most untrusted President ever at this time of his reign. Hope that makes you happy too.

He works 100 days and what did you get?
A little more xenophobic and lots deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I have to pay off those trips to Mar-A-Lago

No one is going to change the world in 100 days. Heck, Trump can barely get started. If you feel this is good, the right direction, gosh bless your innocence. If you feel it's more of the same, gosh bless your patience. If you feel this is bat-shat crazy, welcome aboard.

I mean three weeks ago China was a monetary manipulator stealing American jobs. Today, they are not a money manipulator, our favorite ally, and can feel free to steal American jobs. We will not apply any sanctions due to the overt money manipulation resulting in the loss of millions of American jobs that happened right up to 1/1/2017 and now is magically gone.

Guess those jobs are not coming back now, huh Skippy. http://fortune.com/2017/04/12/trump-china-currency-manipulator/

Feel less marginalized now? Feeling great again? Think you will in the next 100 days.......

"I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me. But that’s hurting - that will hurt ultimately," Trump said on Wednesday. "It’s very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their currency," Trump told the Journal. The dollar fell broadly Trump's comments on the strong dollar and on his preference for low interest rates. It fell more than 1.0 percent against the yen, sinking below 110 yen for the first time since mid-November."

Yeah, that's our guy working for us everyday in everyway....I think he's the money manipulator.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Jinx you owe me a coke

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Then you didn't really comprehend what you recalled..... I said "Obama had one of the most transparent administrations in history. Far from perfect, he also tightened the clamps in some areas." I think that fits with your headline too.

Most transparent does not mean total transparency or perfect in implementation. "Far from perfect..."

It's just that you and Jr. see happy to point out the imperfection (that I already noted) as the point. You miss the point that whatever bar Obama set or met, Trump has dialed that back to Nixonian levels. If you thought you didn't know enough under Obama because of a lack of transparency, then where are you now? Still going with "they are all the same" or "Obama wasn't perfect so my guy can be worse?"

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Let's not forget that the Obama administration was not releasing the names of visitors until they were sued by Judicial Watch. They should do the same to this administration.

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

I think this sums it up: made more progress than any other President. Did not meet his own goals. And flubbed a few (Benghazi communications for example).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/16/obama-report-card-transparency-sunlight/

And now we go backwards while you debate on the pro-side of the issue. Am I getting that right?

Really Ijay. Judicial Watch? Would love to read that article. Can you link? Thanks Ijay.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/17/spicer-obamas-release-of-white-house-visitor-logs-was-faux-transparency/?utm_term=.8b708dbf65a8

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was the plaintiff in the suit.

no other administration before obama ever released them
they posted them to the web 90 to 120 days after visits occurred and they reserved the right to scrub the list and did so frequently - so do you want that level of transparency?

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

politifact?

According to their own site: "Democracy Fund is pleased to announce our support (via a grant to The Times Publishing Company) for PolitiFact, an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on bringing the public the truth in politics."

The Democracy Fund was established by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar. In April 2016 Pierre Omidyar donated $100,000 to the Never Trump super PAC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept

Pierre Omidyar is also the founder of 'The Intercept'.

no agenda there SD.. completely unbiased.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Yes, Skippy, I want the same level of Trump transparency as Obama provided ---- or better.

You, JIT, and others, on the other hand, seem to feel that less transparency is OK.

I knew, and know, that Obama fell short of his promises for more transparency in government. Some I understand as "looks different from the inside," others were bogus. He still was more transparent than other Presidents.

Now we are sliding backwards into the swamp of less information, not more. And the flippin' White House guest list that seems to be our focus is the least of it.

Are you really defending Turnip on this one too? Why?

Recognize that was less than even the tip of the iceberg I spoke of in the original post on this. I mean when Trump overturned the Obama-created prohibition on lobbyists joining government agencies they lobbied, you knew there would be issues. That's a no-brainer. It's the speed and level of those issues that is astonishing. Trumps building a yuge brand new swamp of profit where industry profiteers now govern the very industries they got their past and future livelihoods from. And in many cases, Trump issues hiring rules waivers to squeeze them into their new jobs. That doesn't seem to bother anyone round here much at all.

How many mulligans are you going to give this guy before you realize it's all based on lies, he's systemically robbing you blind, destroying our environment and soon will be killing our kids to protect us from what --- Syrians, South Koreans?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Judicial Watch sued the Obama administration in 2009.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/us/politics/visitor-log-white-house-trump.html

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

"Yes, Skippy, I want the same level of Trump transparency as Obama provided"


Oh hell- that's easy; he's doing that already! LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Ok KB but the settlement was with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that opened the books. Not an argument just a statement.

SD I think we are all for the utmost transparency in government - it's just frustrating when folks are calling him snack food and vegetable names telling us how stupid we are for voting for him. Then in the same breath stating how much better things were under Obama when you patently know that is not true. I'm not happy with a lot of things going on currently but I'm willing to give it a chance.

None of us are responsible trumps actions just as you are not responsible for Clinton's or Obamas, but yet there seems to be a lot of aggression towards folks who want to see the current administration succeed. So be it. You are being intellectually dishonest if you are holding that Hillary wouldn't have robbed us blind. She was literally the "senator for Goldman Sachs". There are allegations of financial mismanagement, waste abuse and outright fraud all over the place in the budget.

How is Trump killing our kids exactly?

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Agree Skippy, Judicial Watch also sued along with others to have the logs released.

Thanks,

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

hmmm....shocking - just shocking: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-election-exclusive-idUSKBN17L2N3

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

Funny that the government tends to leak what it wants when it serves them, yet all this Russian nonsense we're given is still just hearsay to be taken as fact - "trust me I'm from the government!". This is like the boy who cried wolf - say the same thing enough times to make it true when it's nothing more than circumstantial at best and being used as a political football. So unless there is a link somewhere to these documents I'm still going to reserve judgement because this is nothing more than political manipulation (regardless of who's doing the manipulation).

The government leaks like a sieve for just about anything else, so why not here?

Just remember that "propaganda" works both ways ya know.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Agreed JiIT - I think this is a diversion.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Trump signs veterans health care "choice" act. It's a first step, please keep on this issue, Mr. President- the veterans deserve MUCH more than they have been getting from the VA, for far too long now....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-signs-bill-allowing-veterans-to-seek-care-outside-broken-va-system/article/2620659

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

The point that conservatives forced President Obama to be more transparent than previous Presidents and therefore it's OK for President Trump to be less transparent than the previous President in what the conservatives themselves required as the new higher transparency Obama benchmark......I find this thinking a tad disingenuous independent of whatever funny names we call the emperor.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Extremely well done piece about science and politics with Neil DeGrasso
https://youtu.be/8MqTOEospfo

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

"This is like the boy who cried wolf - say the same thing enough times to make it true..."

I'm assuming you never read The Boy Who Cried Wolf... the moral was almost exactly the opposite of that (-;

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

https://youtu.be/6kEJqMTjYtU

http://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-science-1780648740

On science we can agree - here he is on bill Maher

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"The point that conservatives forced President Obama to be more transparent than previous Presidents and therefore it's OK for President Trump to be less transparent than the previous President in what the conservatives themselves required as the new higher transparency Obama benchmark......I find this thinking a tad disingenuous independent of whatever funny names we call the emperor."




Spin cycle!!!! Wow.... I'm gonna' have to start calling you "flapjack" the way you can turn stuff upside down so easily....

actually, we want the Trump presidency to be AS transparent as the Obama presidency was FORCED to be.... this is not about party- transparency, PERIOD. The fact anyone seems to think Obama was "transparent" is the laugh! Is Trump being transparent? No... neither was Obama. so what's YOUR beef? It was ok for Obama, but now it's not for Trump?

If the democrats think Trump isn't being transparent enough, sue him to release whatever you want him to release... just like the republicans did to Obama.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion SD nobody advocated for less transparency or said it was OK. In fact the opposite occurred.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"Science... exercise in finding the truth... we are warming the earth - fact"

Love Neil DeGrasso.

Everyone needs to watch the video above.


“Because there are certain aspects of science denials that are squarely in the liberal left.”

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"I'm assuming you never read The Boy Who Cried Wolf... the moral was almost exactly the opposite of that (-;"

I get the moral of the story just fine. Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way ;-)

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

the way it is -

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

LOL, 4catmom!

The latest alternative facts:

Trump said Korea was "part of China".
Sessions disregarded Hawaii as a state, calling it "an island in the Pacific Ocean".

You can't make this stuff up.
Their ignorance is beyond belief.

happiest girl
Apr '17

"calling it "an island in the Pacific Ocean"."

It isn't?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

I'm sure Jeff Sessions didn't know Hawaii was a state... just as sure as Obama was that there were "57 states"....

Indeed, you can't make this stuff up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Are you capable of responding to a post without the "your guy did it first" kneejerk?
Comparisons are irrelevant. And intellectually lazy. Sound familiar?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Remember this one? Obama calls Navy Corpsman, Corpse-man.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

The "ignorance is beyond belief"...indeed....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

happiest girl - what are you even talking about? Do you not know where Hawaii is?

Scottso Scottso
Apr '17

Don't be too hard on yourself. I understand that retirement can be a difficult adjustment.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

"Comparisons are irrelevant."

That's interesting, coming from the side who spent AT LEAST 4 years blaming everything happening on Obama's watch on Bush... "it was Bush's fault"... but...but... that was THE PAST..... it had nothing to do with the NOW... right?......right????? ROFLMAO

The left is desperate, and transparent. I was going to say pathetic, but I'm trying to be civil :) Totally relevant when illustrating the hypocrisy of your side, which has been my mission since Trump won.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

It might be more useful if you made it your mission to defend this administration's actions and so called policies. You seem to be mired in that "yeah but your guy did..." approach. I guess if you can't defend an action that juvenile response makes you feel better. Whatever.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

who knew he could play an instrument: https://youtu.be/TOsGt4bEUyU

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

YF,

Just trying to get it through your head that they ALL do it- even your beloved democrats. Nothing new or groundbreaking going on with Trump. Other than he was elected without even his own party wanting him, lol. That hasn't happened since Reagan. (no, I'm not comparing hm to Reagan, other than that he is a populist like Reagan was).

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

A populist? Hysterical. Cabinet full of billionaires and a Mar- a -Lago White House.

You've been had.

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

The "populist" on the environment...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-100-days-environment-earth-day_us_58f87b68e4b0cb086d7e3175?0u&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Well if I'm not mistaken he did get a whole lot of votes from the middle of the country, so I suppose that means a different kind of "populist" than what you're used to ;-)

He got there by manipulating the opinions of the electorate (no, it wasn't Russia lol) - I think the D's like to call the process "managing the message" or something similar, which is their manipulative way of saying "manipulation" ;-) - just like every President before him in our lifetimes. They've all said what we want to hear and then change the tune to fit in with, what some have called, the "deep state" (a term that encapsulates nothing more than the large number of entrenched, long-term government employees that drive policy much more than the tiny number of those who are democratically elected to government).

Translation: It's the systems of government that have the inertia needed to direct policy, not any President who has been in power for less time than it takes to take a course in college.

JR is quite correct by saying that it doesn't matter what letter is attached to a politicians name because ultimately they all do the same thing - change their positions to fit the reality they find once in power.

So what does all that mean? It means that silly threads like this should be re-titled "Venting" threads because none of the anxiety or anger put forth is directed anywhere close to the right direction. If a problem were in the north, the politicians would make sure to direct the Rebuplicrat team players to look to the south - and the fans would be more than happy to do so!

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

YF... you need a dictionary...

pop·u·list
ˈpäpyələst/Submit
noun
1.
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.


Now, as far as what he DOES, we will see. But what he SAID, during the election, is exactly that definition, and why he won. "Rich people" didn't get Trump elected- "ordinary" people did. Especially when you look at the electoral map:

As far as "being had"... that's universal. Everyone that voted for Obama was "had" too... Gitmo is still open, we still dropped bombs, the economy didn't recover as much as hoped, Obamacare was a failure (left to it's own devices, it would have imploded), terrorism not being called by it's accurate name, terrorist attacks on American soil.... "had" indeed.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

In a less than transparent world, it's easy to pay a few thousand to access Trump. Last week Trump met in secret with two ex-presidents from Columba at Mar-A-Loser. They met because someone belling up $200,000 to join MAL and gained access to Trump. Well, call it an "encounter" since it was a brush-by at the course. Wouldn't have known at all except the Columbians advertised, I mean tweeted about it. Must have been an actual meeting because Turnip responded: "very frank conversation about problems and perspectives of Colombia and the region.”

“Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion SD nobody advocated for less transparency or said it was OK. In fact(,) the opposite occurred” said Skippy. Jr just hurls some names….

This was apparently prompted because I noted IMO Obama’s historic levels of transparency with caveats and juxtaposed that with Trump’s secrecy dial-back citing the Guest List pullback, the Orwellian nature of working in this administration, and his most traitorous action; overturning the lobbyist prohibition creating greater conflicts of interest at the agency level and above.

Everyone seemed to focus on the Guest List. IMO, having lobbyists, consultants, and businessmen govern without transparency the very sectors that made them rich is a massive conflict of interest just waiting to happen.

Next thing I am being told that Trump is already at Obama transparency levels. Apparently, my facts are a lie. “Oh hell- that's easy; he's doing that already” says junior.

Then a raft of people saying things like it was only because conservative CREW group sued Obama into being transparent so…. Liberals should not call Trump names and we should give Trump a chance (even though we are for transparency). Hillary would be worse. “I think this is a diversion. “And Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman, not a single time," Nixon "was not a crook" (well, he wasn't a crook, but he was a liar)," "And George Bush 41 "read my lips, no new taxes."

Obama’s transparency may have been forced. Doesn't matter. The bar has been set. That matters. You can call for all the transparency you want but if you simultaneously say that Trump can dial transparency back and it does not matter, give Trump a chance, or that liberals/conservatives can always sue again….. That’s a Brooklyn Bridge sale of an argument to say Trump lowering the transparency bar is OK.

The point raised and seemingly missed was that Trump is giving us less transparency than Obama.

I would think if “we are all for the utmost transparency in government” then you would be appalled by what your vote is doing because in these cases, and there’s more that Trump is doing to thwart transparency, but in these cases Trump is patently less transparent than Obama.

For another example: try the story of Chad Wolf. This man spent most of a decade as a lobbyist securing TSA funding for a new airport screening device. Now he is an TSA Agency Chief while the device is being TSA evaluated for purchase by his TSA staff. There are dozens of these conflicts; new conflicts since Trump has lowered the bar on Federal hires.

The point raised and seemingly missed was that Trump is giving us less transparency than Obama. And saying you want transparency, saying that Obama was forced into transparency, and saying “Oh hell- that's easy; he's doing that already” seems like you are saying you are all for transparency we’re OK with giving Trump a chance with less transparency at the very same time.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

(left to it's own devices, it would have imploded),

jr: what "devices" were deployed to stop the implosion? Would that be TrumpCare? RyanCare? "We-took-a-decade-to-make-it-right-care?" or "shat, we won both houses so we will repeal ObamaCare on day one care?"

100 days proof positive that you can not legislate your way out of a wet paper bag.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Trump is change. None of this surprises me. I want change because then maybe one day a "Ron Paul" like Libertarian gets into office and hopefully for an extended duration (2 terms) to actually change this country. Hillary may have been better in the short term but not in the long term.

"For The People" needs to be implemented. Some may argue that such great things in our country never existed. Truth in action, such as the founding fathers (who were rich) making it a priority to get payment of all debts incurred prior to our creation valid and to be paid.

Economically, roughly 90% of our federal budget goes to entitlement programs and payment of interest on debt. We may get choked out soon enough.

What are our options? Default a few Trillion to China -> throw world into global crisis. Default a few Trillion to the Federal Reserve -> cause the dollar to collapse. Our options are limited. This is why I am for change. Hillary would just continue our courser to go over Niagara Falls. Someone has to do something, and the closer we get the harder it becomes.


"seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

Seen any of that yet? He lied to the people that he pretended to represent...that's not a populist, that's a liar.

And again..."Everyone that voted for Obama was "had" too...

You are really a one trick pony...

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Yes, it is all equivalent. You did it, I did it, we all do it so it's OK. It doesn't really matter, we all did it, it's all the same. False equivalency. They are all the same, we are all the same, it's all the same, there's no difference, it's OK.

"Nothing really matters, anyone can see
Nothing really matters
Nothing really matters to me
Any way the wind blows"

Someone lied once. It's OK for Trump to lie all the time.

Wait till you see what I do in my first 100 days. The first 100 days are not important.

It's not the law to display taxes. It's OK for Trump not to.

China is a money manipulator. China is not a money manipulator, they are our North Korean negotiator.

Russia restart. Buy mansion for $40M, make no changes, flip to Russian for $100M. No conflict. Have scores of Russian partners on payroll. NTW, made most quit. Russia meddles with US election. NTW, they didn't cause harm.

Pay $200K to join Meet-A-Loser, get to play golf too.

Drain the swamp. Hire incompetent family members to run the government. Turn business over to rest of family.

Will build a wall, Mexico will pay for it. Somehow. Someday. Somewhere.

OK, will build a wall down center of family dining room table so we can have holiday dinners without Business Trumps associating with Leaders-of-the-Free World Trumps. Mexico will pay for it.

On Day 1 we will repeal ObamaCare. On day 40, we will conclude it's complicated.

Will roll out RyanCare and not call it my own.

Have same planning policy with Syria.....I know my plan and it's no plan....

On Day 40, we will talk taxes. On day 50, we will conclude it's complicated.

Obama was right not to bomb Syria. I was right to bomb Syria for the same exact thing.

Anybody see my armada?

Anybody see KellyAnne Hideaway? Steve Bannon is looking for a friend

Doesn't look like there will be any Sessions in Hawaii soon. Alohahahahahaha. No man disses an island.

FL AG stops execution to go to Fund Raiser (when no one was running against her) FL to review Trump University Fraud, Trump Foundation (with Trump signed check) gives FL AG $25,000 days before execution/fund raiser, Chief of Staff and FL AG stop reviewing Trump U, Trump Foundation pays penalty for illegal contributions, FL AG Chief of Staff becomes head lawyer for US Department of Education. OK, now we can play "where's quid" in that pro quo.

Yeah it's all equivalent. Everybody does it. It's OK, give Trump a chance.

Is 100 days enough time to start with?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

https://youtu.be/kr9ywEFRQkQ

Remember someone's 2007 campaign that centered on bringing the troops home day 1? Pepperidge farm remembers

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Don't forget about Gitmo Skippy...

One of many...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE

Republicrats one and all lol

justintime justintime
Apr '17

And while I'm thinking about it, didn't our previous President receive a Nobel Peace Prize so early in his Presidency that there wasn't anything to even base it on, other than rhetoric that is? The same President who, now firmly in our history, is the *only* President to have been at war for every single day of his two-term Presidency? The one who campaigned on getting all of our Troops out of Iraq (and ramping up the aggression in Afghanistan)?

And now Trump's administration is continuing (and expanding on) the rhetoric of war. Same old same old.

Big business, the game of war. Gotta keep the "military industrial complex" happy, after all they have all the weapons ;-)

Republicrats indeed!

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Yep agreed JIT - nobody said it's ok SD but they all make promises they don't keep. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that there is no way to fully comprehend what forces are at play or what the job truly entails until they're elected - then they have 2 months to ramp up. What are the options besides give Trump a chance SD? Impeach him? Great you get president race Brannon whom you'll really love. Fillabuster everything and make sure nothing gets done? We all loved that when Obama was president.

And speaking of war - nobody is a bigger hawk than Hillary - she wanted to drone Julian Assange. She fully supported Trumps actions in Syria - if she was president we would be doing the same things militarily

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Here is what I don't understand about the anti-trump set. You are clearly intelligent people but you fall into confirmation bias on every issue and end up regurgitating "facts" that support your worldview or the worldview of those you represent or follow, even when those "facts" are unsubstantiated. Ok I understand that it's an emotional decision It makes you feel good to come up with this stuff and critical thinking flies out the window. ergo - climate change's existence is an undeniable fact ok..

So, what do climate scientists do? They extrapolate every trend possible . They did this in the 1980's, and based on their predictions, we should be experiencing an Ice age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA

OH WAIT the trend started to point upward, and they extrapolate again to say that we should be melting right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbYacVz2H5Y

Any prediction made based on this "Climate Science" is educated guesswork, and "Climate activism" is not based on science but political ideology. "Big Green" is no different from "Big Oil" at this point.

but hey - why would I expect anything less from a party that cant even hold a fair primary for it's own constituency and refuses to investigate it. So you guys are pro science - tell more more about how there are 57 genders and vaccines cause autism. I identify as a tax exempt entity - lets see how well that flies.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

" I think a lot of it is due to the fact that there is no way to fully comprehend what forces are at play or what the job truly entails until they're elected - then they have 2 months to ramp up."

Agreed

justintime justintime
Apr '17

How long does it take to realize we need to protect the planet? Inexcusable and an issue that transcends politics. Waiting for JR to dig up a "but your guy...." or JIT to obfuscate vaguely.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-earth-day_us_58fb9b9ee4b06b9cb91759d6?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

https://www.wired.com/2015/08/epa-accidentally-turned-river-toxicand-orange/

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/11/epa-facing-fire-armed-raid-alaska-mine/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-epa-running-a-160-million-pr-machine/

Because the EPA was stellar under the previous administration

Meanwhile with 2 months in office Trump funded the EPA to fix the flint water situation that was ignored since April of 2014.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-awards-100-million-michigan-flint-water-infrastructure-upgrades

The EPA has no authorization bill and its statutes have the same weight as federal law. So, in other words, they're answerable to no one, can spend as much money as they want, can make regulations that have the force of law and no can can say no to them. I'm all for protecting the planet and agree climate change is a thing - I just think the EPA is extremely wasteful.

Larry sums it up well

https://youtu.be/7JHz6lSGkkk

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Really YF, knock it off. You and so many others who are aghast at climate change, yet fail to put it into the proper perspective, are quite dangerous to civilized societies. Why you ask?

Just what it is you recommend we do to "protect the planet"? What steps do you wish to take to abate the current warming trend? And more to the point, what will the consequences be of those steps? That last question is the one that I'd be most interested to find out about.

I think you are so obsessed with people who completely dismiss the current warming trend (fewer than you think IMO) that you seem willing to go to extremes to justify how right you are. Yes, you are right - the climate is warming (duh). Yes, you are right that we humans have accelerated the current warming trend. Yes, you are right that we should be thinking about our actions and how our choices impact the planet we live on. Feel better now?

But (you just knew it was coming ;-)) is it wrong to ask the following questions:

1- Stepping back to look at the big picture, how does the human influence on climate compare against the historical record for the *planet* - you know, the thing you want to protect? I already know the answer and have posted it recently, see the link here:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/786715#t786976

and more specifically the click-through link to NOAA provided:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

Nothing obfuscating about that, is there?

2- Agreeing that we as a society should acknowledge and change our behaviors to reduce our influence on our climate, and ignoring the fact for now that the planet has been warming all on it's own for millenia, based on the NOAA data in the previous link, what precisely should we do and what is the *cost* of that action going to be, both monetarily and in *human* cost?

OK? See, people can agree with you yet still question the premise for your motivations. Nothing obfuscating about that at all!

justintime justintime
Apr '17

I want to cut green house emissions. The result will be less pollution and cleaner air.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

Yes, JIT, you continue to obfuscate. I think you simply can't help it.
Using the overarching theme of climate change and the lack of 100% certainty that it's human caused doesn't justify inactivity. This administration has already weakened clean water protections, supported drilling in national parks, reducing automobile emission standards, loves coal, is unconcerned by pipelines criss crossing the country. Because BP was a one-off, right?
The administration demonstrates that benefitting corporations and special interests takes precedence over the environment. Our grandchildren will wonder what the front door we were thinking.
Lacking 100% proof of our culpability, you take comfort in taking no position, similar to your view of the obvious Russian efforts to affect the election.
Efforts to weaken environmental protections for monetary gain are reprehensible and need to be resisted.
Knock it off, indeed.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Whatever YF.

I show you a chart from the NOAA that clearly shows the earth has been in an overall warming cycle for many thousands of years, none of which could possibly been influenced by humans, and whose scale implies that the change we've made is a mere blip, and you call it obfuscation. I like to call that perspective.

Instead, I've said that the concern shouldn't be about the fact the planet is warming (clearly not something we started) but rather that our activities have increased the *rate* of the warming. I think it's also very clear that we are the cause of the increasing rate of change.

But you? It seems that those with short-time frame perspectives have gotten you all emotionally wound up about it, leaving you to think the whole world is ending and whatnot. A single look at the NOAA chart should dispel that notion immediately.

Now, should we do something about it? Sure, I've been pretty clear about that too. Let's make a plan and work toward it. But all your hysterics and drama will do is create stresses in our already fragile social and economic systems, and quite frankly I'm more concerned about us fighting and blowing each other up than I am in trying to reverse a naturally-occurring phenomenon.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

If you listen to the conservative voices out there, Shapiro, Crowder, Levin, Savage, Carlson, they aren't saying climate change isn't true. What they are saying is the 97% consensus is not only irrelevant (science doesn't work of consensus), it only takes looking at the petition of 30,000+ scientists, thousands of which are atmospheric scientists, who DO NOT agree with the climate alarmist POV, to see how rediculous that figure is. People believe the climate is changing, but we don't know exactly how much humans are affecting it, or a way to change anything in any significant way without sending us back to the Stone Age.

This is political virtue signaling. Plenty of scientists have come out speaking about how impossible it is to get a gov grant if they don't take the climate alarmist pov. We can't even have an honest discussion about it.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"It seems that those with short-time frame perspectives have gotten you all emotionally wound up about it, leaving you to think the whole world is ending and whatnot. "

"We can't even have an honest discussion about it."


...and this is the problem with ALL issues today, not just climate change.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

"Instead, I've said that the concern shouldn't be about the fact the planet is warming (clearly not something we started) but rather that our activities have increased the *rate* of the warming. I think it's also very clear that we are the cause of the increasing rate of change." But bhwhat did you just say? Don't be concerned about the warming, be concerned about the rate.....We are the cause of the increasing rate. Bhwhat.....No global warming, just global warming rate change......

"...and this is the problem with ALL issues today, not just climate change." Aha, I see it, I see what you mean......

So raising the rate important, raising the termp not so much so. Which one kills us, rate or temp? To use one of your favorite ploys, the False Equivalence that you are now famous for, that's like being happy that Obama lowered the rate of the deficit increase since that's more important than the increasing debt.

I will say it again. More pollution is worse than less pollution. 65% of greenhouse emissions are from fossil fuel. "Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors."

China owns 30% of this mess, we own 15%, and EU - 9%. And we are losing global leadership over the fight to reduce pollution; Trump is ceding leadership to China Making America less Great Again. We should take back the leadership and truly show the world what we stand for.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

It's time to lessen the pollution we unleash upon the planet and each other. We have to play a part in this, we were the moral leader standing on some high ground. Now we are retreating into our own quagmire of increasing CO2 pollution, increasing reliance on dirtier fossil fuels, and our own paralysis by analysis.

"Welcome, sulfur dioxide
Hello, carbon monoxide
The air, the air
Is everywhere

Breath deep
While you sleep
Breath deep"

Air: Hair: Rado/Ragni/Mac Dermot

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"trying to reverse a naturally-occurring phenomenon."

"I think it's also very clear that we are the cause of the increasing rate of change."

So...which is it?

No hysterics, no drama, simply amused that you can contradict yourself in a couple of paragraphs and believe you've made your point.

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

“....SD nobody advocated for less transparency or said it was OK. In fact(,) the opposite occurred” said Skippy. Jr just hurled some names….

I noted IMO Obama’s historic levels of transparency…with caveats. Then juxtaposed that with Trump’s war on transparency citing the White House Guest List, the Orwellian nature of working in this administration, and Trump's traitorous action of overturning the Lobbyist Prohibition creating a huge new profit center for conflicts of interest at the agency level and above.

HL seemed to t-off on the Guest List alone. Having lobbyists, consultants, and businessmen govern without transparency the very sectors that made them rich seems not to raise even an eyebrow round here. I guess the ole "you know they all do it" homily covers that one too. Except before Trump, it was illegal to do it......

Next thing I know is jr says Trump is already at Obama transparency levels. Apparently, my facts are a lie. “Oh hell- that's easy; he's doing that already.”

Others pipe in: It was only because conservative CREW group sued Obama into being transparent so that means…. Liberals should not call Trump names and we should give Trump a chance (we are for transparency though). “Oh hell- that's easy; he's doing that already.” “Hillary would be worse” “I think this is a diversion” And Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman, not a single time" And Nixon "was not a crook" (well, he wasn't a crook, but he was a liar) And George Bush 41 "read my lips, no new taxes"

That does not make Trump right, OK, or equally transparent to Obama.

Obama’s transparency may have been forced. Does not matter. The bar has been set. You can call for all the transparency you want. It’s disingenuous to say that Trump can dial transparency back and it does not matter, give Trump a chance or liberals/conservatives can sue again….. That’s a Brooklyn Bridge sale of a false equivalency argument.

The point raised and missed is that Trump offers less transparency than Obama.

I would think if “we are all for the utmost transparency in government” then you would be appalled by what your vote is doing because in these cases, and there’s more that Trump is doing to thwart transparency, but in these cases Trump is patently less transparent than Obama.

For example: Try the story of Chad Wolf. This man spent most of a decade as a consultant/lobbyist securing TSA funding for a new airport screening device. Cool private sector job. Now he is a TSA Agency Chief while his device is being TSA evaluated for purchase by his TSA staff. There are dozens of these conflicts; they are all new potential conflicts since Trump has lowered the bar on Federal hires allowing consultants, lobbyists, and businessmen to govern the very industries that made them rich.

The point raised and seemingly missed was that Trump is giving us less transparency than Obama. And saying you want transparency, saying that Obama was forced into transparency, and saying “Oh hell- that's easy; he's doing that already” seems like you are saying you are all for transparency we’re OK with giving Trump a chance with less transparency at the very same time. Now that’s giving the man a real chance.

Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on …….this http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hired-hundreds-of-former-lobbyists-for-government-2017-3

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

No hysterics, eh? What planet do you live on lol? Your comments stem directly from those hysterical about the current state of climate change!

"Which is it?"
Why both, of course. You give all the weight to the human action variable and all I'm saying is that is small potatoes when viewed in the larger perspective. Kinda like pushing a ball down a hill, you can help it along faster but it will wind up in the same place regardless. But you're arguing that we need to change the mass of the earth in order to reverse the affects of gravity. How much are you willing to invest toward that endeavor? Do you see how futile it looks when viewed from the bigger perspective?

I find it amusing to think that you are arguing as if we live in a unidimensional, single-variable world in which there is only one contributing factor to any issue. I know you're not that naïve, so that leaves me with the usual conclusion that you'd rather argue that you're "right" than ever consider that there are other ways to view the world around us... cest la vie

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Reading comprehension not YF's strength....

"trying to reverse a naturally-occurring phenomenon."

"I think it's also very clear that we are the cause of the increasing rate of change."

So...which is it?



Both. Human kind trying to reverse mother nature's temperature increase is folly, while humans are the cause of the INCREASING RATE OF (not the increase itself- the increasing rate of) increase. So humans maybe can slow down the rate of increase they themselves have caused, but we have zero capability to slow down or reverse a natural phenomena.

See? That wasn't so hard.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Dr. Murry Salby

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z&v=ZVCps_SwD5w


relevant part begins at at 32:30 into the video. Murray Salby states “These large net-changes in CO2 emissions [which vary annually from 0% to almost 200%] are uncorrelated with human contributions [4% of annual emissions, with 96% coming from natural sources], which increase only gradually.”

At 34:40 in the video - Murray Salby makes an important conclusion, namely that CO2 variations, although unrelated to human emissions, are correlated to the *integral* of global temperature changes (r^2 = 0.93).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm

"Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change"

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html

peer reviewed paper here (needs google translate)

http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rekonstruktion-av-Murry-Salbys-teori.pdf

at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate. (July 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-M_uYkpT0

He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/people/stanleybgoldenberg/

This is a continued attempt to levy carbon taxes on everything and employ strict regulations for everyone based on their "carbon footprint" (CO2 & greenhouse gases they emit)

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"Do you see how futile it looks when viewed from the bigger perspective?"

Wow, you mean when I reduced my oil consumption by over 50%, I was being futile?

Oh yeah you're right. But only because some horse's patooties are too greedy, too selfish, and too unthinking about their children's inheritance that they continue to squander the Earth's assets for their own guilty pleasures. The Earth for a pocketful of silver That's my bigger perspective Earth Judas.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/23/trump-voters-dont-have-buyers-remorse-but-some-hillary-clinton-voters-do/?utm_term=.a6f4824d651b

Trump not losing support

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Salby debunked...

https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html

https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university--banned-national-science-foundation

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

Certainly helps in understanding his base...

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Ok valid point, however, that's 2011 and another scientist confirmed his work and published last year - there's a significant amount of legit folks that don't agree. I happen to think we should definitely reduce our dependence on oil so I'm not a dissenter - however there is active dissent in the scientific community that gets squashed by the agenda of world politics - that's not beneficial to anyone.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Source debunked.....2013.....Skippy posts.....2016.....go figure....

Back to Russiagate.

“Agreed JiIT - I think this is a diversion.” Really? You might be right…..for some people. Perhaps this won’t topple the emperor but just a diversion?

“So unless there is a link somewhere to these documents I'm still going to reserve judgement because this is nothing more than political manipulation.” So political manipulation is OK. Or is this a case of everybody does it so it's OK?

Now if this was one party doing another, maybe it's life in the big city. This is Russia. A whole ‘nother country practicing “political manipulation” against our country. I think that matters Jit. I think it’s more than a diversion. And “who it is” really does matter because a country tampering in our electoral process is a bad thing. Potential American collusion with foreign perpetrators is another thing and much more than a diversion. At that point, it’s not about red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. It’s about patriotism at that point.

Russian meddling has been established. The investigation that is underway is to determine collusion between top Trump team members and the Russians.

The fact that the Russians meddled is “fairly well-established” according to our Secretary of State Tillerson, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rex-tillerson-russian-meddling-us-election-well-established-sergey-lavrov-a7681221.html, the entire US Intelligence Community, and 9 out of ten dentists.

Collusion will be the next tree to fall; that's the current investigation efforts. Then, how far up the ladder goes the collusion. It’s a Trump Organization, we all know the answer to who makes the decisions --- but proving is another matter. Chances are we will find collusion, perhaps casual, but collusion. There’s already so much crisscrossing of Trump players, Trump people on Russia’s payroll, Trump people leaving due to close Russian proximity, and Trump people recusing themselves over Russian optics. Chances are it will not go farther than that. A few small fish making what looks like silly mistakes.

A diversion? Barely smoke? I really think a potential teaming between Russians and Americans to win an election is more than a mere diversion, the mere prospect of it should signal an investigation just to be sure all is up and up.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

lol you don't want to admit you didn't need to buy a Prius lol. Russia gate? When are the democrats going to investigate fraud in their own primaries not to mention rampant voter fraud during the last election?

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Shoddy work Skip Jit jr. Guess you don't want to source that later scientific milestone.

As for your significant number of doubting Thomases, junior's it's all natural, or jit's multivariate big picture world w/o conclusions, the going rate is 97 climate change believers against 3 against climate change amongst published scientific papers per 100 papets published.

So stay the course but don't whine that the world is nit listening. You just don't have any support in the scientific world.

Trump agrees with you.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

yankeefan , Thank you for that AP news clip. I read the whole article. It's a great insight of our President.

Old Gent Old Gent
Apr '17

Trump ranting about his low approval rating!!
The narcissist just can't take it.
LOL

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fumes-supposedly-fake-polls-giving-dismal-approval-rating-131804187.html

happiest girl
Apr '17

April 17, 2017 "No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days," said Turnip. Trumputin really can't help himself. It's not that he always lies, it's just that he can't tell the truth. Do we really need a fact checker to know he is lying? Is it getting to the point that if his lips move, he lies?

Is Jit right ---- are they all the same. Is this is more of the same. Trump's just a Demoplican?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/24/donald-trump/how-do-donald-trumps-first-100-days-rate-historica/

No matter the metric, the measure, the mean ---- Trump's first 100 days barely score a base hit much less a home run. He is a serial liar.

April 21, 2017 "No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!"
Bwhat? Another flippity floppity?

10/2016 (CNN) "You're going to have such great healthcare at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it is going to be so easy,"
8/2015 (CNN) On constructing the Wall: "So simple, so simple..."
10/2016 Gettysburg speech (CNN) "On Nov. 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our country, secure our communities and honesty to our government. This is my pledge to you. And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people. And importantly, we will make America great again. Believe me."

This is what you voted for. Where he does lead is in having the lowest approval rating of any President at this time. The only support he has is his base. They are not wavering, much less buckling. An amazing fact unto itself. Apparently they still believe Trump's myriad of missed pledges after this first 100-day failure to deliver. It's a pledge.

New President Trump rules overriding "my pledge to you:"
Trump announces at Thanksgiving dinner, 2016 --- hey, who needs a job running the country? Ivanka, Jarhead --- you're on deck!
You will pay for a wall and maybe I will get your money back
HealthCare complex, will get back to you.
Yugest tax cut on the rich in history will pay for itself and maybe I will get the resulting deficit back
Yugest military funding since the last time we had a real war. I am not a nation builder and maybe I will get this money back if we take the oil.
A most important ban than is not a ban anymore and really not that important
A federal hiring freeze that is not a federal hiring freeze anymore to not drain the swamp
Allowing the hire of recent consultants and lobbyists to govern their respective industries to not drain the swamp

Tell you what. Let's measure Trump on Trump's own statements for his first 100 days. How's he rate then? Probably got the liar thing nailed.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Glad you found it interesting, Old Gent-always best to hear their words directly, rather than paraphrased by someone else.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

in re the AP transcript (thank you YF)

"NATO is obsolete, and I said, "And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism." You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism."

He stated clearly that he was frustrated that NATO is not doing anything to deal with terrorism, and other countries were not paying their fair share. I tend to agree for these reasons our participation has outlived the benefits. A quick google search reveals no instances where NATO has made any strong efforts in this regard since invoking article 5 in response to 9/11 - and it's certainly clear that the rest of the member states in NATO aren't paying their agreed-upon 2% of GDP into it. For us to remain in NATO we need assurance that other members will commit to the agreed upon payments.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

The populist...any Trump supporters OK with this?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/04/20/us/politics/ap-us-epa-dow-chemical.html

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Or this?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/trump-mar-a-lago-state-department_us_58fe4e4fe4b06b9cb9193b03?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

ABC/Washington Post poll: 96% of Trump voters "no regret"

In a new ABC News-Washington Post poll, 96 percent of Trump voters say supporting the former New York businessman was the right thing to do, while only 2 percent regret their vote.

That poll contrasts with the president's current approval rating, which sits around 42 percent.

On "Fox & Friends Weekend," Connell McShane said the wide difference shows voters are willing to give Trump more time to get his agenda through.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Which agenda is that? The one that guts the EPA? The one that takes health coverage from millions of people? The one where taxpayers pay for his wall? The infrastructure initiative that seems to have disappeared?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

+1000000000 yankeefan.

And now a government shutdown looming in the air.

happiest girl
Apr '17

The one where he stops illegal immigration, the one where he fix/replaces Obamacare, the one where he brings jobs back, the one where he stops "gutting" the coal industry, the one where he fixes the VA, the one where he stops the attacks on the 2A...

Govt shutdown. oooooohhhhhh scary......

The wall thing is funny. You people just refuse to get it. You don't realize: most Trump voters don't care if there's an actual wall. They want border SECURITY- something the last 2 presidents (at least) were not willing to do. A figurative "wall" would be just fine, provided it WORKS. As for who pays for it- still don't care. The left want to pay for global abortions, the right wants to pay for border security. The left want govt funding for the arts, the right wants govt funding for defense. It sucks when "your guy" isn't in power. Ask us- we know. Everyone takes their turn in the hole. Your turn.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Thanks for the morning guffaw, JR....""gutting" the coal industry....that train (coal powered) left the station a long time ago. Technology and economics did that job. Wake up.

As for his "wall". He ran on it, and promised that Mexico would pay for it. Next to "lock Hillary up", it was basically his theme song. Now a "figurative" wall is OK? Trying to visualize exactly what that might look like. Curtains? Posters? You've been had.

And now you say "fix/replace" Obamacare. The mantra was "repeal and replace." Based on your sentence you acknowledge that the intelligent thing to do is to identify areas of need and improve them.

Bring jobs back? Where? What jobs? Evidence?

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

One of your stranger post jr. I guess this is opinion because certainly you don' have facts to support. I mean --- most Trump voters are fine with a figurative wall that provides security, that's a good one. Got survey? And you, a staunch anti-tax conservative just doesn't care about who pays the 1.4B "figurative" dollars for the wall. Wow. And the arts budget offends you.......

Maybe you should stand next to the Trump podium like Garrett Morris talking over Trump as he screams "on day one we will repeal and replace ObamaCare" while you yell: "Trump means he can't do it, you'll have to wait a year or so..."

Border security: "something the last 2 presidents (at least) were not willing to do." Don't let facts be your friend --- Bush deported 2M; Obama 3M --- more than ANY OTHER previous administration. Sometimes it matters where you start from and Obama was deep in the illegal hole yet it is crystal clear that Obama implemented the toughest immigration enforcement regime ever in American history. Matter of fact, 2013 was the highest number of ICE deportations --- ever.

Maybe you're just focusing on the DACA element that was saved.

Ever notice how the total number of illegal immigrants did not rise under Obama? All eight years. That has not occurred since Reagan and before if you don't count Reagan's amnesty program. Now there's a guy avoiding border security. You probably missed those facts. Guess we already have a figurative wall --- mission accomplished....

Then you go off the reservation. I think I am liberal, others on HL have told me so. I have never heard the term "global abortions" much less even any thought about paying for it. Not a clue what you are kvetching about on this one much less to compare abortions to border security. In what world can you compare arts funding with defense funding --- let's see --- one is a $640B line item, the other is like $1B if you grab all the different elements. One is larger than the GDP of over 200 countries, the other is not. Heck, just the Trump defense increase of $54B is yuger than so many things in the world.

"It sucks when "your guy" isn't in power." I keep trying to tell you this so one more time: I will benefit from Trump in office -- tax plan, health plan, etc. all add cash flow to my budget. I just don't like what potentially happens to the rest of America under Trump. I think you guys are having more issues with winning than I do with losing. Apparently what was easily completed on day one is now very complex and what was PLEDGED by the first 100 days --- well, delivery on that promise is a joke. Leaves you conflicted and rationalizing the lies like jr.

Don't worry, only 3.666 years to go....

So you voted for a liar and you're OK with that. I get it, he's your man. He's is still not Hillary. He's an outsider. He's a successful businessman. But I guess you have to drop that "he can get things done" part of the resume. Luckily you have a jr. secret decoder ring to true Trump meanings. Because it looks like you voted for an ObamaCare repeal/replace that ain't gonna happen. A ban that won't ban. Coal that just won't come back. You voted for a 100 day pledge that ain't never gonna happen, not even close. Not even a runner on base. That's OK, you know what he really means. And Turnip's lack of progress has not lowered your Trump approval ratings more than a tad. Meanwhile Trump's total focus on his base has lost him Trump-voting independents in the approval poll, so support is collapsing. It's just that after this first 100 days, his base remains unwavering.

Cool. Just prepare. The first 100 days is the honeymoon; now the marriage begins in earnest........

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Just alot of gibberish from JR.

Thanks for the facts, strangerdanger.
+1000000000 SD

happiest girl
Apr '17

So you guys WEREN'T had when Obama said "bring the troops home", "close Gitmo"....

here you go, 7 pages of Obama's broken promises, from Politifact (winner of the Pulitzer Prize):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/


I know, I know, "this thread isn't about Obama" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I;m afraid it's YOU who have "been had", by Hillary and the democrat party, being told "no worries, no way Trump can win, say hello to Madame President"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Another example of Trumputin the hypocrite.
Is America GRATE yet?

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20170425/ba1c6196-f5f0-438e-b6c0-8c44819f6375

happiest girl
Apr '17

!! Flynn in hot water !!

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20170425/54844536-a9f0-4489-bec9-fc7cbe38233b

happiest girl
Apr '17

Interesting opinion piece on how professional wrestling helps explain Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/wrestling-explains-alex-jones-and-donald-trump.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

It does seem to me that his rally audiences are similar to wrestling audiences. Is the author of the piece on to something? Not sure how to not be disturbed by this. Just good fun?


Meanwhile Obama is going to receive $400,000 for an hour speech from Cantor Fiztgerald. Another hypocrite who is taking money from those "Fat Cat Wall Street Bankers" that he so called despised while in office. I guess he is following the Clinton's playbook to earn some quick cash. Typical politician.

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

No secret I am a very strong supporter, but I agree this appears to be a lapse in judgement. I'm hopeful that he donates the fee.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

kb2755 --
If Obama is being paid to make a speech, that does not make him a hypocrite.
Do you know what it is costing this country to keep the "fake first lady" in her apartment??
She belongs in the White House.

jd2 --- that's a very interesting, insightful article. Thanks.

happiest girl
Apr '17

He aint' going back to poverty folks...


Not sure what opportunities a former president has to make the money he needs, besides this sort of thing. They don't really make much as president.


Yes it makes him a hypocrite, railing against the Wall Street Bankers and then taking $400,000 from them to give an hour speech. I agree with YF and hope he donates the money.

kb2755 kb2755
Apr '17

happiest girl you're worried about extra security when Obama raised our debt ceiling the highest it's ever been?! She's only there with Baron until the kid is done with the school year. Would you make your kids leave a school during a school year? Most people wait till the school year is over to make a move.

Metsman Metsman
Apr '17

He and Michele signed a book deal with a publisher, a book each, reportedly for $65 M.
Again, I hope they both continue to be successful and involved and I have no problem with their making lots of money. Good for them. However, the optics on this speech aren't great...again, he may donate the fee. Maintaining his credibility requires walking a fine line.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Didn't Obama just get a 60mm book deal? Not sure why he would even want to expose himself to this

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Ha! That one thing irks you so much??
Trump is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Hail Trumputin, the "King of the Hypocrites" !!

LOLOL

happiest girl
Apr '17

Obama followed the rules and now in retirement will get paid, facts of life...


Metsman,
I'm not *worried* about the huge expense of protecting Melania & her son who didn't move to the White House. I am, however, outraged by this ...... as are many people.
You wrote: "Most people wait till the school year is over to make a move."
Just exactly who are you referring to?
THE PRESIDENT'S WIFE and family ????

For you to ask "Would you make your kids leave during a school year" is just ignorant.
No other First Lady and their children have NOT moved into The White House.

happiest girl
Apr '17

"He might donate the fee"


Wishful thinking. Trump donated his 1st quarter's salary to charity- as he promised he would.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Again you're worried about that when our last President racked up the most debt in history. Who's the ignorant one.... You're just a liberal that can't get on with life and have to tear down Trump for any little thing you can. Hence your little "Trumputin" dig even though they've yet to come up with any real evidence of those ties. I guess it's ok to pay taxes towards sanctuary cities that harbor fugitives who aren't citizens as well. Yeah makes sense. For every penny you cry about protecting Trumps family, millions more are wasted on other nonsense like that. And once June gets here, you won't have that to worry about. You'll be complaining he had lobster for lunch after that.

Metsman Metsman
Apr '17

Yeah...big deal. He donated $75k while cutting their budget by $1.5 B

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522518472/trump-donates-salary-to-national-parks-even-as-he-tries-to-cut-interior-departme

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

Government shutdown will not impact essential services, reported by The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-promises-government-will-continue-fund-all-e-55839

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

"He donated $75k while cutting their budget by $1.5 B"

One being a *personal* donation, the other being *public* tax funds. Very different priorities as to where each should be spent.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

Wow, guy can't even give to charity w/o getting criticized.... that shows you where the haters minds are. As the saying goes, "haters gonna' hate". Trump could revive the economy, get rid of global terrorism, and fix climate change, and these people would still hate him.

He could become a tranny, use the girl's restroom, convert to Islam, and become a democrat (again), and they'd still hate him.

So there you go... shows you the mentality we're dealing with. More like irrational hatred bordering on psychosis. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, because their minds are already made up that you are the anti-christ, destroyer of the world, end of civilization.

Sounds like insanity to me.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Your latest defense of everything Trump is Obama's $400,000 speech to Cantor Fiztgerald. "Another hypocrite who is taking money from those "Fat Cat Wall Street Bankers" that he so called despised while in office."

You do realize that it's Cantor that is paying him. "So called despised while in office" seems a tad light for Obama, the guy who passed the most stringent financial industry regulations in American history. Seems a bit more than "so called."

Not to worry, your righteous Wall Street warrior has overturned most of regulations so Wall Street can party like it's 2008 again. They're free, free, free at last to bend you over one more time..... Thank you Donald.

You do realize that he's not actually speaking at or to Cantor right? That your entire premise is feckless. Obama's speech is the keynote at Cantor's Inaugural Healthcare Conference, a public one-day conference, looking to link the HealthCare community with the Investment Community.

And for some reason you think it's hypocritical for Obama to talk to those communities? Where does that put the bankers who asked him to come?

Don't you kind of need to actually see the speech before you cast your hypocritical stone?

I mean is it wrong to be critical of an industry and simultaneous enter into a dialogue with said industry?

You do realize the dollar amount is chump change compared to the money Trump charges for speaking?

"I guess he is following the Clinton's playbook to earn some quick cash. Typical politician." I am sorry, but you have an issue with this? Afraid he might run for office? See a conflict of interest? A quid pro quo?

Let's juxtapose this with some real fast cash. Imagine if you will that on the eve of becoming leader of the free world, you doubled the initiation rates at the Winter White House, the place where you spend a lot of time but also charge others to stay there with you. Now the fee is $200,000 versus $100,000. Raised it within days of the election. In most businesses that would slash membership instantly. Mar-A-Loser has about 500 members; one would imagine it is still profitable. Trump made $15M from it in 2014 but, of course, without tax returns......

So the $100,000 must be pure profit on top of the profit already made. At 500 members, this is a tidy $50M. Why pay the money? Well, there's notoriety of hanging with the famous. There's also access. Like the impromptu Trump meeting with the Columbians recently. They were actually MAL-guests who "ran into" Trump and had a little tete-a-tete. Before Trump had the Japanese drop in to a business-friends son's wedding. Little payback....

Triump is blowing Clinton's playbook out of the water to earn some quick cash. Obama isn't even on the radar.

I think calling Obama a hypocrite for enacting the most stringent financial industry regulations ever and then taking money for talking to the same industry when really he is talking to the combination of healthcare/financial industries a bit ahead of your headlights. Especially since you don't even know what he has said to them.....

But if it's taking money for speaking that gets your goat, Trump charges $1.5M, Reagan was at $1M... http://publicspeaking.co.ke/post/10-highest-paid-public-speakers-in-the-world. I think you might be a bit ahead of your headlights trying to make Trump look better by showing others making money in what you feel is a shameless fashion.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Of course he donated his 1st quarter salary, to "charity". Very "generous". He has no bills to pay. All the luxuries, he was used to paying for, is now "on the house". Mar a largo, Trump tower, for the "other first lady", and his kids, using government resources, to open up resorts all over the world. I said it before and I'll say it again. Hundreds of millions of dollars, spent on security, for him, his kids and their families.... which he's entitled to, while being president, should be reserved for government business ONLY. Did I just use the word entitled? Like an entitlement? Something that usually sounds bad, to people who think, like Trump. But, 100's of millions of dollars, spent in security, every month, shouldn't be taken advantage of, while he makes him and his family trillonaires, on the side. He promised no wasteful spending, (unless it's on himself).
Obama is now retired. He is very educated and well experienced in politics. Worked his butt off, fighting republicans every step of the way to take care of ALL Americans, not just his rich CEO buddies, like Trump. Trump, filling government positions, with all his CEO friends and family, doesn't help the matter. You think Obama needed healthcare? Of course not. Why did he at least get his foot in the door, to prevent innocent people, from suffering? Because he actually CARED. He just should've fought harder to make it affordable without penalties. The republicans made him do that, or they wouldn't put the bill through. At least it was a start, and instead of improving it, Trump just wants to dump it, all together. Eight years of hard work, down the tubes. Improvement is needed... not dismantle the whole thing, causing 25 million people, to forgo, life sustainable healthcare.
Obama deserves to get paid for a speech. He earned it. He's retired. He didn't grow his personal assets, using our money, while in office. He has integrity. He waited, until he was done with his term. $400k for a speech, is nothing, compared to Trump's perks, he's abusing, for personal gain. You have to look at Trump, through a business owner's point of view. "Pregnant women are a burden, in the work place", according to Trump. You think he LIKES discrimination lawsuits, having to pay workmans comp insurance, paying insurance, for disability claims, people calling out sick, wanting health insurance, etc.? All things that should annoy a business owner, not our president. I can't believe what a giant bundle of "conflicts of interests", he keeps accumulating. Trump's trying to stay under the radar, by creating diversions, from investigating his taxes and other financial conflicts of interest. If he thinks that the" Russian ties" investigations are just going away, he's got another thing coming. The truth, about the real Donald, will be exposed.
Mexicans didn't steal all of our jobs. Robots and computers, took care of that. Now if we can keep the Mexican robots out, and let the Chinese robots take over, you know, the ones that make all the Trump crap, we won't need a wall. LOL. Trump is one big mess, trying to anger and ruin the rest of the planet. Divide and concur. Good for Putin. He knew, how to manipulate the elections, via propaganda and probably hackers, to. Trump's the first dictator, that I know of, who actually became our president. Who could possibly anger Canada? Trump, of course. With each passing day, of Trump-a-largo, grows more fear, of the damage this nut job is capable of. He is involved with alt-right groups, after all. Maniac!!!

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

sparks, you've been getting tutored by strangerdanger I see.... "mexican robots".... hilarious....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Obama's travel costs taxpayers $96M

Obama sticks taxpayers with $100M vacation tab

Many more wasteful spending items here (and Trump is included)


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/category/wasteful-spending/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

jr -- once again you are kidding right? You do realize the actual facts on where the jobs went, don't you? http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/china-automation-jobs/

And then pitching Obama travel budgets against your airborne deity Trump? You do realize the actual facts on where the travel budget comparison between Obama and the current King who protects castles in NYC, DC, and FLA.....for now... will end up, don't you? You do realize that budget includes the direct family --- including the ones camping in Manhattan.

You need to improve your regular rant research before you launch these bottle rockets expecting ballistic results.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Rant? No rants here.... just laughing at your and the rest of the left's extreme hypocrisy.

You got nothing, you're grasping at straws, throwing sh!t against the wall to see what sticks... all much ado about nothing. Have fun complaining for the next 4 (8?) years, because the rest of us are having fun watching you.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Poor, poor chicken little/
strangerdanger/yankeefan/hapiestgirl/sparks.....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966

Most transparent administration ever dropped charges against 14 Iranians charged with terrorism with a pile of cash per politico.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

this works for you??? http://time.com/4755069/ivanka-trump-factory-conditions-g-iii-apparel/

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

That's funny 4catmom considering there's a very good chance you're wearing something made by cheap labor.

Metsman Metsman
Apr '17

Here's the only research needed:

Take an inventory of all the products in your house - clothes, appliances, electronics - and research where they were made.

Automation or not, price drives what we buy. Our manufacturing base exists *only* because competitive global forces mandated that efficiencies, aka productivity increases, happened because if they hadn't our high cost of living would have driven us completely out of manufacturing markets.

That article is more obfuscation, more liberal nutrition (take any data point and look at it on its own, ignoring any scope other than that which serves a political purpose) and it doesn't surprise me in the least that SD would reference it without a single thought as to what it means. True, sure. Relevant to the discussion, not one bit.

That's the really sad point about the psychological breakdowns (aka mass anti-Trump hysteria) occurring due to the current President. Quite valid concerns are being minimized with all the extraneous noise you people are throwing about. Really, I'm surprised that no one has claimed that Trump is responsible for the clog in their kitchen sinks (because kitchen sinks are the only think not thrown in to attack Trump yet lol).

justintime justintime
Apr '17

and an AP transcript of an interview the other day with Trump - let me know what it says in a paragraph or less - if you can actually read through the whole thing - https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

it's great when Apple does it in their foxconn fab's there - why not. We cant be responsible for China's labor laws.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

4cat --- jr can tell you what it really means. He has the secret decoder ring.

For those of us who think Trump actually means anything he says, try this version. Much more fun. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/24/fact-checking-trumps-associated-press-interview/

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

So...that lying, ignorant hypocrite clogged my sink?

yankeefan yankeefan
Apr '17

I don't know YF, you tell me? He's done everything else under the sun according to you (and the Onion) ;-)

Has anyone targeted him as being the cause of solar flares yet?

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Through the looking glass :>)

Once again Jitnofactso completely misses the big picture and instead obfuscates the discussion with off-target tangents in his Iibertarian zealotry to support his conservative Trump by trying to play off your xenophobic emotions at the sight of foreign manufacture in his anecdotal search for his truth --- Trump truth.

Jitsofactoid likes a minimum of facts when he says: “Here's the only research needed: Take an inventory of all the products in your house…. And… where they were made.”

Now look at your 401K and the companies in your portfolio. Match that with the companies in the inventory you just did. Uh oh --- most of the profits from those things went to Americans and American companies funded by Americans with things like your 401K. Bet you made more on the deal than that Chinese factory worker…..

Jit discounts automation instead focusing on price in his big picture believing that global competition forces automation. Automation reduces the total workers needed; it's not losing the factory job overseas but losing the job altogether. Yet the job is still gone. Here's the rub. Much of the automation equipment is US made or created. In other words, those jobs didn’t go to another country JIT, they went away no matter what the label on your product says. Meanwhile, the US is a major exporter of Industrial Automation equipment and software with many of the factories and most of the profits being US based.

IT's like saying China forced Henry Ford to automate his Model T line. There are many reasons factories automate. If there was absolutely zero foreign manufacturers, our factories would still automate. Probably at the same pace.

That's the really sad point about the psychological breakdowns (aka mass pro-Trump hysteria) occurring due to the current President. Quite valid concerns are being minimized with all the extraneous noise Trump tweets out and you people accept. Really, I'm surprised that no one has claimed that Hillary is responsible for the clog in their kitchen sinks (because kitchen sinks are the only thing not thrown in to attack Hillary yet lol).

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Not to my knowledge, although I believe his hair and orange complexion have been seen from the Space station. :)

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

lol YF, although I think there was an article recently where they noted his completion has changed and that he looked pale. Didn't pay it too much attention at the time though, if it's a trend we'll surely be reading about it :-)

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Heck with them National Parks, we need oil damn it, oil.

Oh heck, just turn those parks over to the states. Let NJ handle the Pinelands and Morristown. We'll sell them, turn them into profit centers and even rename Morristown National Park --- Citigreen --- and charge $20 a visit.

Let's be real. Donald J Trump and his supporters have decided we have too much parkland and we need to drill more and dig more from these lands and even pawn off as much National Park Land as we can to the States.

How much oil, gas, and rock do you need?

For anyone who has enjoyed the splendor of our major parks or even one of us enjoying the pleasant commute through Jockey Hollow, this is a war to destroy a national heritage that many Presidents and many administrations and most voters have protected basically since America was born. First by avoidance and luck and then by legislation. Once Donald destroys it, it will never be replaced. Never.

You are supporting some very bad ideas.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin on the President's financial releases: “The president has released plenty of information and I think has given more financial disclosure than anybody else" NYT

First, ever notice how money-guys look like trolls? Just saying....

If Mnuchin really means what he said, I would say the man should be fired for utter incompetency. I mean how financially inaccurate do you have to be to not be considered SoT material? This is, in the financial world, akin to Hillary saying Benghazi was all about a movie. "More financial disclosure than anybody else?"

And we know what that did to galvanize you.

What a liar protecting a liar from people who really don't seem to care anymore what anyone actually says.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

"this is a war to destroy a national heritage that many Presidents and many administrations and most voters have protected basically since America was born."


How ironic.... since the other half of the country believes the same thing about today's democrat party/the left/progressives/socialists.....

Perception is a tricky thing.

And I, for one, applaud Obama's efforts on park land. I don't want to see any of it "destroyed", but I've yet to see where Trump has announced his desire to turn any parkland into oil rigs.

That being said- I am a conservationist, which is much different than an environmentalist (wacko). Conservationist believe in being stewards of the land, and taking care of it, but also reaping it's natural resource rewards- responsibly. It CAN be done. like most things in politics, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing issue.... it's just that the 2 parties WANT it to be- to keep up the fighting- because that is their job security. And most of voting America has fallen for the ruse.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

https://thinkprogress.org/antiquities-act-impact-3fd56f7c3aed

He told the department of the interior to review the monument status - nothing has been revoked. Oh and the only way to support conservation in NJ is to have a hunting license - that's why I had one for 25 years and would never kill an animal.

skippy skippy
Apr '17

Friday humor a day early: https://youtu.be/Qo3fT0xPeHs

4catmom 4catmom
Apr '17

Makes you wonder why Trump donated salary to the National Park Service as he moves to cut their budget by 10% even in the face of department deficits.

"How ironic.... since the other half of the country believes the same thing about today's democrat party/the left/progressives/socialists....." You won, remember? You own it all. So this is how you cure Democratic ills? Now see what you've done.

"I've yet to see where Trump has announced his desire to turn any parkland into oil rigs." Have you looked?

“I’ve spoken with many state and local leaders … who care very much about conserving land and are gravely concerned about this massive federal land grab,” he said. “And it’s gotten worse and worse and worse and now we’re going to free it up. It never should have happened. I am signing this order to end abuses and return control to the people.” Sure sounds like a Trumpian desire to turn parkland into something else. Do you think "freeing it up" will retain the natural aspects of that land?

Matter of fact, when you look at this, and take it apart, what you will find is the West and specifically Utah and more specifically the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments.

When Trump says: “The Antiquities Act does not give the federal government unlimited power to lock up millions of acres of land and water, and it’s time that we ended this abusive practice" where do you see that not ending up with more drilling, digging, and destruction of parklands?

"but also reaping it's natural resource rewards- responsibly. " Really.....show us that one. Last time I checked, once you touch a virgin forest ---- no longer a virgin even if you put the wood back.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

how red pilled are you
question battery of 97 items which tells you where you align politically. I am a PURPLE-PILLED NORMIE lol

http://meme-magic-agency.com/redpill/index.php

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"but also reaping it's natural resource rewards- responsibly. " Really.....show us that one.



So are you saying we should never cut down another tree or dig another well? I mean, if you don't believe it's possible to use the land responsibly, then you believe we shouldn't use the land AT ALL, right? Driving your fully-electric car yet? If not, then you'll have to close your mouth and stop talking. If you are, where do you think the electricity comes from? I'll give you a hint: it's not wind farms.

Is your home fully solar-powered yet? If not.....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Environment would definitely be better if HRC won - even mother Jones doesn't believe that. She went on a fracking road show when she ran state

It is important to compare trumps first 100 days to what his predecessor did in the same time period http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/04/29/GR2009042900153.html

* Day 29: Signed the $787 BILLION Stimulus Bill
* Day 29: Deployed 17k troops to Afghanistan
* Day 38: Presented his $3.6 TRILLION budget to congress
* Day 45: Dow Jones AVG closed its lowest in 12 years
* Day 76: N.Korea launched a long range missile, despite warnings
* Day 67: Announces new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
* Day 92: Tripled the size of the AmeriCorps - a civil society program engaging adults in public service work with a goal of "helping others and meeting critical needs in the community."


4BB VS 28MM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-obama-regs-in-first-100-days-cost-141-times-trumps-4b-to-28m/article/2621232

skippy skippy
Apr '17

"Is your home fully solar-powered yet?"

Home? I believe those are (mostly) built with lumber... from trees, I tell you!

Where is the home? In a "virgin" forest? Or in a developed town where there used to be forests... with streets that used to be dirt...

... and about that Prius he drives.

https://axleaddict.com/cars/Prius

Here's the Sudbury Nickel mine that's likely the one referenced in the article as the birthplace of the batteries.

https://www.google.com/maps/search/sudbury+nickel/@46.483186,-81.0325363,3315m/data=!3m1!1e3

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

Trump's proposed tax plan will prohibit taxpayers from deducting the money paid into State income tax and local property taxes from their Federal taxable income. Pretty good deal for those who suck the most from the federal teat; not so much for taxpayers from those states who get less than $0.50 on the dollar back from the federal government. I feel greater already, lol.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/330943-trump-tax-plan-would-hit-blue-states-hardest

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

that's ok the sanctuary cities in those blue states are going to lose federal funding anyway.

3 tax brackets for individuals: 15%, 25%, 35% (we don't have income traunches yet but he has claimed they will be CUTS.)

15% corporate tax rate: makes America competitive again from a tax perspective. there is a reason so many companies are offshoring their earnings)

why this is a good idea:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

http://economyandmarkets.com/economy/innovation/trickle-down-economics-works-just-ask-the-middle-class/

Double the standard deduction - this is YUGE for folks who don't itemize. if his plan is passed passed just like this, folks wouldn't even need someone to prepare individual tax returns for standard deduction takers which is a huge waste.

YES - it will increase the deficit short-term, however, see the laffer curve above - corps will react favorably and bring money/investments back to US creating a net win. This can be offset by reduced spending on entitlements in the short term and by actual gainful employment in the long term.

personal prediction time:

Trump will let the Democrats tie everything into his tax returns... and then release / leak them and say"What's up?" "so what's holding up the tax vote?"

skippy skippy
Apr '17

That's called redistribution of wealth ianimal. Surprised you haven't heard of it! ;-)

justintime justintime
Apr '17

Come on Skipper, context. Obama took office in an economic meltdown. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month and our largest financial institutions were facing bankruptcy and potential nationalization. Compare to the economy Trump inherited. I mean, he's already taking credit for Obama's job numbers.

And JIT, redistribution implies a prior distribution. This tax "reform" simply continues to screw the Trump voters and rewards the billionaires he's surrounded himself with. Trickle down again...failed then, and this approach is going nowhere.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
Apr '17

Oh that's rich... all of the bad stuff under Obama was Bush's fault, and all the good stuff under Trump is credited to Obama. You don't even realize how PATHETIC you people sound. Can't wait for the next dem president so we can hear "it's all Trump's fault!" for 4- 8 years.....

And besides, I thought you people keep saying "this thread isn't about Obama" ROFL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

"And JIT, redistribution implies a prior distribution."

It does? Since when? The word has always been used to mean "taking from those who have and giving it to those who don't."

I used it in this case tongue-in-cheek though because ianimal's implication was the opposite: taxing those who don't and giving it to those who do.

justintime justintime
Apr '17

If you want to go with the "Robin Hood effect", he didn't rob from the rich and give to the poor anyway- he took back from the ruling class (the Crown- govt) money that had been confiscated from the poor (taxes) and gave it back to them. So tax cuts = Robin Hood.

So Trump is Robin Hood. lol


Good read on the "redistribution of wealth", with regards to healthcare and entitlements (and, the "Robin Hood theory")

https://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/05/06/its-time-to-kill-the-robin-hood-myth/#7bf39309fcc0

I'd cut and paste here, but the forum won't let me post stuff as large as they do strangerdanger, so you'll have to click the link.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Quote of the day:

“I loved my previous life,” Mr. Trump told Reuters. “I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.”

Maybe this means we'll be seeing less BS from him?


jd2,

I totally expected that: he was over-the-top in the primaries, but I figured he'd calm down and get real once the reality of the office hit him, and he was briefed more deeply on issues.

Now, that doesn't mean the left won't still try to PAINT HIM as crazy, or absurd, or ridiculous, or stupid, or whatever... just because someone doesn't AGREE with his tax cuts doesn't mean Trump is the one who's "nuts" or "evil" or whatever. It's just a political point of view.... which can ALWAYS BE SPUN BOTH WAYS... there's undeniable proof that the Reagan tax cuts WORKED, and then depending on who else you talk to, there's undeniable proof that they DIDN'T. That's the tricky part with politics: believing you are always CORRECT, no matter what... it's what drives the hatred in the 2-party system. Used to be just disagreement, now it's vehement hatred.

All I know is, the last 8 years didn't "work" very well... and apparently a wide swath of the country agrees, or Trump wouldn't have been elected. Yes, he's going to do things very differently than Obama did... for better or worse? No one- even strangerdanger- actually knows, they only THINK they know, and only time will tell (and history, as I have explained, can be spun either way). In the end, the feelings of the people is what will decide what works and what doesn't....

Sorry, went a bit far afield there LOL. Yes, I think you'll see "less BS" from him, but of course, many on here think anything that comes out of his mouth including a breath is "BS", so....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

I brought up Trump's review of parks and monuments to see if previous Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton set aside too much land along with recommendations whether park land can be returned to the states. First off, I am pretty sure the states never owned this land……Idiot….

You don't agree that "this is a war to destroy a national heritage that many Presidents and many administrations and most voters have protected basically since America was born." Trump’s actions do not concern you…..yet.

Our jr self-professed conservationist claims this is irony because Republicans feel the same way about Democrats. Bwhat false equivalency is he talking about this time and bwhat does he even mean….he trudges on with acceptance of Obama’s National Parks support and a wait n see attitude towards pending Trump actions. Open your eyes. Why review if you aren't planning to do?

He then proclaims that natural resource extraction can be done responsibly. I asked folks to show us one and the jr response was to not answer the question. Instead ask a series of non-sequitur questions. I guess he knows nothing of which he speaks. He then defended his non-stand stand with a slew of attack questions regarding my use of natural resources. Like it matters to defend your non-stand but your answers are: no, no, no, power plants, and no…

Not that it matters to the remarks on Trump’s review of national parks, but JR., I have reduced my use oil n gas by well over 50% since 2006. My electric is down about that amount also and 60% of my home heating is from renewable resources (pellets). Frankly, I save money while being warmer than ever and driving more distance than I used to while spending less money. I drive both hybrid and traditional vehicles; my next vehicle will probably be electric. My home features passive and active solar components. While I do not personally own solar electric, I have enough solar electric investments to power a nice sized Hackettstown neighborhood. Even invest in some Chinese solar cell makers. I am not a tree hugger; I am a capitalist. And you sir, to quote yourself: “you'll have to close your mouth and stop talking.” That was a bit more nasty that you usually are.

MMc --- do your research. That study has no peer review and precious little support except from tin foil hat folks. Next time try one more click to see if the report you are about to support actually has any legs. Your eport has little to do with me, I am pretty sure I am on the next gen lithium batteries --- you know --- like the little ones you have all over your house, in your tool chest, whatever. It is a stupid report. If that’s your reason to not support hybrids, then we already know what you support on the climate change issue. I just can’t fix that.

“Although hybrid vehicle production is more energy-intensive and results in higher production emissions, hybrid vehicles are still the greener choice overall. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

And yes McMark, I do know where trees come from. And yes that’s responsible conservatism in action. But not one of those replaces a virgin forest or even an old growth stand. Although I would love to be a fly on the wall as jr. explained his “responsible viginity” concept to his daughter…. fact is you can’t replace a virgin forest no matter what you do. Tree farms are nice but they are not natural forests anymore…..are they? Like saying your lawn helps replace the Great Plains.

Even been to coal country? Did you notice all the really nice grass? That’s right, we scrape off the soil, dig out the coal, and then put the soil back with some grass seeds. Trees will not grow for quite some time. Very pleasant but nothing like the forest that was before the coal left. Heck, often the very mountain is now a molehill. With your support for your Trump, we will increase coal emissions in the air, increase methane emissions from oil drilling and fracking on federal lands, will lift the coal moratorium on federal lands so we can create more “grasslands” responsibly…while at the same time repealing the EPA ban on dumping coal wastes in our waterways. Trump will also end Obama's moratorium on issuing new leases for coal mining on government-administered property.

And that’s all already happened before we even see the outcome of his recent EO to re-evaluate our National Parks and Monuments to see if we can develop some of those pristine lands for “responsible” resource extraction, sometimes managed by the very states looking to profit as much as possible from said actions. These are our lands, these are my lands ---- I have as much interest as Utah or any other Western State. I do not cede said interest to business for development, to the states for profit. Not voluntarily.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

Just a few points:

Who would want Obama's job numbers? Sure he created an average 200,000 part-time jobs a month, but he also averaged 170,000-250,000 signing up for unemployment a week during his whole eight year term. The lowest since 1979.

Obama used the Sept 1996 Clinton law to take Fed grant money from towns who didn't use his wife's school lunch program or his transgender bathroom's in schools executive order. There are too many others to list.

Now the Long Island Police have to clean up MS-13 and other gangs due to the five year old FBI mandate to not to provide any gang enforcement help to any U.S. locality. Plus two years ago the Fed Gov dumped illegal, unescorted minors all over the country. Even Governor Cuomo has had enough.

Pay attention. Please use your critical thinking skills.

One-Eyed Poacher One-Eyed Poacher
Apr '17

"Sorry, went a bit far afield there LOL. Yes, I think you'll see "less BS" from him, but of course, many on here think anything that comes out of his mouth including a breath is "BS", so...."

Now, here is an actual analogous situation to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"... Trump has prevaricated so often (and oftentimes about the most ridiculously trivial and easily disprovable things) that he has zero credibility to anyone but his most ardent supporters and he will never be taken at his word about anything.

ianimal ianimal
Apr '17

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/trump-south-korea-pay-1-billion-missile-system-article-1.3111953

Interesting how some of our supposed allies, Israel, get it all for free courtesy of the US Taxpayer?


Still waiting for verification of your TOTALLY solar-powered car & home, mr. environmentalist warrior strangerdanger....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Even though your questions have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of Trump waging war on our National Parks except to potentially establish that since I am not as green as I can be that somehow I am a hypocrite to be against you and your kind tearing down our National Monuments so you can have some coal and oil --- I did answer.

Now, your turn --- what have you done to stem global warming, wean yourself off foreign oil, or cut pollution. Take a couple of posts if you need them :>) Can't say copper is renewable resource since you put so much of it back into the ground....

And while you're on the subject of answering questions, your questions to me were a simple dodge from you answering the original question I posed: jr believes it's possible to "reaping it's natural resource rewards- responsibly. " Really.....show us that one. Last time I checked, once you touch a virgin forest ---- no longer a virgin even if you put the wood back." So show us where responsible use of natural resources does not claim some part of the pristine nature of a park.

Not to mention all the other questions you duck.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

All righty.... Dandy Don taking on Warren as Pocahontas again... We all know what happened here, we all have "family lore" where things that can't be proven are thought of as family fact. Why does our President, our leader of the free world, our best of the best, have to stoop to stupid name calling that derides an individual and an entire race in a single speech? Can't he do better than this?

Junior likes to say look at it from another perspective, mine. So try this.

“I totally expected that: he was over-the-top in the primaries, but I figured he'd calm down and get real once the reality of the office hit him” My perspective was “I hope so but have not seen it in 70+ Trump years yet….”

“Now, that doesn't mean the left won't still try to PAINT HIM as crazy, or absurd, or ridiculous, or stupid, or whatever” I am sorry. Didn’t you just say, he was over-the-top? Does that really require paint to be seen as crazy, stupid, or absurd? Heck, you don't even believe what he says but seem content translating what he says into your own agenda. That's just crazy, stupid, and absurd IMO.

“ just because someone doesn't AGREE with his tax cuts doesn't mean Trump is the one who's "nuts" or "evil" or whatever.” You are correct except that when you look at the actual cuts. Then you can say they are nuts, evil, etc. Might be spin, mine are usually math. As to the owner of the plan, perhaps he’s just an idiot who can’t calm down in the face of reality. It’s not politics, it’s reality.

“All I know is, the last 8 years didn't "work" very well... and apparently, a wide swath of the country agrees.” But not the majority…… And when you view the Trump versus Obama polls, I think you may be rescinding your “last 8 years didn’t “work” very well” in lieu of the next four. I mean look at it: ObamaCare is more popular than Trump --- what's that say to you?

“Yes, I think you'll see "less BS" from him, but of course, many on here believe (and can prove) that most of which comes out of Trump's mouth including a breath is "BS", so....”

OMG --- he’s at a rating of a major lie every day for his first 100 days. One lie every day. These are lies. There are facts behind the accusation of his lies. There is no spin in these facts. It’s a lie, cut and dry. Other Trump trackers have him at between 2 lies and 4 lies per day. “Yes, I think you'll see "less BS" from him” --- says yes, at age 70, you are expecting change. Good call. Safe bet. The only way you will see less Trump BS is if you continue to add your own BS to cover for him

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/102-false-statements-donald-trump-10289623

And over a dozen policy flippity floppities: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/27/tracking-trumps-policy-reversals-his-first-100-day/ These are things you voted for but will never see.

Fact is Trump has shown himself to be a flip flopping liar at a level never seen from this office from any party. This means, like jr, no one is listening to the President anymore instead filling the liar’s void with their own interpretation of the situation.

He claimed everything was easy, he would fix it all. Now he is saying it's complex, it's hard work, and he misses his old life. That's called incompetence. He did not know the job, he did not have the skills, he couldn't galvanize his side, he couldn't reach across the aisle and worse yet ---- he thought he could.

Our President’s words really don’t matter anymore. They are fraught with lies.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

I don't need to defend myself as an eco-warrior, because I have not identified myself as such- YOU have, altho in MANY more words, lol.

And I have stated time and again I am for developing alternate sources of energy, including NUCLEAR. But of course you greenies won't have that. Nope- no coal, no gas, no nuclear. Just wind and water. Believe me, if they ever invent a car that runs on water or air, I'll buy one lol. Hybrids and electrics don't count- the electricity they eat comes from burning coal, or nuclear.

As for responsible use of natural resources, unless you irrationally believe there is no such thing (which is what all of your words imply), there's plenty of info out there, it's been going on for a very long time. And if there is no such thing, every single one of us is a criminal in the eco-war.

I don't have to paint you as an extremist, you are doing a fine job of that yourself.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

"I don't need to defend myself as an eco-warrior, because I have not identified myself as such- YOU have, altho in MANY more words, lol." Wow, if you see me as an eco-terrorist, you must totally live in fear. You're not even close.

Actually I said --- three times now --- I was discussing Trump's review of our National Parks and Monuments for potential development. You opened the eco-warrior red herring false equivalency argument as if my personal use of resources is required to have my opinion on this subject. It is you that has plunked the red herring on the table and now seem afraid to respond to the very queries that you expect me too.

You apparently will not respond because you admit you are not an eco-warrior. Either am I. Nor am I a greenie. You, on the other hand, like to call people names, generalize them into convenient junior buckets of lunacy, and use your broad brush to try to simplify your world into something you can understand.

Your questions had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It was a tangent meant to obfuscate the discussion.

I responded anyway. You appear to be afraid to.

You will not respond to the same question you posed. You will not respond to the questions I asked that do relate to the discussion we were attempting to have.

"Hybrids and electrics don't count- the electricity they eat comes from burning coal, or nuclear." This is not true on so many all levels. Most US electricity comes from natural gas. Coal is high but renewables are about half that and will pass nuclear this year. So sorry, they do count, they do lower emissions, and you have no proof that they don't. My proof is linked above.

"As for responsible use of natural resources" This one is a nuance that you apparently are not catching so let me throw it out one more time. Once you cut a virgin forest, you can not have it back. You can not have another one. It's just one of those things. Responsibly, all you can have is an alternative --- a tree farm. Same will be true for any Park or National Monument for any sort of development.

Let me ask a question like you do. Let's see. You are all for "responsible" development of National Parks and Monuments because you feel a virgin forest replacement by a tree farm is responsible. Does that mean you told your teen daughter it's OK as long as a rubber is deployed? You know, responsible use of a virgin.... :>) Renewable resource. Really need the coal.

You use "responsible" to respond to it's opposite: irresponsible. I am saying once you develop a Park or National Monument, no matter how responsible you are, you can not return it to the pristine condition it was in. Let me try it this way: there is no repeal and replace when it comes to Mother Nature. You can't put the virgin genie back in the bottle.

"As for responsible use of natural resources" OK, as I said, I am all for that. I am against destroying national parks (and if you repeal it but can't replace it, you are destroying it) for some coal and oil. I am also really against ceding US land management to the states. Don't mind help, just don't believe we should religious management control.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

I am for responsible USE OF LAND. And yes, extracting natural resources, to a point, can be done responsibly. I love park lands, and don't want to see them littered with oil rigs or anything else... however.... our govt owns (not really- it's OUR land, govt OF the people, remember?) and awful lot of land, much of which is NOT national parks or monuments....

What is all that federal land for? And exactly who is in charge? According to the Congressional Research Service, a total area of just under 610 million acres – more than twice the size of Namibia – is administered by no more than 4 federal government agencies:

* The United States Forest Service (USFS), which oversees timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife habitat protection and other sustainable uses on a total of 193 million acres – almost the size of Turkey – mainly designated as National Forests.

* The National Park Service (NPS) conserves lands and resources on 80 million acres – a Norway-sized area – in order to preserve them for the public. Any harvesting or resource removal is generally prohibited.

* the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), managing 248 million acres [5] – an area the size of Egypt – has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, supporting energy development, recreation, grazing, conservation, and other uses.

* the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 89 million acres – an area slightly bigger than Germany – to conserve and protect animal and plant species.

The first agency is part of the Department of Agriculture, the latter three of the Department of the Interior. The Department of Defense manages an additional 20 million acres – a bit larger than the Czech Republic – as military bases, testing and training grounds, etc.

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us



as usual, there IS a middle ground here, but you seem to continue falling back on the all-or-nothing argument.... something you have continually criticized the republican-held congress for the last several years....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

The EO is for Monuments and National Parks under the Antiquities Act. Your wider scope of Federal Lands are not being dischased......yet.

Like I said, this is about Utah and carving out some profits from the land Obama "carved" out to make two Monument Parks.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Apr '17

"Like I said, this is about Utah and carving out some profits from the land Obama "carved" out to make two Monument Parks."

A "carve out" that Utah residents and their governor opposed. I thought you were all about state's rights... shouldn't they have a say about land within their borders?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

They should have as much right as I do. It's within our borders.

They did have a say.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

I guess they have a different perspective when the Fed's already own more than 66% of their land (within Utah's borders).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '17

SD is for Fed "trumps" (no pun intended, but how PERECT lol) all.... as long as a DEMOCRAT is in office....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '17

Wow, McMark and Jr seem hate the Fed more than they hate Mormons --- wouldn't have picked that one.

Still afraid to answer your own questions jr.? Show us your pollution busting :>)

"I guess they have a different perspective when the Fed's already own more than 66% of their land (within Utah's borders)." Yes, and who can blame them for wanting to access the resources nearby for profit. Don't make it right. Don't make it theirs. Just the other day, I was looking at the Statue of Liberty and thinking: "that would be a grand place for a tennis club...." Didn't make it NJ's....

Amazingly the Spanish had a different perspective on Utah when they said the same thing about us Europeans not letting them use the Utah anymore. And the Navaho said the same thing about the Spanish when they took Utah from them....

Do you think the people of Utah have some special right to our Federal Lands within Utah? I think the Navaho have a better claim.

It's national land, it has been designated as a National Monument to remain untouched. Utah had the same say about that as the rest of us -- as it should be.

When you develop a National Monument, I don't care how responsible you are, it will never return to the condition it was before you developed.

When Trump says he was to re-evaluate those Monuments, where can that lead except to having less land for Monuments. Otherwise why look.

With all the issues Trump needs to fix, why is a few hundred thousand acres so important versus all the other larger opportunities and challenges Trump says we need to address. Do we really need to reduce our National Monuments to Make America Great Again?

I mean even though jr got it all wrong about what Trump is doing, he has a point that one would think you would review Federal Lands before you went for the National Parks much less the National Monuments. This is just weird and, chance are, when you follow the money, the weirdness with be explained.

Tween us I think this boils down to whether you believe you can develop property responsibly for oil, coal, etc, and then return said land to its previous condition when done. Jr. is satisfied that a tree farm is responsible use of a National Monument Park. I feel they are responsible land use, but would destroy the pristine environment that is usually associated with a National Monument.

That said, we both conclude the opposite when it comes to Trump's review of said lands for development.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Apr '17

I heard Trump admit, with my own ears, "the government has bigger things to worry about than a bumped knee or injured back, such as North Korea". Really!? For someone who has his own Whitehouse doctor, for a stubbed toe, once again, if it's not something that him, his families or businesses can benefit from, it's gets chopped. I'd love to see him, hunched over a broom, whilst sweeping floors, in Walmart, at age 65, with an injured back, to see how it feels. Good Karma, is definitely not in Trump's future. He doesn't deserve it. I guess it's just "too many numbers ", to care about your fellow man.
Before he was elected, and was promising everyone healthcare, that would "be affordable, easier and cover everything". Pretty big campaign lie. I posted, way back when, that the only thing Trump can't afford, is his own military. I was right. That's the only thing he's concerned about. Healthcare? You're on your own.... sorry. I guess the military will keep people from going homeless, due to a serious medical condition, huh.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
Apr '17

"Wow, McMark and Jr seem hate the Fed more than they hate Mormons --- wouldn't have picked that one. "

Where did we ever say anything about Mormons? Stay on topic please.


"I was looking at the Statue of Liberty and thinking: "that would be a grand place for a tennis club...." Didn't make it NJ's...."

Except only 3.7% of NJ is Federal land (as opposed to 66% of Utah's). You have plenty of places to build your tennis club.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

The Navajo? Hey listen- if you want to start giving lands back to the Native Americans, you'll have to start with NY and NJ.... so where are you moving to, SD?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

"Except only 3.7% of NJ is Federal land (as opposed to 66% of Utah's). You have plenty of places to build your tennis club." Ah, I see. Size matters.... So what's your plan --- give the Federal Land to Utah? Hey, didn't Trump say he was bringing back the Land Rush. Let's line up the wagons :>)

Again....and let's move on. "Tween us I think this boils down to whether you believe you can develop property responsibly for oil, coal, etc, and then return said land to its previous condition when done. Jr. is satisfied that a tree farm is responsible use of a National Monument Park. I feel they (tree farms) are responsible land use, but would destroy the pristine environment that is usually associated with a National Monument." You can not rape a virgin forest, replace it with all those tree farm trees line up in rows, and say "Yup, it's just like it was...." Likewise, today's strip mines can be responsible land use but to think that land will ever be anything but a reclaimed strip mine is like saying your raised septic field is just a lawn and such responsible use of your front lawn will not affect your home's value.

That said, we both conclude the opposite when it comes to Trump's review of said National Monument Park lands for extraction of raw materials. I say hands off the National Monuments --- don't even look. And you say it's OK to develop said lands for oil, coal, etc. as long as you're "responsible."

But most important is that jr. is still too afraid to answer his own questions. He just can't hoot. Must pollute big time and doing nothing about it.

jr also can't prove any single instance of virgin parkland used for raw material extraction that is "responsible." Just can't support his allegations. Really, show us that one. Last time I checked, once you screwed a virgin forest......:>)

The good news is it may not matter. Trump is cutting the Parks by 10%, so at least we won't be there as they start drilling and digging. The Parks will be closed.

I think the funniest part of all this is where you expect the Federal Government, in partnership with big oil, uranium, coal, etc. will be responsible and careful in the stewardship of our National Park treasures. Suddenly it's "yeah, they won't screw it up......"

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"I think the funniest part of all this is where you expect the Federal Government, in partnership with big oil, uranium, coal, etc. will be responsible and careful in the stewardship of our National Park treasures. Suddenly it's "yeah, they won't screw it up......"



...and yet, YOU seem to be perfectly confidant with letting them handle the nation's universal healthcare (at least you were with a DEMOCRAT plan)... ask the Vets how that's worked out with the V.A.....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/dnc-shatters-the-illusion-of-american-democracy-in-order-to-keep-peoples-27-bucks-eaccc01ad3bd

A recently-released transcript of Florida court documents has revealed that the Democratic National Committee’s first line of defense in their motion to dismiss a lawsuit against them by defrauded Bernie Sanders supporters is to state that they are under no contractual obligation to provide the American people with real party primaries.

skippy skippy
May '17

You are conflating the ACA with the VA. Different programs. And both dems and repubs have been responsible for the VA debacles from its inception.

And yes, I do believe the government can deliver good works so your comment is not germane.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

"And yes, I do believe the government can deliver good works so your comment is not germane."


Well then, no sweat with the govt running the national parks, right? Good we settled that.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

I'd rather see the government run things than corporations. Corporations exist for one reason: to create profit for the ownership. Government is not a corporation (Any libertarian who says it is, is a brainwashed halfwit), it doesn't have to profit, it doesn't - err, shouldn't, answer to a small number of people. A few corrupt people ruin the system for everyone.

Granted, the government needs to get more efficient, but how much of that slowness is because of non-government contractors like construction companies, or software companies. But the government can pay folks a decent wage, still train people well, still hire great talent and not have to make a profit at the end of the day.

If you ever think the government can't get great talent, go take a tour from a park ranger. They are often some of the smartest and most dedicated people, doing a great service to all of us who decide to take advantage of it.

alpha1beta alpha1beta
May '17

I'll take things statists say for $500 Alex

skippy skippy
May '17

"Branded!
Marked with a statists' shame.
What do you do when you're branded,
Will you fight for your name?"

Skippy, the skipster, skipalopolis, skipmandoo --- there is nothing statist about this ayn you can't ran'd away from that one :>)

"Well then, no sweat with the govt running the national parks, right? Good we settled that." Was that a jr. issue? Because no, I don't have an issue with the Federal Government managing our National Parks.

Does jr. even give a hoot about how much he pollutes? We know you pollute. We don't know if you are a responsible polluter. We are pretty sure jr hasn't reduced jr family foul emissions since the turn of the century. Do you even own a 40mpg automobile? Using any renewables at all or just burn baby burn? Why are you so afraid to admit that you really could give a rat's elbow about how much you pollute?

But I am saddened to discover that skippyjrmarkmc believe it's proper to review all National Monuments to see if we can drill some more oil, dig a little coal or uranium, responsibly of course.

Welcome to jr's "responsible" world....

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/the-sand-mines-that-ruin-farmland.html?_r=0

All you need sometimes is to build a road ----and they will come to destroy Alaska's parks: https://www.adn.com/arctic/2017/02/28/formal-environmental-review-kicks-off-for-controversial-ambler-road-project/

"Majorities in every state except Utah opposed efforts to transfer control of federal public lands to states." Like I said, follow the money and you will find why Trump did the EO the way he did and why it is all about Utah. “Western voters want to stay the course on management of public lands.” They are responsible jr.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/31/western-conservation-public-lands-poll/

Now all we need to do is legislate responsibility..... There is no responsible way to return pristine park lands and virgin park forests to those states once tampered with. If that's being a statist, then sign me up. Actually sign me up as a monarchist statist. More accurate.

Sure better than the fascist state you voted for.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"Does jr. even give a hoot about how much he pollutes? We know you pollute. We don't know if you are a responsible polluter. We are pretty sure jr hasn't reduced jr family foul emissions since the turn of the century. Do you even own a 40mpg automobile? Using any renewables at all or just burn baby burn? Why are you so afraid to admit that you really could give a rat's elbow about how much you pollute?"


Hilarious how wrong you can be, with your assumptions. I won't go through the lengthy list of recycling/reusing/repurposing we do, giving away for free furniture and stuff so it doesn't end up in a landfill.... we do our part, despite not demonizing coal and nuclear, and despite not owning a coal-burning hybrid like you do. LOL

Keep burning that coal, SD!!! Make America great again!!!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

"Because no, I don't have an issue with the Federal Government managing our National Parks. "


Hmm, so what then, just our National Monuments? Or is it TRUMP managing ANYTHING you have the problem with... I *think* he's "federal govt", isn't he? HAHAHA no need to answer, we all know what the answer is

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Here you go, Trump fans...the art of the deal indeed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/01/daily-202-eight-ways-trump-got-rolled-in-his-first-budget-negotiation/590687f2e9b69b3a72331f09/?utm_term=.1718dad501c1

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

My hybrid does not burn coal. It does not get plugged in..... You are thinking electric car. As I said, probably my next purchase. I have been waiting for the data that you showed as to the full-stream costs for electric versus gas versus hybrid so I thank you for that. Really didn't know about the production costs and was surprised that lighter means more fuel during production --- weird. But you told me what I need to know to do the breakeven.

You seem to think I am a tree-hugging eco warrior looking to save the planet. I told you I am a capitalist. I will not go green unless it returns green to me. So my hybrid cars cost me, not the $7K normal uplift at that time Toyota was charging for a hybrid, but the same price as a gas guzzler. That means I was paying myself back with savings on day one (given I would buy a new car anyway). I traded in a 12mpg Explorer for that so I traded space, acceleration and some creature comforts but I was saving money and the planet at the same time. The second hybrid I traded a 25mpg trade-in. Would I do it today? Not against a 40mpg gas car. However, hybrids just crossed into 60mpg so the game is back on!!

For the other stuff, insulation/boilers/woodstoves the payback was 5 - 10 years so that is a bigger investment of time and money but think, thanks for those cold ones, I reached payback in 5 years so I be spinning profit now.

For the active solar, my system has been in for 40 years with only a couple of component replacements. It's hot water and unless you had a lot of kids and a homemaker that follows the sun, it's got a really long payback. And my passive solar was a gift from God and some smart farmers but I have added a number of shade treatments that help a lot in the summer.

I am heartened that you are working to reduce your needs for foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy and emissions. Not sure giving old furniture and stuff away really fits the bill but hey --- it's an effort. Against my 50% reduction in fossil fuel usage, combined with my increase in using renewables for heating, what you are doing really says something.

Meanwhile....the only thing consistent and stable about Trump's first 100 days is: lies, lies, lies.....The latest, from Harrisburg...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/us/politics/fact-check-trump-100-days.html?_r=0

This one's really funny. It's Trump's Lie Scoreboard... http://bangordailynews.com/2017/05/01/politics/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/

The last one is from 2016 but about PA and Harrisburg specifically. Figured this dog needed a bone tossed his way and didn't want to appear as just another Trump basher....

http://www.politifact.com/pennsylvania/statements/2016/apr/22/donald-trump/donald-trump-and-number-manufacturing-jobs-pennsyl/

So jr's got the junior-trumputin-decoder ring ---- what did Trump really mean to say in Harrisburg? Wall or no wall? Ban or no ban?

Why is Ivanka working for us?

Why is Jared working for us?

Remember how twisted your knickers were when Hillary worked for us for free in the 90's? How come no twist now?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

I think you need to do some reading. Not sure where you are going with the park management thing. Trump manages the parks today. Trump is reviewing whether to lease National Park and Monuments land for resource development, not necessarily for management. So not sure what you are talking about.

In the past, he has mentioned, "returning the parks to the states" but no one really knows what he means. Like I said before, the idiot can't return the parks to the states, the flipping states never had them.

So did he mean for mineral rights? Development? Did he mean to privatize the parks? Does he want to sell them? Hey, you got the decoder ring, you tell us what he means by that one.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

".... You are thinking electric car. As I said, probably my next purchase."



Oh, so you DO hate the environment and want to burn fossil fuels, got it!



"Against my 50% reduction in fossil fuel usage, combined with my increase in using renewables for heating, what you are doing really says something."


I'm going to quit working and be unemployed... that ought to give me about a 90% reduction. I'll have to go on the public dole, but hey... that's what it's for, right? No worries, the higher tax rates you want will pay for it. Easy peasy. Anything I can do to "help" ;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Listen, as far as National Parks and Monuments go, I think we agree way more than we disagree. It's just really ridiculous and disingenuous to immediately assume park land is going to be irresponsibly destroyed because it's Trump/a republican. Just as unreasonable as it was for me to think Obama was going to be able to turn us into Euro-Merica in 8 years. Teddy Roosevelt, super-progressive for his time, was all for responsible use and extraction of natural resources. It can be done. It has been done. Like most things with government- it CAN be done, but the "correct" way to do it, or what is viewed as "responsible" is a matter of opinion.

As far as the fossil fuel thing goes, again- I'll bet we agree more than we disagree. I would LOVE to see coal stop being burned, strip mining stopped. However, putting the coal companies out of business (and losing all those jobs) with regulations and causing an "unavoidable spike in electric bill costs" (Obama quote) is not the way to do it. Solar and wind isn't ready yet. Let's get them ready for a country this large, I'm all for it- but not until it's FEASIBLE on that scale.... trying to force people away from current affordable fuels and into alternative energy resources they can't afford and aren't fully functional is tyranny, and statism. I'm against it.

when they make a solar-powered F150 that can tow a chipper, or a reasonably-sized FAMILY car that can get at least 500 miles on a charge, I'm interested. But the tech isn't there yet. I'm not going to drive a clown car that I plug into my house to charge with electricity that comes from burning coal (that's stupid) and only goes for 150 miles at 55mph. That's not realistic FOR ME. And I've said it a million times: unless all the trucks (18-wheelers) are "forced" to use the same electric vehicles I am, I ain't. So I'd say when 18-wheelers become electric, then you can "force" the entire population to go electric, banning fossil fuels.

Of course you know this is all a fairy tale, right? Not gonna' happen- at least not in our lifetime. But I'm all for exploring alternative energy sources. No point in contributing to pollution of any kind if it's reasonably avoidable. Reasonably meaning affordable and functional... for ALL tasks.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

JR do like me - identify as a tax exempt entity and be transhandicapped - no taxes and better parking

skippy skippy
May '17

Stephen Colbert was fantastic tonight!
Watch a rerun if you can!

happiest girl
May '17

So it's funny to use homosexual slurs to refer to the president you call racist and homophobic - what?

Why would Putin be in favor of American economic growth? Why would Putin be in favor of a restoration of American military superiority? Why would Putin favor a foreign policy that has frozen him out of the North Korean equation, and ultimately forced him decide to come to the table over Syria out of fear of being further marginalized at the international level?

Stephen Colbert is a hypocrite and confused

skippy skippy
May '17

Just when you think they can't be more inhumane and heartless along comes this SOB: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/republican-sick-people-dont-deserve-affordable-care.html

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

Kimmel's monologue...amazing.

https://youtu.be/MmWWoMcGmo0

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Yes - amazing - and so sadly necessary

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

Based on recent Trump interviews, he doesn"t even know what's in the House bill. Oh yes, he did say it's really complicated.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

The Divided States of America...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/opinion/the-collapse-of-american-identity.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer= https://t.co/3YSsn79mTK

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Sad but true... and hilarious!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

In re Kimmel- you have 30 to add a child to your insurance - before that they are covered under the mothers insurance - this predates the ACA. This is done at standard rates, regardless of their health condition, and is due to guaranteed renewability laws If Kimmel would lose his job he would still be looking at cobra or buying insurance like the rest of us - the ACA did nothing about that.

So what are we applauding here? Kimmel's use of his sick kid to push his agenda or the fact that entertainers consistently want to leverage a captive audience to do the same. He would have had access to the very best care at any cost because Kimmel can slap down a black card and make that happen - not because of insurance.

skippy skippy
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Actually true. But hardly hilarious.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

In re brooks:

His words are less crazy than the article wants him to sound.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7JuHc-aobs

"Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices."

True statement: Food and lifestyle choices have a huge impact on health.
He also says

"And a lot of these indiviuals have these issues through no fault of their own, and I think our society under those circumstances needs to help"

Fake news

skippy skippy
May '17

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-apos-son-law-162557212.html

BTW, I have 1 billion in loans from Wall Street that I didn't disclose. Jared made a bad move in buying a building for 1 billion in 2008 at the top of the market. Somehow he turns this into a positive while most may have been bankrupted by it?

Very shady...


"Before he left, Jared seemed to have found a savior in the Chinese company Anbang. "

http://nypost.com/2017/04/18/the-scandalous-history-behind-kushners-ritzy-midtown-building/

This asshol! should be bankrupt not worth almost 800 million with Ivanka!

Like I mentioned before, the Chinese were smart to do this.


The Onion looks at the first 100 days...
http://www.theonion.com/articleslideshow/onion-looks-back-first-100-days-and-10-plagues-tru-55892#11


Meanwhile, Skippy seems to be OK with Healthcare conglomerates dictating healthy choices to the American people. Ooops, missed the workout session last night, guess my premium is going up. Oh no, had steak three times this week, boom goes my premium. Damn, better eat these peas and beets or my premium is going up. Interesting position from an alleged libertarian.

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

I never said I was ok with it at all - I'm just saying that article was a spin job. Also libertarians are very free market and would have zero subsidy of any healthcare plan because taxation is theft.

skippy skippy
May '17

hey SD, interesting info on electric cars vs gas-burning cars....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17xh_VRrnMU


electric cars DO save some CO2, but not much. Not arguing against electric, just pointing out they aren't as green as most people think they are. What we really need is the Galt motor- runs on air (atmospheric electricity) :)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

How about the environmental impact of the nickel hydride battery in that Prius -but hey he's a capitalist and invests in green energy. Then wants to jam in down everyone's throat regardless of the cost .. that's the agenda from all of these folks especially uncle Al Gore.

skippy skippy
May '17

The beauty and the horror of the ACA is that it raises the bar on minimums that must be covered and all customers would be charged the same price. Pre-existing conditions and essential benefits would be covered. We were all in the same boat when it comes to the ACA. One big pool that could lobby for lower prices.

The opposite of that is where insurers can charge you based on your individual circumstances where the healthy young, for example, pay less and the old or folks who are sick --- pay more dependent on their situation. So the ACA "bundled" price will, by definition, be more expensive than what you would change a young healthy person and less than what you would charge an older sick person if the ACA baseline did not exist. On top of that are state regulations which meant the ACA did not have a massive effect in tough-regulation states like NJ but in no-regulation states like TN, prices skyrocketed because consumers could no longer purchase no-coverage insurance.

Think about it --- insurance companies can make money no matter what program they adopt. They probably make more on no-coverage policies than those with a higher bar. In either case though, they just have to figure out their cost estimate and charge a reasonable price for profit. In the ACA, they blew the estimate and ended up in trouble. That's what happened this year. Congress's response, so far, is to do nothing so insurers can either raise price or leave. They left. The other thing that has to happen is insurance must be affordable --- premium, deductibles, co-pays, etc. Therein is the rub with a higher bar and especially when people are sicker than the insurance companies estimated (idiots).

The ACA may be too expensive, however the AHCA may not cover what you need making what you saved sort of irrelevant. The ACA will, by definition, cover more Americans and cover them better when they get sick. But at a cost. Thus the issue.

Republicans also have the issue of claiming they must REPEAL the ACA so fixing it seems out of the question. Given after 8 years and over 50 repeal attempts, Republicans still don't have a clue what to do to replace the ACA, that they have no plan.....still. That alone says much. Apparently once the idiots finally got the ball, they forgot how to run for the line of scrimmage much less the goal line.

So here's the choice --- keep the bar where the ACA set it and work the rest of the issues to keep insurers whole and make the ACA live up to the word affordable.

--- lower the ACA minimal coverage bar as the AHCA is trying to do and offer less coverage than the ACA. This will lower prices for some but it's a ruse because what you are doing is lowering benefits and raise prices for others because if you don't accept the lower bar coverage, now you have to pay the price for more benefits covered by a much smaller pool of subscribers. It's great if the lower bar fits you. It's awful if the lower bar does not.

-- compromise and change some of the "essentials," remove those stupid state waivers, and work with insurance companies to be damn sure the AHCA is indeed affordable or add in subsides until we can work the dollars down.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

So potentially what coverage would you lose?

- No copay preventive and wellness visits, including chronic disease management. Preventive care visits have no copay. A total of 50 "wellness" procedures are covered.
- Maternity and newborn care at no cost (preventive).
- Mental and behavioral health treatment. (makes you wonder about the future of the PV substance abuse center)
- Services and devices to help people with injuries (guess those knee brace ads will be gone)
- Lab tests. Plans must pay 100 percent of the cost of doctor-orderd diagnostic tests
- Pediatric care. Dental and vision care must be covered for pediatrics
- Prescription drugs. Plans must cover at least one drug in every category (U.S. Pharmacopeia). Out-of-pocket drug expenses count toward deductible (not previously true for all plans.
- Outpatient care.
- Emergency Room Services with no extra charge for out of network or no pre-authorization.
- Hospitalization out of pockets.

Now I can see where there could be compromises on this list, but the AHCA looks to erase it allowing insurers to offer all sorts of lower cost plans that do not cover any of this except out of pocket. That's their trick to lower price ---- less coverage, less risk to insurers (easier to estimate) and more risk to consumers (who tend to pay the least they can)

That's basically it and the rest of what we say is spin. The ACA will self-implode -- spin. The AHCA will lower prices --- spin. IMO, the question comes down to my original intent --- make sure no hard working American goes bankrupt just because they got sick. The ACA does a better job of that than the AHCA. I guess the other part will become: do we want to cover America's healthcare as a team with the ACA or do we each want to get the best deal we can for ourselves with the AHCA.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"Oh no, had steak three times this week, boom goes my premium. Damn, better eat these peas and beets or my premium is going up."

Oh, you mean like other kinds of insurance that are costed based on the risk level?

Install a pool... premiums go up.
Get a faster/more expensive car... premiums go up.

Any problems with those, or should your neighbors cover the increase for you?


"Interesting position from an alleged libertarian."

It's only "interesting" if you believe that insurance should be mandatory. Libertarians aren't against private companies setting market prices (in this case pricing based on risk).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

The concept of outlawing the prohibition/price increase of insuring people with preexisting conditions flies in the face of what insurance is - assessment and transference of risk for money. That's like someone getting bent that a banks won't extend a loan or charge higher interest because of poor credit history - they too have accepted underwriting standards, Everyone needs money right?

Once you legislate your emotions and mess with a free market - this is what happens.

Your point (as I understand it) is that society, not individuals, own the responsibility for providing their own health wealth and well being. My point is that we cannot continue to subsidize everything for every one - its not sustainable.

The ACA increases the demand on an already taxed resource and does nothing to increase the number of practitioners. (doctors, nurses, physicians assistants) but does increase the administrative overhead of hospitals and medical practices and fixed facilities.

You want more affordable healthcare? Get the government out of the business.
You want single payer insurance? get ready for the blood in the streets as you leave this giant crater in the S&P.

http://fortune.com/2015/06/20/fortune-500-biggest-healthcare-companies/

The only way single payer works is if the government runs it with a 2% overhead rather than the 20% overhead as is seen now.

skippy skippy
May '17

Let's roll the tax rates, on the ultra wealthy, back to where they were, pre-Reagan. Insurance companies should have NEVER been made publicly traded companies. Healthcare is not a luxury. If Trump wants to give vouchers for charter schools, owned by the head of the department of education, which we pay for, whether you need them or not, why does something that saves lives, be considered non essential? Yup.... charter schools are much more important (of course, there's always an MO...conflict of interest), than saving peoples lives. A lot of folks are starting to worry about losing their home, for one hospital stay. It's a shame, how heartless, Trump really is. Does he even have an inkling of what he's doing? I wonder, if the guy even has a soul. What's the big deal? There's so much wasteful spending on other things, like Trump's entire family expenses. Again, just remove that SS tax freeze, currently now at around 128k. After that? The rest of the millions made, doesn't pay SS tax. Why? We are all taxed on things we may not ever need or want. Human suffering is a more important topic to address, than charter schools. It's a simple fix, really, if people in the government, which is a family run business, now, wouldn't be so greedy. Let Trump sweep floors at Walmart, with a trashed back, to see how it feels. It's not theft. It's a tax, like all the other taxes paid for, with the middle class, in the highest tax bracket. Our adult children, pay more tax, on their salaries, then Trump pays. That's just sickening, and he wants ANOTHER round of tax breaks, for corporations. Trump Inc., especially, will come out way ahead. Trickle down economics never worked and never will. When CEOs are taking $20-50million, tax free, they are NOT spreading it around to their employees. They're lucky to get a %2 raise, these days. Core pensions are gone (not 401k...CORE). One more big shift, in this country's wealth to make the 1%, a 1/2%, will bring on the next great depression. I can see it coming. It's a scary time to grow old in.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
May '17

Why is Trump or the government responsible for anyone's health or well being?

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..

That's it - no free stuff

skippy skippy
May '17

If I buy a Vette, it's a choice. If I develop MS through no fault of my own, it's not. Typically specious analogy from Mork MC.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

That's harsh Skippy. I know you Republicans love that individual spirit of accomplishment but hey ---- aren't we all part of the same American gene pool? Can't we share in some things like national defense, national education, libraries, police, fire, and...now...national health?

Is that really so socialistic to desire that no hardworking American ever go bankrupt just because they got sick? What does your plan do to cover that except to say "it can't and shouldn't be done, tough luck Charley." You're harsh Dude, very harsh.

But if you want to sick to the pay as you go model, pretend that I am in a higher bracket and pay more. Based on that, from now on, you can only drive in the slow lane. The fast lane is now reserved for us upper tax bracket people. Oh yeah, your kid has to be taught by Ijay; my kids get Stephen Hawking. And your classroom is that overflow trailer in the back. I mean you get what you pay for, right..... Oh yeah, no more public library for you. Harsh man, harsh.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.." well, that just says national health care all over --- tranquility, defense, general welfare --- and hey, if I die due to no insurance before I can have kids, that blessing of liberty to my posterity goes south real fast :>)

"The concept of outlawing the prohibition/price increase of insuring people with preexisting conditions flies in the face of what insurance is - assessment and transference of risk for money." That's blatantly false in that you can assess and transfer risk by setting a price on big pools or smaller pools. There are no emotions in that, just math.

"Once you legislate your emotions and mess with a free market - this is what happens." Whatever you mean here, this ain't saying it. Just does not make sense.

"My point is that we cannot continue to subsidize everything for every one - its not sustainable." No one is asking for everything, we are asking a portion of health care. Think we started at 15% of the total market was uncovered. 15% Skippy. That's not everything and that's not everyone. Remember, we are the only developed nation that can't make this work. Every other developed nation, that means the ENTIRE WORLD, has made this work. And before you tell me about the demise of socialism and Greece --- trust that I can find a number of winners amongst this pack.

By the way --- can not continue with this 2016 cost analysis? Speaking of emotions, I think it tis you, Trump and the Republicans that are emotional about it:

https://www.thebalance.com/cbo-report-obamacare-3305627

Otherwise you would work these numbers and the ACA program to create Trump's AHCA program. I mean if these numbers are right, why the heck are you trying to greenfield a new program? Especially when after 8 years, you don't have a workable plan, heck you barely have a plan. If these numbers are wrong, let's see the ones that cover all this correctly. Not just the emotion crap your side is displaying. Note: Jimmy Kimmel is guilty of that too, apparently for my side, but shoot --- he had a sick kid and one hell of an imagination (like Kimmel would ever lack for insurance or be struck down because of a pre-existing condition....)

"The ACA increases the demand on an already taxed resource and does nothing to increase the number of practitioners. (doctors, nurses, physicians assistants) but does increase the administrative overhead of hospitals and medical practices and fixed facilities." So let's get rid of people? And please source how the ACA increases the overheads --- love to see it.

"You want more affordable healthcare? Get the government out of the business." How's that. Again, whatever do you mean. Like let TN regulate insurance that does not cover? Or let insurance be sold in NJ sans regulations? You, and others, just love to treat healthcare like a free market, the same as most consumer goods. It ain't. No one shops which place to get that heart attack fixed. You don't bargain for a better price for a gun shot wound.....

"You want single payer insurance?" No. Pigment of your wild imagination. I'm for making sure no hardworking American goes bankrupt just because they get sick. The method is inconsequential. But the ACA has been working and can work again if only Congress would work together to get it done.

Changing the market so less people have insurance like the AHCA will do is still less harsh than what you suggest. Neither are as strong as the ACA ---- which itself obviously can use a lot of improvement.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Didn't you make fun of me for a while when I called you dude lol - in any regard go with my option B then - scrap insurance companies and go full on single payer funded by tax payer dollars. You can't have it both ways - a free market insurance system where you mess with the actuarial models by forcing them to not charge by risk will fail every time.

How about just nationalizing the hospitals - they're having a hard time in any regard and leave the physicians and pharmaceuticals out of it. That seems to be where the huge bills are coming from in any regard.

Look at the VA for an example of how the US runs a single payer healthcare system.

Written differently:

You want us to be obligated to give a portion of our earnings to the state so that it can (1) prop up hospitals and (2) redistribute wealth so as to ensure that everyone gets a minimum level of healthcare. Sure.

In practice:

The state will provide hospitals with the bare minimum and hospitals will lower their level of care for publicly-funded patients because they can't afford to do otherwise. This also causes the overall salaries of healthcare professionals to drop.

At this point the most qualified clinicians will seek to work for a private hospital that promises better wages benefits and bureaucracy. Thus causing these public hospitals to slowly deteriorate in terms of quality. Not to mention other costs like supplies and ancillary services.

bureaucratic mismanagement of funds, ever decreasing efficiency, and corruption will lead to the need for more oversight naturally - more taxes
The state forces us to throw more money at the problem and the cycle continues until you get Venezuela level healthcare.

skippy skippy
May '17

"If I buy a Vette, it's a choice."

So is *choosing* to eat unhealthy... taken from your very own example a few posts above.

I think Skippy had a good analogy before. We don't force banks to loan money to those with poor pre-existing credit, no matter how unfortunate or deserving their case may be.

If the government wants to address why healthcare is so damn expensive to begin with, then have at it. Make it affordable for those with pre-existing conditions, but don't force private companies to cover unnecessary risk at the same cost or by having other customers pay for the difference.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

It was lame…I undude you and will never dude you again... dudet ;<)

My point is the ACA is working, has issues, like --- no duh --- we expected something this big to work on day one without changes? It’s workable. It is not going bankrupt, it can be fixed. Single payer just won’t fly as you noted. Eight years and you don't have a workable replacement except to lower consumer price by lowering insurance benefits. And in more cases than not, your plan actually raises prices on those being covered.

Heath care, and therefore health insurance, has not been a free market since 1940 and perhaps before. I mean once America provided tax deductions for business to provide insurance as a benefit, the free market gloves were off.

“…a free market insurance system where you mess with the actuarial models by forcing them to not charge by risk will fail every time.” I know you are trying to say something here, but this does not make sense. Every pool has an actuarial model, every pool assigns risk, every pool charges by risk whether it's one size fits or a custom Skippydude insurance program. Math is math.

By the way – best job in America --- actuary. Tell your kids if they don’t go into solar then be sure to crush those math courses. All you need to do is get good math grades, look good, and land that first job. http://www.businessinsider.com/best-jobs-of-2015-2015-4 Best part about actuary is that you have to wait forever for people to die or get sick to see if your estimates were right or wrong. You be long gone by the time they figure out that you do really well at school but suck at real life :>) I mean the insurance actuary bad estimates for the ACA were probably done by guys who retired in 2008 due to recession downsizing.

“How about just nationalizing the hospitals” “the VA for an example of how the US runs a single payer healthcare system.” Oh come on --- you’re just baiting us now. Nationalizing hospitals, come on. Never have said single payer, you just keep doing it. And the VA has sucked under every President since it began. And before that it sucked worse for American soldiers. But not important --- no one is going single payer anyway. Makes the ACA look like kindergarten for complexity. Try Medicare for a better example.

“You want us to be obligated to give a portion of our earnings to the state so that it can (1) prop up hospitals and (2) redistribute wealth so as to ensure that everyone gets a minimum level of healthcare. Sure.” No, that’s just not true. I have told you what I want a number of times and it has nothing to do with what you are saying.

By the way, how much ACA tax do you pay that is redistributed? Do I hear jeopardy music?

And then the rest of your tome is a Skippy dream world of liberal hell which I hope made you feel better to tap out since I am betting no one will respond to that sheeple regurgitation of conservative urban legend. (sorry couldn’t help myself --- jr is right, it’s fun not to own Congress --- keep up the entertainment.).

MickeyMark: "If the government wants to address why healthcare is so damn expensive to begin with" But they did not begin there, to JIT's and now your' lament. Instead we are first focusing on getting everyone covered so they can get healthcare. It's a 15% problem in that 85% of us are covered and look at the difficulty we have in just deciding what to do there. That is Trump's goal as well except he adds on ---- The ACA is self-imploding, I will save by dropping the ACA price and giving you less coverage and less service so you can pay, get sick, go broke and still die before you time. Bogus.

Don't matter --- your guys can't move the ball on this one either. Heck, eight years and your guys can't even find the ball.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"We don't force banks to loan money to those with poor pre-existing credit, no matter how unfortunate or deserving their case may be."


Actually, we did.... that's where the housing crash came from LOL thank you, Barney Frank...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

buckle in for an SD length post. If everything I say is going to need a bibliography and works cited I am going to need the mods to allow for more URL's

1. general welfare clause:

Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. Alexander Hamilton - The Federalist Papers
"The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress"

Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"

Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. a review of the constitution reveals that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. None of which includes the ability to mandate we purchase anything. The “general welfare” clause is NOT blank check for the agenda du jour.

Both Madison and Hamilton addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of legislative power to Congress.


"The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended" - Federalist No. 83 (7th PP)


"It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original] - Federalist No. 27 (last PP)

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely

2. "you can assess and transfer risk by setting a price on big pools or smaller pools. There are no emotions in that, just math." - nope you pool folks based on risk to do anything else is more redistribution of wealth - community rating provisions are inherently inequitable in a forced participation system.

2011 study from the American Journal of Public Health:

"is that it stabilizes the individual market by decreasing costs for the general, healthier population. In other words, healthy people pay less in one health insurance pool, while those who are sick or insurance companies deem are more likely to get sick pay more in a separate pool." less frequent fliers shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the frequent users of the system. Especially since they are most likely to be younger and just starting to build wealth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020190/

3. "why the heck are you trying to greenfield a new program? Especially when after 8 years, you don't have a workable plan, heck you barely have a plan." - this isn't like sports teams. I am not a huge fan of repeal and replace - maybe just repeal and forget it happened yes.


4. "So let's get rid of people? And please source how the ACA increases the overheads --- love to see it." - no not at all - lets address barriers of entry to medicine and hiring and retaining qualified practitioners.

where I got the overhead statement

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/02/01/the-aca-increased-rather-than-decreased-administrative-costs-of-health-insurance/#d06505b9e779

5. "You, and others, just love to treat healthcare like a free market, the same as most consumer goods. It ain't. No one shops which place to get that heart attack fixed. You don't bargain for a better price for a gun shot wound...." - already covered under the UCR https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/UCR-usual-customary-and-reasonable/.
If folks don't shop around why are there billboards with real time updates of ER wait times and hospital tv / radio commercials. you certainly shop around for non urgent care - well at least I hope you do...

6. "I'm for making sure no hardworking American goes bankrupt just because they get sick. The method is inconsequential. But the ACA has been working and can work again if only Congress would work together to get it done." Again - why is this a problem that needs to be dealt with on the federal level? There are tons of ways to go bankrupt - much like illness - some have a direct link to or are exacerbated by the individual behavior - others not so much.


why not have an "Affordable Car Act" that's next lol

skippy skippy
May '17

Following Mark Mc's logic, gun owners should have higher premiums.

happiest girl
May '17

So children born with medical issues ate unhealthy meals? You've demonstrated previously your callous disregard for those less fortunate than you. Sad bitter little . .

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Barney made the investment banks sell CMO s that they all knew were worthless? Wow...he must be some persuasive guy. More alt right fiction.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

No in re kids i already discussed how that was irrelevant to this discussion and the meals have nothing do do with congenital defects

Barney allowed banks to "risk pool" loans into trancheons and securitize them.

I'm actually quite content and a large mammal

And how do gun owners cost more in re healthcare?

skippy skippy
May '17

Sigh.

Dodd-Frank. (as in Barney Frank)

The feds left the housing market pretty much alone until 1992, when Congress thought it would be politically advantageous to posture as champions of “affordable housing.” The politicians decreed that the two mortgage giants it had created, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) would have to meet quotas for mortgages from lower-income people. Creatures of politics, the two government-sponsored enterprises had no choice but to comply.

Initially, 30 percent of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie purchased had to be lower income mortgages but as the housing mania kept growing, the quota was raised repeatedly, reaching 56 percent in 2008.

None of that had anything to do with Wall Street or capitalist greed. It was a case of politics overriding the free market to help politicians win re-election.

Of course, most of those mortgages written and purchased to meet arbitrary quotas were high risk ones that would never have been made by capitalists who have to balance the possibility of profit against the risk of loss. The resulting gusher of bad mortgages was not due to any inherent instability in the natural workings of the market. It was due to instability caused by meddling politicians who stood to lose nothing if their decisions turned out badly.

Because Fannie and Freddie were regarded as having the government’s backing, financial institutions that would otherwise have carefully looked into the riskiness of the paper they were buying from them were lulled to sleep. Why worry about Fannie or Freddie paper when it has the U.S. Treasury behind it? Bad investments spread through the financial system like a metastasizing cancer.

Then, in 2007, the house of cards fell. Home prices that had been bid up too high began collapsing. The bubble popped, taking down huge numbers of jobs in the housing industry, erasing billions in paper wealth, and costing many individuals homes that they should never have borrowed to purchase.

Have we learned a lesson?

Obviously not, because the response from Congress was to pass a new law (Dodd-Frank) that was supposed to deal with the problems caused by the previous laws. Wallison details the ways in which Dodd-Frank both fails to cure the underlying problems and creates new ones in his book Bad History, Worse Policy.

Dodd-Frank imposes huge new regulatory costs, while sending this message to the financial industry: don’t take risks. Banks have had to substitute compliance officers for lending officers. As a result of this counter-productive mountain of a law (over 360,000 words), there is today much less investment capital available for entrepreneurial activities and small business growth, both of which are crucial to our economic vitality. Dodd-Frank is a considerable part of the federal drag that has kept the economy’s recovery from the bubble so sluggish.


more:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/01/10/one-bad-law-usually-leads-to-others-the-housing-bubble-and-dodd-frank/#39617c0d5be3

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

And...

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

But his [Barney Frank] fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

more:
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Apologies for the SD-length posts; but in my "defense", it was all copy & paste... I didn't PRATTLE it all lol

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

"So children born with medical issues ate unhealthy meals?"

Wow... you have SD skill levels of changing the argument.

YF: 2+2 = 5

Me: No, 2+2 = 4

YF: How can you say Tomatoes aren't blue?!?!


YOU brought up an example of eating habits as a reason for premium differences.

I said eating habits are a choice, and thus fair game to have higher premiums.

YOU then changed the argument to MS and birth defects.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

lol we're on fire today with the mega posts

" I know you are trying to say something here, but this does not make sense. Every pool has an actuarial model, every pool assigns risk, every pool charges by risk whether it's one size fits or a custom Skippydude insurance program. Math is math. " - it thought you were against high risk pools and wanted one centralized pool to defer the costs across a wider base covering the now uninsurable and and spreading the costs in an attempt to normalize the premiums. Is that a true or false statement?

skippy skippy
May '17

"Following Mark Mc's logic, gun owners should have higher premiums."

Actually, the criminals that gun owners might have to shoot in self defense should have higher premiums.

Besides, according to this article, gun injuries cost $730M annually:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gun-injury-costs-20170322-story.html

Across ~100M gun owners that would be a whopping $7.30 insurance premium.

But we get credit for injuries we *avoid* by deterring attacks/rapes/etc., right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

At some point (18?) people must be responsible for their health. Someone with diabetes eating an extra large bag of Doritos plus 1/2 gallon of ice cream -- you know the outcome.


Wouldn't the same be said about retirement? (social security)- at some point, people must responsible for their future?

I mean, first we have SS as a "retirement net", unemployment as a "unemployed net", welfare as a "never going to work" net, disability as a "can't work" net, medicaid as a "healthcare net".... why not just raise the tax rate to 90% so no one has to work? That would be great! We'll just get all the "rich people" and corporations to pay for us.

Altho I'll bet... if people here who want to see increases in social spending and healthcare had to pay a 56% personal income tax rate and a 25% SALES TAX rate, they wouldn't be very happy (tax rates from Denmark, the country who is "happy with paying high taxes", the highest taxes in the world)

Yes, the "Danes are happy paying high taxes", my point is- I'll bet alot of people HERE would NOT be. Because they don't understand where the money comes from. Especially those who don't have to work for their income.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

sounds like you want the "death panels" JR -- they can decide who contributed to their own health problems - and who developed them because of genetics, environment, geography - hmmmm in Flint Michigan - who gets care because they drank city water - and who does not because they drank city water - all lead poisoning just the same -

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

YF -- lighten up, the Barney Frank comment was funny in an Al Gore discovered the internet sort of way :>)

After yesterday, not sure I can continue with this. Too many Democratic loons lately. Many in American need to throttle back. Have some class. Even if the right refuses to reach across the aisle, we cannot become the party of no, we cannot cross lines of decency. If only Jimmy Kimmel had said "My situation illuminated me to the plight of those with pre-existing conditions. I can understand......" But no, he made it personal and is an ass. Like he would ever want for medical attention. Hillary Clinton --- you lost. Move on. Even if there was cheating going on, if you can't prosecute, move on. Looking good and rested though. Glad Hillary is getting through it, but time for the next step, let it go and moving on. Stephen Colbert offered a rationale and apology --- good for him, that's who we want to be. Xxx-holster --- wow, that’s over the line. Funny though. Asses all.

Buckling up and moving on: Skippy, glad to see you’re getting length appropriate :>) Think you might have gotten an extra 100 words from the mod :>) If I deal with #1 of your tome, is the rest moot?

1. “Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely” You are correct, sir, which is why the ACA is not that. The ACA is a tax and as constitutional as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Are we done?

2. Do the math. If you have 100 people and you make 10% profit, does your insurance company bottom line change whether you assess risk as a single pool or multiple pools. Answer: no, it’s just mathematically impossible unless the actuarial work is incorrect. Apparently with the ACA, the issue was a bad actuarial estimate; they didn’t think the uninsured could be that sick. In my world, while extra cost, curing those Americans is a good challenge to overcome to create future opportunities.
A sick nation is not in the best interests of our national defense, our general welfare, and many other important things. Sick is bad. Bad sick. Healthy good.

3. “maybe just repeal and forget it happened yes.” How libertarian of you to leave your fellow Americans to fend for themselves…Like I said, very harsh.

4. Nice job, this one is tougher. Hate to sound like you all media disbelievers, but Forbes is biased against the ACA. I like Forbes but on the ACA they consistently go overboard with the spin. Looked at your article and immediately noted: “three single-payer advocates made a similar argument in the New England Journal of Medicine.“ Krugman was talking single-payer as well. The ACA is not a single-payer system so it does not reduce administrative overheads, it just does not increase them. Author actually noted that later in the article and still made the claim, now with shaky assumptions. Amazingly, a lot of you folks use this same argument as why single-payer is bad and will destroy the insurance business via unfair cost advantage. You free market advocates would be increasing the administrative overheads the “free-er” you make the market. Good sourcing though.

5. I am sorry but there is no way the health care market will ever be a free market due to the nature of the goods and services provided. Just doesn’t fix the definition.

6. It’s on a Federal Level because the states have had 200 years to fix and it’s not even on the radar of priorities. National health is in the national interests. It’s also a competitive thing. If every other developed nation is healthier, happier, etc. through national health plans, aren’t we disadvantaged competitively by not having said plans?

"There are tons of ways to go bankrupt - much like illness - some have a direct link to or are exacerbated by the individual behavior - others not so much.” Come on, you must be kidding us. You can’t be so cruel to align health with bad behavior. Sure, contributing, but aligned? Next, you’ll be telling us it’s justice because of genetics, race, or beliefs…. IMO, it’s more of slippery slope than you blame us for adding entitlements (which some imagine as cruelty through kindness).

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"Wow... you have SD skill levels...." No need to be like this MickeyMark.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Actually, just pointing out that all this COSTS MONEY... and there's only one place money comes from... TAXPAYERS (note I didn't say "the people")

I had a post typed out, but I navigated away from the page and lost it. Basically, it goes like this:

Politicians don't care about you, but they will promise you more "stuff" (services, tax cuts, whatever) to keep themselves elected. And people will always vote in their own self-interest (healthcare, welfare, tax cuts)... the bottom line is, none of this stuff is a right, and all of it has to be paid for. If all of you democrats/progressives/whatevers would like to raise EVERYONE'S (that means YOU) tax rate to 60%, and add a 25% sales tax on everything, you might be able to scrounge up the money for what you want the "government" to pay for. Raising taxes on the rich and corporations isn't going to get it done.

unattributable quote:

“It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Those irresponsible bozos falling out of trees and accidentally shooting themselves or others. You are right, Mark, gun ownership is a choice, "and thus fair game to have higher premiums".

As far as the "credits" you speak of, women provide the greatest contribution to humanity by giving birth. Give credit where credit is due.

happiest girl
May '17

Not to hard to attribute; the rationale stuff is de Tocqueville I think and the irrational stuff is right wing whack job P. J. O'Rourke.

Going on the de Tocqueville track, here's what a expert on French history and French society would say. Good read if you can get over your stereotype....

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-would-have-alexis-de-tocqueville-have-made-of-the-2016-us-presidential-election/

Wow, so all we need is 60% and 25% to get everything we want. Bet you can source that one too......

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Look up the definition of voluntary choice.

Foreign words for control freaks, I know, but for now still applicable.

justintime justintime
May '17

"You are right, Mark, gun ownership is a choice, "and thus fair game to have higher premiums"."


...and I calculated that premium to be, at most, $7.30 per gun owner. Hardly the jab you intended it to be.

You know what? Insurance companies *should* be able to make that adjustment, if they wanted to (just not because the government requires it). Of course, pissing off 100M potential customers for an extra $7 probably isn't worth it - especially if they have data showing that gun owners are less likely to have high health care costs overall (not saying that is/isn't true - but I'd bet that insurance companies try to compile as much of that data as possible).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

Only when it suits their "own" needs. If it doesn't they (women) have the right to kill that greatest contribution to humanity. How very barbaric to their credit.

auntiel auntiel
May '17

"Even if the right refuses to reach across the aisle, we cannot become the party of no, we cannot cross lines of decency."


Interesting, and I don't disagree, BUT: since the right holds the presidency and both houses of Congress, isn't it the LEFT that needs to reach across the isle? Then, in another 18 months, if the democrats get control of one or both houses of Congress, they can shut everything down if they want to. I find it... strange... that the RIGHT is always the party that is expected to "reach across the isle", but the left NEVER is....hmm....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Women need to do a better job with mate selection - the mean IQ is going down so you lose that argument as the gatekeepers to procreation

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

Negligent discharge rates are statistically insignificant

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/01/cdc-report-35369-vehicle-accident-deaths-505-gun-accident-deaths/

You are 70x more likely to be run over than shot that way. Even by your favorite jacked up diesel trucks.

skippy skippy
May '17

Back to nature :)

I never said the parks are being because of Trump/Republicans. I said Trump is looking to destroy National Parks and Monuments. No other President has ever fielded such a broad acceptance of extraction industries in our Parklands. In our lifetimes, Democratic and even a Republican President have saved land for National Parks.

Republican Roosevelt is responsible for The Antiquities Act which this is all about. You’ll have to source his desire to mine them, love to see it. Because I think when it comes to National Monuments that is not the case. Here’s a pretty good overview: https://www.npca.org/articles/1471-the-facts-on-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-national-parks#sm.0000fv5my1159fq6zeh1y3vcej4ae

While I agree with there are responsible extraction techniques forced upon you by Democrats (heh, heh), we disagree that something pristine, something virgin, can ever be untouched once touched no matter how “correct” or “responsible” you are. I understand responsible, do you understand pristine? To me this ain’t horseshoes, responsibly coming close does not count. Use responsible techniques elsewhere, Trump leave my National Parks and Monuments alone.

I would accept terra forming once you drillers and miners get that one down.

And on fossil fuel – nope. Sure, we would both love to be cleaner. I am. You are not (I think). Coal jobs were being lost well before Obama’s reign, matter of fact coal jobs increased under Obama. Electric pricing has been relatively flat for 5 years or more – you got imaginary spikes due to natural gas.

On solar you are right, still fledging industry with much to be learned about scale for commercial success. Especially since solar can be like the internet --- highly distributed. When you look at solar numbers, you are looking at commercial output so misleading about the distributed adders. Does not count your home unit, your pool heater, your watch :>)

Since Obama took office, solar production has grown 20 times (200%) over from 2GW to 30GW. Panel cost is down 60%, solar system price down 50%. Solar jobs up over 100% since 2009. Personally, if my kid was 18, I would say study this, good career. The US has the fourth largest plant, India and China double our scale. However, the US holds 24 of the largest 50 plants. Think we doubled the total number of panels in 2016 alone. Hello, new industry, US is in leading position, could take the whole market --- "hello McFly, anybody in there?"

Solar still only represents 1% of our total electric generation. When you add in the distributed stuff, you get to 1.5% CA is at 5% and the first state to cross that goal, could grow to 33%. NM for example could theoretically get to 43%. Heck, NJ is at 1%; there’s a good chance you already are using some solar in your very own house.

Today, in total, renewables are at 15%. Dams are 6.5% of the total. Don’t have a problem using those, do you? Did you feel forced?

“trying to force people away from current” Oh, bull, it happens everyday. Why else would people use Windows 10 :>) Ain’t no statism when I am forced to live near fracking or coal slag that Trump allows to be dumped in our streams.

Guess you’re the statist now. Welcome to the establishment, learn to love it…..

Want to really conserve our National Parks and Monuments. There’s a donation spot in that link above. All conservationist, like yourself, should make a donation. Let Trump know how much he’s helped :>) It’s also bull in our conversation about giving a hoot, don’t pollute. You can continue to wait, it’s a choice. There is little recourse if you need a truck. I have one too. Bear in mind, I am no tree hugger. I invested in greener technologies because I made money. Told you, I started saving on day 1 with my hybrid cars. Saved so much I bought another. The other stuff, as mentioned, had a longer payback and you would have to weigh the risk of moving before you broke even. I won the best every time so far. Now I save money there too. My solar panels were put in during the 1970's --- yup --- think I reached breakeven on those too.....

Today, I drive more miles, I am warmer (72 degrees plus in the winter), and I am more comfortable than ever especially since I am saving money. To be honest though, pellet costs were getting pretty close to oil so it did become a little more about the comfort than the money for a while there. Price dropped this year.

Solar is happening for me in my lifetime, it will happen for everyone in this lifetime, I think the farm down by Washington might be big enough to power Hackettstown at least for a good portion of the year (I put it on this site somewhere). And yes, great industry for kids to work a lifetime in with decent job movement (for better pay) expected. I mean if you can't be an actuary :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

So Mark DOES agree insurance companies should be able to charge higher premiums for gun owners.
Very Good!

happiest girl
May '17

Whether you are a republican or democrat going forward it looks like the republicans and Trump will own healthcare. If your coverage changes, if you cannot see your regular doctor, if your rates skyrocket, if you are denied coverage or pay more due to a pre-existing condition, if you are delayed seeing or denied access to a specialist or a particular hospital, if you have to pay more because you are a senior citizen or simply denied care, if you are a veteran and lose access to certain tax credits remember who did this to you. Become familiar with what happened to health care in May 2017 and who did this to you, your family and descendants. Vote in 2018.


And don't forget what happened to you back in 2010, then in 2016...

-low enrollment
-high numbers of uninsured
-lost doctors
-lost plans
-higher premiums
-higher deductibles
-high costs

Legislative options that would repeal and replace Obamacare, such as the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act — passed on Jan. 6, 2016, and vetoed by President Obama on Jan. 8, 2016 — are projected to save taxpayers even more: $474 billion over the 2016-2025 period, the Congressional Budget Office notes.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-obamacare-failures-that-have-hurt-americans-2016-03-24

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Jeff Pub that was then. This is now. Going forward the republicans and Trump own healthcare for better or for worse. Hold them accountable either way and vote in 2018.


Lol so the republicans have had it for 100 days approximately and re responsible for every possible problem you may have with your insurance or healthcare provider

skippy skippy
May '17

Right. Just like the voters did in 2016 when they elected Trump :)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Do you really want to compare Trump and Obama on false starts, crash n burn plans and lies? Cuz honeybee, I'm your honeysuckle for that soft ball. And I only have 100 days to work with.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

What I am comparing is, the people weren't happy with democrats overall, so they voted republicans into both houses of congress and the presidency.

And after 8 years of Bush, they elected a democrat. And after 8 years of Clinton, they elected a republican. And after 4-8 years of Trump, they will once again, very likely, go the opposite way... simply because "change" LOL.

If Obamacare was some kind of huge success, Hillary wouldn't have had as big a problem getting elected as she did. (but we know it was more than that: Obamacare, terrorist attacks on American soil, illegal immigrant crime rates increasing, the economy and jobs not recovering fast enough...)

You do realize the last time the country did NOT go the opposite way after a 2-term president was 29 years ago...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/02/hillary-clinton-adds-misogyny-and-more-to-the-list-of-reasons-she-lost/?utm_term=.80628ca4b518

Nah was misogyny lol

skippy skippy
May '17

Blame a movie for Benghazi, blame Comey for her losing the election...

...WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE???

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

http://www.charlottestories.com/nc-house-just-passed-hb-330-allowing-drivers-legally-hit-protesters-block-roads/

Guys - NC is getting speed bumps! Love it here

skippy skippy
May '17

I don't know all the differences between the ACA (which sucked) and this new GOP plan (which also sucks), but to have a "universal healthcare plan", that is supposed to cover everyone, and not cover pre-existing conditions, is absurd.

On this entire issue, you either need to completely do away with private health insurance and insure everybody, for everything, all the time, OR.... the govt needs to stay the hell out of it. Never trust the govt to get anything right... you will usually be disappointed. The only way "universal health care" works, imo, is all or nothing.

This is why I have been against such a plan from the beginning: the govt will never get it right, and to pay for the solution (cover everyone, for everything, all the time) would bankrupt the country unless taxes were raised considerably...which I am also against.

FIX THE VA FIRST. If govt can figure THAT out, MAYBE- just MAYBE- they have a shot at fixing the nation's healthcare issues. Don't hold your breath.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

First we have to sent less folks to the VA. Less useless wars from the US perspective. Not just saving money, but more importantly saving over 10k soldiers from serious lifelong injuries/impairments.


"What I am comparing is,"

"-low enrollment
-high numbers of uninsured
-lost doctors
-lost plans
-higher premiums
-higher deductibles
-high costs"

false starts, crash n burn plans, and lies. Now do you want me to list Trump's version for his first one hundred days?

Republican Sound Byte Update:

No more using that Pelosi "“we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Think you folks burned that bridge....It's ours now!!! The Ryan tape will be prominent in 2018 mid terms, tyvm.

Also, no more lost plans, can't keep your doctors, yada, yada, yada, ---> Once the CBO report comes out, that ship will have sailed, gonna have to drop that line...

Representative Tom Cole said it best: "If you don't pass this, you can't do anything later...."

However yesterday...after the vote....Donald J. Trump provided the best advice to lawmakers on how bad his own plans sucks when he told Universal HealthCare Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: “you have better healthcare than we do.”

Houston, I believe the establishment has landed and they are lost.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

The best part about your TrumpCare is how it fixes the redistribution of wealth....

It takes tax dollars we used to subsidize Trump voters and give them back to Hillary voters. Promise kept. Problem solved. Principles maintained. Honor kept. "Damn the men, fire those torpedo's"

Genius!!!!!

Thanks all, thanks for the gift that will keep on giving.....
xoxoxoxo

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

strangerdanger - Pelosi's "“we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." is priceless. Nothing Trump supporters are doing now compares to that.

DannyC DannyC
May '17

I have no problem, with the government leaving me to fend for myself, regarding healthcare, IF, they would also "leave me alone", if I get to choose how MY tax dollars are spent. What I can do or sell, to make money (as long as no harm, to others), and, what I can grow, eat or otherwise ingest, for medicinal purposes. Alcohol and cigarettes are of no use, to me. Sorry, but while still important, the military isn't going to help me, with healthcare.... so... it's either butt in... all the way, up until I die, or let me take care of myself. I could, if not for government interference. The greed is clouding the republicans logic. Trump DID promise, a "better plan, affordable, cover pre-existing conditions, keep your own doctor and everyone will be covered". So many poor voters, believed him. I know all politicians lie, however this is a real biggie.... will cause many do suffer and die, because of his lies... if he gets his way.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
May '17

Lies? Where? ACA sucked. It helped a few, and harmed many others. Trumpcare is no better. IDK if it's worse yet, but the pre-existing condition thing is, as I have described, BS.

But just when you think SD has some common sense, and is willing to admit both sides have serious flaws... he flops right back over to Trump hater and serial leftist. Sigh. Just when I start building hope for you, SD, you show me you are just another one of the hate-filled, willfully ignorant, confirmation-biased voters out there. Have you ever admitted a democrat (specifically Obama, but there are SO many others) flaw? If so, I haven't seen it. Be a man- own up to Obama's failures, like I will own up to Trumps (and did just a single post ago).

Besides, it sounds like to me, by merely passing this "Trumpcare" (instead of repealing the whole damned ACA), the GOP DID "reach across the isle", no? Isn't that what you wanted? Compromise is not always a good or functional thing. Can't please everyone, so instead agree to compromise to please NO ONE. Way to go, US govt (BOTH parties).

BTW... I posted a LONG list of Obama's lies/broken promises. I notice you have nothing to say about any of that... either now, or when it was happening.... I know, I know, "this thread isn't about Obama, it's about Trump" ROFL.


The telling thing about all this, from Bush thru Obama and now Trump- it's just the SOS. Broken promises, compromises that harm legislation so badly it shouldn't be passed in the first place, govt corruption, BOTH SIDES. Trump played a good game- as good as Obama did in his primaries- and I'm betting will deliver a similar level of broken promises as Obama did. Nothing new here, folks. Nothing to see here, move along... same old sh*t.... another president, another 4 years of wasted taxpayer money.

"change"...LOL... now THERE'S the joke.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Did you read it or did you read articles about it

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hr1628rh/pdf/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf

For one it funds Medicare and Medicaid out to 2026 and creates a fund for high risk folks and provides for some normalization of benefits

skippy skippy
May '17

Actually DC, TrumpCare Congressional supporters have already eclipsed Pelosi. The Ryan tape alone is far more hypocritical. Tom Cole is just funny. And wait, there's more.....

If the Senate was smart, they would stamp a big FY on this bill and send it back to the House. Might be the only way to save their political lives.

Otherwise you got a few months of Bernie quoting Trump on how the Australian HeathCare plan is better than TrumpCare......and so is ObamaCare.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

It all comes down to philosophies and implementation. I, like many, believe that universal "free" healthcare for all is a right of every citizen of this country.

Where I differ is that each citizen must assume some responsibility, such as the diabetic on welfare that gets sent to the hospital every week via ambulance and costs the taxpayers millions per year per person because these people do not behave responsibly.

So, universal free (or "included") healthcare for all with exceptions for citizens who abuse the system. Much easier said than done of course :)


"SD, you show me you are just another one of the hate-filled, willfully ignorant, confirmation-biased voters out there."

Hmmm. Are we talking issues here?

"It helped a few, and harmed many others" Got numbers or are you just talking about your Aunt Em in Tennessee?

"Have you ever admitted a democrat (specifically Obama, but there are SO many others) flaw?" Of course yes.

"Be a man" Hmmmm. Is this another issue for you somehow?

And when you really look at is, your yuge conclusion is: "SOS." Trump=Obama=Bush=Clinton=Bush=Reagan...... All righty then. No wonder you don't source much.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

strangerdnger - "TrumpCare Congressional supporters have already eclipsed Pelosi." How is this? Can you back up anything you say?

DannyC DannyC
May '17

I just did. It's above and relates to the famous Pelosi quote.

Now you have so many similar, or worse, quotes from this House passage of a bill destined, by definition, to be aborted by the Senate.

The only thing that might come of this is spin-pressure to invoke the nuclear option again. That will make things more interesting.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"And when you really look at is, your yuge conclusion is: "SOS."


Because it is. It doesn't matter much who's in office. Either we get broken helathcare or more wars, or higher taxes or lower taxes.... 6 of one, half dozen of the other. The fact you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit this is a shame. Intellectual honesty- you should try it sometimes- it beats willful ignorance and blind loyalty.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Just for that little wannabe nihilist JR...

https://youtu.be/aj5DccgBYeM

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

The ole either/or binary world. Either this or that, up or down, in or out, one or the other. To some, everything is a buzz word, a slogan, or a brand. Folks with different views are enemies to be beaten, branded by physical appearance, called names. And if you can't admit to agree to what these honorable white men say, then you are willfully ignorant with a blind loyalty to your false gods, dishonest facts and unbelievable beliefs.

Because in that world, to win, someone has to lose. in/out, black/white..... Cool, can we talk :>) Apparently NOT.

So we move to the Senate where this bill was dead before it was delivered. It's an abortive piece of legislation if there ever was one. Even those passing it agree it sucks. Chances are that the Senate will not return it to the House, chances are the Senate will not pursue a win-win solution and chances our the Senate will not listen to their leader, their own words, or the words of their own constituents. Who cares about reaching across the aisle, the Republican Senate will not even cover their side of the floor or Main Street.

Wish they would put America first, look for the win-win in all this and hold to Trump's promise for Universal HealthCare. He said Australia's is better than TrumpCare.

Instead of aiming at providing HealthCare coverage to uncovered Americans, what the Republican Sentate will focus on is how can they lower taxes independent of the results of those folks in the replacement line of fire.

I mean you have to admit that when Trump says "lower premiums, lower deductibles, universal coverage," that something has to give. That will be defined as benefit coverage which will disappear in the fog of claiming victory over lower taxes.

And we will take those tax benefits from Trump supporters and give them back to Hillary supporters so you can Make American Great Again by lowering taxes to improve healthcare. Brilliant!!!!

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

SD,

It's ironic that you don't understand that YOU YOURSELF are "binary".... to you, it's still all right vs left, republican vs democrat. LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Ah, back to the issues again....

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

The people's President!

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/trumps_not-so-busy_day_in_bedminster.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

For those who care...a side by side comparison of the AHCA/ACA.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obamacare-repeal/

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Krauthammer hit the nail on the head. There is no way Obama didn't win. We went to repeal and replace, instead of just repeal. This will only end with a single payer and more goverment control. I don't understand why people hate Trump. Don't forget, most of his life he was a democrat.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/krauthammer-obamacare-altered-health-care-landscape-forever/

Old Gent Old Gent
May '17

Double the uninsured to over 50 billion and we keep on sending billions to the Middle East, who is more important to those running this government?


anyone out there seeking insurance - with a preexisting condition - must be your fault - http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/alabama-congressman-people-who-lead-good-lives-dont-have-preexisting-conditions/#.WQwLiHwYG5g

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

All or nothing. Seriously, none of this "halfway" stuff.
#1 fix the VA so we know you're CAPABLE, then
#2 universal healthcare for everyone- no copay, accept all pre-existing conditions, etc.
#3 raise EVERYONE'S taxes (because raising tazxes on the rich and corporations won't get you there, not even close) to pay for it.

Just one problem:

45% of Americans don't pay income tax.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

The Onion on the AHCA...

http://www.theonion.com/infographic/tips-not-condemning-millions-americans-sickness-an-55935

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

"All or nothing." There you go again ---- binary man.....

"#1 fix the VA so we know you're CAPABLE, then"
I am all for fixing the VA, however the US government has already proven it can run a healthcare system. They have proved they can run a large system.

" #2 universal healthcare for everyone- no copay, accept all pre-existing conditions, etc." I am all for this; the only reason the ACA exists is because of the impossibility of UH passage. Remember -- government control, death camps, etc. Heck, you just get the public option added to the ACA and you will come very close to this with less startup and scale issues.

"#3 raise EVERYONE'S taxes (because raising tazxes on the rich and corporations won't get you there, not even close) to pay for it." Add in earmarking some tax increases to paying down the deficit and I am your man!

"Just one problem: 45% of Americans don't pay income tax." Less will pay under Trump but in either case, why is there a problem with that? If you raise taxes, there is a very good chance that more people will need to pay some as well.

Although I don't think you really believe any of this and just forgot to issue the Sarcasm Alert.

NOTICE: it's Spring Break for our House of Representatives. Only one Republican House Representative is having a Town Hall Meeting. Heh, heh.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

JR with another Breitbart fake news "fact".

Annoying how context and actual facts get in the way of those...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

"For those who care...a side by side comparison of the AHCA/ACA."

Can I ask why 28 million would still be uninsured under the current ACA? Is this by choice or by plan structure? And the corollary would be why it would double under the new plan?

justintime justintime
May '17

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax

YF, your graph merely shows the lack of federal tax payments is due to social assistance. What does that have to do with "fake news"? Seems to me jr has been saying the same thing.

justintime justintime
May '17

If everyone's taxes went up I would be for it instead of just the rich and agree with SD again about ear marking it for the deficit - now where I don't agree is as follows. While the fed has proved they can run a healthcare system the way we treat veterans is deplorable - the VA medical system is by no means the bar of success.

skippy skippy
May '17

That side by side is premature. It's based on some of the failed law, other areas incomplete, and some of the areas look more like spin that a statistical review.

Probably mostly directionally correct, but not necessarily in all aspects. Grain of salt time at best.

Need to wait to 1) really read it and 2) CBO scores.

However, there are very few ways to skin this cat. Either pay for the benefits like pre-existing conditions or lower the price by not offering them. Since much of the ACA is tax financed, and many of the subscribers get tax subsidies, a lower price = lower taxes. And since Hillary voters have a higher representation in educated, suburban, higher income areas with less ACA membership and Trump voters have a higher ACA membership in the more rural areas with lower incomes, the tax relief will lean left and the benefit loss will lean right.

It's like a weird political perfect storm has twisted us all up. Somehow the Democrats have become the elitist class and Republicans have become the working class. The weird part is that a lot of the Democrats still act working-class liberal and a lot of Republicans are still acting fat-cat conservative.

All I can say is I am old, health will never be perfect, have pre-existing conditions and think your healthcare plan, 8 years in the making, will give me an additional $3K or more a year in my wallet. Good job! It must be right if I'm making money.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

YF,

Breitbart? Try MarketWatch:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

"Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.


On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

My goodness what a captain obvious moment. Of course. Its a progressive system captain.

And from the world of the math challenged.... how does someone pay seven times more than someone who pays zero?

And the last paragraph does not make sense. Of course they pay more. It progressive. Of course you don't look at total taxes. Nor do you look at percentage of disposable income where the top has all of it and the rest hardly any. Nor do you mention that we all pay the lowest tax of any American citizen in the past 40 years to support our country. Especially the top 20%

You are a sheepful of willyfull ignorance to the elitist capitalist ruling class.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

So level the playing field by transferring the wealth of the top 20% to the government?

skippy skippy
May '17

I don't normally comment on politics but I think I need to say something very important, given the protest in Bedminster recently.
If you support Trump, or even if you just hate leftists more, make sure you let people know! Put stickers on your car. Signs on your lawn. Wear MAGA hats in public. We need to remind the lefties they're in the minority! Right now, lots of people think they're winning because we're at home content and they're out on TV whining.

1988LJ 1988LJ
May '17

https://youtu.be/xjn5AiKT-Jc

Looked very peaceable and supporters and non supporters alike hanging out - I think it's great for both sides to show their support - it brings up debate and allows for connection as people

skippy skippy
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Tell 'em what you think, Bugs...

ianimal ianimal
May '17

I normally don't comment on politics either, but in this instance I must.

WTH??

positive positive
May '17

Dunno from the videos I saw on line it looked pretty ok

skippy skippy
May '17

1988LJ,

Well bless your heart! You think people who are against trump are in the minority? That's adorable.

Gadfly Gadfly
May '17

"And from the world of the math challenged.... how does someone pay seven times more than someone who pays zero"

Speaking of obvious, there's a difference between paying taxes (what was meant, because nearly everyone pays taxes) and then receiving a credit on your income tax due to tax credits (money returned due to a special privelege based on being a member of a specific group or class). Not that you need reminding or anything ;-)

justintime justintime
May '17

+100000 Gadfly.

Happy that you're back!

positive positive
May '17

Who let the gad fly in :>)

"And from the world of the math challenged.... how does someone pay seven times more than someone who pays zero"

"Speaking of obvious, there's a difference between paying taxes (what was meant, because nearly everyone pays taxes) and then receiving a credit on your income tax due to tax credits (money returned due to a special privilege (sp) the word special privilege seems to provide your special distinction for those less privileged than yourself :>) Code words ho, negative connotation ho!!!!

Yet a truer truth has never been spoken --- paying tax and getting a credit is different. Dissimilar too. And you can do one and not the other, or both, or neither. You can do it with your wife or you can do it alone even if together. You can do it when your alive, you can even do it when you're dead.

But the article was clearing about income tax and not all taxes. It noted that several times. And it juxtaposed the ACA taxes imposed in that process against the income tax credits granted to less affluent ACA subscribers.

I then added in the current Democratic mantra that the many, if not most, of the incomes taxes paid that go to the ACA come from Blue parts of the country and many ACA income tax credits go to Red parts of the country.

Ironic isn't it?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

I am perplexed. I watch Tom Price, our Secy of HHS, tell us how they cut $880B from Medicaid to make it better. The system is just not working so we will fix it by taking it away.

He is telling us how he is creating competition, choice, and lower prices by reducing coverage and taking insurance away from millions.

He is telling us that his 100% access is better than the ACA's 90% coverage.

What a whore.

I am perplexed. I watch Donald Trump, our President, tell us how our military is collapsing and how they need to add $60B from to make it better. The system is just not working so we will fix it by adding money.

He is telling us how he is creating a winning military by adding coverage.

He is telling us that his budget that is bigger than the next 15 countries combined needs to be bigger and bigger to be even better.

So guns n butter. More guns, less butter is Trumpian logic.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Well do we want to have the strongest military in the world not not - we spend more because for the last 60'years that's been something we have valued as a people. Now that we have established ourselves as "team America world police" we have to meet that standard. Every time some dictator wants to commit genocide or has massive human rights violations everyone wants our boots on the ground - the question is do we Want to stop doing that? I'm fine with reducing military spending by pulling out of NATO and the UN and letting others take up those fights but the Dems are just as much to blame in that regard - for example HRC was very hawkish. It's not just Trump.

The AHCA if passed as I posted above provides for Medicaid until 2020. I'm not sure what the right answer is but not everything is exclusively a Trump failing just as it was not Obamas. The question is how as a nation should we play the cards we are dealt.

skippy skippy
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

100 days and now we are up to 5 military dead, I think all seals. We honor SEAL Senior Chief Kyle Milliken, 38, from Falmouth Maine and grieve with his family, wife, and child.

Trump's attacks have killed thousands of civilians as he lowers the risk bar from the high level Obama had set allowing field commanders far greater risk latitude in target selection. With the blackout, we don't get this news top dead n center but it's only a matter of time until the effects of Trump's policy shift are felt. Of course the lowered risk bar increases the risk to our kids in harm's way to protect our interests in the world so our death toll will be increasing as well. But for Somalia?

This one was from a raid in Somalia. Somalia? For a terrorist group that basically operates there and in Kenya? For a terrorist group that is shrinking, not growing...in Somalia. Sure they talk ISIS, Al-Qaida, but they act in Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia. For a group that our previous airstrikes in combination with UN and AU forces on the ground has pushed out of most metro areas still remains in the rural areas. So now we hit the ground and lose one, two more wounded.

We have around 8,000 SEALs in under 100 foreign countries. Seems we are leaning on these folks "cherry picking" low-hanging fruit wherever we might get an opportunity. Even Somalia. I just hope we consider our kids when we make these choices to attack terrorists who focus outside the US. Even the SOC Commander is hinting that these top troops are our solution to the toughest problems but “We are not a panacea. We are not the ultimate solution to every problem, and you will not hear that coming from us.” Trump is changing our strategy from limited engagement to ever-more-frequest SEAL incursions to snatch low hanging fruit increasing our risk on the ground. Even with a focus on SEALs, the risk in increased. As is the risk of our enemy becoming more familiar with SEAL tactics and strategies. Many a slippery slope on this one Don, and you are getting the warnings from many different places without any agenda except to win and win with the lowest casualty rate.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Gadfly,
You don't win elections by being unpopular. Not everyone loves Trump but most prefer him over anyone else! Just ask around.

1988LJ 1988LJ
May '17

Skippy, we get a lot of preferential treatment for being the world's police. Most importantly we are the reserve currency of the world. Every nation (and many individuals too) has US dollar reserves and all currency is benchmarked off of the dollar directly or indirectly.

If we stop being the world's policeman then our economy will suffer. The dollar will be sold off leading to major devaluation of our currency -- not good for people who have saved for retirement or anyone that wants to purchase anything imported; which to varying degrees is everyone here.

So, I don't think we can stop being the alpha dog in the world, but we can position our military to be more cost effective for sure.

Not a fan of Trump but it was a strategic move to vote for him, thinking of three years from now for the 2020 elections. My dream is that a qualified Libertarian candidate gets into the Oval Office, someone like Ron Paul. Voting for Clinton wouldn't be the worst thing but would not be making progress towards a Libertarian getting accepted. Trump is change and a Libertarian candidate will hopefully look good for the masses next time? A dream for sure, and a dream that may not get realized for a long time...


"Not everyone loves Trump but most prefer him over anyone else! Just ask around." Hmmm, seems oblivious to the intuitively obvious all around.

Elections don't count. Polls don't count. Just ask around.....

And from another voice: "Well do we want to have the strongest military in the world" We already have the strongest military in the world. Is someone getting closer to that strength? I find this amazing that there isn't a budget in the world you folks don't think should be cut, not a government budget alive that isn't handled inefficiently and ineffectively ----- all government budgets except defense. Defense where you got it right. Defense where you need to grow. When is enough, enough?

I mean you got defense spending so, so right. It's spent so well. It's spent so wisely that it takes you a budget that equals the next, not 15, but actually about 10 countries ----combined. Remember, a number of these were our friends. A budget spent so wisely that we need to spend 40% of the world's defense budget.

And you say "because for the last 60'years that's been something we have valued." Speak for yourself Skippy. I say you been had. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the word: overkill.

You want to double down on this by pulling from NATO and UN. Not sure where this comes from or has to do with our defense spending. I suggest you familiarize yourself with history. What do you expect the outcome of that action to be? Yes, HRC is a hawk for many reasons, but is that why it's OK for Donald to waste your tax dollars this way ---- because Hillary would? Then you seem to want to blame the Dems equally for the desire to leave NATO and the UN? Surely I misread that.

I am not sure what you are really saying with those tangents but military spending at these levels is a waste that does not make us one iota stronger against our enemies. Rebuilding the ground forces and materiel at levels needed to take Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste that does not make us one iota stronger against our enemies.

After we rebuild to these levels, what do you expect to happen?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

There you go - well said

skippy skippy
May '17

Not sure how it would be obvious that more people don't like Trump.
Almost every normal person I know supports POTUS. It's only the easily triggered loonies that are leftists. The era of the sane, Christian, white liberal is over.

1988LJ 1988LJ
May '17

but seriously 1988LJ - no one I know supports potus - you should be prepared for some surprises I think

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-latest-approval-rating-dips-amid-debate-over-trumpcare-595631

46 down from 54 - a lot of that is the circles you socialize in. It should be obvious that we tend to enjoy the company of folks who are aligned with our moral ethical and political leanings.

skippy skippy
May '17

No offense 4catmom, but unless you have no friends, don't live in Hackettstown or you only hang out with those who loiter on Main Street, you can't be telling the truth. The undisputed majority of those in Warren & Morris counties voted for President Trump and an even larger majority in Htown did as well. There's simply no way you don't know any Trump supporters.

1988LJ 1988LJ
May '17

"The era of the sane, Christian, white liberal is over." ----1988LJ

HUH???

I would question the sanity of someone like yourself who would like to see Chinese people killed.

www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/754413#t754726

happiest girl
May '17

It's weird that you remember a comment I made almost a year ago. I didn't even live in the same house or own the same car...

1988LJ 1988LJ
May '17

"but seriously 1988LJ - no one I know supports potus - you should be prepared for some surprises I think"


...as was the case for ME the last 4 years. Perhaps YOU should be prepared for some surprises....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/769688#t776023

HG remember when you stated people deserved to be beaten for supporting trump ? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

skippy skippy
May '17

Binary man strikes again.

Its all the sos.

Mirror image.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

SD.

now you're getting it!!!! It IS the SOS!!!! Congratulations!!!!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

AHCA potential impact on NJ...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/how_the_republicans_obamacare_repeal_bill_affects.html#incart_most-read_

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

Build that wall!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/trump-wall-faces-barrier-in-texas.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

Trump has started building his wall; it's called the AHCA wall.

YF, I think a lot of Warren benefits from the AHCA, at least the younger folk. Anyone older though will pay thousands more.

"The AHCA if passed as I posted above provides for Medicaid until 2020." This is kind of true although 2020 is just around the corner. Until then, there will be still be $50B in Medicaid budget cuts from 2017 to 2020 so the phasing started immediately. Remember, $50B is about the number you like to expand the defense budget by. Guns or butter? Part of the math here is the fact/assumption that Medicaid rolls start falling immediately due to stopping new subscribers from entering the system; some states may even begin rolling back the current expansion.

Skippy, it's not just the cut to the Medicaid Expansion that is the AHCA Medicaid effect, there's a lot more to it.

And remember, that $880B in tax savings is tax savings to the rich; that's who paid for the Medicaid expansion.

The AHCA will move from per-enrollee funding to a block grant model. What that means is today we fund whatever is needed for the sick; people are sicker than expected, prices suddenly jerk up even more --- we fund the gap. The AHCA model we will cap a block grant and let the states figure out the rest. Need more money: kmayoyo. If you can't come up with it, I suggest ER.

Cutting the Community First Choice Option saves another $12B. And there's a number of other cuts to ACA and other Medicare efforts.

It appears that while Republicans are talking 100% access, what they mean is full access / freedom of choice / less people able to afford to buy health coverage. It's a duplicitous spin of the obvious truth.

On the good side for all you folks that believe Planned Parenthood = abortion. The AHCA stops Medicaid from funding Planned Parenthood, none of which is used for abortion services. The AHCA effectively moves parenthood planning responsibility from the non-profit private sector to...well...no where...saving $200M. This savings might be lowered somewhat due to unplanned births because no one provided parenthood planning which will, in turn, cost Medicaid $100M. Thank goodness Republicans will be lining up to adopt...:>(

Skippy --- $880B is a lot of people being dropped and it starts upon bill passage. It's just that it get serious by 2020.

Guns or butter --- It's pretty simple math. We have a giant bag of money --- it's called taxes. Sure, you are taxed too much even though you are taxed at one of our lowest rate in 100 years. Lowest tax rate while supporting 2 wars, a war on terror, The Great Recession and more... We, as citizens, should be ashamed of our support of America.

Now we need to spend it. Hopefully not wistfully or wasteful. Hopefully on efficient and effective programs. But the Yuge decision is jr's favorite --- binary. Guns or butter?

What is the better value? Saving American's through good health or defending America through increased military spending. To me, it's pretty easy. Do we really think our current military strength invites enemies to increase their attacks on us? Are people sick, without health coverage --- and is it getting worse with the AHCA?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Sorry, forgot the tax link.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

We really should be ashamed about this.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact_0.pdf

The bill would cut Medicaid spending by $880 billion between 2017 and 2026 not 2020.

here is a a non partisan view:

https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/news-item/payment/cbo-releases-analysis-ahca-estimates-bill-would-cut-medicaid-spending-880b


"The government would incur some costs for Medicaid beneficiaries currently served by affected entities because the costs of about 45 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program. " this is what we should be ashamed of.

I hate that the AHCA defunds abortive services - if that gets pulled or rowe v. wade is overturned we are doomed as a species.

skippy skippy
May '17

"We have a giant bag of money --- it's called taxes. Sure, you are taxed too much even though you are taxed at one of our lowest rate in 100 years. Lowest tax rate while supporting 2 wars, a war on terror, The Great Recession and more... We, as citizens, should be ashamed of our support of America. Now we need to spend it."


wow.


Let's not bother ourselves with deficits and debts, let's just SPEND THAT MONEY!!! How do you think we got into this mess in the first place?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Wasn't $700 Billion siphoned off of Medicare over a 10 year period as part of the ACA?

kb2755 kb2755
May '17

"I hate that the AHCA defunds abortive services - if that gets pulled or rowe v. wade is overturned we are doomed as a species."



Some people don't want to pay for the war machine, others don't want to pay for abortions. I certainly don't think the species is "doomed"- the only "doomed" are the hundreds of thousands aborted every year. But we know that's a hot-button issue, and no one is changing their mind on it. Anyone who thinks Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned, I've got a bridge to sell you. But the legality of abortion procedures, and who PAYS for them, are 2 different matters.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Congress first passed the Hyde Amendment in 1977, four years after Roe v. Wade. It prevents Medicaid dollars from paying for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is endangered.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/hyde-amendment?_ga=1.61857836.1226233543.1483569463

disregard my last in light of the above. my new complaint is millions of folks will lose access to birth control

http://www.businessinsider.com/taxpayer-funded-abortion-defunding-planned-parenthood-mike-pence-trump-2017-1

unwanted children cost tax payers 11 BB a year.

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2011/nation-pays-steep-price-high-rates-unintended-pregnancy

believe me - I don't want to pay for it either. it's a no brainer to spend 528 million to save 10.5 billion.

per planned parenthood's own report women are not availing themselves to their other services.

https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/2014-2015_annual_report_final_20mb

"prenatal services at Planned Parenthood have are down 50% since 2009. cancer screenings have been on a steep decline since 2006"

again I refer you to the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis - we simply cant fight a war in multiple theaters for 26 years and see 1990 levels of crime - that's not sustainable.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

skippy skippy
May '17

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/why-you-should-care-about-this-overtime-bill.html

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text

why is nobody jumping up and down about overtime pay

skippy skippy
May '17

SD, I think if the AHCA passed, which it won't,
it would harm many in Warren county, many of those who voted for the man who clearly doesn't even know what's in it. The children in the House made a big mess and need the
adults in the Senate to clean it up. Which I believe they ultimately will.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Visas for cash!!
Call 1 800 KUSHNER

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

So, how 'bout all that evidence today concerning Trump and the Russians ;-) Again lots of propaganda talk and still nothing substantive other than "sorry, it's classified".

Moving on in search of the next thing hoped to stick to the wall: Flynn...Flynn...Flynn...

justintime justintime
May '17

JIT stirring the pot? You've recovered from that school search snit? Attaboy!

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

AHCA won't pass in my opinion. Here's my honest question to you guys - why are the democrats not reaching across the isle as well to try to get an effective plan. I don't see any democratic senator spinning up an alternative bill

skippy skippy
May '17

"JIT stirring the pot?"

No more so than anyone else. A lot of so called "news" today is nothing more than directed conclusions based on limited facts so a little reminder is needed now and again, wouldn't you think? ;-)

Now afa the irrational school search (aka treat everyone as if they are guilty), well, the results speak for themselves...

justintime justintime
May '17

Skippy, you should check out recent videos showing many PP locations admitting they DON'T OFFER prenatal services, only abortions.

Here's just one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444233/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care-not-groups-focus

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

http://www.snopes.com/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care/

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

So, snopes actually verifies National Review's article. Thanks.


WHAT'S TRUE
Prenatal care makes up a small portion of Planned Parenthood's services, and not all Planned Parenthood affiliates offer these services.

WHAT'S FALSE
Planned Parenthood offers a number of reproductive health services other than abortion -- including prenatal care (and referrals to prenatal care providers) -- at multiple health centers across the U.S. and has not claimed to offer prenatal care at all their centers.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

their own annual report states that folks don't use many of the other services they offer even when they do - I just think people who know they don't want or cant care for a child need to have access to both preventive and abortive services. this is literally a multi billion dollar problem

Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/trump-liberals/

What CNN fails to mention is they are complicit in creating this through their sensationalist reporting.

skippy skippy
May '17

"How do you think we got into this mess in the first place?" Sigh... Jr -- either your reading comprehension or my writing skills are weak for you to arrive at this conclusion. Or you completely overlooked your history with the author that jr is very familiar with. You must realize that taxes received and taxes spent will never create a debt or deficit.....that's called a balanced budget. What you are talking about is spending beyond your taxes or spending what you do not have in taxes. I specifically said taxes earned, taxes spent ---- not spending more than you have. Red herring and nothing that I said....think you misread.

"SD, I think if the AHCA passed" My point was, on average, the AHCA was a $$$ benefit to me and the rest of us in Warren County --- on average. However, when looking at the age rankings that you provided, turns out I lose big time.... Man, you significantly harshened my mellow :>) Based on your chart for Warren Count, just the young folks who will be dropping insurance anyways might benefit, everyone else gets to suck TrumpNoCare pond water.

"Again lots of propaganda talk and still nothing substantive other than "sorry, it's classified". It's a process man, like chipping away at a chunk of raw marble creating a fine sculpture. IMO this nailed down the timeline, that Flynn was seriously compromised for blackmail, and how Trump Administration and Trump himself continued on with this man, conducted precious little vetting much less extreme vetting, avoided all warnings -- personal and the intelligence community, had a multitude of Russian ties, and that more can be learned behind the mask of classified information. Including the leak.

Clapper dropped what should be the most important reason why this is a crucial process JIT. And that is: "They (the Russians and Putin) must be congratulating themselves for having exceeded their wildest expectations," he said. "They are now emboldened to continue such activities in the future, both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely." In Clapper's opinion.

But this was really about one man -- Flynn and not the entirety of Team Trump's blatant Russian involvement which might lead to potential collusion. By definition of a public testimony, you will see liberal slants (collusion) as well as conservative slants (leaks). Without unmasking classified info, I doubt we will ever hear public testimony unveiling collusion.

This public session, most importantly, reaffirmed Russia's manipulation of our electoral process as the truth ---- not attempted manipulation --- but actual manipulation. We were messed with and no one knows the results --- did it work or did it not?

They talked about Team Trump ties to Russia, and the very potential probability of collusion. And we learned a heck of a lot about the Trump actions responding to the debacle. The lack of vetting, the lack of action, and actual top secret meetings and calls with Putin with Flynn and Flynn/Trump AFTER Trump knew Flynn was compromised.

We must make the truth public, the public truth will be very boring as long as classified is redacted, but we must do this dance hoping to chip that one piece that reveals enough of the final sculpture to get us to a special prosecutor who can better avoid the politics seen in a public testimony.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Planned Parenthood does not have pregnancy and delivery as its mission...... https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-at-a-glance

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

Planned Parenthood is actually pretty valuable. Unless some other organization takes it place, cuts in it will not be good.


Anything that prevents both STDs and provides education and prevents unwanted pregnancies is critical to our nation - we just can't go back to 1972 economically or socially

skippy skippy
May '17

"that's called a balanced budget."


LOL let me know when that actually happens.... last time was a little while ago...

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

I move that we invest heavily in scratch off lotto tickets - that is all

skippy skippy
May '17

And today's word junior is context.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

https://beta.usaspending.gov/

Check this out - pretty cool. How in gods name if California get 10% of all money sent to the states ?

skippy skippy
May '17

12% of US population. They got shorted.

What do I win?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

AHCA: Myth vs. Fact

MAY 04 2017

I have a pre-existing condition. How does this bill affect me?

Under our plan, insurance companies cannot deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions. And your health status cannot affect your premiums, unless your state asks for and receives a waiver—a condition of which is the state having other protections in place for those with pre-existing conditions. Even if your state does obtain a waiver, so long as you’ve been continuously covered, you still cannot be charged more. And the bill provides added resources to help people in waiver states who have not been continuously covered to gain coverage. Bottom line, there are many levels of protection for those with pre-existing conditions in the legislation.

I heard about the MacArthur amendment allowing states to waive protections for pre-existing conditions. If this happens, will I lose all my benefits?
No. This amendment preserves protections for people with pre-existing conditions while giving states greater flexibility to lower premiums and stabilize the insurance market. To obtain a waiver, states will have to establish programs to serve people with pre-existing conditions. And no matter what, insurance companies cannot deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

And what about the Upton amendment?
The Upton amendment provides an additional $8 billion for states seeking a waiver. These resources will allow people with pre-existing conditions who haven’t maintained continuous coverage to acquire affordable care.

Are Members of Congress exempt from this provision?
No. Members will not be exempt. This was initially included for technical reasons to comply with Senate rules, but the House is voting to fix this before voting on the AHCA.

Why are you cutting women’s health services?
We’re not. In fact, we’re expanding women’s access to health services by redirecting Planned Parenthood dollars to community health centers, which vastly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics.

Why are you voting to kick 24 million people off health care?
We’re not. AHCA will ensure everyone has access to affordable, quality health care, but we’re just not forcing people to buy insurance. Moreover, that estimate failed to take into account other planned legislative and administrative actions, which will help bring down costs and expand coverage.

https://halrogers.house.gov/press-releases?id=AFFF4632-34C9-494E-B21E-F1E98B648F7B

Yes, Hal Rogers is a republican. So it must be "all lies!" LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Correct. Lies. Oh, and looks like the White House was getting nervous about the FBI investigation vis a vis Russian connections.
Comey fired.

Back to the AHCA....the bill is so bad they couldn't even wait for it to be scored. Threw it over the wall to the Senate and heaved a sigh of relief.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Gotta state the obvious.
JEFFERSONREPUB---party over nation?
SAD!

Stymie Stymie
May '17

"This public session, most importantly, reaffirmed Russia's manipulation of our electoral process as the truth ---- not attempted manipulation --- but actual manipulation. We were messed with and no one knows the results --- did it work or did it not?"

Really? How so? because from what I can tell it's all just talk with zero evidence...still. What's the actual evidence? The government report that more or less lays out a narrative without any evidence?

Still completely circumstantial from what I can see.

justintime justintime
May '17

Be patient. It's coming. Firing Comey, knowing well what the optics would be, and still pulling the trigger...nothing to hide? Does the name Nixon ring a bell?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Nope, not on the meddling.
Not on Trump Team contacts and ties with Russians

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Yates...Kelly...."move along, folks, nothing to see here"....

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Tuesday Afternoon Massacre. Dowsn't that grab you in your nether regions.

Trump fires with style. Sends bodygyard with The Letter to wrong address. The Comey OJ LA drive was priceless.

Guess Trump admits with this firing explanation that the election was indeed rigged.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Preet Bahrara...nope, nothing to hide. Tax returns...nope, nothing to hide. Trump has a Yuge pile of nothing to hide. Yuge.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Lol. Can't wait for you to be proven correct YF. At least then we can dispense with all the "conclusions" based only on circumstantial information. I get that so many enjoy jumping to conclusions based on conjecture, assumptions, circumstantial evidence.

justintime justintime
May '17

You keep using the term "circumstantial evidence" as if it's meaningless. I'm not sure you understand what it means. It's not "circumstantial" just because you haven't seen it. Moreover, even were the evidence limited to circumstatial evidence, strong circumstantial evidence and/or multiple instances of corroborating circumstantial evidence is plenty of evidence to make a case in, for example, a civil or criminal court.

Gadfly Gadfly
May '17

"Party over nation?"


Yes, that is what almost everyone on this board is doing. For a long time now. And that is exactly the problem with politics. As predicted by George Washington 221 years ago.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

JIT says: "Lol. Can't wait for you to be proven correct YF. At least then we can dispense with all the "conclusions" based only on circumstantial information."

So...we must agree that a totally independent investigation is necessary. Nothing off limits, the authority to subpoena anyone/ anything (tax returns ) relevant to the investigation. Including, if the evidence dictates, this President.

All cards on the table, it either exonerates or indicts....fair enough?

JR...this is clearly nation over party. Those blinders you wear are very effective. Did you get them at the Denial Store?

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

Let me try to restate more clearly YF:

As a society, I refuse to believe that the best way to interact is to make assumptions of guilt based on extrapolations of events and actions that can clearly be viewed as benign in any other context. You're trying to claim that "because I think so" is a valid method of ascribing guilt, and to do so at the levels of government involved no less. Sorry but that's simply wrong under any circumstances. Burden of proof, especially at this level, is extremely important given the position. It's like watching a soap opera and believing the story line is real.

And stating that circumstantial evidence is regularly used in courts of law doesn't make it ok, or right, when the reality is that a percentage of those *assumptions* has clearly been wrong in the past (google the innocence project) and resulted in the conviction of innocent people.

Believing so completely, being so certain only having such extremely weak and limited information, relying on "circumstantial" evidence is an excuse at best and intentional, political manipulation at worst (which is precisely the case here IMO).

justintime justintime
May '17

"All cards on the table, it either exonerates or indicts....fair enough?"

I've agreed with that approach in past discussions. No one should be above the law, including the president.

justintime justintime
May '17

Sorry, first post was supposed to be in response to gadfly, not YF.

justintime justintime
May '17

YF and Stymie (and probably many others) remain under the mistaken impression that I am a Republican (big "R" - the Republican Party)...I am not. I certainly lean more right than left, but I don't trust the Republicans any more than I trust the Democrats. It's just that they are more likely to at least promise things I agree with, because I lean right (altho not as much as I used to). Trump was never my guy, simply a lesser of 2 evils. And I stand by that still today. Hillary would have been worse. Of course you dems can argue the point all you want, it's all conjecture and opinion anyway.

I am a republican- SMALL "r", as Thomas Jefferson was. BIG difference. It's like saying you're a democrat when you're thinking it's still JFK's party- it is not. Not even close.

Now, please, regale me with your "Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, blah blah blah" LOL. I really don;t have tie to suffer fools who aren't willing to educate themselves beyond talking points and mainstream media newsfeeds.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Wait what? You guys wanted Comey fired since last October .. He sent Martha Stewart to jail for lying to the FBI... And Scooter Libby suffered the same fate... But yet he gave Hillary and her staff a pass instead of taking it to a grand jury...

He has been investigating Trump for almost a year and has come up with zip... He didn't even question Yates (revealed as a Hillary supporter in Wikileaks emails) about leaks... The leaks continue with no indictments.

Rod Rosenstein, a US attorney under Bush/Obama, was confirmed 4/25, by a 94-6 vote, as deputy AG and Comey is his direct report. He reviewed Comeys file, wrote a letter to Sessions recommending Comey be terminated. Sessions agreed and sent rosenstein's letter, along with his own, to Trump. He terminated Comey.

Why would Trump go against the findings of a man with a 30-year impeccable record and bipartisan support?

skippy skippy
May '17

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3711116/White-House-Fires-James-Comey.pdf

here are the letters. Mods thoughts on closing this and opening 6.0? I am getting a bit winded when I scroll lol

skippy skippy
May '17

Alexander Hamilton on Jeffersonians: "A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are against all taxes for raising money to pay it off".


Now Jefferson - he was a Demo-publican - really - it was a party then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

skippy skippy
May '17

The more I read about Mr. Jefferson, the more I am intrigued.

Jefferson reminds me of a fiery version of Bill Gates --- scientific, nerdy, brilliant, inquisitive, tall, thin, gawky, somewhat shy, sometimes rebellious, with a plain and unassuming style of dress not necessarily of the current vogue. A man of contrasts. A personality of paradoxes, he even sat funny. A bit of a philanderer, seemed to have a storybook love affair with his wife. He is and will remain a person who lived a life of many conflicting ideas and actions culminating in being the original author of our Republic.

I think the only thing that vexes me about Jefferson is his paradox to vocally incite and send others to battle while staying home himself. He just didn't seem to grasp the effect of his words or the magnitude of their effect. He was the master of the spoken and written word. A bit of a weak orator in large settings, he excelled at the written word and speaking in smaller public settings where he could move mountains of thought and ideas. Speaking tough seems a bit disingenuous for a guy who does not engage in the fight. A bit cavalier given his ability to make people do things based on his words. Sure, he was in the militia from 1770-1779, but as Governor when the British invaded Virginia, he vacated his office becoming known as "coward of Carter's Mountain."

You have to admire that Jefferson could learn and change. After the Revolution, Jefferson lost his taste for war, even for others to fight for him. As President, he acted like a bit of a tyrant in order to preserve the Republic. Paradox. Yet in 1808 he said: “I think one war enough for the life of one man, and you and I have gone through one which at least may lessen our impatience to embark in another.” Kind of softens that Tree of Liberty stuff...... Paradox.

Because of these paradoxes, some due to time, others because that's the always-learning curious George who is Jefferson, one must always look hard behind any single Jefferson quote to better understand ------ "Long Tom, The Pen of the Revolution, Sage of Monticello ---- is that your final answer?"

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"As President, he acted like a bit of a tyrant in order to preserve the Republic."



Actually, that was his predecessor, Adams; who was jailing journalists for speaking out against the government (Alien and Sedition Acts). Jefferson allowed them to expire (right after his election).

Also Lincoln, who signed an EO for "Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors".

All Trump is doing is calling them on their BS and misleading "journalism." Just as Obama did in the opposite direction re: Fox News.

But back to the point of political parties, comparing today's Republican party with that of yesteryear is a misnomer. Ditto the Democratic party. Much morphing has been done over the years. JFK would be embarrassed by today's Democratic party, as would Jefferson of today's Republican party.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

what's wrong with this picture? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kremlin-tweets-during-closed-door-oval-office-meeting-with-lavrov/

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

my guess? Trump trolling folks by letting the Russians take and tweet pictures while shutting out the US media. Reminding CNN he doesn't need their permission to do his job. - Trump being Trump

skippy skippy
May '17

Absolutely nothing when you're in the world of politics lol

It's similar to someone asking what's wrong with this picture:

http://ijr.com/2017/05/867816-obama-uses-private-jet-14-car-convoy-get-european-climate-change-speech/

justintime justintime
May '17

Oh no! A picture of a hand shake!

Why does the media think they should be privy to/present at every meeting? They are free to report that there *was* a meeting and report/analyze any statements or documents made available of outside those closed doors

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

"Why does the media think they should be privy to/present at every meeting? "


I wonder if the press were OK with not being in attendance at Obama's closed-door meeting with Muslim leaders?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/02/04/obama-meets-with-american-muslims-to-discuss-islamic-state-and-anti-muslim-discrimination/

I know, I know... "this thread isn't about Obama!!! WAAAAAA!" lol

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Very exciting! A Heckle and Jeckle appearance. Quite predictable following a JIT post. And all three with the usual "yeah, but your guy....blah blah blah"
A trifecta of one trick ponies.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

What's wrong YF, is the Onion failing a bit in the logic department? Too much emotion, not enough thought? ;-)

justintime justintime
May '17

"Quite predictable following a JIT post. "

No more so than you, 4catmom, and strangerdanger being connected at the hip.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

Draining the Swamp...GO TRUMP !

PREDATOR PREDATOR
May '17

back to Comey for a minute.

He was completely taken by surprise - that means he has no contacts in the DOJ or the White House that let him know.it was coming. Think about that.

skippy skippy
May '17

Awww....JIT, a closet Onion fan.

Here you go-

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-announces-40-month-long-search-fill-fbi-dire-55988

You're welcome!

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

He serves at the President's pleasure so that's that. However with a ten-year statutory period, it better be for a major sanction violation.

"He was completely taken by surprise - that means he has no contacts in the DOJ or the White House." Who does? Where have you been --- there's only a handful of people on the inner circle.

I mean here's the message: investigate me and you will be fired, but wait ---- there's more. Wait till you see how I do it. So even though you know Comey is in LA, you send your personal bodyguard, your extreme-secret-service man who shoved that journalist but now is head of oval office super security (that's the new OOSS) over to the FBI and then leak the news so Comey can get it right in the back ----- Trump style.

I am just not sure with the equivalency of Obama accepting a private jet and convoy offered by others for his speaking or a closed door meeting with American Muslim leaders to protect their identities. Sure seems very different over the Trump dynamics of this latest affair.

Just not sure why this firing does not raise your eyebrows or this Russian a-hole joking about it with his American cronies doesn't totally piss you off. If a freakin Ruskie joked like that on my watch, I would certainly speak up.

McMasters is next.

I, for one, is glad that Trump bends over for the Russian Press while avoiding the US Press. I mean the US press is fake news. Now Putin's Russian Press ---- that's the kinda news Hackettstown Lifers can rely on.


JR --- ever notice how "actually" really means "you're wrong...." I do it all the time :>) So, actually.... I was talking West Point founding (standing army), Burr, and his deployment of US troops domestically for his embargo policies ---- actions a little different from his rhetoric.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

I love the O'Nion lol

skippy skippy
May '17

McMasters is next? Do you think anyone will actually listen to Trump in wartime affairs? If Trump keeps it up he will be declared unfit and overthrown by a military coup...


" In October 1776 the Continental Congress authorized a committee to begin planning for a military academy, but political support for the idea remained uncertain until the need for domestically trained engineers and artillerists overcame the fear inspired by the
European experience with professional military officers and totalitarianism. Despite the 1794 creation of the rank of cadet in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers manning the fortifications at West Point, New York, formal instruction of those cadets did not begin until September 21, 1801. By ordering that instruction, President Jefferson reversed his early opposition to a military academy, seeing it as a way of promoting the study
of engineering and science in the growing nation. On March 16, 1802, Congress approved the action and authorized the creation of the Corps of Engineers and a military academy under its control at West Point. That date marks the official birth of the U.S. Military Academy, but the institution’s organization and funding remained uncertain for more than a decade."

Interesting. So, by that rational, since there was no income tax back then, there shouldn't be any now either. And Planned Parenthood. And Welfare. And..and...and...
;)

But it is interesting Jefferson apparently changed his mind on a standing military... which no doubt came in handy in the War of 1812... since the standing army was indeed intended to push back invasions. Altho I'm failing to see where it made Jefferson a tyrant.

Now, on to the embargo act...

All this chapter in history shows is, embargoes don't work. Force is always required. Still not sure where this made him a tyrant? The force was used against Great Britain, not Americans? (unless those Americans were trading with GB, ILLEGALLY, in which case they would be criminals anyway...just like GB was for continuing to trade against the embargo.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807


As far as Burr goes, you'll have to point me in the right direction, can't find anything matching "Jefferson/Burr/tyrant"...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

"Wait what? You guys wanted Comey fired since last October ."


It is ironically hilarious.... not very long ago, the left considered Comey to be Judas. Now he's Joan of Arc ?!?!?! ROFL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

JR, you're missing the point completely, perhaps on purpose. The issue isn't Comey at all. The issue is Trump. What does the firing of Comey say about Trump.


"All this chapter in history shows is, embargoes don't work. Force is always required. Still not sure where this made him a tyrant?" Chillax dude....where's your car? Reading comprehension --- I said "a bit of a tyrant" speaking to Jefferson's paradoxical path through his life. Heck, if I was Jefferson I would have left of the "a bit of...."

First, I do agree that embargoes don't work, nor do WALLS, tariffs, trickle-down, etc. etc...... Hmmmm----- perhaps it is you that is coming along.....to the dark side :>)

Jefferson's Embargo --- issue was use of US forces for policing domestic laws. Like your hero Trump bringing in the Army to enforce Chicago's gun laws....:>) Or Trump's solution for solving urban unrest (it's the state's, not the Fed's Trump you idiot)

Burr --- Really --- couldn't find it? Jefferson arrested Burr as a traitor for trying to create new country in SW. You remember --- Burr, Hamilton, British on the Weehawken rooftops cheering ----- Burr is Jeff's VP, first term, fired by Jefferson from second term for talking like a Democrat...:>) Burr tries to join another third party, probably Republicans. Hamilton calls Burr a Duck, Burr says Hamilton has small hands causing Weehawken duel --- Hamilton fires into the air, Burr not. Hamilton dead, Burr's career dead. Burr meets with foreign ambassador, agent to foreign tyrant interested in undermining America to plot new country formation. Burr and his "personal security forces" start marching, Burr's General who was an attorney so Attorney General....quits, speaks out as a concerned citizen, and Jefferson arrests Burr for treason and being a Duck.... Trump, I mean Burr, found not guilty because no overt act, just a lot of name calling..... Just can't make this stuff up....

Their are many more paradoxes in Jefferson's words and actions; I didn't even mentioned his paradox over equality. My point was Jefferson's paradoxes existed and therefore you need to check specific words and actions across his entire lifetime since where he ends up is not necessarily where he started. I think that's to his credit, a good thing. He was such a great man that he could change his mind based on current affairs, testing over time, or new information. Think all of us could use more of that today versus our entrenched natures.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Trump is a slow learner. He should have been fired on inauguration day.

Old Gent Old Gent
May '17

Agreed old gent - JD2 it says he replaced an individual who was grossly overstepping his authority in some cases and ignoring actionable evidence in others - did you read the letter above or did you hear about it on CNN? That letter makes it patently clear why he was let go.

skippy skippy
May '17

""Wait what? You guys wanted Comey fired since last October ." But it is not October JR. Trump is on record saying the Hillary actions that Comey took were proper. This is all about Trump, not Comey, and how your man is following your vote.

Comey asks Trump for more resources for the Russian investigation

Trump gets Sessions find a reason to fire Comey and write a letter to defend it. He not only needs to fire the guy coming after him but wants to send a Yuge message.

Sessions, who is recused from the Russian investigation, writes letter about Russian email tampering, to get Comey fired. He is in-recused.

Trump document indicates that Trump has inside knowledge on Russian investigation not doubt from a Trump-inspired leaker although Trump blames Comey.

Trump does not ask where Comey is, does not call, instead sends henchman with letter

Comey sees firing on screen behind him during his talk to his troops in LA. Has got to go down as the world's most public beheading. Class act Don, class act.

Conclusion: there's a high probably of a lot of lies in this. First, it's Trump and Sessions ---- let's face it, they both lie frequently and consistently as a matter of record. Second --- do you really think this was about Hillary handling in the election 2016? Doesn't that say the election was rigged? Third, how can a recused guy write this letter?

But most important and perhaps not illegal, Trump just had to know, or could have easily found out, where's Comey? I mean all they had to do was ask. But nooooooo ----- instead they perform an orchestrated public shaming complete with manipulating the press into filming a Comey-does-OJ parade down the LA freeway to the airport.

If you don't think this was about Trump sending the message, if you investigate me, I will use all my power to publically destroy you, your friends, your family ---- do you really believe it was about Trump firing Comey over Hillary?

“The tyrant is a child of Pride
Who drinks from his sickening cup
Recklessness and vanity,
Until from his high crest headlong
He plummets to the dust of hope.”

Sophocles, Oedipus Rex

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"What does the firing of Comey say about Trump."


That he thinks Comey isn't capable of the job, which the democrats agreed with the day he re-opened the investigation on Hillary ;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Wasn't that the day Trump said he loved Comey?


Wow, JIT, that's a lot of smoke, mirrors and bluster. Why are you trying so hard to pretend that the investigation of The Trump Team's ties with Russia is not legitimate? I'll say it again: you don't know that the evidence is all circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence can still be very strong evidence. If you don't understand that, than you don't understand what circumstantial evidence is.

Gadfly Gadfly
May '17

"That he (Trump) thinks Comey isn't capable of the job"
That's what a 7 year-old child would say.
lol

happiest girl
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

No, that was the day Trump said he loved Putin; it was Putin who said he loved Comey.....Or was that the day Jr professed his love for Trump even though all politicians are the same.....

Now if the midst of Russian meddling, a standing President meets with.....who....a freakin Foreign Minister, not the President --- of Russia --- in the Oval Office to talk trade and future business between the US and Russia.... right after this jerkolla made fun of the Comey firing.

Trump great, Russia good, Turkey's Erdogan good for Trump Istanbul Towers, Comey bad, Philippine's Duterte good for Trump Tower Manila, Hillary worse, Trump al-Sisi good for Trump Mark Egypt LLC (which no one knows what they do), Obama worse yet....

Your man has a passion for the worlds' most despicable leaders, most of which live in countries crucial to Trump's personal business. So keep defending the world's dictators best friend, the liar-leader-of-the-free-world, mr. arms-length from his businesses. And remember, Kim Jung Un is "a pretty smart cookie" that Trump would be "honored" to have a meeting with. (No Trump Tower in North Korea yet).

So keep the faith, because faith is all you have. The emperor is heavily clothed.

"Let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfill that promise. Let us fight to free the world! To do away with national barriers! To do away with greed, with hate and intolerance! Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite!”

Charles Chaplin --- The Great Dictator --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"Why are you trying so hard to pretend that the investigation of The Trump Team's ties with Russia is not legitimate" because it's not.... it was not started with a firm foundation and has repeatedly failed to uncover any evidence circumstantial or otherwise.

"Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence." - blacks law dictionary.

Show us some of that indirect evidence Gadfly? everyone else has tried and failed.

"investigate me and you will be fired" This investigation has no end and no foundation.

They recorded Trumps phone calls, yielding absolutely ZERO evidence of Russian collusion.

They investigated Trump multiple times before, during, and since him being sworn in, with ZERO evidence of Russian collusion.

Clapper and Yates both said NO COLLUSION

Multiple Democrats have gone on the record and on the news and none of them could claim there is evidence of Russian collusion.

There have been multiple Congressional hearings, pulling in every intelligence agency head possible, over and over: NO EVIDENCE TO RUSSIAN COLLUSION.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc

Dianne Feinstein - head of the senate judiciary commitee:

"Asked Wednesday whether or not she had seen any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Senator Dianne Feinstein said she hadn’t. “I know that you and some of your colleagues from the Senate Intelligence Committee drove over to Langley, Virginia yesterday to CIA headquarters and you were briefed,” CNN host Wolf Blitzer said. He continued, “You don’t have to provide us with any classified information, Senator, but do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” -- “Not at this time,” Feinstein replied."

Meanwhile - same guy had a Prima Facia case against Clinton. What he do - comes to the conclusion (that is not within his scope to make) "she lacked intent; FREE PASS.

18 U.S. Code § 793 does NOT require an intent element. It does however require “gross negligence”. Clinton SURPASSED that standard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/79318 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

If anyone here has ever held a clearance - when you sign the adjudication paperwork you certify your understanding of how classified documents work and the liabilities associated with them.

Anyone else notice Comey as of late was retroactively changing the record on anything damaging he ever said of HRC.

https://www.propublica.org/article/comeys-testimony-on-huma-abedin-forwarding-emails-was-inaccurate?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1494298184

I personally think Comey found his own suicide note in Hillarys emails and thats why shes not in jail.

Andrew McCabe, Comey's deputy, now head of the FBI. El jeffe officially in charge of the email "investigation" has a wife who took a $500,000 bribe from Gov. Terry McAuliffe - wanna investigate that collusion?

http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/clinton-ally-gave-500k-to-wife-of-fbi-agent-on-email-probe/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

We need a legit FBI Director not someone politicized like Comey or McCabe. Guess we wont get one since the Dems have deliberately been delaying the Senate approval process of the hundreds of political appointees across the various government departments (Deputies, third and fourth tier officials of FBI, CIA, DoJ, State Dept, DNI, etc. etc.). Is the plan to just stall till 2020 guys?

skippy skippy
May '17

Wow Gadfly, that's a lot of smoke as well.

The discussions in the public arena (specifically the anti-Trump news outlets) are well past viewing the "evidence" as circumstantial and now the Trump/Russia collusion is presented as fact. Yet you and most others still agree that the "facts" are merely circumstantial, correct? So based on that alone, why would it surprise you when someone points out that the smoke being blown could very well be your own - after all, no one has produced a single bit of actual proof in making the connection you have convinced yourself couldn't possibly be untrue.

Step back and look at the bigger picture here. Even if the connections ultimately prove true, what's transpired to date has been politically-motivated hysterics. Textbook mob mentality IMO.

justintime justintime
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

The Russia thing is all they've got left. So they are going to beat that dead horse until it's glue. It's their (the left's) only chance at maybe getting Trump impeached. Because they still are in a state of utter disbelief- they can't get it through their heads- WILL NOT ACCEPT- that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Without that Russia connection, they're stuck with him for 4-8 years. Refusal to accept reality.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Btw Gadfly, I've also repeatedly said that the investigation is not only legitimate but also required, so we're on the same page there. My main issue is the conclusion that's already been reached, politically and in the public arena, without the required proof.

justintime justintime
May '17

http://time.com/4775707/andrew-mccabe-congress-testimony/

Acting FBI director tells the U.S. Senate that there has been "NO EFFORT BY ANYONE" to impede the Russian Investigation. In addition he said that he is not aware of any request for more resources for the Russia investigation and if there was such a request it would have been made to the senate committee not the white house, and also they would not request resources for a specific investigation - and they also have enough resources and don't need anything additional.

skippy skippy
May '17

Trumputin's approval ratings continue to plummet to an all time LOW with deepening concerns about his honesty, intelligence and level headedness.
........... going ........... going ...............

https://www.yahoo.com/news/popular-trump-latest-approval-rating-151710548.html

happiest girl
May '17

"what's transpired to date has been politically-motivated hysterics. Textbook mob mentality IMO."

"The Russia thing is all they've got left."

Keep the faith, baby... It's all you got. Faith that he will do the right thing, not what he said he would do. All you have is his words --- oh wait --- those are mostly lies. All you have is your faith. All you have are his deeds ---- oh wait ---- there are no deeds in the public arena, just words, mostly lies. All you have is your faith. All you have are his actions since January 1, 2017 ---- oh wait ---- the most action he has taken today is a SCOTUS justice you cheated on and stole from the proper President, to fire Comey because he dissed Hillary --- the antichrist you want to throw in jail and a bunch of hot air EO's.

It's all just a mirror image of what has happened to you for the last past eight long years. So that's OK.

Keep the faith ---- it's all you got.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Thanks for proving that Hillary is still relevant to this discussion

skippy skippy
May '17

FBI director contradicts White House Claim

https://www.yahoo.com/news/acting-fbi-director-contradicts-white-houses-claim-comeys-support-within-bureau-171528015.html

happiest girl
May '17

"the most action he has taken today is a SCOTUS justice you cheated on and stole from the proper President,"

well you failed to mention Trump signed an EO establishing a commission to review alleged voter fraud and voter suppression in the American election system.

If voter fraud benefited Republicans there would be a demand for blood and urine samples, a 10 day waiting period and a background check before allowing people to vote.

Lets see how your candidate does in 2020 when dead people and illegal aliens cant vote.

skippy skippy
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

"Comey has been leading the investigation and recently asked for more resources"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/10/comey-sought-more-money-for-russia-probe-days-before-he-was-fired-officials-say/?utm_term=.a7e2e88907b5

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-asked-for-more-resources-for-1494434774-htmlstory.html

Fake news - McCabe, hardly a Trump fan, has just denied it. The Department of Justice also refuted the report this afternoon saying Comey DID NOT ask Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for more resources for the Russian conspiracy probe.

If you have not fully come to grips with the fact that the news media is willfully publishing propaganda here you go.

https://youtu.be/VgdzH9d-JO0

skippy skippy
May '17

"Keep the faith, baby... "


HA! It's obviously your side that needs to "keep the faith"... because so far, that's all you've got. Trump has actual innocence. (you know, that pesky "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing...)

The left and media is trying to try him in the court of public opinion, because they don't have any evidence to actually start legal proceedings and indict. But if they repeat the lies and propaganda enough, enough people will begin to believe it, wether it's true or not- that's the very definition of propaganda.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Since posting random links meant to be degrading to Trump seems to be the norm, I'll add my own that punctuates the hypocrisy of berating him for perfectly legal (tax) behavior:

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/11/is-john-oliver-a-hypocrite-on-taxes/

justintime justintime
May '17

Well, justintime, if you want to discuss his taxes --------

A petition for a legislation bill to make public the tax returns has received 190 signatures so far from lawmakers .... when it reaches 218 the bill will be brought to a vote on the House Floor.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/05/11/trumps-tax-returns-more-important-ever-amid-election-probe

happiest girl
May '17

Sounds good happiest girl. Just curious what everyone is looking for?

justintime justintime
May '17

Actually it berates John Oliver without actually showing John Oliver berating Trump for legal tax behavior which is not even the major issues that people beratie Trump about taxes to begin with. Apparently you missed the big picture instead focusing on a red herring as your cause celeb in defence of your man, your vote -- Trump.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

I love jr's new standard response to everything: no, it's you. Replaces his Trump is just like Obama and we felt the exact same way as you for the past eight years.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

On February 27 th 229 out of 238 house republicans voted against this resolution not sure why it would pass now.

The IRS has the returns, and clear rules for when they can disclose them.

Congress already has the power to retrieve the tax returns from the IRS with a simple congressional subpoena. "26 CFR 301.7216-2 " section f. Number 2 - congressional subpoena is one of the reasons the IRS can release a tax return without consent. Once congress has it, they can't be stopped from entering it into the congressional record and making it public.

skippy skippy
May '17

When Trump talks to himself, does he lie?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

So sorry, all this time everyone has been posting stuff just to see what sticks so I thought it would be cool to hop on that band wagon! Am I not allowed to do it too???

But really, i think you missed the big picture (again!), which is thus:
Since the IRS had obviously approved Trump's tax returns year after year (he's not in jail (yet lol) is he?) - meaning the federal agency tasked with tax compliance hadn't found anything illegal in his returns that they could use to punish Trump - it can't be that those screaming to see his returns foresee illegal activity, could it? If they did wouldn't that be arguing that the government itself is incompetent for allowing such a wealthy individual to knowingly break the law?

Since I can't see that being the case, those seeking the tax returns must be after something else, something that would be *legal* of course, although possibly unfair or even immoral. So it must be that everyone wanting to see his returns wants to find those *legal* but nasty deductions (like Oliver did) so they can ask their congressional representatives to change the law and make those nasty deductions illegal.

Now that I can agree with, so let's see those tax returns!!!

But I could be wrong. It may be as simple as Republicrats blindly regurgitating what their teams leaders are yelling without giving the issue even a modicum of thought. ;-)

justintime justintime
May '17

useful political tool to generate bad headlines
block anything to do with tax reform.
desperate belief that something can be conflated to remove Trump from power - ergo a 1099 from Putin.

skippy skippy
May '17

SD, you really are starting to get the picture, finally, of American politics. I'm proud of you!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Trump's tax records are now available in a safe place for all to see!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Trump Presidency is doomed.
Questioned FBI's "reliability" and now they won't be deterred.
Attacked the press and now they will not relent.
Demeaned the judiciary and now they will not turn a blind eye.
Trots out numerious spokespeople to misrepresent the facts.
And, oh yes, consorted with the Russians during the election.
Crashing and burning "bigley".
Tick,tick,tick.......

Stymie Stymie
May '17

Nice false equivalency jr. Now you're knowingly using fake news as facts. The Obama paper trail was debunked years ago.....

"Well you're a real tough cookie with a long history
Of breaking little hearts like the one in me
That's okay, let's see how you do it
Put up you dukes, let's get down to it

Hit me with your best shot
Why don't you hit me with your best shot"

Jr's greatest deflections.....no facts, just hits....

"you really are starting to get the picture" (the you agree with me story)
"It's obviously your side that needs to "keep the faith"... (the no it's you not me story)
"Were Reagan here today, while I think he'd have some issue's with Trump's character," (the let's just mention Ronnie and Trump together.....)
"Now, if you could just get it through your head that alot of people felt the exact same way about Obama & Hillary" (the "no, it's you, not me" story....)

"I've stepped back from most of the Trump threads at this point, simply because, just like it was with Obama, (which taught me the lesson), it's much ado about nothing. Nothing will come of Russia, nothing will come of his tax returns, nothing will come of his cabinet departures, nothing will come of the wiretapping..... just like nothing came of Obama's birthplace, nothing came of Obamacare (the constitutional fight against it), nothing came of Benghazi, nothing came of the democrat party efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies and elsewhere...." (what appears to be the "I lie" story)

"Trump has actual innocence. " (the keep the faith story.....:>)

Keep the faith baby. Like JIT you probably believe since there is no illegality in the taxes because the IRS has reviewed them.....you know, the government seal of approval is good enough for JIT in this case....there is nothing the public can learn from his taxes. Heck, all those early Presidents, and candidates, for what ---- the last 50 years or so ---- have released their taxes for what value? Just a waste of time?

Can you say: Potential Conflicts of Interest? Fiscal Hypocrisy (which both jr and jit and more than pleased to point out for any detractors)? Curmudgeon-like philanthropist? Then you rail on John Oliver for using the same loophole for his house that Trump used to make a business upon where John is bad but Trump is legal.

You probably believe there is no need for a Russian investigation because we didn't find the fat man in the bed red handed on the key boards. Trump has applauded a gaggle of tryants and dictators ---- murderers all, and invited many to meet with him, have some lunch, make some deals ----- In every case except one, there is either a Trump Tower in the country or a Trump business. Trump has issued a Muslim ban for many countries except a handful run by dictators, tyrants ---- murderers all, but each, except one, having either a Trump Tower in the country or a Trump business.

Out of the handful of despots and despicable that Trump respects and adores, only one does not have a Trump Tower or known business in his country ---- PUTIN.

Now we are investigating foreign espionage within out country and our electoral process. It's not about Trump, it's about the Russians. Trump is just a useful idiot. The Russians have ZERO expectation of a citizen's rights under the Constitution. In the midst of this, Trump invites them into the oval office with a truckload of electronic gear for a meeting to set the plan for our joint futures....Heck, he not only invites them, he invites the guy that forced Sessions to recuse, Manafort to quit, Stone to leave town, and Flynn to be fired ---- that's the guy Trump met with.....

At this point, one might see where DOJ is compromised. Trump has forced them into a lie and they accepted. The FBI head of the investigation has been fired by the man under investigation with the cause, according to Trump, being the Russian investigation and the firing decision supported, in writing, by a recused DOJ Attorney General.

IMO we have reached scandal phase. May still take years, but folks ---- this one has legs. Your man is going down. Let's face it folks, jr may think it's all the same but I will stack the last two Presidents: Clinton/Obama and Bush/Trump and tell you it is not the same. Not at all.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Did you all sign the Trump Pledge?

First Hundred Days Report (not that anything's important about 100 days except Trump told us 100 days was most important until he figured out that at 100 days he would look bad so he said 100 days is not important anymore, you know same story as taxes, just replace tax with 100 days): http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-promise-tracker-pledges-stand/story?id=44902688

Spoiler Alert: IN PROGRESS..... Except for SCOTUS, zippo.

Trump's 2020 campaign slogan: Just need another 1,460 days to MAGA

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Except Trump is not within the scope of any investigation by the FBI.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05-11-17%20Grassley%20Statement.pdf

In Trump’s letter to Comey he wrote: “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley told committee members at an executive meeting that he and Feinstein had met with Comey and were briefed on the targets of the various investigations.

“Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement,”

Feinstein - “I very much appreciate what you’ve said and it’s very accurate, and we were briefed.”

Grassley - "wild speculation that the FBI is targeting the president is “not just irresponsible and unfounded,” but also played into Russian goals to undermine the American public’s faith in democratic institutions."

skippy skippy
May '17

OMG!!! Trump gets TWO scoops while everyone else only gets ONE!!!

IMPEACH HIM !!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

One scoop for each man-boob... sounds fair.

ianimal ianimal
May '17

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/us-weekly-jobless-claims-may-6-2017.html

Unemployment Benefits Hit 28-Year Low - more lag result of Obama's economic policies - Only it took eight years and magically happened a few months after Trump took office.

skippy skippy
May '17

boob being the operative word

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

Give him all the ice cream. Maybe he'll drop dead sooner.

Tracy Tracy
May '17

Trumputin's latest tweet:

"Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future 'press briefings' and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???"

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

happiest girl
May '17

Nice to see that just one day after releasing a BS version of what led to Comey's firing, Trump has stated the real reason, more or less: he doesn't like him, and he especially doesn't like the Trump Campaign-Russia investigation.

Best for Trump to just leave the investigation be. If there's really nothing to it, it will just die on the vine.

Well, best for him if indeed there is nothing to it, of course.


I would tend to agree with you but have no confidence that it would resolve anything if the FBI marks it unfounded. It's like his taxes - if they were released today - would it resolve anything or would the derision move on to a new topic.

And Comey was fired for cause attributable to his performance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/09/james-comey-just-stepped-in-it-big-time/?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.2a41c62ad31c

skippy skippy
May '17

Yesterday a claim was made here that the news media is willfully publishing propaganda. The lead-in to this claim was the New York Times story that Comey had asked for more resources for the Russia investigation.

Here is an excerpt from today's New York Times, a day later:

"Days before he was fired, Mr. Comey had asked the Justice Department for more prosecutors to aid in the investigation, according to four congressional officials, including Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. Mr. McCabe was not asked on Thursday whether Mr. Comey had specifically sought more prosecutors, but he was asked whether Mr. Comey had requested additional resources more broadly.

Mr. McCabe said he was unaware of any such appeal.

“We don’t typically request resources for an individual case,” he said."

So yesterday's story has been attributed, in one case by name, and the lack of confirmation from McCabe fully reported.

This is willfully publishing propaganda?


Trump's favorite ice cream flavor?
mmmmmpeach....

Stymie Stymie
May '17

3 major news sources went to press with a similar invalidated story nearly simultaneously. watch the video and decide for yourself - they're playing semantics. The claim was Comey asked for more resources - the question was asked and answered - prosecutors which are a a US attorney resource not an FBI resource was never in question. The FBI conducts andinvestigation and the AG office determines the resources necessary to dedicate to a particular case.

skippy skippy
May '17

That's priceless, Stymie !!!!
But don't forget ..... 2 scoops!

mmmmmmpeach....
mmmmmmpeach....

happiest girl
May '17

jd2 --- you really can't blame the press, they got the story from the Russian Journalists who had been in the Oval Office with all sorts of electronic gear.

If you don't think Team Trump is not out there seeding fake news at every chance then you don't know Roger Stone.

Meanwhile, it's not the boobs Iman, it's da butt. Trump's hand to butt ratio is just off the charts. The man can not even fit into Hillary pants suits anymore.....

Ok OK ok, it's Friday ---- A pervert, a con artist, and a facist walk up to the bar to order a drink; the bartender says: "What'll it be Mr. President??

Tra-dump-trump-bump.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

OK,OK --- I know this is Hackettstown Life and we are supposed to be held to a high standard of forum decorum ----- but I know a really hilarious racist joke: Donald J. Trump ---- ba dumb Trump....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Funny stymie!

justintime justintime
May '17

Whats trumps favorite gum? Bigly chew

bunch of funny ones here

http://www.jokes4us.com/celebrityjokes/donaldtrumpjokes.html

skippy skippy
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

SNL --- Melissa Mccarthy -- Fake Trump will be watching Real Trump while cross-dressing Spicey will ride again. http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-melissa-mccarthy-ride-podium-through-nyc-as-spicey-w482088

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Does this guy define lard-ass or what.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Just want to share this, which is neither pro- nor anti-Trump, because it seems important to understand Trump right now, and it rings true to me:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/us/politics/election-is-over-but-trump-still-cant-seem-to-get-past-it.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The gist of it is that in his mind Trump won a great victory last November, but instead of getting unvarnished credit for it, people are pointing to the electoral college, or Comey, or the Russians, as reasons for his win. He seethes about it.

IMO: of course, he shouldn't let it bother him, but to be charitable, who doesn't have significant flaws?


Trying to silence more people - afraid of what they may know? http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/trump-asked-to-vet-sally-yatess-testimony-at-russia-hearing.html?mid=fb-share-di

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

Lol! He has a woman's booty!

positive positive
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

"The gist of it is that in his mind Trump won a great victory last November, but instead of getting unvarnished credit for it, people are pointing to the electoral college, or Comey, or the Russians, as reasons for his win. He seethes about it."


Can you blame him, the way the left is acting like a bunch of spoiled brat 2-year-olds who didn't get their way? The MSM fueling the fire 24-7? They're on a mission to make his presidency completely ineffectual, instead of giving him ANY KIND of chance. BTW- the electoral college isn't going anywhere.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Lol....Trump seems perfectly capabable of making his presidency ineffectual without any help from anyone!

Gadfly Gadfly
May '17

Agree that Trump's worst enemy is Trump himself. Disagree that the MSM is on a mission, though no doubt there are some individuals who like to stir things up (probably fewer in the main-stream than in other places).

Anyway, hasn't Trump ever heard the expression "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog"? It's part of the territory.


No one says Hillary won because she won the popular vote except you guys who love Trump. Most just say you should realize she won the popular vote where you feel it was some sort of yuge win with a Trump mandate. It was not and the inauguration proved it.

The only mandate Trump got was from Putin.

I say Trump is brought to you by the same folks who brought you Bush.

You got the house, you got the senate, i'm sorry, you are saying its the left that's making you ineffectual?

But keep on whining about giving your man a chance. Would that be a Comey chance? A Yates chance? Or how about all the folks Trump says he supports rigjt before he parks the bus over them.

Quit whining. You did the exact same thing to Obama. And at keast he tried to compromise.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Agreed - I sincerely wish someone would take his twitter away.

skippy skippy
May '17

Regardless of your political beliefs it is becoming increasingly clear that Trump is a lying snake and paranoid. He will make up facts, twist the truth and do anything to save himself. Soon people in his administration will start leaving because they can no longer defend him in good conscience and need to find work. Spicey will be the first to go one way or the other. Congressional repubs will abandon Trump especially those in the senate who cannot support his pathetic health plan and grow weary of his delusional temperament. Just wait and see what happens when Comey opens up about what really went down. Trump will become unhinged and a real embarrassment.


Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Well, he got one biggie done: he got the SCOTUS seat filled. I can live with that for the 1st 100 days, as that was a very important task. Healthcare is a farce, but it was under Obama too. No win/no loss there (as far as I'm concerned; but then I've been against the idea of nationalized healthcare from the beginning).

The wall/immigration will be a big one. I've seen reports that illegal immigration has dropped 70% since he took office... no idea how they can check such a thing, so no clue if it's a reliable/accurate number or not. The temporary travel ban is still in the courts, yet to be fully decided. And frankly, it won't matter, so long as there are no terrorist attacks on US soil, his supporters will be fine with it.

With Mattis and Gorsuch, he's got some stuff right. And if reports of 96% of Trump voters still support him can be believed, it seems the MSM is who has been ineffectual.

oh, sorry, forgot....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

I'm not sure ineffectual is the correct word anyway as that implies results based on one's perspective. The anti-anything-Trump hysteria has done a good job to limit a lot of what he wanted to do as well.

Besides, ineffectual is exactly what a lot of people want from this administration. Mission accomplished, job well done, right?

justintime justintime
May '17

"Besides, ineffectual is exactly what a lot of people want from this administration. Mission accomplished, job well done, right?"


That's certainly what I wanted from the Obama administration. The only difference between me back then, and these anti-Trumpers now, is that I actually accepted him as my president, as disgusted as I was, and wasn't protesting his election 3 months later. But I have learned alot over the last 3 administrations (24 years).... not much truly changes. Which is a good thing. Overall, the balance of power written into the design of our govt works... by keeping the govt on a relatively short leash (not short enough for me, but that's another story).

The republican congress stonewalling Obama his last 6 years, I said it at the time, is the way it's SUPPOSED to work. And if the democrats win enough seats to do the same to Trump in the next election and do the same thing, that's the way it's supposed to work. For better or worse. I'm not against compromise, but when neither side is willing to compromise, then stonewall. I actually feel better with the govt doing nothing than trying to do anything.

From the beginning I have been saying I am cautiously optimistic (about a Trump presidency), but will not be surprised if he just becomes another "swamp monster" like the rest of them. Very few seem immune to the contagion once elected.

Most presidential candidates are "swampers" before they even get there.... the last 4 presidents certainly were.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

"McConnell publicly on day 1 to obstruct. Boehner pledged no compromise"


And yet, one of the biggest pieces of legislation- BAD legislation- ever got passed: the ACA. WITHOUT EVEN BEING READ. (Pelosi is the biggest political disgrace I've ever seen, short of possibly Hillary Clinton. Obama isn't even CLOSE.)

But yeah- after that, they obstructed for sure.

As for the rest of your post, SD... it's illustrating my point: America is divided, and that's exactly how DC wants it. This "bring people together" is a load of BS. In the long run, nothing brings people together, because for some reason hating is more fun, or makes them feel like "they matter" more, or something. BOTH sides. And don't give me the "hating a hater isn't hate" crap either. Trump is no more a racist liar than Obama was a anti-Christian kenyan. There's an element of truth and of hysteria/propaganda in BOTH. Everyone has skeletons, DC hides them for the most part. Sometimes enough of them come out to change public opinion. I'm really starting to believe that the elections don't matter much: I have said before, and still believe, a successful Trump (or whoever the republican was) presidency cannot stop the car from going over the cliff; only slow it down.

Eventually, we will fall. It's just a matter of time. I think you know that. There's no way to sustain the debt we have and keep spending as we do. And I don't claim to have the answer- I don't believe anyone has the answer. Especially when you have top economists disagreeing on how bad/good things are and how to go about turning it around (not unlike the climate change debate.)

The pendulum is swinging right...as it should.... because that's the only way to keep balance. It's a shame that "2 sides hating each other, and each other getting 8 years at the wheel" is the best system we could come up with. But there it is. The left doesn't want to "bring everyone together" unless everyone THINKS LIKE THEY DO. And the right is much the same. The libertarians are out in the desert, because not many have caught up to us yet. THAT, imo, is the only way out of this mess: the libertarian ideas would piss off and take power from BOTH sides. Can't have that.

So buckle up for 2 years of Trump trying to accomplish what he promises, and the RIGHT putting sticks in his wheels, along with the left and the press crying bloody murder. In the next congressional election, we'll see how well the MSM's agenda against Trump has worked, and maybe you'll get back control of the house or senate. Then we'll have gridlock for another 6 years.

Lather. Rinse. repeat.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

JR..."caught up to us yet"?? Thanks for the Monday morning guffaw...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/how-to-quickly-prove-a-li_b_2288230.html


http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an_ethical_critique_of_a_limited_ideology/

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

...because HuffPo and Salon are SO objective and "centered" ROFLMAO Why not just include MSNBC and PBS in there? LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

A person can claim to be a libertarian without necessarily making them a libertarian. Much less a Trump-voting, Trump-supporting libertarian who somehow feels Trump will help them obtain their goals..... Just because someone says Ayn Rand does not mean they actually read the books.

Same person that lament about MSM as we factually pick apart his sources to the point where upon occasion we have been requested to look past the lies to determine the nuggets of facts that might be included.... At least we read them jr. You just discount based on the source before you even read them and comment.

Same person that feels all parties are the same, all politicians are the same, and that Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama are worse than Trump. He makes the same old tired cry about reading the ACA ---- but has no issues with the process for the AHCA.... At least the ACA had compromises in it. At least the ACA worked, and worked well, for a while ----- and still works today, just not perfect.

And I am sorry ---- after 8 years, what did your side come up with? How was that lawmaking process? Lots of inclusion by many stakeholders?

Somehow you are not only OK with what's going on, but you support it. I am sorry but Ivanka, Jared, and Donald Trump running the country is not the same as Obama, Pelosi, and ------ at this point I am not sure why you even care --- but Clinton -----both of them (since you are not specific). I am sorry if you think Trump is supporting your conservative, republican or libertarian ideals, principles, or policies. Keep supporting whatever it is you are supporting.

I heard a better description of what's going on and how it is different from the past. Trump is like our pilot who consistently turns the plane into turbulence. As the plane gyrates and the citizens are tossed about, Trump blames the crew for his situation. Buckle up buttercup.

And then you spend your time waiting and preparing for you fabled end that you do not advocate or support but are fully armed, ready and waiting for your inevitable demise. Sweet life. Sweet indeed.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

A)-reduce mortgage deduction write off gradually from it's current million down to maybe $500k over time.
B)-means test for SS
C)-slowly raise the age for collecting SS- when plan was formed Ave life expectancy was approx. 55, now it's 84.
D)- no way we should be spending more on defense than the next 20 countries COMBINED. And some of them are our friends.
And finally,
E)-EVERYONE. Pays some sort of income tax. Must have at least a
Little skin in the game.
All of the above is kind of common sense.
Unfortunately, we either don't vote, or continue to vote for politicians that have chosen government as a self enriching career path with little, if any, concern for the well being of our "great experiment".

Stymie Stymie
May '17

What's with the fascination with labels YF?

The first article doesn't even know what libertarian means and as such got most of it's pre-drawn conclusions wrong. The second is much better IMO, but also falls into the trap of labels.

The basic premise that you are aghast at is 1) no one owns you, and 2) do no harm. Everything else stems from there.

Evil concepts, huh?

justintime justintime
May '17

I could go with that stymie

skippy skippy
May '17

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." Yeah, I would say leaving the concept of community out of your principles might be considered evil to some. Sure strikes a mean cord to me. I like the idea of investing in a government that attempts to lift all boats with a rising tide.

Go to the libertarian platform. Search, community, charity, compassion, pooling of resources, common interest, or government sponsored.... The true libertarian spirit is KMAYOYO. And that's OK, but no way to run our country IMO.

IMO a few good ideas, good directional principles, and a lot of actual concepts bound to fail in the light of day.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" That's the preamble which specifies not one libertarian principle that I can see....Shoot, are those the words united, union, common, general, ourselveS and posterity? Where's the freakin individual in that?

Sure, there's lots in the Constitution to support libertarian principles. There's just not a overarching vision to do only that. Therein lies the rub for libertarians forcing them to drop their own candidate and accept Trump as "getting closer to our ideals than the alternative." For me, I am glad they are with us. That they push back against over-the-top community entitlements is great. But supporting Trump because he's not Hillary or because his cutting is sort of like supporting individual rights, just seems disingenuous to their true ideals but hey --- to each their own.

Historically, in a libertarian world we might be without: national parks, libraries, state universities, public education, hoover dam, TVA, Mississippi levee system, and Great Meadows BP toxic waste dump clean up. Might have to be like Darrin living next to toxicity waiting for a capitalist to snatch it up to turn a profit because unless Darrin sues the owner for environmental damages, ain't no government gonna force them to clean it up. Uh oh ---- that capitalist was deemed worse than the toxicity......

Nope, I like the checks and balances the libertarians provide but think living in their world would be a disaster.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

IMOP. The unequal justice system is the basic problem. In my day you could pretty much predict what a court would rule because the 10 commandments were the basic rules of life by most citizens. It was just a goal. Today it's different strokes for different folks, that's part of the division that's overlooked,whether it's in politics or business.

Old Gent Old Gent
May '17

Since comedy is what's used to represent reality, here's some more (not from the Onion lol)

https://m.townhall.com/political-cartoons/2017/05/11/150395

justintime justintime
May '17

Jr, instead of attacking the sources, which is your basic go- to reply, why not try attacking the points in the articles? Enlighten those of us who still haven't caught up.

JIT, same point...labels are labels...if the articles aren't accurate or are debatable, why not discuss?

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

Are you honestly picking on the libertarians ? The Democratic Party is currently testifying in open court that their whole primary process is meaningless political theater. The DNC used public funds to conduct those sham primaries. That's a problem.

They also took donation money under false pretenses essentially scamming voters all the while violating their own charter.

skippy skippy
May '17

"Jr, instead of attacking the sources, which is your basic go- to reply,"


Sorry YF- it's just a lesson I learned from YOUR side LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Skippy...inviting a dialogue is "picking on libertarians"?

And JR, with a witty variation on the "yeah but your guys" gambit.

JIT as usual in the ether with (I guess) an attack on comedy in general.

You guys are just like the Marx brothers...minus the humor and wit.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Interesting read from Ann Coulter (and I really think you lefties should read it, because it's not what you think it is)

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/14/ann-coulter-is-worried-the-trump-haters-were-right/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Jr with his third grade no-its-you argument. I done wrong but so did you on another topic, another time, so I am right.

But Skippy.... Me picking :) ?? You'll know when I do. I like your "but your side did something wrong one time too you know and that's the real problem" defense of the libertarians. So much for individual responsibility :-) With 123 pages of support, that might be a record. Of course, the case is not at trial, much less adjudicated, and is currently facing dismissal. That's before you find a passage in your 123 pages to support these paraphrased allegations taken out of context.

Its a wrap :-)

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

I'm not a lefty but okay, I read it anyway. I don't know - what an abysmal site this Daily Caller seems to be. That's my takeaway.


LOL your takeaway from an Ann Coulter interview is the website it was posted on was abysmal... ok.... nothing like missing the forest for the trees....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Possibly the most rational words I've ever heard from Coulter. Except for the Gary Cooper line. Trump is like Gary Cooper? Right. And Pence is Clark Gable. Bannon is Jimmy Stewart.
That aside, if a rabid supporter like Coulter is verbalizing buyer's remorse publically, what then is his base feeling?

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

"That aside, if a rabid supporter like Coulter is verbalizing buyer's remorse publically, what then is his base feeling?"


That is the million dollar question. And maybe to take it further- who are they BLAMING? Trump? Or the establishment (even his own party) who has worked against him since the primaries? (I don't know, I'm seriously asking...) Do they feel "the swamp" is the problem (which would be akin to the lefties blaming the republican congress for everything Obama couldn't get done), or are they blaming Trump himself?

On the other hand, I believe Trump's base also agrees with her when she says "we had no choice", which is correct- Hillary was NO choice. But then I've been saying this was another "lesser of 2 evils" election from the beginning.

In any event, a very interesting read.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

YF -You're not inviting a dialog your are engaging in your usual "drive by snarky" behavior - you have no interest in debate as you have repeatedly tolld all of us were stupid and gullible.

SD - I agree nothing will come of it. Do you not care that The DNC has stated that the Dem voters have no guarantee or even an expectation of impartiality in their primaries?

skippy skippy
May '17

Trump is the main thing working against Trump. His wounds are mostly self inflicted by a thin-skinned little paranoid who must demand blind loyalty to get anything done. Screwball thinks ratings more important than governing, marketing more important than results

That combined with a Republican party not expecting to rule and a Tea Party too inexperienced to govern.

And absolutely zero attempt to work across the aisle except for blaming, shaming, and foul-mouth naming.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

I'm sorry, Trump told the Russians what? Did the photographers get a picture for Pravda?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Lol - yeah stuff is pretty nuts at the moment I have no excuses

skippy skippy
May '17

Gee Skipper, based on your presence on nearly every single HL thread, I would have thought you lived for dialogue.

And now for something completely different...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/business/dealbook/a-whistle-blower-tells-of-health-insurers-bilking-medicare.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer= https://t.co/EtsJezfWC2

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

"And absolutely zero attempt to work across the aisle except for blaming, shaming, and foul-mouth naming."


You shouldn't talk about the left that way, SD, it's not very .... tolerant.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Here's the latest from Trump's niblet mind:

Trumputin the moron thinks exercise is bad because it depletes the *limited energy* of a person. !!!!!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-thinks-exercise-bad-depletes-limited-energy-195234796.html

happiest girl
May '17

SD or YF if you want to debate or talk I'm your guy.

What's your opinion on defrauding Medicare YF I'm vehemently against it ?

skippy skippy
May '17

LOL Skipper. Bet you're for puppies and rainbows as well.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

That's a lie jr.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Going to be a hot one today. And I don't mean the weather.

Donald J Trump has betrayed America. He has put agents in place with ISIS at risk. He has broken America's promise to an ally, exposing the allies actions and people. He did this to befriend the Russians. I believe in Donald J Trump's own words, he is no longer fit to be president.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

"JIT, same point...labels are labels...if the articles aren't accurate or are debatable, why not discuss?"

Discussion is wonderful YF, but that's not why you posted the links. You posted them to say "look how bad libertarians are". And of course you chose two people who firmly believe(d) in being in the libertarian bucket to make your case, two folks that take the fundamental elements to an extreme. Very much like neocons or progressives I'd add.

But surely the world doesn't work that way. No one who puts themselves willingly into any bucket agrees with everything in that bucket - they just happen to find that they can relate to that bucket more than the others.

So for the discussion, let's talk starting points and baselines.

Republicans: Rule by force, use the government to implement laws and policies that reflect the things they want in life - the government is a way to coerce individual and collective benefit.

Democrats: Rule by force, use the government to implement laws and policies that reflect the things they want in life - the government is a way to coerce collective and individual benefit.

Libertarians: Rule by consensus, as long as the actions stemming from that consensus do not bring harm to others - the government, as it is really just an instrument of force, exists on the sidelines to ensure civil behavior of the citizenry and not as a personal or collective piggy bank.

From there everyone goes off in various directions, some taking extreme views while others are more benign. So using articles taking a baseline to an extreme view is a bit more than just discussion IMO.

justintime justintime
May '17

"JIT as usual in the ether with (I guess) an attack on comedy in general.

You guys are just like the Marx brothers...minus the humor and wit."

If you think comedy is somehow related to intelligent discourse then perhaps you should lay off The Onion for a while and expose yourself to more stimulating reading material ;-)

justintime justintime
May '17

"That's a lie jr."


Really?
"it's Bush's fault that Obama has such a hard row to hoe." (blame)
"it's the republicans fault Obama can't keep his promises" (blame)
"if you voted for Trump you are a sexist, racist, misogynist" (name calling/shaming)

...and I'll leave out the part about Trump voters being beaten and tortured...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Trump is just practicing for the real lies ahead in the Middle East politics...


Sorry, can see where you might have mislead yourself --- should have said: "And absolutely zero attempt (by Trump) to work across the aisle except for blaming, shaming, and foul-mouth naming" for the comprehension challenged :>) I would have figured you would have conclude that, but apparently not. Reading comprehension, sigh....

"it's Bush's fault that Obama has such a hard row to hoe." (blame)"
Blame --- really? How about reality check... And nothing to do with whether Obama worked across the aisle, Trump shooting himself in the foot --again and again, or unready/inexperienced Republicans/Tea Party Congresspeople

"it's the republicans fault Obama can't keep his promises" (blame)
I think you basically repeat yourself when under stress, repeat yourself when under...

"if you voted for Trump you are a sexist, racist, misogynist" (name calling/shaming)
Again, you must listen carefully. It's if you are a sexist, racist, misogynist (and a few more deplorable descriptions) you voted for Trump. Again, you got it totally bass ackwards.

So leaving that 800 lb beyond-the-Big-C gorilla on table oh Trump supporters? Guess you didn't figure draining the swamp meant getting us all killed eh? Or building a great wall just by being the most untrustworthy developed nation to partner with. Heck, we won't even cancel all current deals, we'll sell out your country's security ---- and ours too.

Gee, you all seemed to get more upset when Hillary was alleged to have the little c on her home email server. Not a peep for a code-word level security breach to the Russians direct from the Oval Office with Russian Press coverage?

I heard Spicey raised his hand to keep Kelly Anne Hideaway and Steve Bannon company in the basement.

THANK GOD FOR THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. (Now the Number 2 fans know why they are in second place :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Actually, there is no doubt that comedy is intelligent discourse...think Chaplin, Oscar Wilde, George Carlin, Woody Allen...I think Tina Fey had it right when she said "you can tell how smart people are by what they laugh at".

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/feb/11/science-comedy-academics-social

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

Any thoughts on the Seth Rich story? Seems like a private investigator is trying to say he was the one who leaked the DNC emails to wilileaks.

skippy skippy
May '17

Did some reading - All law enforcement agencies involved, as well as his family insists that the story about Rich leaking Information to wiki leaks is FAKE NEWS. I think that's pretty accurate - as much as I would like to dismiss the Russia narrative

skippy skippy
May '17

Whatever happened to the Obama "wiretapping" scandal. Those were the good old days.

Road Trip. Got furners to see, hands to shake too long, top secrets to share, dictators to love, guns to give away and lies to tell. So many lies. So little time.

Wonder how my trip will make America great?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Incompetent at best, treasonous at the worst. No surprises here. I think it was pretty obvious to most this is how it would turn out but folks were "fingers crossed" hoping it would be okay. Well it's not okay, not by a long shot. Eventually, hopefully, the republicans will acknowledge and act on the fact that our president is an incompetent, not credible, lying douchebag who hopes to one day be a dictator.


I want to fire any police officer, who just happens to be investigating me. I pay the taxes, for their salaries, right? So... since I'm their boss, oops... wait I can't. Only King Trump can display such behavior. Trump is such an idiot. The stuff he says and the way he behaves, one can't make this stuff up. I watch his rants and lies, before Fox, can get a hold of them for chopping and spinning. "Mr. Policeman, you wrote me a ticket, so YOU'RE FIRED!" Wouldn't that be a hoot, huh?

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
May '17

"Blame --- really? How about reality check..."


And there it is... the "reality" of the left's blinders-on, hypocritical, the-left-is-always-right-the-right-is-always-wrong, mentality. The MSM has trained you well, young Sith.

It was always Bush's fault. It's was always the republican congress fault. Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton, never did anything wrong. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.

As I have shown time and again, your entire argument, built on your expert skill level of spin (and you are an expert) is "I reject reality and substitute my own." It's called confirmation bias, and you've got the worst case I've ever seen.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Well...another day, another JR "but your guys"...rant.

Meanwhile, The Onion gets the scoop of the day:

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-i-am-very-stupid-human-being-56024

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

It really amazes me that this Comey nonsense is being discussed at all. Trump said he HOPES the investigation could end. He didn't order anything. If Trump obstructed justice back in February by what he said, then Comey is in trouble as well for not reporting it. This is just another example of the MSM going nuts over nothing. They don't like what Trump says about them so they're going out of their way to try to bring the guy down. I don't know how any of you can support the garbage these people report. If this is considered obstruction then what do you call thousands of Hillary emails being deleted? Or what do you call Bill Clinton having a discussion with Loretta Lynch? The hypocrisy is mind numbing...

I don't know if anyone watched Fox last night. I got a kick out of the video of the CNN anchor talking down to a veteran for saying anything about their "stellar reporters".... These people live in a bubble....

Metsman Metsman
May '17

Jeffreb- maybe we should let the
3,000,000 fraudulent voters decide his fate?
( approx. the same number trump lost the popular vote by)- coincidence- I think not.

Stymie Stymie
May '17

Not sure what you're getting at Stymie? Trump's boisterous claims of voter fraud don't matter in either direction... he won the electoral college, and that's how you win the presidency. 3 million fraudulent democrat votes (according to him)- and he still won. Do you have a point?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

"I reject reality and substitute my own."

You realize this is EXACTLY what YOUR president does, literally every time he opens his mouth, right?

Tracy Tracy
May '17

Hey Tracy- he's YOUR president too, like it or not ;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Besides, with today's MSM, "reality" means nothing. They CREATE reality. So shut up and let the MSM tell you what to think!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

An interesting exchange on the morning news. The anchor mentioned to a senator that the FBI had recently stated that there had been no interference in the investigation. So how can they now say that there was. The person being interviewed answered with, "I feel." You don't get to "feel." Why can't we just get true "facts" and not mysterious sources? Whichever way it goes.

maja2 maja2
May '17

Yes I do.
I believe I am able to realistically inventory a politican's weaknesses, character flaws and truthfulness despite party affiliation.
You'd be taken more seriously if you took the time and care to develop this talent.
I'm convinced you have it in you.

Stymie Stymie
May '17

Stymie, you're as funny as the Little Rascals.

You're kind of new here in these political threads, so you've apparently missed the fact (that I have repeated MANY times), that I have never been a Trump fan. He was not my 1st choice, I saw him as the lesser of 2 evils, and still do. Now that we have that out of the way...

I don't believe in political parties (something else I have said over & over). I am primarily a libertarian. Neither party speaks for me. While both sides are guilty of head-in-the-sand, blind-party-loyalty, and hypocrisy, it is the left/democrats who are the reigning kings of that particular attribute right now. I'm merely pointing that out in these threads. I'm not defending Trump, if he's guilty, he's guilty. But we're going to ned ACTUAL evidence, and a trial/impeachment, to actually FIND him guilty. Until then, he's innocent. That's the way our legal system works... unfortunately, that's not the way our mainstream media works (unless you're a democrat.)

Stick around awhile, Stymie... maybe you'll learn something.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

I can't wait until the next democrat president... it'll be all "it's Trump's fault!" "Trump left them a mess!" And I'll get to say...

"this thread isn't about Trump" ROFLMAO

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

here's how the National Review puts it: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447698/trump-character-flaws-insecurity-arrogance-harm-agenda

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

Jeffrepub
Pink Floyd:
"Your lips move, but I can't hear a thing".

Stymie Stymie
May '17

Stymie:

and THAT is your problem. Good luck with your fingers in your ears.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Wow...jr says it is I who lives in an alternate reality.

He does this, this time, because I opened a discussion about Trump working against Trump, Republicans not ready to rule, Tea Party too inexperienced to govern and absolutely zero attempt to work across the aisle. I still stand by that and think that's our reality.

jr's thoughtful retort (sarcasm alert) in his defense of his hero Trump, was that Obama's problems were caused by Bush, it's Republicans fault that Obama can't keep promises, and if you voted for Trump you are deplorable.

I responded with a clarification and I noted that jr's defense of Trump, and the stuff he had noted, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I brought up suggesting a reality check......

Jr comes back with a nice description of the left, I guess aimed at me, saying I have "blinders-on, hypocritical, the-left-is-always-right-the-right-is-always-wrong, mentality" ending with saying I am the MSM's stooge and a young Sith. Both untrue and it's "young Padawan" unless you are really trying to demean. Then JR doubles down on his rant that we blame Bush, Republican Congress and the left holds Clinton(s), Obama perfect ---- again, none of which is actually true in reality. And how the heck did Hillary sneak in again ---- jr you rascally rabbit, you got a thang on her, don't you. Aren't you the leader of the "he won, let it go" faction?

So jR has doubled-down on his tangential triad of still unsupported arguments, all of which have nothing to do with my comments to begin with. As jr adds a little name calling for spice, he concludes, again without facts, that is all about my expert spin, my rejection of reality and my confirmation bias. Man, jr must think I am a really messed up person for having different views.

I suggest, on this one, that it's JR who has lost his grip on reality and it is JR who is living in his own self-created alt-right world as a fake libertarian.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

That's a good article from the NR. I only hope when the next dem president with "character flaws" (the Clintons, anyone???) is elected, the dems will as be intellectually honest with themselves as the NR is being and call a spade a spade.

But I doubt it.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Summing up ---- yeah, I agree the anonymous sources, unsourced documents, etc. is vexing but it's the President. It takes awhile, there is a process. It is weird too that Comey did not come forward after the famed dinner admonition, however, this might be a case where he demurred, figured it was a teachable moment, and gave Trump a Mulligan on his misspeak. Until Comey testifies.....

Remember, this is a President who responds to different opinions and challenge by his own team by firing anyone raising their hand. If you are not on his team, he might even come after your family accusing them of all sorts of heinous deeds. He fired his own acting AG just for warning him about Flynn, he fired his oft-congratulated FBI head for investigating him, and he regularly requests loyalty oaths like a dictator. You have to dump your personal cell phone data to work in the White House. Whenever under pressure, he blames his own staff for everything; even for what is clearly of Trump's own making. He regularly throws his most favored and loyal team members under the bus in a heartbeat with absolutely zero heads-up. He runs the country like a Mafia Don runs his gang. So sure ---- I can understand anonymity.

And this is just the first 100 days without a real national emergency yet.

So, of course it comes in first in sketchy stories issued through anonymous leakers. As the traitorous tsunami builds, the Red Wall will weaken as men of principle put country before party. Or they have a tough election coming up :>) And as the Red Wall weakens, the subpoenas will fly, testimonies will move up the food chain, and the real truth ---- which is probably nothing that we are talking about will come out.

Clinton, for all the money and time, got it on lie about hitting a bopper in a case about the alleged harassment of another woman. But we all know what he really did: wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Chances are, Trump will get it the same way but Trump will not get though it, he will resign before the sword plunges home. We will then know the truth, but Trump will be afforded the chance to step down before the truth is nailed to his head.

Lesson learned Duckman: don't dump on the FBI unless you are damned sure your Ducks is in a row.....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

JeffRep.
Your credibility has evaporated like piss on hot pavement.
BTY- you do know that displaying the American flag upside down is a breach of flag etiquette just as wearing it as a jacket or a blouse or a piece of clothing. But I'm sure you know that.
Obviously, you're set in your ways and live your life wearing blinders and with a closed mind.
Guess I'll have to be satisfied with watching Donald Jerome's legacy circle the drain.

Stymie Stymie
May '17

"DJ you dirty guy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy8vj85JCb8

Finally DJ has found a way to drain the swamp! Circle on, DonJer, circle on.

Too many rookie mistakes. Parents take note: don't let your kids tell you what to do :>) Trump can be an outsider, a maven of business; we need experience in the wheelhouse -- not rubes Ivanka and Jared. Somewhere in the wheelhouse.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

A couple of things....

First --- look to different Trump business concerns which are LLCs. I don't think they line-item report to Trump's financial submission, our only glimpse into Trump dollars. They also don't drop to Trump's income, if we could see his taxes, so are not easy to determine where the money is. This is where the greatest likelihood of Russian investment and potential Russian mob money laundering might exist.

Just saying in the "follow the money" quest which will be the bottom line in all this, the LLCs are the great unwashed trove of financial malfeasance.

Second, one thing really lost in all this self-inflicted scandal is what the heck are we doing in the rest of the world. There seems to be a news blackout regarding our troops actively fighting the war on terrorism. Remember when that was covered by the news? Now I think Trump has gotten the military to clamp down a news blackout.

What we know is Trump has ratchetted up the number of bombing sorties; the risk factors to permit bombs to be dropped has been lowered by Trump, and more bombs are dropping in more places --- military and civilian alike, We also know that Trump is actively using SEALS as the first strike capability in numerous different theatres even in Yemen and Somalia again with lower risk factors to engagement and a corresponding uptick in civilian casualties.

But we don't know how much and where.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Trump finally tells the truth.

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-i-am-very-stupid-human-being-56024

happiest girl
May '17

There's a name for his condition - the Dunning Kruger Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, by mistakenly assessing their ability as greater than their actual capability."

alpha1beta alpha1beta
May '17

Stymie,

You ARE new here... LOL

Do your own homework on flag etiquette.

"It is flown upside down only as a distress signal."
http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html

I feel the country is in great distress. Obama, Hillary, or Trump- no matter. The country is in great distress. Besides, I figure if you democrat liberals say it's OK to burn the flag and step on it "because freedom of speech!", well then I can fly it upside down in reference to actual flag etiquette, even if perhaps I am taking a SMALL liberty with the statute, being the country and not my person that is in distress. but then... "because freedom of speech!" ROFL


...I'm starting to think you are OldRed in Stymie clothing...LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Funny you mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect alpha1beta. I've considered mentioning that several times in the past but realized it applies not only to Trump but to many others as well.

justintime justintime
May '17

"Obviously, you're set in your ways and live your life wearing blinders and with a closed mind."

I'm not sure the of the specific reference to this comment but I will add that the vast majority, close to 100% of us, all have some sort of blinders on. This observation is based on the simple fact that everyone is different with different life experiences and therefore have varied perspectives from which to view the world. You're using the phrase derogatorily, but just know that, like everyone else, you've got your own set biases that shape your outlook.

Regarding Trump, if he didn't say or do something stupid every day that has contributed to the mass anti-Trump hysteria then the current dialog would (I'd hope) be more reasoned and thoughtful rather than purely emotional.

justintime justintime
May '17

JeffRep.
Finding a loophole or an exemption?
Typical.....

Stymie Stymie
May '17

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-former-fbi-director-robert-mueller-1495058507-htmlstory.html

Grand juries are already underway and Assistant A.G. Rosenstein made the decision to empower a special counsel in re Russia investigation.

skippy skippy
May '17

Special Counsel Mueller sounds like an excellent move. Should let this issue die down until he comes up with something or closes the matter with no charges. Maybe we can all be happy about this. :)


That's my hope

"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that prosecution is warranted," Rosenstein said. "I have made no such determination."

Rosenstein said that “based on the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

So it appears that this is starting off with a clean slate and the special counsel has independence which is key.

skippy skippy
May '17

+1 jd2

justintime justintime
May '17

What the "other" MSM is saying about poor Donald...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/trump-scandal-conservatives-media.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

" I've considered mentioning that several times in the past but realized it applies not only to Trump but to many others as well." Otherwise it wouldn't be an effect now would it? :>)

"contributed to the mass anti-Trump hysteria then the current dialog would (I'd hope) be more reasoned and thoughtful rather than purely emotional." Speaking of emotional --- hysteria? And running on pure emotion... Well that's what the alt right likes to say.

So the special prosecutor is about quelling hysteria? I like the decision because it shows we are still a nation built on the rule of law and a President can not fire the guy investigating him.

Of course Mueller is a good choice, sort like Comey redux :>) Will slow things done a bit as he reconfigures. Probably won't be any leaks. Rosenstein, probably with Session's advice, did the right thing; otherwise his career looked limited and Sessions seems to have some regard for his own legacy. I think both made the decision, wrote the orders, and then called Trump :>)

And, of course, the President can still fire Mueller. Of course, Muller has to see Rosenstein, Sessions, to expand or take new directions and, of course, they will call Trump and, of course, while both have done the right thing, they both have also knuckled their principles under on other Trump actions.

All I can say folks is 120 days in and boy oh boy have you got smoke. Turns out Flynn architected some US/Turkey policy in Turkey's favor during his short stay as Foreign Agent In Charge of National Security. Hope the special prosecutor concludes the Obama Trump Tower Wiretapping investigation at the same time...... And then find out if Ted Cruz's father killed Kennedy, whether healthcare is better in Australia, and whether Muslims were cheering in NJ.

Trump resigns in 6.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Back to the issues. Posted is a nice comparison between TrumpCare (boooo) and ObamaCare (yeaaaaaaa) that I say is unbiased :>) and I am not bitter :<(

Click the link on existing conditions to see how the AHCA can allow states to skirt the cover-existing-conditions mandate.

Easy to understand.

Note: the math is pretty simple --- less money = less benefits or less benefits = less money. If you don't need the benefit, you save money. If you need the benefit, you're screwed. Point is it's a gamble. To save money, you pull yourself out of the pool. As all the healthy leave the pool, the remaining unfortunates have to cover pre-existing conditions with no healthy contribution higher profits to level out the additional costs of actually being sick. Instead of covering us, it creates the us versus them where the heathy save money and the others can't afford medical even if they can afford insurance. Taken to extremes, one could see the day where every person gets a custom contract with payments based on current health. Insurance for the individual. Ayn Rand would be proud. Except that's like not having insurance at all. Mission accomplished!

https://trumpcare.com/trumpcare-vs-obamacare/

Enjoy the comparison. The AHCA sucks; fix the ACA instead.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

So besides the fact the guy's a big doo-doo head, what, precisely, are the legal grounds for impeachment? No emotional stuff please like personal dislike/disdain/hatred etc, just the legal stuff along with the documented *proof* that's the basis for impeachment. Thanks.

justintime justintime
May '17

6 what?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Actually.....look up impeachment. It's got that oblique "high crimes or misdemeanors" which sounds like a pretty high bar however that's in light of the President's official execution of duties and did they betray the public trust? Now just about anything fits if you can prove betrayal of the public trust.

And then there's two steps in the "legal" process (or one more chance to resign before the guillotine falls). House impeaches, Senate convicts. That's how Clinton slipped the noose ---- just read the Senate votes and hung in there.

First point is they can do it for all most anything if they are united and committed. I mean sperm on a dress is not exactly high crimes but might be a high misdemeanor in some books. Second point is probably would never go to final ---- Trump will resign with some carefully crafted weasel words before the conviction comes in.

And I was really joking when I said Trump in 6. This is a Quixotic quest at best. However, based on Watergate Speed, if it continues at the current Trump-tweet pace ----->: Trump in 6. Or more accurate, Pence in 6. And then God help us. Pence actually has experience. And I can't watch him without thinking about that German Tank Battalion General in the Battle of the Bulge movie. He teutonically scares me :>)

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Who said the special counsel (he's not a prosecutor) was about quelling hysteria - it's about putting these accusations to rest. You're spinning it already

skippy skippy
May '17

Sorry Skippy perhaps I was channeling when JIT said: "Regarding Trump, if he didn't say or do something stupid every day that has contributed to the mass anti-Trump hysteria then the current dialog would (I'd hope) be more reasoned and thoughtful rather than purely emotional" OK, so we have anti-Trump hysteria that's sometimes purely emotional rather than thoughtful.

Then jd2 added "Special Counsel Mueller sounds like an excellent move. Should let this issue die down until he comes up with something or closes the matter with no charges."

To wit JIT added: "+1 jd2"

Was it that yuge a leap to conclude: "So the special prosecutor is about quelling hysteria?" with a question mark indicating, of all things, that it is a question. A theoretical. Especially since I am not in the MSM-fake-news-promotes-leftist-outbreaks-of-emotional-behavior crowd

+1 YF ---- MSM nailed it again.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

In my opinion, there is also the very real possibility that he'll simply resign. None of the kids wanna play nice with him. No kid at the daycare has EVER been treated so badly. Besides, daycare is really much harder than he thought it would be. No one knew how hard. Epic. Yuge.

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

"Pence in 6. And then God help us"


See, this is what I don't get- Pence DOES have experience, DOES know how things work... you get Pence, he's likely to buddy up with the GOP, which returns everything to business as usual... and because he's more willing to "get with the program", he might actually be able to get some of Trump's stuff passed that TRUMP can't get passed (DC is still pissed Trump even won- even his own party.)

Be careful what you wish for...

I think some of these liberals think if they can prove Russia somehow tampered with the election, with Trump's collaboration, not only can they get Trump impeached, but they can get the election results voided and have another election... or perhaps just "give it" to Hillary, since she won the popular vote. It's not gonna' happen folks. Pick your poison: Trump or Pence.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Here's my prediction:

Chances of Trump getting impeached = 0%


Sure, Democrats will make a lot of noise, and even if ALL of them vote for impeachment they are still 20 votes shy in the House (will that many Republicans flip? not likely...)

Assuming they clear that hurdle (just to get the articles referred to the Senate), Democrats will again be 19 votes shy to "convict" any of the articles referred to them.

That's all depending on the impeachment articles even making it out of the House committee that would draft them... (assuming it's the judiciary committee where R's outnumber D's, 11 to 9).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '17

Policy wise I prefer Trump to Pence. I want to get rid of the incompetent Trump, and will just have to live with Pence. Trump is an embarrassment; I don't think Pence will be.

MrCharlie
May '17

Reagan was attacked nonstop by the media. He pulled through with non stop "special counsel" investigating him ad nauseam for seven years...nothing found to the tune of ~$80 million of taxpayer money.

Many people liberal and conservative alike, think the government is corrupt, they've been calling for change for over decade. Trump - a pretty much life long democrat runs on the premise that he will be that change - remember the Republicans didn't want him.

Did anyone really think that the media, intelligence "deep state" and politicians who are invested in the status quo would react well to this? Of course he is loathed and demonized I don't think Trump expected anything less.

Clinton sold 20% of our uranium to Russia. Main stream media runs with cat videos.

John Podesta receives 100,000 shares of Rusano and Joule russian-backed stocks. Main stream media is silent - reports kid in pumpkin field likes turtles.

skippy skippy
May '17

Or then again, he may just be a rotten guy who has done some very bad things.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

"Of course he is loathed and demonized I don't think Trump expected anything less."

I think he expected to be praised and admired, starting with one of the greatest election wins in history (in his mind).


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
want more sources - and there are plenty - that say this is bs http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

JD2 -Well that certainly was not a reasonable expectation for how he ran his campaign- I just watched "get me Roger stone" on Netflix- if you watch it I think it may change your view on that.

4cat - the times said it was real - that's my point there's so many conflicting reports you really need to look at the news with a critical eye


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

SD that's why we have a special counsel appointed we're going to find out - clear or impeach.

skippy skippy
May '17

Whatever the truth about the uranium story, why not give credit to the New York Times? It looks like they unearthed it. Isn't the NYT considered part of the "main-stream media" by the folks who are always complaining about it?


They're actually pretty good - as I have discussed before they correct themselves when they are wrong

skippy skippy
May '17

The uranium is really old debunking. I can understand Skippy being in an alt-right frame of.mind might get sloppy but I thought Trump was a smart guy who is surrounded by brilliant people. Could he be the source of fake news.

And why are you boys still fascinated by Hillary. Obama was Trumps job peer

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

Religion trip... We are supposed to be secular so this is the first foreign trip for the current President? Anyway, look forward to some laughs. BTW, he should go to India for the over 1 billion Hindus too...


Sorry, India probably out.
tRUMP has no hotels there and Ivanka no shoe factories paying subhuman wages.

Stymie Stymie
May '17

Just an example GC and she was his opponent in the race - HRC would be in that seat now if Trump lost so it's relevant.

skippy skippy
May '17

but but but "this thread isn't about Hillary" ROFL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

He wants to review Israel's wall that he says has been so, so successful. Rumor has it he is trying to do the same thing to Make American Great Again but it's really complex and much more difficult than he ever imagined when he told us he knew exactly what to do and how to do it ------ remember, he's in construction.

It is true that the Israeli wall is great at keeping Mexicans out of Isreal.

Trump will learn how the Israeli's cleverly built the wall just over the boarder annexing parts of the West Bank. Israel took 10% of the West Bank on this deal. Eureka!!! That's how Trump can get Mexico to help fund the wall ---- just put it a mile into Mexico and steal their land! It's just like his "take the oil" practice for the Middle East wars we will be entering. Excellent. Profitable trip, good deal!!!

And like Israel, after we build the wall, we can face the condemnation of The Red Cross, Amnesty International, World Council of Churches, and 150 nations. That's nothing to our alt-fact-in-chief to handle --- he's got plenty of stories for that. Who cares about something about the Geneva Convention. Here's a weird one: Republicans hate the Israeli wall, Democrats understand ---- understand the need to garner votes, that's what they understand.

Does the wall work? Numerically yes, terrorist incidents dropped in one period from 72 to 12. There is question as to whether other factors are in play. Like the Israeli security teams inside the West Bank. Others note that since the wall is only partially complete, the claim the wall is working is like saying you have all the windows open, but only 2/3rds with screens while you claim there is a wall to stop the flies. And note: 12 did make it through and no one states how many got caught ---- maybe nobody else tried. So there's your real answer ---- attacks went down but did not stop --- the wall did not stop people with bombs from getting through.

Our wall is a waste of money. What to stop illegals from coming to America to steal your job, then your house, your wife and your kids? Just put E-Verify in place, make it the law of the land, and you can cure undocumented workers and maybe even put a dent in under-the-table worker payments by unscrupulous American small business contractors.

Like ObamaCare, E-Verify has issues. But with much less funding than putting a cement highway sound barrier wall on the boarder, we probably could make E-Verify hum along for easy use. And then, to make Trump and his flock happy, we can call it our E-Wall.

I just don't understand how he can get so wed to a stupid idea in the face of one that is working, is cheaper, and does not put yet another man-made scar upon the planet.

So ---- given that, do you really want to build a wall that won't do the job right or make E-Verify work as the rule of the land stopping undocumented workers whether they are illegal aliens or US citizens?

http://www.chron.com/business/texanomics/article/The-most-effective-way-to-deter-undocumented-11155726.php

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

"HRC would be in that seat now if Trump lost so it's relevant." Yes, so it's therefore pertinent to compare what is to what you imagine would have been but will never know? Seems like a pretty easy comparison --- not like anyone will ever know what Hillary would do.

And we will let it go that you choose to make that comparison via fake alt-right news.

"but but but "this thread isn't about Hillary" ROFL." you got that ROL right --- you have Hillary on your mind and it's still about Trump's better than Hillary not matter what he says, who he abuses, or what he does. Keep the faith brother, you are being tested.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Right...JR..it's about tRUMP( that's funny, Stymie). Just so happens, the "first lady", Ivanka, opened a new golf course and resort, in Dubai, not long ago. His trip is more of a real estate checkup, than anything else. He doesn't know how to do anything else, except keep lying to the very people who voted for him.
I loved the "damage control" speech he gave to the graduating Coast Guard recruits. The guy could barely read the teleprompter. Only when he uses his own, simple vocabulary, is he able to engage with the audience he is addressing. When he was waiting to speak, just sat there, arms folded, in a defense mentality, with a scowl on his face, like an antsy child, waiting his turn. C'mon...just his body language, alone, indicates he's not right in the head. Then... he opens his mouth, to confirm it. Can't make this stuff up. I see it, uncut, before "Faux", chops and spins.

sparksjbc1964 sparksjbc1964
May '17

Trumpdate:

The topline is we have one criminal investigation and four impeachment investigations underway 120 days into Trumps reign.

For the criminal investigation we are well beyond the basic links and collusion between the Russian government and Team Turnip; we will be investigating associate potential crimes including perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation. While these are most certainly criminal acts, there would be impeachment fodder uncovered as well. Closed process, we'll know when we know.

For the two impeachment investigations, two different Congressional committees are investigating Russia's interference with the 2016 elections. There is little doubt that there was interference. Could be criminality involved or impeachment if Trump is tied to the interference. This can be an open process which allows the press and public opinion to form based on what's heard in real time.

Then there's two Congressional "ethics" committees investigating obstruction of justice over the Flynn debacle. Currently, and until some Russian collusion is documented, this is probably the tree that will bear the most fruit since Trump has pretty much publically stepped in it big time here. Once we hear from Comey, or his copious notes, pretty much this ship has sailed and the question is will it turn criminal, be enough for impeachment, or both. The obstruction, the cover up, the foreknowledge of Flynn's criminality -----> all looks pretty bad for the Don at this point.

Hillary's email server starting to look like the better way over the Trump process in order to keep things from the Russians.

As to Trump outing our ally and their agents in the field ----> hey, that little piece of security betrayal to Make America Safe Again, has yet to be stirred into the pot. But given he did it for the Russians, like Preggo says ---- it's in there~!

And then there's Trump and Team Trump actively working the Putin backchannel process to set up for convert conversations during and after the election. Guess we now know how they could so quickly put words in each others mouths to sway their respective sheep.

I still say there's a bigger, darker secret here. The kind of secret that would begin to unravel if we had good financial records, tax records, etc. from the king of the deal. I am betting there are long-term financial dealings with Russia in the past using Trump's LLC's to wash the investments or launder the money. While they will not be a current crime, or a crime during the election, they are what sets the stage for the current Trump/Putin partnership.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

You guys have lost your collective minds over this nonsense, your pure hatred shows more and more, you are being feed spin and buying into it hook line and sinker,

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

hadenough
May '17

Always remember the sage advice tRUMP imparted to the Coast Guard Graduates in closing---"errr.... have a nice life..."
How uplifting and insightful.

Stymie Stymie
May '17

all they care about is bringing down the president, they do anything, say anything to reach that goal, bunch of sore losers

Destroying Donald Trump is all that matters in the newsrooms of the mainstream media

Now anything goes. All restraints are loosened, all self-discipline trashed. There’s no cure or even treatment for Trump Derangement Syndrome, a disease as wild and as swiftly lethal as anything imported from the Ebola River valley of the dark continent. The rules and taboos that once guided even the sleaziest excuse for a newspaper no longer apply.
Destroying Donald Trump is all that matters in the newsrooms of the mainstream media, so called, and by any means necessary. Rarely have so many hysterics contributed so much of the national conversation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/destroying-donald-trump-all-that-matters-to-some/

hadenough
May '17

Advice to tRUMP;
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than speak and remove all doubt.
At least the left hasn't challenged tRUMPS citizenship.
Who would stoop that low?????

Stymie Stymie
May '17

You just got to get the words: hysterics, msm, spin and hatred, all those special alt-right code words.

Yes, its all about a fact blind bunch of sore losers hell bent with hatred without caring about anything except to bring down your hero Trump. It's a persecution for the ages, a crusade against the holy, a vendetta of vicious, venomous, often violent, vindictive, vitriolic villains and villainesses targeting Trump, a bastion of virtue, honesty, and The American Way.

Or maybe we're right. Time will tell and aren't you glad we have Main Stream Media to uncover all this, spurring these investigations into the truth.

I mean shouldn't we investigate whether the Russians attacked our democracy? Isn't just the thought of that occurring relevant for scrutiny? When do you put party aside and country first? Isn't that the first step to Make America Great Again?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Challenging citizenship and birthplace???

Why that would be called a WITCHHUNT, wouldn't it?

Probably would get the MSM to hop on board with extra coverage hammering the target like a ten penny nail through Styrofoam. No one would be that stupid, that mean, that low, would they?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Tick...tick....tick

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer= https://t.co/8ktKsQ03Uf

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

Ya' all have smoked yourselves into a real stupor over this nonsense

hadenough
May '17

Comey must have been a total "nut job" to have Contradicted his own sworn testimony on May 3.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

by now saying he wrote himself a memo in February.. that is pretty nuts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=0

skippy skippy
May '17

You could have more accurately inserted "And remember folks, it doesn't matter what Trump actually said, all that matters is that you believe what he says next."

All we're doing is a little investigating....

I think you should consider what transpired during Trump's life, the primary, and now our first 120 days this Presidency. Is this really what you voted for? Are you really just going to hang the blame on the MSM or the left? Really? What about your own personal responsibility? Why were you so asleep at the wheel during the primaries that you let this guy sneak by? Or.......is this really what you voted for?

Sure I know, Obama is just as bad, Hillary worse, but does that make this right? Really?

Investigate on. Find the truth.

Meanwhile....just before his yuge trip we glimpse the duck in the water.. "hmmmm. read a really good cue card at the briefing. Didn't agree with anything I said earlier, but sounded very Presidential. Did a Press Briefing later with the Columbian....man I love to say that: Co lummmm bian. So cool. Did a briefing where I winged it and completely blew apart what I said from the cue card. Didn't matter. Jared said my morning bathroom tweets (man, can you imagine if America knew I tweeted from an actual throne!), oh well, Jared said those tweets made my afternoon clusterfarce meaningless. But how come the Columbian President sounds more Presidential and speaks better English than I? Or is it me? Oh well, gotta get Ivanka to fix it so all furners look stupider than I. Or is it me?

Turns out I have such a shootstorm, I need to get away: ROADTRIP ! Let's see, where to go.... Saudi Arabia --- well, got 8 different Trump companies registered there during the campaign. Need to grease the wheels for my next hotel. I'll just give em a $100 worth of arms to sweeten my deal... Next Jerusalem for some sight seeing and anti-Muslim photo ops (just to soften that Saudi deal) and to drop off some more arms. And then on to the Pope just to piss the Hindus off. Off to Belgium, aint' eatin no sprouts, and back to Sicily for some New York Style Pizza and to pay homage to my special investors --- my family away from my family, if you catch my drift......well toddles, it will be great, it will be greater, I am the greatest-----not Ali"

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Tick tick tick

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article151565947.html

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

8 Billion people in the world. Israel is 0.1% of the Earth's population. Might be better places to visit, better as in better representing the planet?


tick ....... tick ......... tick........

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation-trump-song-in-law-probe-person-interest-a7745916.html

happiest girl
May '17

Except they are the only semblance of any type of democracy in the Middle East - I get your Zionist fixation but they are still relevant

skippy skippy
May '17

Actually 7.5 billion. And now population percentage is the sine qua non for state visits? England is less than 1% of the world's population. Germany slightly more. By your logic, only India and China would be worthy.

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '17

Nice to see some bipartisan assistance...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-lieu-donald-trump-trip-abroad_us_591ff108e4b034684b0ca2b8?e0h&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

yankeefan yankeefan
May '17

Bipartisan? The author seems consistently biased to me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/lee-moran

justintime justintime
May '17

Nah, the MSM isn't biased at all....

Obama = LOVEfest, no matter what he does

Trump = HATEfest, no matter what he does

Nah, MSM is objective for sure... LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Skippy, the whole world is (should be) relevant. But we all (should) now that in practice it is not.


tick tick tick

Podesta Received $35 Million from RUSSIA while Advising Clinton & Obama

John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 national campaign chairman, may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014

http://www.eutimes.net/2017/03/bombshell-podesta-received-35-million-from-russia-while-advising-clinton-obama/

hadenough
May '17

Yes my little conservatives pretending to be libertarians and, of course, our little Zionist hunter and hater of everything Israel, the MSM hates you because we are biased.

You are maligned, persecuted, and bad-mouthed. You have never benefitted from massive MSM coverage 24/7, MSM that is totally biased to Trump, massive cable and radio talk show networks, owning the state and local governments, owning the entire Congress --- house and senate, or the Presidency.

Or perhaps you wouldn't know what to do with it if you did have it all. Like repealing ObamaCare 50 times but after 8 years not having a viable replacement plane ---- I mean not even close.

Or maybe some of the world can't arrive at your math that says let's bring defense spending up to the level needed to simultaneously have two fronts --- like Iraq and Afghanistan while, in his own words, getting the yugest tax cut in the history of America while adding a crippling deficit to our massive existing debt.

Or maybe some of the world wants change but does not believe that all our institutions are totally corrupt and must be destroyed before continuing down your path of Trump.

Or maybe some of us see something funny in having a Donald, an Ivanka, and a Jared in control of our government ------ no matter what their last name is. I mean I thought this guy a racist ---- turns out he only like people even closer to home. Diversity of ideas is out, compliance and loyalty pledges are in.

Or maybe some of the world is just tired of Trump's lying and just wants to hear the truth.

You remember that right, you know, the truth. So there's smoke here. Let's continue to investigate. The press is hammering the Don. He asked for it many times over.

Investigate on ---- one criminal and two impeachment investigations ---- dream on if you think you come out unscathed in all of this.

Meanwhile ----- 120 days in ---- feeling great yet?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Just look who's got you libs all tied tied up in knots, whipped y'all up into an irrational feeding frenzy; There is no there, there, it's all manufactured outrage by a bunch of drunks, and y'all bought it, cause you want to believe it's all true.


Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study

Journalists' brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.

http://www.businessinsider.com/journalists-brains-function-at-a-lower-level-than-average-2017-5

hadenough
May '17

Hadenough, you only told half the story from your own link. Here's what you skipped:

"Journalists scored pretty high on:

"Abstraction, the ability to deal with ideas rather than events. It's related to the part of the brain where the most sophisticated problem-solving takes place. In other words, it highlights the ability to think outside the box and make connections where others might not see them.

"Value tagging, the ability to assign values to different sensory cues, such as whether something is a priority or has meaning. Scoring highly in this area indicates a good ability to sift through information and pick out what's important."

I'm sure you just forgot that part so I'm happy to help out.


Good post, SD. Informative and entertaining.


Hater of manipulation. I question your commitment to this country SD. The future is not about being PC. PC is being like a sheep. Sheep are nice but they are also put to slaughter... manipulated in the worst way.


iJay ---- whatever would make you think that I think the future of the country is about being PC much less having a country commitment measurement based on your level of PC-ness. That's pretty funny.

You do realize hadenough that your inputs here might be considered journalism. Heck, you will be crying that at the top of your lungs when the Donald comes to you for having a written opinion that he does not like....

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

jd2, since I've always respected your views I decided to unblock then look at the last post you referred to. Read the first line, saw the same old asinine lead in, then asked myself how in the world you could make the comment you did.

I suppose if you can look past the middle-school, low-brow posting style, sure he sometimes has some good stuff in his posts. But since there's zero respect - ever - for anyone with differing views the block is re-instituted lol. Oh well, c'est la vie.

justintime justintime
May '17

I know what you use grease monkey for now lol

skippy skippy
May '17

jit - I didn't focus on the opening sentence and I suppose I could say that just because I enjoyed the post does not mean I thought every word was good.

But now that you have me focus on the lead-in, it seems to me to be a mostly playful dig at pontifications coming from some posters on the right, who are so often blaming the "MSM" for things they don't like. I don't see it as mean-spirited. I guess you do?


"I don't see it as mean-spirited. I guess you do?"

jd2, that dude and I have been posting for about 10 years on this forum (you've been around a long time too). After all that time do you think he may have tipped his hand once or twice (or hundreds of times)? He's made an art form out of insulting people all the while trying to make it look otherwise - with the usual "who me?" tacked on after the fact, or more likely with a comment like "relax, it's just a joke". I don't agree that being "humorous" makes it perfectly OK to be rude and insulting when that was the intention in the first place. So yeah, I guess I do see it as mean spirited. Why discuss anything with someone like that? Doing so only inflates his ego and allows him to continue with the same old crap.

Now waiting for more of the same in three...two...one... lol

justintime justintime
May '17

Stop parsing each others words, as if they matter. What a bunch of egotistical idiots. Please take a principled position on what is best for our country, for a change.

DannyC DannyC
May '17

The Obama administration intentionally shared classified intelligence with Russia less than a year ago:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/guests-remind-nbc-cnn-obama-gave-classified-intel-russia

hadenough
May '17

Many folks have taken a position DannyC, but it seems they'd rather pick fights than work toward solutions.

Can I ask what you'd recommend?

justintime justintime
May '17

"The Obama administration intentionally shared classified intelligence with Russia less than a year ago:"


This thread isn't about Obama; all politicians are NOT the same. Trump is totally different and much more evil than anyone that has come before him, he is America's Hitler.

ROFLMAO

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '17

Deputy NatSec Advisor, Dina Powell is possibly behind the leaks to the press. New reports are coming out that Dina Powell is perhaps leaking to White House Correspondent for The New York Times, Maggie Haberman.

https://www.teaparty.org/report-trumps-deputy-natsec-advisor-dina-powell-leaked-new-york-times-237924/

hadenough
May '17

"The Obama administration intentionally shared classified intelligence with Russia less than a year ago:"

First, we all know that it is legal for President's to share classified info even on a whim. Trump or Obama.

The thought that Obama did it so it's OK what Trump did, even though in both cases legal, is a valid thought. It's just as valid to say both were wrong or one of them was wrong, but neither were illegal. So let's look at the circumstances.

Obama's team, his administration, put out a press release that had the Afghanistan CIA Chief's name in it in 2014. Another instance was the Obama offering the Russians terrorist information in Syria in 2016. The first one was sloppy, caught right away and rectified. The second one was an offer, a deal, a quid-pro-quo for a sharing of info for a common cause. Personally, I still say dealing with the Russians is stupid, but hey ---- this was a formal deal that we don't know was even completed.

Trump, himself, blurted out not only classified info, but coded info, implicating our ally without their knowledge and providing info relevant to the enemy outing our ally's agent placed in ISIS. Again, personally, I see this as sloppy mistake of arrogance.

So in either case, legal. In both cases, I think much stupidity involved. However one case was a structured deal to share classified info for a common purpose. The other just an overt act of stupidity of which I am not sure the intended purpose. Some great deal no doubt.

Now let's talk about the optics of the two cases.........

No, I do think there is a difference.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Timing is everything. How convenient this report of Israel assisting us just before Trump's trip. Is this a way to help justify the billions being sent to them annually under the "Make America Great" scrutiny?

Are even billions more on the plate to broker a piece deal?


Oh you mean this report. I thought you meant that report. What report?

Really, who knows what Trump will do in Israel. Who even has a clue......

But if he offered the Saudi's $100B and he has no hotel there....Nothing in Israel yet either folks.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Alan Dershowitz says even if Trump was colluding with the Russians (he wasn't) that's not actually a crime.
This is a watershed moment in our history. Either we continue to be a place where civil liberties exist and you have to be guilty of a crime to be prosecuted, or we will be prosecuting people based on who they are, simply because you run afoul of the state.

https://youtu.be/O7WnauFiafY

Just a reminder Democrats have called for the impeachment of the last 4 GOP presidents.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-want-to-impeach-a-republican-president-what-else-is-new/

Not only that, how were the last presidents portrayed by the media.

Trump - Stupid, illiterate, dangerous warmonger

Bush 43 - Stupid, illiterate, dangerous warmonger

Bush 41 - He was simply a dangerous warmonger who only ever said one thing his entire four years ("Read my lips , no more taxes")

Reagan - Stupid, senile, dangerous warmonger.


Compare to


Obama - Scandal free presidency

Clinton - Scandal free presidency (the Lewinsky affair was a Right Wing Conspiracy)

skippy skippy
May '17

Interesting commentary:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-how-did-russiagate-start-w482262

Skippy, your comparison is timely - I came across a silly, comedic video today that unfortunately has pegged the direction of the thought process in our country. Terribly sad if it ever gets this far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

justintime justintime
May '17

I wish we could have one of the old tlme principled founding father type Presidents to lead us. With two of their kids for support of course.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
May '17

The media really does control 99% of American's perceptions.

Please note, Skippy 's list is the MEDIA's portrayal!

Our current media Hates Trump.
Why? ...because they like the swamp...
And don't wanna drain It!
(Because they make scads of $$$ pre-Trump)


SD - the Democrats invented cronyism nepotism filled administrations. Why do you think they are grooming Chelsea for a congressional run - mommy and daddy owe hundreds of millions in political favors that have to be repaid.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-from-whatever-she-is-doing/amp

Her first job out of college was a 600K gig at NBC

skippy skippy
May '17

You say Democrats invented cronyism nepotism filled administrations and Chelsea Clinton being prepped to run and repay her parents political quid-pro-quo IOUs is proof positive. Oh yeah, she got a good job at MSM...

I think you got yet another false equivalency here Skipster.....

Beyond that fact that Clinton's hiring Clinton's is not cronyism, or the fact that Chelsea has never and will never work for either Clinton in government, there is the nagging problem that Chelsea has not run for office. As you say --- may be preparing, but that's a may and certainly will have nothing to do with cronyism and if you really believe there's a belated IOU repayment plan ---- remove thin foil hat and breathe deep. Repeat. Do you really believe those desiring an IOU invested in Clinton Srs in order to be repaid a generation later by Clinton jr? That's one hell of a long term high risk investment. Must net a healthy interest rate: what's the vig amount to on that one?

It appears to be a false equivalency you are offering in comparison to Ivanka and Jared, two Trump next gens who never ran for office, never served in office, never had any public service - paid or volunteer, but instead got hired by Trump to run our country in two of the most powerful administrative positions in the world as their first job in public service. I am betting he never even got a resume... So now at the leader-of-the-free-world round table, three votes will come from da family. Want to be the knight sitting across the round table saying "well, I dunno bout that one......" against that vote?

And no, that was not Chelsea's first job. She was with McKinsey, then Avenue Capital Group, and she volunteers on the School for the American Ballet board. Sure, NBC paid her big money; think that was a quid-pro-quo or just a sound business decision given the payback they got by putting Clinton on the air?

Jared is a died-in-the-wool Democrat who had an epiphany last year.

Chelsea is extremely well schooled, MBAs, PHDs, Masters.... ouch. Ivanka is the piker with only a 4-yr Econ from Wharton (not the business school), and Jared is good for a Harvard 4-yr and a JD/MBA from NYU --- not to shabby.

Ivanka ran a couple businesses leveraging the Trump brand name with sketchy returns. He runs a development company, a media company and a real estate investment SW ap platform. I give him most points for work experience.

I am a believer in experience, trial by fire, which neither Chelsea or Ivanka have. When it comes to leveraging the family for work, Ivanka and Jared take the cake; literally they are cake eaters. Jared has at least been on business's front line and has survived, doing well some times, hanging in others. Chelsea supposedly has rolled her own, starting in finance but working other areas too. Ivanka has just emulated Dad and leveraged his name. I am a believer in education, Jared and Chelsea have top notch major accomplishments there; Ivanka has a 4-year degree, not so much so.

I am glad you are OK with Don/Ivanka/Jared rule of government because Democrats do it too. I am not. I would not be for Democrats either. Jared and Ivanka have no place in these roles, none whatsoever; you have bought the bridge.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

Is anyone else impressed by the Trump foreign tour so far?

DannyC DannyC
May '17

The history of MONEY LAUNDERING at Trump's Taj Mahal and the RUSSIAN connection.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-taj-mahal/index.html

happiest girl
May '17

SD - its no different than a POTUS appointment of his wife to head up health care reform - HRC established the precedent on this. In this case:

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

http://openjurist.org/997/f2d/898

skippy skippy
May '17

"The violations date back to a time when the Taj Mahal was the preferred gambling spot for Russian mobsters living in Brooklyn, according to federal investigators who tracked organized crime in New York City."

That's the only reference to Russia in that article. Does it seem odd to you that CNN does NOT state that there is a connection between Trump and Russia, only that "back in the day" known Russian mob folks went to the casino? Does it also surprise you that the article merely rehashes *known* criminal activity that's essentially water under the bridge as far as the legal system is concerned? If so, can it be then concluded that the only thing newsworthy about the story is that CNN is trying to paint a picture in the minds of their readership, to have them draw conclusions that the article itself doesn't?

There's a word for that: propaganda. :-)

Of course, there could be something there. But just like nearly every bit of "evidence" presented to date, this is simply more sh*t being thrown against the wall, the folks throwing it hoping it will stick. But for now all we have is a big pile of crap laying on the ground at the base of the wall. Yes it's crap, but not the crap folks are looking for, is it?

justintime justintime
May '17

I guess he skipped a few geography classes: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/22/trump_to_israelis_we_just_got_back_from_the_middle_east.html

4catmom 4catmom
May '17

I hardly see exposing the criminal activity of Trump as propaganda.
Revealing the history of Trump lets us define the kind of person he is.
If you read the entire article you would see the shenanigans continued in recent years, resulting in a $10 million dollar fine in 2015.
There are 417 pages of Treasury Department documents revealing all the recent activity.
I am glad we have freedom of press in America so people like Trump can't sweep things under the rug. Of course, he likes the phrase "fake news".
LOL

happiest girl
May '17

4catmom - Is that your strongest criticism of Trump visits to Saudi Arabia and Israel?

DannyC DannyC
May '17

Why does Trump always assume the posture of sitting on a toilet, regardless of where he's sitting?

ianimal ianimal
May '17

Happiest, then why specifically mention Russia? Just to leave an impression then?

Propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view"

Surely that applies here?

Btw, while I don't share your complete hatred of the man I do agree with many that he's not a good fit as President. I just don't see the point of inventing reasons (aka perpetuating un-proven news) to hate him when he reminds us daily how unqualified he is.

justintime justintime
May '17

"Trump's involvement with the Taj Mahal was in name only. He had departed Atlantic City in 2009, maintaining a small stake in the casino's parent company." The counterfeit news network strikes again.

skippy skippy
May '17

"Then why specifically mention Russia?"
I think the answer is obvious.

happiest girl
May '17

Lol happiest, it's only obvious if you want to imply something that has no factual basis in the context of the article you posted.

justintime justintime
May '17

Ah, I guess that's why Flynn is invoking Fifth Amendment protection.
lol

happiest girl
May '17

Wouldn't you?

Flynn is looking for immunity, but I doubt it's for money laundering (strictly speaking).

MrCharlie
May '17

The last few times something similar happened, there was very little fallout for non-compliance. Eric Holder flaunted a Congressional subpoena and was held in contempt of congress, but the Obama administration declined to prosecute. Bryan Pagliano (Hillary's IT director and aide) refused to testify despite a subpoena and again, nothing happened. There was some minor fallout but nothing major.

Flynn also has a military pension to think about as I stated previously.

My understanding is that the claim is that Flynn violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act in his dealings with Turkey (which, by the way, is violated all the time in Washington and it's somewhat controversial because it appears to be selectively enforced.) Anyway the penalties are fines for the most part, and a felony charge for the absolute highest penalty under the act. So even if Flynn was found guilty he'd probably just pay a fine and be on his way.

violations of the FARA are almost never prosecuted - except when you are dealing with REEEE DRUMPF!

three criminal cases since 1966:

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-2062-foreign-agents-registration-act-enforcement

skippy skippy
May '17

Pure corruption.

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trumps-russia-scandal-is-becoming-a-corruption-scandal.html

happiest girl
May '17

Having lost sight of his objective, he doubled down on his plan....

OK, Skippy, apparently having given up on the Chelsea nepotism in public office claim, you skitter over to Hillary. Absolutely a family hire. Hillary was leading a defined task force, a defined single task to chair a taskforce of experts to provide a health care plan for others to take forward. With a Wellsey PolySci Degree, Harvard Law Degree, -- do I really need to run her resume in public service and healthcare by the time she became first lady. Clearly --- good enough to be a task force chair. But point taken.

Just don't see where Jared stacks up against that --- but Ivanka has absolutely zero reason to be in this position. I have more education and experience. These kids are Presidential Advisors with power equivalent to our National Security Advisor. Some would say based on family politics, more. That's Yugely different than putting together a report recommendation on healthcare IMO. But hey, if you think having Don, Ivanka, and Jared as your top leadership team to run the world, God bless you.

As to you last point on the court case --- come man --- take off the tin foil. Not even sure why you would mention (much less drop the opinion) a court action started by a alt-right association that also opposed the investigation into Rush's criminal drug use. The case was more FOIA than anything you were talking about. Another skitter? Oh well, case won but overturned on appeal ---- BUSTED (yes, Rush was many times :>)

Personally, even with Hillary running a task force to create a report ----- having Ivanka and Jared run the country just because Dad says so just seems really wrong to me. On so many levels.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
May '17

This one works.

http://www.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trumps-russia-scandal-is-becoming-a-corruption-scandal.html

happiest girl
May '17

Cut off his pension until he testifies. The USA should expect more from a 4 star general and a subpoena should not be needed. As Flynn and even Trump once said only those afraid of the truth will not testify under oath.


SD - that case challenged HRCs appointment and the ruling was as you stated in her favor. Weather or not you like Trumps appointments they're legal regardless of who filed it. It does not violate the nepotism act.

In regards to resume I'm not going to even get into it because if trump did it you disagree with it.

skippy skippy
May '17

That last one was better Happiest - at least it isn't 100% propaganda!

BTW, one of the click through links went here, I'm not sure if this had been posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.6d00aecf3b4c

justintime justintime
May '17

Here's one for you Happiest. I'm sure you'll be surprised that we agree on some things ;-)

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/05/22/america-has-become-a-total-joke/

The opinion piece is a bit over the top, but from a trends point of view quite apropos.

justintime justintime
May '17

Re: Trump: Version 5.0

There’s no cure or treatment for Trump Derangement Syndrome

hadenough
May '17

Back to the Top | View all Forum Topics
This topic has not been commented on in 3 years.
Commenting is no longer available.