Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 11 2017, 11:24 PM

Never in the history of our republic has something like this gone down. The "Administration" has requested that ALL, yes, ALL 46 remaining Attorney's General appointed by Obama RESIGN their posts, WITHOUT HAVING ANY REPLACEMENTS. Talk about cutting the head off the judiciary and removing checks and balances. This is the kind of thing Govt's we mock do, not the kind of thing we do, until now. No reason given, none expected, just an over reach of the executive branch to get rid of any Obama appointee. I"m feeling sick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-tells-all-remaining-obama-administration-us-attorneys-to-resign/2017/03/10/110e3d8c-05ce-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html?utm_term=.0146712a7043

This is just not a decision that can be defended IMHO. It's a blatant power grab so that people can be put in place to further erode the system of checks and balances that is at the core of our system of Govt. It's a sad day for "Democracy"


Tod

Posted by: Mertay Mar 11 2017, 11:37 PM

I read this is very normal in USA, every president did this but the only difference with Trump is he took such action in a hurry while previous president gave a few months.

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned

I am sad about Bharara, he was working on a case that involved Turkey and the current goverment that I don't support.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 11 2017, 11:37 PM

News from the US has become extremely interesting recently so I have started following it.

Just a random thought from me as uninformed: If it turns out the new administration is actually just a plain attack from Russia - and Trump gets condemned for treason etc etc. Will this also mean that his executive orders (etc) get revoked?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 12 2017, 12:05 AM

Not like this Mertay. Usually, there is a transition period where the old guys stay in until new guys can be confirmed, and each one has to be replaced after getting approved by congress. This is NOT what is happening. They are ALL simply being asked to resign NOW and there are NO REPLACEMENTS FOR THEM!!!!!


When Clinton did this, they allowed the old guys to stay on til they had someone to take over.

" President Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, asked for resignations in March 1993, but allowed U.S. attorneys to stay in place until their replacements could be confirmed."
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jeff-sessions-trump-obama-us-attorneys-resignation-235940


That's what I mean by "never before in the history of the republic". They are just getting rid of all of them, with nobody to take over. This leaves a MASSIVE power vacuum in the judicial system and creates an artificial need for expediency in pushing through new candidates. This is EXACTLY what I fear Trump wants. he wants to create this power vacuum so that his appointees can slide right through. Don't get me wrong It's a shrewd political move, bordering on brilliant even, it's just not good for our overall govt imho.

It's humiliating to be honest. If it turns out that Trump is really Putin's B***H, I have no idea what will happen.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 12 2017, 01:05 AM

WWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Clinton let 93 go , do you think he had replacements for all , KEEP CALM and breath Todd,

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/so-is-this-us-attorney-purge-unprecedented-or-not/

Plus you didn"t give me your Pew research source , you gave more Fake news Sources

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 12 2017, 04:49 AM

Looks fun Ill try that. Not "Wrong", it's ....


RRRIIIIIGGGGGGHHTT


The problem, as I mentioned, is that he asked for resignations and didn't allow them to stay until replacements were in place. Thus creating a judicial vacuum, thus ensuring quick uptake on whoever questionable judge he throws in to the pit, just to get someone in to the job. You must have missed that bit. I did say it was clever, but it's still an attack on the basic checks and balances of our govt.

Check your sources and share them please. Clinton allowed them to stay until replacements were approved. If you read my entire post you'd have noticed that but I'm guessing you didn't?

So yeah, I'm calm, just a bit sick. It's the not letting the resigned folks stay in their jobs til the replacement is in place that is UNPRECEDENTED.

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 12 2017, 05:35 PM

This is business as usual, every president does it when a new one comes in. The seats are not vacant, so nothing in the courts is going to stop because those vacancies are temporarily filled by the deputy attorneys of the judges that have resigned, or have been fired, or the seats will be temporarily filled by others from within the US Attorneys Office. For example, Preet Bharara's seat will be filled temporarily by Deputy US Attorney Joon Kim.
Todd, you seem to be the only one freaking out about this. Every article I have read on the matter reports that this is common practice when a new administration comes in. Even the Huffington post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/preet-bharara-refuses-to-resign_us_58c4461fe4b0d1078ca72866?xsobjpeohii4tpgb9&

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/deputy-manhattan-u-s-attorney-kim-fill-bharara-article-1.2995420

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 12 2017, 08:26 PM

I am starting to feel like a broken record here, but here we go again This is NOT in fact business as usual. Business as usual is letting the folks who are resigning stay in their seats and do their job til their replacement takes over. That's biz as usual as it's been done for decades.

Trump is the first one to demand resignations and NOT allow the folks leaving to stay in their chairs. That is what makes this different. I don't know how else to say it. It's not the way it's been done for many decades now. Read this quote from REUTERS.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-justice-idUSKBN16I0PZ

""President Trump's abrupt and unexplained decision to summarily remove over 40 U.S. attorneys has once again caused chaos in the federal government," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said.
Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the firings showed "the independence of the Justice Department is at risk under this administration" and that lawmakers had to carefully evaluate Trump's replacements."

So yeah, it's not just me. Reuters and the other news wire services have been covering these for the past several news cycles as it is simply unprecedented to do what he did in this way. Yes, it's common to ask for resignations for a new adminstration. But NO, it's not common to ask for them all at once without letting the previous folks keep their seats til their replacements are confirmed.

As the quote from Senator Patrick Leahy states (he sits on the senate Judiciary committee) "The Firings showed the independence of the justice depart is at risk under this administration". So we have a guy on the senate Judiciary comt. saying the same thing I'm saying. Not to mention the major news/wire services reporting on it daily

Again, shrewd move to be sure, but a clear attack on an independant judiciary as mentioned by a member of the Judiciary comt.

I sourced a quote from Reuters who has been covering this. See the rest of this post. BTW typing in all caps may be fun, but it doesn't actually help your argument.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 12 2017, 09:09 PM

I can side with you that it is faster than normal, but not illegal , hence if the fathers that implemented the president from firing them , they would have known someday someone would fire all . They would have had language from stopping a complete house cleaning if they thought there was a problem . They did not because THERE IS NOT A CRISIS . Rich and I are just trying bring off your perch of chicken littleness

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 12 2017, 10:08 PM

I never once said it was illegal. Where on earth did you get the idea that I was asserting that this was illegaL?

Uggh. Despite your insight to the founding fathers, what I find disturbing, again, is that the administration didn't do, what every other administration has done, and allowed for a smooth transition of the judiciary. of course they all had to go. That's how it works. But he could have let them stay til their replacements were confirmed, just as every other president has done.

By not doing so, he creates a judicial power vacuum where the case load on those beneath the ones let go is now increased. I'm not saying the sky has fallen, or is falling. Nothing of the sort. I simply agree with the folks I quoted in my last post, including a member of the Judicary comt., who feel that this action destabilizes one of the branches of govt and was not necessary at all. That's all I've said, repeatedly. Doesnt' seem to get through though. But it is what it is.

On a side note, the new GOP health care plan looks like it's going to shaft the very folks who voted trump in to office. It's Ironic. Sad, but Ironic. here is a link to an article on CNBC (hardly a left wing blog)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/the-republican-health-care-bill-threatens-trumps-voters.html

Posted by: Mertay Mar 12 2017, 10:17 PM

When similar things happen in Turkey we usually wait a bit to see what was planned after judging the results (if cannot be understood from the begining). Ofcourse if this is something like that.

To accomplish (dirty) grand plans, polticians use legal but unconventional loop holes that may look un-important, avoidable at first. I'd say do follow the results but look for a specific goal on the Trump side if you want to make an impact as a voter/citizen to others when the time comes.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 12 2017, 10:45 PM

Well said This is a clever move by Trump that will create a sort of political momentum . for his nominees to get pushed through IMHO which is why I think he did it. By the time he picks them, the overworked underlings will be stretched very thin and congress will likely just want the seats filled. So the entire judiciary gets to swing a bit toward the right for a while.

As I've said, our system is resilient if nothing else, so not mater what happens, it can be undone in a decade or two. Once the folks that voted him in to office start seeing that they are going to be getting less health benefits, things are going to get tense. Of course, some folks are saying that the "Marketplace Solutions" will work out and save everyone, but that sure didn't help us before the affordable care act. Trickle down economics is a myth and sadly, it's coming back as an "Alternative Fact"

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 12 2017, 11:12 PM

Yes that new health care plan proposal seems absolutely unbelieveable. Trump promised everybody would be covered, even those who couldn't afford it. And now it seems 10-20 million will loose coverage if it goes through. Can they get away with this kind of stuff in the US?

As an outsider though, I must say the Russia connection is the most scary. From here it looks like you have been invaded on the highest level, without fully realising it yet. This is modern warfare. Feels unreal!

Posted by: Mertay Mar 13 2017, 12:03 AM

I believe this started with the travel bans. Its too naive even for him to expect people let that happen. During those days instead of following public opinion of children handcuffed in the airport, probably his advisors followed tweeter accounts of key people.

Its like before someone has to move something very heavy, he/she pushes a bit to see if its actually movable.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 13 2017, 02:08 AM

They can get away with just about anything at this point as the Republican party has the Presidency, both houses of congress, soon to be most of the Judiciary, etc. In short, nearly impossible to stop big policy changes from being rammed through, no matter how bad they seem or who they will hurt. It's sad that the people who trusted in him are going to lose coverage by the millions.

The russian ambassador that has been in the news of late is not only a known spy, but also a spy recruiter. He has diplomatic immunity so he can do whatever he wants and nobody can touch him.

Also, We still have not seen any tax records for our commander in chief, for the first time since the 70s, so we don't really know where his money is all coming from.It just doesn't bode well for trusting the man.

However, despite all this he enjoys strong support of nearly half the nation. On might even say Zealotous support of about half the nation. But like I said before, the system we have is resilient and no matter what it always evens out eventually. Or at least, it always has so far

He has shown himself to be a master of controlling the narrative, via Twitter. Also a shrewd politician. You have to give it to him for being able to get the pulse of the country and ride the wave of populist cynicism and suspicion all the way to the white house.

The travel bans are just the start. What's funny is that it's been 10 years since we had an attack on our soil from any of the countries in the ban. it was just red meat for his "base". He said he would do it, and he did it, and his supporters loved it.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 13 2017, 03:04 AM

I don"t think he promised " Everybody " ( I could be wrong , if you can find a sound bite in context I will gladly eat crow ) , But he did promise coverage to pre existing . Yes the GOP are Screwin health care up this up at this point but I don"t it will pass like it is . It is Ryan 's plan not trump's . If they don't get there act together they will pay at mid terms

Time will tell . Trump being putins beotch is tin foil hatery. You don't seem like you have an opposing source so you can at least blend them to come to a logical conclusion

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 13 2017, 10:26 AM

In fact, yes, he did promise "everybody" and he confirmed it in an interview with the washington post.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-promises-health-insurance-for-everybody/

taking the liberty of using CBS news here referencing the interview article. After all, it's an interview with verified quotes, not an op ed bit.

Todd

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 13 2017, 10:56 AM

Have you missed all the Russian connection scandals within his staff? Or the confirmed Russian intervention during the campaign? Why is it so far fetched to think that Trump himself has connections as well - given that he still seems to defend his closest staff who lied about their Russian connections. Trump is also openly very Putin friendly. 1+1=2

I do think Putin is a bit disappointed on him though, since this might blow back on Trump soon, given the way he handles the situation. This is also seems to be reflected by the change of attitude towards Trump in Russian Media (they were very positive to him in the beginning).


The question is rather what didn't he promise? Everyone was going to get everything.

This is why people asked Trump if he had a specific plan before the election. Personally I would never vote for someone who promises me everything but cannot clarify how he will make it possible. I guess I learned that the first time I encountered a scam guitar course on the Internet, promising I would instantly become the best guitarist in the world if only I would pay $60.

If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is!

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 13 2017, 11:11 AM

Like every politician including Clinton and sanders . I was well aware not to buy into either ones promise . The only thing I knew he could do was supreme court justices and build a wall to stop the flow of illegals. I never thought we would even have mass deportation, but we have to stop people coming into our country we know nothing about ( Sweden knows that right , how many muslim " no go zones " do you have now ) . You guys really need to try to stop perceiving why I voted for him , just ask me

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 13 2017, 12:51 PM

None, and the earth is not flat - check your sources mate!

Btw no comments on the Russia connection?

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 13 2017, 03:14 PM

I'll comment on it . The fact is , there has been no evidence whatsoever found of any wrongdoing. There is however a possibility the illegal wiretaps. This battle is about establishment vs Trump period.
PS: The earth is not flat comment is a bit smart assed and insulting, is it not Mr Moderator?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 13 2017, 04:09 PM

Where have you been? General Flynn has resigned because of Russia lies and Attorney General Sessions recuses himself from investigations related to Trump 's election - because he lied under oath about his Russia contacts!

I live in Sweden's capital Stockholm I have been trying to tell jstcrsn for a while that 50% of our woman are not raped by immigrants and we do not have any muslim " no go zones " . So if his sources tell him that, or anything else (such as the earth being flat), he might want to question them. Considering he spoke about "fake news" I thought this might be of interest to him.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 13 2017, 04:48 PM

Contrary to what some seem to believe. The wheels of justice do not come to a screeching halt because of the actions of the Trump admin. It is the same action every president takes when replacing the opposition party. The only difference is how it was accomplished.
Something that has been described as unprecedented. So what?

All of the positions are temporarily filled as I have already explained. The current cases before these courts will in fact continue, if anything there will be some short holdups as the temporary replacements come up to speed on the cases they take over but in most cases the attorneys that were under the ones who have resigned or been fired are already familiar and may have already been working on those cases themselves in some capacity. Furthermore the folks that will be nominated for these positions will go through the confirmation process as usual. So maybe not business as usual, but certainly politics as usual.

The real reason that the left and folks in the media are upset about this is because they have planned (and it's no secret) to put up as many barriers as they can to slow down and disrupt the current admin. Including dragging their feet on confirmations.

By removing these attorneys immediately without a permanent replacement. It forces congress to confirm nominees in a timely manner because if they don't, it will be congress that looks bad. If those judges stayed until new ones were confirmed, the Dems and even some Repubs could stonewall the confirmations without any real backlash.

Obviously the left is trying to continue to run the country through the Judicial branch of Gov using the courts that have been stacked with liberals during the past admin. So if those judges go away, so does their last grasp at continuing to hold on to some kind of power.

The 9th Circuit has shown that it will ignore the rule of law and make decisions based on a perceived mindset of Trump, and emotions in ruling against the travel ban. That court referenced no law whatsoever in it's ruling to stay the hold on the ban.
This court is probably the most overturned court in the country because of decisions like this and their decisions are overturned about 80% of the time in recent years.

Until I see some real evidence of wrongdoing concerning Russia, everything else is just BS put out by the media to sway public opinion through innuendo. This or that might have happened or could have happened means nothing and beating this dead horse the way the left, the media and the establishment are doing will further erode support of all of them which don't have a heck of a lot of support to begin with as far as the public is concerned.

If there were any real damning evidence, I think it would have been out already because obviously there were those within the intelligence community and the past admin that were looking into it very thoroughly, and maybe even illegally.

Where have you been? There is absolutely no evidence there was any wrongdoing concerning Flynn's conversation with a Russian ambassador. Conversations between incoming US officials and foreign ambassadors is common introductory practice. Nothing inappropriate has been shown to occur.
Flynn was asked to resign because he wasn't completely forthcoming on one of those conversations, not because there was something nefarious in that conversation.

Sessions has recused himself so that if nothing is found in the investigations the left cannot cry foul because Sessions oversaw the investigation.

PS: I don't remember the media or anyone really on the left getting all bent out of shape over this little gem.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 13 2017, 09:08 PM

There is a far right (borderline personality perhaps?) guy named ALEX JONES who screams a LOT and is big on saying they have a huge muslim problem in Sweden. However, as you all know Kris actually LIVES IN SWEDEN so I'm thinking we can trust the man on the ground a bit rather than the propagandist with the screaming disorder?

Here is a link to ALEX JONES web site with an article about the "MUSLIM QUESTION"
https://www.infowars.com/swedish-police-overwhelmed-by-muslim-violence/

And of course there is a vid to go with it about the "rape of swedish girls by muslims"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7t7jUBrnno

Essentially this is just race baiting and plays well among the xenophobic elements of our society. The same way "THE WALL" plays well. Despite the fact that actually keeping "illegals" out of our country would cripple the Farming (e.g fruit pickers in california), Domestic Help (E.g. the Republican senator, and everyone else, with an undocumented maid), Construction (e.g. day laborers) and other industries that rely on cheap, undocumented labor. It plays, it sells, it works, so he keeps saying it

For many Trump Supporters Russia is a Non Issue. After all, in the right wing outlets of media, it's barely spoken of. When it is spoken of, it's dismissed. So if you get your news from right/alt right sources, then you probably don't see any problem at all.

If you get your news from say, Reuters, you may have noticed this article about Republican Law Makers pushing for answers and a full investigation to find out how deep the ties are between Trump and Russia. After all, we can't see his tax returns, so we have no idea what his financial ties are or are not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN15U1IK

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 13 2017, 10:56 PM

I know you are smart guy mate - but I really cannot see where your argument is coming from. Do you honestly think Sessions would risk lying under oath - if he didn't have something (serious) to hide? It could cost him his career!

Sure there are lots of legitimate ways for US politicians to meet up with Russians, but that is beside the point.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 14 2017, 12:34 AM

Trump is not at fault for others lying . He found out, the guy is gone . Thats the right course of action. Sessions recusing himself - the right course of action unlike the attorney general Lynch meeting with bill clinton while she is investigating Hillary- wrong course of action . Find the thread where I said 50 percent and i will discuss it with you , but I can not remember saying 50 percent.

sources on no go zone http://www.weeklystandard.com/video-head-of-ambulance-union-confirms-no-go-zones-in-sweden/article/2007000

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 14 2017, 02:07 AM

It is not beside the point and Sessions did not lie under oath. He was specifically asked if he had discussed the campaign with Russian officials, which he maintains he did not and there is no evidence to the contrary. He was not asked about conversations he had as a Senator, and member of the Armed Services Committee in which as part of that job, he has had many meetings with foreign ambassadors. So he is accused of lying about something he wasn't specifically asked about. He failed to disclose meetings that were part of his job most likely because it was not relevant since he was specifically asked about discussing the campaign with Russian officials.
This is just dirty partisan politics because of the fear the left has for a Jeff Sessions as AG.
And I think they have good reason to fear if he pursues some matters that have happened over the past 8 years.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 14 2017, 09:48 AM

Could you please point towards a recording of that question? Because here is what I can find and he is clearly asked if anyone in the campaign had any contact with Russians during the campaign: https://youtu.be/Bywm3ZAOrSA?t=6s

So the question was not limited to "discussions around the campaign only", and neither was his reply. This makes his reply an obvious lie.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 14 2017, 03:38 PM

What? Listen to it again. In that specific question Sessions was asked if there was evidence of anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian Gov during the course of the campaign, what would he do? He answered that he was not aware of any of those activities and he did not have them either. That is a question regarding conversations with the Russians about the campaign. How is he supposed to know what communications others may have had? Anyway he wasn't asked if anyone or himself had communications, he was asked what would he do if there was evidence that there were communications.

Everybody in DC knows Sessions himself had communications with Russian officials during the campaign because that was his job as a Senator and member of the Armed Services Committee. Meetings in which the Trump campaign was not discussed.

He really didn't even have to recuse himself, he only did so to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest as perceived by the left and so there could be no question of the results of any investigation if nothing is found.

Here is some relevant news:

http://circa.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-donald-trump-and-russia-during-election-yielded-no-evidence-of-crimes

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 14 2017, 06:26 PM

Ouch! Source check time! The "WEEKLY STANDARD" is a right wing conservative publication owned by NEWS CORP e.g. FOX NEWS. Alias Rupert Murdoch's Funnel of right wing propaganda. Maybe get a better source? Or Trust the guy that lives in Sweden

Source Check Part II! CIRCA is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is yet another right leaning conglomerate. They are the second largest owner of local affiliates in the US and have 19 FOX stations in their stable. News is only as good as it's source.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 14 2017, 08:24 PM

Assuming the people of DC follow the same rules of logic as the rest of the world - they will also think it is very strange to lie under oath for absolutely no reason. It's a bit like someone asked me if I saw who stole the cookies from the jar, and I answer that I would never dream of killing the neighbours cat.

That incident alone can of course pass as an isolated happening, but when added to all the other denials of campaign officials' communications with and connections with Russian officials - I think even the people in DC agree they are not likely to be coincidences.

But hey mate I am trying to help you here. If it turns out Russia is in charge of your country now, you better act swiftly as they have no interest in maintaining democracy. If I were you I would demand clarification from the WH asap - and if it turns out there was no reason to worry I will be the first to celebrate with you.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 14 2017, 08:54 PM

Sadly, KRIS, we can't really act swiftly here. As I mentioned before, the entire government is currently leaning to the right and is under the control of the Republicans. Sure, if something really horrible is found out, then perhaps an impeachment hearing, but that's a long shot at this point IMHO. Every branch of Govt is currently "Right Leaning" as Republicans have majority rule in congress and soon to be on the Supreme court, and in the White House. That's all three branches of govt locked up.

So short of something truly beyond eviil coming out about the Pres, and then absolute proof offered there is just not much to be done until the next round of elections. I personally think this is why we are seeing so much of this type of thing (e.g. the russian connection/etc) in the news as the Administration knows they are nearly bulletproof for the time being.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 14 2017, 09:00 PM

My impression is that there is an intense FBI investigation going on, and that the WH is very nervous trying to distract from what is about to happen. I don't get a feeling they are relaxed nor feeling bulletproof in any way. But hey I'm Swedish

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 14 2017, 09:29 PM

You are very up on US politics it seems More so than Many of my countrymen I'm sad to say. Also, you don't seem to quote leftist or right wing sources on the web which is IMHO a very good thing.

The administration knows they are being looked at but Trump does tend towards bluster and arrogance and I doubt he feels like he is in any real trouble. All indications are that he is in fact, heading in to very hot water, but his hold on every branch of govt is quite strong and he is a bit self deluded IMHO, so until his impeachment hearing I doubt we will see him sweat. Until then, he will just declare anything negative to be "Fake News" or "Alternative Facts" and the country will have to soldier on.

I am glad you are swedish so that maybe you can convince some folks that the bits of "news" on all the far right wing sites about the "no go zones" and the rape of swedish woment by muslims is really just more of the same old same old, which is to say, propaganda and fear mongering. Sure I'm guessing there are at least a few cases of nearly everything every where that one could point to. But isolated incidents do not a "wave of violence" make. Still, that sort of thing plays Soooooo well here with half the country, that you keep seeing it. Headlines like
"EUROPE FALLS TO MUSLIM HORDES"
"EU REGRETS LETTING TERRORISTS IN"
"ECONOMY WRECKED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS"
tend to get clicks, so we will continue to see them Especially in the right wing online sources that I source checked earlier

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 14 2017, 10:18 PM

Thanks!

The fact that he does not feel the heat might not work to his advantage. The super weird "Obama wiretapped me" accusations, could have been triggered by him realising FBI has been onto him for awhile. But then again it could also just be an echo of the weird news he watches on TV.



It is strange to see how Sweden is being used for propaganda. I haven't seen a Syrian immigrant ever (to my knowledge) and I live in the southern part of the city just 25 minutes away from Stockholm city center. I haven't heard of anyone I know being raped either.

However Russian reporters have been caught paying kids in the suburbs here to "show some action" - we are definitely not spared from the propaganda.

We also have a far right party that is giving simple answers to complex problems (like Trump does) and who are gaining a lot of new ground.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 15 2017, 04:00 AM

I think you are SPOT ON with this. It won't work to his long term advantage at all IMHO. Live by the Sword eh? The intelligence services seem to have a serious problem with him in general which bodes poorly for the longevity of any president.

I can also see in my head the guys from Kremlin TV (E.g. Russia Today) Running around Sweden trying to "Bribe a Riot" Certainly not beneath the Kremlin. It's being used, I think, partially because it's so far away and hard to track, and as an example of "how bad" things will get if we let any refugees in to our country. Sadly, even the DUTCH are not immune from the rise of right wing populism. I just saw a report on the about a candidate for running the country who is essentially the Dutch Version of Trump. It's just everywhere it seems.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/13/the-guardian-view-on-the-dutch-elections-another-populist-threat

Meanwhile, back at home, one of our Republican Senators (Steve King) was quoted as saying ‘our civilization’ can’t be restored with ‘somebody else’s babies’. Wow. David Duke (KKK throwback) then picked up the quote and ran with it. After all, if a U.S. Senator can say that kind of crap, anybody can.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/12/rep-steve-king-warns-that-our-civilization-cant-be-restored-with-somebody-elses-babies/?utm_term=.020735d19416

Posted by: Stenchovdeth Mar 15 2017, 11:10 AM

Why is this topic/thread even here?
I thought this was a music education forum?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 15 2017, 11:14 AM

Good point, topic moved and titled tweaked!

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 15 2017, 04:14 PM

So, because he didn't actually answer the question of what he would do if there were evidence of folks within the campaign speaking to the Russians about the campaign, that is a lie under oath? Try again.

Have you watched any of the confirmation hearings? If not you are missing a great show of grandstanding, chest pounding drama and the best political theatre around.

Russia in charge of our country? I appreciate your concern but it is now you that seems to think that the earth is flat so to speak, and seems to believe in conspiracy theories without any real evidence to back them up. Because that is what this thread has turned into, a big conspiracy theory.

At least you are willing to discuss I guess. Todd on the other hand has rejected the news article I have posted but has not disputed anything in the article or anything I have posted to this point in this thread.
Sensible politics thread? That's a laugh.

Just so you guys know, I have some problems with Trump too. But they are problems based on real issues and up to this point and until, and if, I see some real evidence of any wrongdoing I am not going to worry about this.

Sorry to crash your little party, Todd. I'll leave you to it, but let me know when you find evidence of collusion with the Russians in Trumps tax returns that have just been illegally leaked. Have fun guys! I'll leave you with some more evil right wing propaganda that is relevant on my way out.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445588/james-clapper-trump-statements-reveal-omission

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 16 2017, 02:33 AM

yes , but you stumbled into a CNN echo chamber

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 17 2017, 01:40 AM

AK RICH: The reason I have not commented on the articles you posted, to be honest, is that they are all from right wing mouth piece sites. including the one you posted here. I realize that support for most of your positions can easily be found on such sites. However, that doesn't make the information worth anything. Sites owned by FOX and other hard core, right wing orgs will post whatever supports the talking points they are pushing. These types of articles don't merit consideration to be honest. Like we talked about before, info is only as good as it's source. So anything from Reuters/Pew Research/CBS News, or really any respected news source that isn't known for being a mouthpiece for either side. E.g. Mother Jones on the Left, Fox/National Review on the right.

However, let's focus on issues since we can't seem to find any sources.

RUSSIA: Still under investigation. Only part of trumps 2005 returns were released, but we did learn why Michael Kelly resigned. See below. I wonder if he will roll over on Trump?

UPDATE: MICHAEL FLYNN (Resigned as Trumps National Security Advisor after scrutiny over Russian ties) just REGISTERED AS A FOREIGN AGENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. He was paid HALF A MILLION DOLLARS to represent the interests of TURKEY during the campaign. All this just recently came out after he registered this past tuesday. Now that this has all come out, it makes me more interested to see the tax returns of our president to see who was paying whom. Someone this close to him was taking money at this level while on the campaign trail and even during his short tenure as a senior white house advisor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/michael-flynn-turkey.html
If you don't like the NY Times, here is the same story in the Associated Press. One of the two sources I would say are the most reliable. AP and Reuters. Most news pulls from these two sources for their stories.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/former-trump-security-adviser-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying

NEW POLICY: Trump is trying to pump billions in to the Military, (already the largest on Earth) and defund MEALS ON WHEELS and after school programs that help the poor. This is the sad truth. That Trump is pushing policies that will impact the very people who voted him in to office. The lower middle class who he swore to protect. I won't bother with a link, I'll post the bill link from congress as I find them.

Maybe we should limit ourselves to that. As you seem to post only right wing sites, and reject even well respected news organizations like the BBC, perhaps just pointing to actual info from Congress will cut down on peripheral bs and cut to the heart of the matter.

I thought he was headed in to a NATIONAL REVIEW/FOX/CIRCA/BRIETBARF echo chamber But thankfully it's being moderated.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 17 2017, 07:53 PM

I say you wrong , you say Im wrong . if your in the mood to be sensible ?
what would need to happen to make you believe you might have been misinformed and what would trump need to do to prove he was putin's beotch ( I know you think that , but ,What would prove it )

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 17 2017, 09:05 PM

Did you hear the news that his former National Security Adivsor just registered as a Foreign Agent after admitting to taking half a million bucks from the Govt of Turkey as well as tens of thousands from Russia Today (News Source and Owned by the Kremlin)? So we have somebody one step away driving dirty. Doesn't make Trump look any cleaner.

Also, the distraction tactic of "obama wiretapped me", then blaming FOX NEWS for the entire thing? Talk about the blind leading the blind. Fox even came out with a press release saying "we have no evidence full stop of any wiretapping". It was based on an op ed by a fox contributor.

So far, it doesn't look good.

However, personally, I'd take his Tax Returns for the past 10 years as proof of everything. No Russian money shown, then I"m convinced. But he won't release them. So there's that.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 18 2017, 04:33 AM

In other news, maybe there is still hope for the 9th circuit after reading this stunning rebuke of the courts decision to stay the ban on Trumps first executive order concerning immigration. Finally some judges of the court have recognized and cited the law, and case precedence.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 18 2017, 07:21 PM

Come on, "stunning rebuke"? Seemed more like judges just doing their job. Trump is throwing out red meat to the base so he can say "I did what I said I was going to do" and we gotta give him credit for that. But again, that's what forums are for One guy says stunning rebuke, the other guy says the exact opposite, and we have a forum thread

Posted by: klasaine Mar 18 2017, 08:15 PM

It's a lot like making a deal. *Don't regale me with 'Trump the businessman' analogies. Most, if not all politicians are just as savvy or as ruthless as the Donald.

You offer ridiculously low, the other side flat out rejects, you offer more reasonably, it meets somewhere in the middle. The administration knew perfectly well that the first one wouldn't fly. Which is why they didn't challenge back. They just wrote a new exec order - which is what most admins do in that situation.

Most likely that is how the next 4 years will be - deal making. And how most 4 year periods are.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 18 2017, 10:57 PM

No, he lied because he said he didn't meet Russians when he did. Saying that he didn't meet them as a surrogate, but still met them in some other capacity, is not only a weak excuse but risky business under oath. It would take a very inexperienced person not to realise the major risk of this backfiring - which is yet a reason to believe he might be hiding something.

It would have been easy for him to just add "I met Russians but not as a surrogate". But that would obviously have triggered more questions, which I guess he wanted to avoid.



I don't claim to be 'right' - I just use my common sense to make you understand it lies in your interest to get to the bottom of this. Given how extreme the speculations have become - it is strange Trump does not lay the cards on the table. This inevitably leads to further speculations.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 19 2017, 03:21 AM

Don't take this the wrong way. Do you think I am to dumb, that I need you to help me understand where are interests are .Quite honestly this post is someone speaking to a child , lets break it down . Common sense - as if I don't have any ." understand " - I have covered that . It sort of looks like you are so beholden to your " Speculation " ( your words not mine ) Trump could never do anything right , And everytime you want to argue using speculation , you show how senseless you are. I thought you said sensible . I thought if I could get you or Todd to actually draw a line in the sand, that maybe, you had it wrong, but neither one of you will , so what are these conversations . I wasn't telling you what to do , I was asking you, letting you make the call, so we have something to work with , but you still can't answer. I'll ask again , Is there anything that Trump could do that would get him of the hook as putin's beotch

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 19 2017, 09:40 AM

I certainly don't think you are dumb!

There are many things Trump could do that instantly would give him credibility as far as Russia goes:

* Show all of his tax returns just like all other US presidents have

* Ask his people to stop denying Russia contacts and instead be transparent about why and how they met

* Stop calling Putin a nice guy and instead - just like the rest of the free world - denounce his assassination of political opponents, virtual dictatorship, Ukraine takeover, total media control, meddling in foreign elections, military/hacking ramp up etc etc

Posted by: Mertay Mar 19 2017, 12:58 PM

Yet this is what works best, always giving media and people something to chew or argue about...creating conflict and seperation among people in a country works best for the man at the top. It doesn't matter if wrong or right.

Thinking about it, what did he accomplish since he became president to this day? the toilet people will choose in public places. Everything is either is in the works, pending or still argued...but it doesn't "feel" like this for both sides of the voters, as if lots of things are happening but in reality...

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 19 2017, 01:57 PM

Thank you, now , I want to know ( not based on speculation ) , but what you think you could bring to me with an " I told you so ". If Trump is his beotch , how would that manifest itself with how he runs the administration. I think this important to our conversation , either way when looking back , we can set some guidelines ,when our heads are clear , and we can both look back and see how our perceptions varied from reality . If hindsight is 20/20 than establishing some concrete stances( that we can't change), so that we could look back with unfiltered 20/20 and see if we got it right or wrong, would this not be beneficial to our growth ?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 19 2017, 03:15 PM

If one of the most powerful autocracies (Russia) managed to push its agenda onto the most powerful democracy (US) - it would undoubtedly mean a new world order.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 19 2017, 04:29 PM

No sir, this was a judicial beatdown and scathing review from the other judges on the court of the 9th circuit courts ruling on the EO. Yeah judges doing their job schooling the other judges on the court how to do their job. It is stunning because it came from the 9th circuit, that's why I say maybe there is still hope for that court.
The judges that made the ruling are rogue judicial activists and what they have done is judicial tyranny.
Maybe this will explain it better for you.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9th-circuit-judges-dish-out-ruthless-take-down-to-anti-trump-travel-ban-decision/

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

PS: Isn't it interesting that this publication from the 9th circuit isn't headline news?

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 19 2017, 08:31 PM

thenwhat do you think of this opinion piece http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/08/scary-truth-about-what-putin-really-wants-and-obama-s-willful-ignorance.html

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 19 2017, 08:46 PM

I skimmed through it briefly -

I am by no means a Russia expert and I am not sure my opinion on the details is worth anything. But if it turns out the Russian influence is as bad we're currently led to believe by the WH silence - you can be 100% sure it is not something that will benefit you and me.

If you guys want to get more understanding for this, I suggest researching briefly on the history of Russia/USSR and more importantly Putin.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 19 2017, 11:25 PM

I believe many of those things about putin , he is KGB thru and thru, and I believe he would love to see a return to that ( and trust me , to many of my" Kin" would be flat out waring with Trump if we thought he would throw out our Republic) . I am trying to find some common ground . you do know that article came from Fox news ( or as some say " faux news " ), But it seemed to be close to were you are . From were I stand it looks like you might have a tainted view of fox. I am not saying you agree with anymore , this might be the only one , but maybe , just maybe , you could give credit to an article rather than the name someone else might be slandering

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 20 2017, 12:01 AM

SURE As I've said many, many, many times. TRUMP COULD RELEASE HIS TAXE RETURNS. That would do it for me If he wants to convince the two thirds of the electorate that want to see his tax returns of his legitimacy as pres, then yeah, let the tax returns for the past 10 year speak for themselves and convince everyone. Simple eh? However, I think Hell will freeze over twice before he releases his returns.

Todd

I get it You support Trump and the Ban Thus you would support any courts that support that. As I do NOT support the ban, I support the Judges that shot it down. Twice! Simple as that. Both sides have arguments to support their side, naturally. It can be argued from either vantage point in legal terms. Still, I find it objectionable and unconstitutional, along with the judges that shot it down. It's just that simple, we disagree on the ban. I find the ban un American on a fundamental level.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 20 2017, 12:46 AM

FAUX news falls squarely under the right wing propaganda rubric. It's a network created by Rupert Murdoch to spread his right wing ideology. It's more a commentary network than a "news" network. It's mostly punditry and it's no secret that it has a severe right wing bias. Just as sure as Mother Jones is a left wing publication, or the Village Voice. As such, none of these make good sources for valid arguments imho. They are so far from "center" that the severity of their bias impedes their usefulness. Bias exists everywhere, but it exists more strongly in some places than others. For example, the Pew Research Center, Associated Press, and CBO (Congressional budget office) are about a close to center, and away from bias as one can get. That's why they make good sources. Places like Brietbart (the mouthpiece of the Alt Right) and equally bad places on the left, simply do not make good reference materials due to the depth of their bias.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 20 2017, 12:54 AM

Let me help you , he is a business man, he has ties in many countries , I would put money there has to be something tied to russia somehow , and as little as it might be . You think he would let the left pick apart his life . You guys can"t even let him put ketchup on his steak without getting you panties in a bunch, but surely that can"t be the only thing that you can think of to exonerate him ?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 20 2017, 02:18 AM

You asked "WHAT WOULD IT TAKE" and I told you what it would take. Simple as that. Do I think he should release his tax returns? Like every pres for the past 40 years? YES.

Not doing so, makes him look guilty and hard to trust. So there's your question answered. That's what it would take. Trump being open and honest as the previous 40 years worth of presidents. But like I said and you confirmed, there is NO CHANCE he will release his returns. Why? Probably because they are dripping with Russian money. Certainly doesn't help that he won't release them.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 20 2017, 09:44 PM

Recently I have started watching all the major US news channels, including Fox. One of the major advantages with having free press is that you can (and should) do a reality check "on the other side".

I can't say Fox is a favorite of mine though. They seem to devote quite some time to critiquing coverage of their competitors. I also find their analyses to be slightly less objective and more focused on personalities.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 21 2017, 02:14 AM

Yup Your analysis of FOX is what most Journalists and Journalistic Scholars say as well. It's mostly punditry, and is so heavily biased that it's not really a valid source of "news". As I mentioned in a previous post, it was the brain child of billionaire rupert murdhoch to create a purely right wing news outlet and save money by doing mostly punditry and panels instead of having paid correspondents all over the world actually breaking stories.

I watch FOX as well as the other major outlets. I find that watching a bit of all of them gives you a better perspective. Most folks however, just watch the stuff the reinforces what they already "feel".

I did want to point out that the first draft of the new budget proposal seeks to pull money from after school programs, and meals on wheels and other programs that help feed the elderly and poor. The very folks (the left behind) that Trump swore to protect, are the very folks that will suffer when the budget is slashed in order to give billions more to the military to buy more Nuclear subs to Fight Muslims in the desert. Yup. Isis and Al Qaeda dont' have an air force, nor a Navy, yet we are going to take food from the poor to buy more subs and pricey air craft. Seems just insane.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 21 2017, 08:50 AM

Yes that budget proposal is nothing short of horrific from start to finish If such a proposal was brought up here, I think/hope it would instantly cause massive and nation wide protests.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 21 2017, 05:04 PM

More exaggerated drama. That vast majority of funding for the program comes from private donors. I make donations to them myself a few times a year. They receive only a fraction of what they take in from federal dollars. Any void left by removing taxpayer funding will be quickly filled by donations as evidenced by the recent surge of donations to the program since the announcement of the budget proposal. Americans are the most generous in the world when it comes to charity and this program isn't going anywhere because of that.

If the program can stand on it's own without taxpayer funding, then why shouldn't it? We don't need to be forced to fund it and forcing taxpayers to pay for charities that Gov chooses may likely be doing more harm than good when it comes to other charities that are not federally funded. We are perfectly capable of determining which charities we want to donate to and Gov has no business telling us which charities we must donate to.
Charitable donations are tax deductible which helps to create an incentive for folks to donate. Forcing people to donate thru taxation creates the idea of charities not needing donations because the Gov is supposed to have it covered and folks then have less money to donate to the charities of their choice.
Lower taxes = more charitable donations.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 21 2017, 10:25 PM

What program are you talking about AK?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 21 2017, 11:30 PM

He could be talking about the endownment for the arts or public broadcasting. Really any program that also takes private donor funds. I can't agree with his statement, per usual, that private money will cover the missing federal dollars. I agree with Kris here, shocker, that the budget is horrific. Peeling the 1% of the budget allocated to programs like the endowment for the arts while making tax payers from 3 MILLION DOLLARS per weekend, every weekend, when he takes his entourage to MARO LAGO. Now that is flat out criminal IMHO. All the while, trimming the pennies of each dollar that go for programs that help the sick and the aged and the poor. Frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.

Doing this to fatten up the military just makes it that much worse. We already spend more than the next several top nations combined. Also, buying more submarines and stealth jets wont help fight terrorism, homegrown or otherwise. It's just more money for fat cats and contractors, par for the course with republican presidents sadly.

TRUTH IS, until regular trump voters get kicked off their health care, and see their taxes go up, along with all the other bad things that are headed for the middle/lower middle class if this budget passes, not until then will we see any change in Trump Fan Club. Most of his following (present company excluded of course) are just voting with their heart. The brain is not part of it IMHO. He says things that resonate with frustrated white folks who feel left behind by globalism and who simply don't want the change that is happening in America. We are becoming more "brown" as a county simply due to demographic shifts. The Baby Boomers are losing their grip on power and they are not going down without a fight. Til they all die off, more of the same is on deck.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule. My father is a boomer that sees trump for what he is. Sadly, most boomers are trumpers.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 22 2017, 04:09 PM

Sorry, I was speaking of Meals on Wheels in response to Todd's post about it being defunded.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 24 2017, 11:19 AM

So AK, you are saying this about meals on wheels:

Then it seems you are sitting on info not widely available - because from what I gather the funding for this program is complex as it's a network of thousands of independently run groups that receive varying amounts of government aid – or none at all.

However we do know the biggest source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels programs comes from the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which is run by the Department Of Health and Human Services.

Trump has proposed slashing the Health and Human Services budget by nearly 18 percent, though the exact details of those cuts have not been released.

So it does seem this could have a big impact on old people's ability to survive (as you know food is mandatory). Feel free to clarify your standpoint.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 24 2017, 04:29 PM

Kris, I believe I was perfectly clear. If you have some info that disputes what I have posted then I am sure you will let me know. I imagine we are looking at the same reports, none of which indicates that the funding provided by taxpayer dollars is any more than a small fraction of the total of all funding provided. The vast majority of which is from donations. And the recent surge of donations has been widely reported.
Furthermore, none of this is written in stone. The budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and is likely to be amended before it is finalized.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 24 2017, 05:05 PM

Donations always surge when the threat of a cut is proposed.
The sustainability of the public funding is tough as those programs will now have to spend more money and time on 'fundraising activities' and less on actually helping people. The amount of money that the govt. gives to the arts and food for the hungry is fucking minuscule.
The NEA gets on average about $146 million per year (.012 of the fed 'discretionary' budget). That's about $1.07 a year on your personal fed tax bill (based on approx 136 mil people filing fed tax). Fed food programs (SNAP) cost us all maybe $36.00 on our fed return. Most of that, 83%, goes to kids, retirees and disabled folks ... and there already is a work requirement (18 to 59 yr old's in good health - since Clinton in '96).

Arts and food. Come on.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 24 2017, 09:46 PM

AK RICH: I think you missed this part from kris's response which states the bulks of the funds come from the govt, not from charity support. " biggest source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels programs comes from the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which is run by the Department Of Health and Human Services. "

As far as I'm aware, Kris is on point. The Dept of Health and Human services (tax money) is the bulk of their funding. Where are you getting information suggesting that donors are the bulk of their funding? This seems to be where you are talking past each other.


I"m just glad that horrible, anti health bill didn't pass. Even the AARP came out against it. But at least Trump can say he at least tried so he is in keeping with his promises. Now they are going to let Obama Care "Explode". Now that is some serious exaggeration.

This is the part that they don't talk about on FOX news. These programs are a miniscule slice of discretionary spending. After the Military and Social Security type programs, about 20 percent of our budget is all that is left and little slices go to help the aged and the poor. To take away from these programs to expand the military is IMHO beyond the pale. But hey, that's just me Obviously I didn't vote for Trump. Many trump voters seem to think it's fine to slash programs for the needy to give tax breaks to rich and more money to the military to submarines and stealth jets to fight a bunch of guys with ak47s and light trucks in the desert.

The good news for the American people is that Trump won't touch a "loser" and health care is a loser. Even with both
houses of congress, he can't push through the war crime he called a health care bill.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 25 2017, 09:27 AM

Yeah it's laughable, who needs arts and music?!

Also, I would like to add Environmental Protection to the list - who the hell needs that?? If we skip that, the planet will soon boil and we can all have free tea, I don't see any problems with that.

This will also solve food problems: anyone knows old people can survive weeks on just water while they wait for private donors - and there will soon be plenty of (sea) water for everyone to enjoy thanks to arctic ice melting.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 25 2017, 03:59 PM

That would be incorrect. The majority of Federal funding may come from HHS but not the majority of their total funding. Where are you getting your info? It's simply not so. And at this point there have been no cuts announced for the OAA itself as far as I can tell.

It was obvious to me the health care bill was going nowhere. I didn't support it either, but for reasons that differ from yours I am sure.

A war crime called a health care bill? Good grief man, exaggerate much for dramatic effect? I didn't like it either but I don't recall anyone having characterized it as a war crime, other than you. But I wouldn't be surprised I guess if that little gem is being past around among the far left.

I don't donate to political parties, only to charities. Maybe if more folks would do that these problems could be solved. Also, maybe we should cut off a big chunk of foreign aid and redirect that into helping the impoverished in our own country.

Anyway, I am looking at it like this. Nothing in the budget proposal is finalized to the best of my knowledge and the exact amounts of cuts, where they are coming from, and the impact it may have are still unknown and has been reported as such. You guys have stated what you think it could mean and so have I.
When I see what the facts are concerning this issue and a host of other issues such as Russian collusion etc that so far are just speculation, then I will worry about it. Until then I am not going to have a big reaction to anything other than real evidence or facts.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 26 2017, 06:26 AM

The basic divide seems to be that myself and kris and Ken seem to think it's just not right to cut out what's left of the budget, after military spending and social security/etc. and slice it up even further and give it to the Pentagon. The bits that are being slices off are very small portions of the budget. Then again, that's what voting is for. After all, the folks in power and in both houses of congress have the ability to destroy all discretionary programs by defunding them and give all the money the pentagon. I think this is beyond the pale in terms of simple morality. Those programs are a miniscule slice of the budget and they go to help those who need it the most. I think we should take a HUGE slice out of the military budget personally. We overspend on the military by billions. The Military Industrial Complex has become a monster that sucks up about half of every tax dollar. To make it worse, the people we are fighting have no NAVY, no AIR FORCE, just guys with guns in light trucks and whatever they can steal from what we left behind. Spending billions on stealth jets and anti submarine warfare seems ludicrous. But again, just to me. Maybe you and others thing we need massive expansion of the military and to do away with social programs for the poor, disabled and aged. I think you would change your mind if you found yourself poor, disabled, an or aged.

As for the funding for Meals on Wheels, they get most of their state money from Community development block grants, a $3 billion program that started in the Ford administration to give states and cities more flexibility in how they combat poverty. If this get's cut, many programs that depend on it would simply go away. These are state level monies.

However, Meals on Wheels programs get most of their federal funding through the Administration for Community Living, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that serves the elderly and disabled. That agency has a $227 million line-item for "home-delivered nutrition services." This represents the bulk of their federal funding.

Those programs are authorized though the Older Americans Act,

Still, they get the overall bulk of their funding from Corporations and Foundations who use it as a tax write off. Individual contributions are just a small portion of the overall budget but they have been rising as people are afraid Trump will cut fundin and leave many elderly people with nobody to bring them a meal.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-budget-meals-on-wheels-funding-2017-3

MEALS ON WHEELS SAVES THE US 34 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN NURSING HOME COSTS BY KEEPING ELDERLY PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 26 2017, 05:11 PM

I'll address the last paragraph in your post first. That is exactly what I have said and at first you seemed to dispute it , now you agree that the majority of their funding comes from donations. Corporations and Foundations as well as the general public who donate and do volunteer work represent the majority of the funding for MOW.

Now on to military spending. The first and foremost role of the Fed Gov is to "Provide For The Common Defense." Obama dramatically reduced funding to the military. Under Obama the production of most advanced fighter jet the world has ever seen, the F-22 Raptor was halted. Under Obama we saw in FY 2015 that spending on social and economic programs was over 4 times greater than the spending on national defense. Federal spending on national defense was less than 16% of federal spending in that year. If you look at the graph I have provided you can easily see the spending on social and economic programs has been the bulk of federal spending for quite some time.
In 2010 America spent well over 3 times as much on transfer payments to individuals than it spent on the entire national security budget including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over the next 4 years the entitlement spending was set to increase another $700 billion.

While Obama was gutting our military and bases where being shut down across the country we saw a buildup in the military of countries like China and Iran and we saw Russia walk all over Crimea and Ukraine. That's not quite as innocuous sounding as some guys in the desert with Ak-47's is it? If you watched the recent hearings with Comey and Rogers we saw at least one democrat (her name escapes me at the moment) claim that Russia's role in our election was an act of war. So maybe we need to worry about them too?
Are Democrats going to bring us into a war with Russia because they are so butthurt over loosing an election that they thought was in the bag?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-denies-harassing-u-warships-gulf-warns-clashes-190717179.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/asia/us-china-south-china-sea/index.html
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/chinese-raises-volume-of-its-south-china-sea-saber-rattling/

I think you might change your mind about military spending if this country is attacked while our defenses have been compromised for entitlements. Entitlements that if left to continue on the course they are on will consume all federal revenue.
There is the possibility that you can kiss all those entitlements goodbye if these nations (Iran, China, Russia, N. Korea) and other nations decide they want to gang up on the US.

[attachment=45991:FBIP_MAIN_16.jpg]
[attachment=45990:FBIP_MAIN_28_1.jpg]


http://federalbudgetinpictures.com/[/url]

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 26 2017, 06:17 PM

The US spends as much on military expenditures as the next dozen countries in the world combined. The US accounts for about a third of worldwide military spending.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 26 2017, 09:22 PM

Well said Facts are facts despite what many Trumpers would want to believe. We already outspend the next dozen countries combined and he wants to kill meals on wheels? That's just evil. As for China and Russia, China owns most of our debt. I doubt seriously they want to fight us and weaken us to the point where we can't make our payments to them. I just don't buy it. As for Russia, they are a regional power at best. Not a super power. They can hack, they can spy, but direct conflict? Doubt it. Again, don't buy it. But that's just me Many Republicans and folks that love Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh (Ring Wing Nut Jobs to be honest) love to stoke fears in order to sell dried food to suckers. Check the Alex Jones site, tons of survival type gear for "preppers". They are selling fear, not reality.

Here is a chart of the 2016 proposed budget. Look at the military spending. Then look at the slivers left over for everything else. I'm voting for the next politician that wants to repair our country and stop wasting billions on a pointless arms race. We are on the same path that ROME was on. More and more spending on the military until finally, we just go broke trying to pay the interest on the loans. We are spending ourselves in to extinction via pointless military expansion.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 27 2017, 12:25 AM

Contrary to popular belief it is we, the grand old USofA that owns most of our debt.
U.S. citizens and American entities, such as state and local governments, pension funds (including soc. sec.), mutual funds, and the Federal Reserve, domestic and private investors, etc. Together they (we) own the vast majority - 67.5% of the debt.
Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total.
Of that, China - about 1.24 trillion. Japan is at 1.15 (though they jockey back and forth - Japan led in Dec of 2016). Ireland of all places is in 3rd place with about 271 billion in held US debt and the UK in general has ALWAYS owned a ton of US debt. *UK and Canadian persons, entities and corporations have also always owned a lot of US real estate. Overall more than any other country historically.

Don't freak out about the debt - domestic or foreign.

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 27 2017, 12:45 AM

Having substantial portions of our debt held by foreigners is cause for celebration. Todd is correct about this: just like globalization of the world's economy, it links the economic fates of nations together. In the history of mankind, there has never been a greater force for peace than having nations dependent on each other for economic prosperity.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 27 2017, 01:44 AM

My bad, I should have been more specific and said "FOREIGN DEBT". We own the bulk of our debt in it's entirety. The Chinese own a huge portion of our foreign debt, but you are right it's an important distinction.

Very articulate as per usual Makes me feel like my lack of eloquence is getting in the way of me making a clear point. I"ll have to work on it a bit. But yes, you nailed it precisely. It's a good way to keep the guns silent, as it were. Almost like royal houses marrying daughters and sons to create a bond and lasting peace, today we use debt in much the same way. As a stabilizing force.
As a result of our external debt, it acts as a buffer against military action against us from State actors. No help against non state actors of course, but against the big threats, like China, it helps quite a bit. So spending billions on our military seems just pointless and cutting programs that help Americans who need it the most seems down right evil and self centered. It's goes against the very moral fiber of what it is to be an American IMHO. As a nation, we are not that self absorbed, at least I hope not. I would like to think that as a nation, we can agree to help those who really need it and do so on a grand scale. Not leave it to charity groups and hope for the best. That's just a huge cop out that gets spewn from the far far right IMHO.

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 27 2017, 04:38 PM

That first sentence doesn't seem to be correct from what I can find, or at least old data. The second may be more accurate.
Numbers from 2014 show that projected military expenditures of 581 billion are exceeded by the next 9 nations spending of a projected 588 billion. And at that time, the projected spending for the years to follow show a 25% reduction in military spending until 2020.
Those projections also showed that by 2020 the military spending of the US will be 6 billion less than the next 5 nations (obviously these numbers will change in light of recent events).
Numbers I could find for 2015 show that the military spending for the US was roughly equal to the next 7 nations which are China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, UK, India, France and Japan.
It should be noted that our military does far more than just provide for the common defense of the US. We have provided it for other nations as well and are bound by treaties to do so in some cases. The US is top cover for the world. Our military is a big part of the reason why communism isn't running rampant across the globe, and we are expected by other nations to continue to be a police force for the globe so to speak.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 27 2017, 05:13 PM

No, those figures are pretty accurate.
The US accounts for between 36 and 37% of the worlds total military expenditures. The World total is approx 1.6 trillion dollars give or take. These are 2015 and 2016 numbers from several sources ... https://www.google.com/search?q=US+military+spending+compared+to+the+rest+of+the+world&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

As for protecting the rest of the world. Yes, we of course do and spend a lot but of the other top military spenders - France, Britain, Japan and Germany - they absolutely pull their weight (regardless of what the President 'says'). We spend more than double what China spends and Russia barely even registers in comparison. *Saudi Arabia spends more on their military than Russia (one third more).

I'm all for being the strongest, most advanced and most prepared nation in the world but there's overkill in the first draft of the newly proposed budget.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 27 2017, 05:35 PM

You may have missed my where I edited the beginning of my post. I can agree with you that the US accounts for 36 or 37% of worldwide expenditures. The first claim that we spend more than the next dozen nations is clearly outdated and inaccurate. I read the same articles as you did, or at least this one.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/

Overkill in this years budget may be needed to compensate for all of the reductions that have occurred over the last 8 years to get us back on track.

Edit: Something else to consider is the possibility that the numbers we have for countries like China and Russia may not be accurate if those numbers are provided by the individual nations themselves. There is no question that China has spent quite a bit on the military in the last decade or more such as rebuilding their Navy. And some of those things that we see as a military buildup, they have denied as is the case of island building in the South China Sea.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 27 2017, 07:36 PM

Maybe.
One can also make the case that their numbers are exaggerated for 'effect', especially the effect upon their own populous.
It's well documented that China in particular exaggerates it's GDP. Who knows what else they exaggerate.

China is building up in the South China Sea because we already have 5 bases nearby (which ain't going anywhere, contrary to whatever B.S. Duterte may talk).

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 27 2017, 11:51 PM

seems we also had to protect about a third of the world from Russia in the cold war ( thats why this ball is out of control , should we have those people pay us back


us "Trumpers " are getting tired of you complaining about spending .I would also like to point out this political fallacy that you brought up , that you broke , by trying to saddle the opposing opinion with a title that will negate said opinion with an inferred/impossible to disprove bias .
Where was your complaining when Obama saddled us with eleven trillion dollars of dept. Seriously , a stagnant economy , a failed health care plan , more Americans on government assistant . All this for the bargain price of 11 trillion dollars , Your political ideas you have stood behind for the last 8 years (leading to all the afore mentioned ) seem to scare me rather than inspire confidence .

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 28 2017, 03:40 AM

Can't argue with your first point but I am not convinced on your second for at least a couple of reasons. At any rate I believe the building of those islands to be primarily a military expenditure and may not be disclosed as such.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 28 2017, 07:09 AM

Hey jstcrsn -

Have you noticed how civilised the discussion had become prior to your post? Please make an extra effort to be polite.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 28 2017, 11:50 AM

do you mean the quote were Todd referred to them trumpers .I talk how I would and do talk to friends will they are right in front of me and looking back it reads differently than meant . Edited , my apologizes

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 28 2017, 01:25 PM

No problem mate. I don't think you are doing it intentionally - but in order to keep these threads we just need to be a little extra cautious.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 28 2017, 02:04 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that it's a military expenditure. And to be clear I'm not at all saying no new defense spending. But how about instead of 54 billion, make it 30 billion and don't cut anything.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 28 2017, 04:55 PM

Or we could do that 30 billion for the military and leave the rest of the cuts in place and put that saved 24 billion towards paying down the national debt, which would be like basically paying for nothing since that is about what we have to show after spending all that money that we didn't have in the last 8-10 years.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 29 2017, 03:26 AM

Civility is always a good thing imho As for crsns post, I didn't support much of the spending under obama, so I'm not sure why crsn would think that I was a fan of it without asking? I'm not a fan of expanding the military industrial complex in general. IT's gotten to be nearly half of our budget and we have problems at home that could use the money imho. Maybe next election cycle

That does sound a bit more "Sensible"

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 29 2017, 01:13 PM

so you do find it troubling that Obama raised the national dept to 20 trillion ?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 29 2017, 07:22 PM

https://www.thebalance.com/what-has-obama-done-11-major-accomplishments-3306158: 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 Bush raised the debt by $5.849 trillion, with the war on terror. The debt is so extreme at this point that the interest alone is going to bury us at some point. Both of them added way to much debt imho fighting the "war on terror". War against an idea is the "Forever War" that George Orwell tried to warn us about in his book 1984 and here we are. A war without end with unlimited expansion of the military at the expense of the poor, disabled and aged. So yeah, wag your finger at BUSH at bit while you are wagging it at OBAMA.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 29 2017, 08:35 PM

The US was born in debt and we've only EVER had one balanced budget and one year where we didn't owe any money - 1835 (Jackson admin). At that time the debt was $58 million ($1.4 billion in today's money).

Our interest rate is really low. We are AAA rated and we easily make our payments.

I don't even think we're in the top 10 of debt to GDP nations. Maybe we're #12 right now.
Don't look at the actual number, which is inconceivable to a normal human, look at the % to GDP and the interest 'rate' we pay.

Japan's debt to GDP is 250% but they still get cheap loans ... because everybody knows that Japan makes good on their payments (as do we).

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 30 2017, 12:16 AM

I have waged it at bush, the last 2 years there was never a spending bill he didn"t like/sign. I too think this will eventually kill the US, so how do we stop washington from spending us into oblivion

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 30 2017, 03:14 PM

You know that is almost the exact wording that Alex Jones used to use to describe the war on terror during the Bush admin.
What would you call a war with an enemy that represents no country? War against an idea?
Idea's don't fly jets into buildings or seek to get their way through violence and intimidation and murder those who do not agree and will not comply with their barbaric ideals. Piss poor excuses for people that happen to be called terrorists do.
In my view, 1984 describes the grim reality of a liberal utopia where there is no such thing as individuality and gov controls everything with absolute power.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 30 2017, 05:02 PM

Other than flying jets into buildings (though plenty of conspiracy folks think we actually did it to ourselves ie., 911 ), the "barbaric" other side thinks and says the exact same things about us. Not too mention the not so barbaric south/central america and southeast asia.

I personally don't agree with their view but it is all really a matter of perspective.

Throughout most of the world, the US is at best regarded as the 300 lb. gorilla. A scary 300 lb. gorilla.
We are seen as big, rich, super powerful and enigmatic - but also impetuous, bullying and clumsy.

Travel. Observe.

Posted by: Mertay Mar 30 2017, 09:33 PM

Things doesn't look good for Trump it seems, I wouldn't be surprised in USA waged war somewhere soon.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 31 2017, 07:35 AM

Yes that's a very obvious thing he could do to distract people and get approval rating up At the cost of civilian lives...

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 31 2017, 12:30 PM

This is a pretty big accusation , open ended , vague . Specifics would do this conversation more justice IMO

P.S. especially when the opposing political party was pushing for war with Syria/ Russia

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 31 2017, 01:22 PM

It's no accusation, it's just speculation. It's a well known fact presidents get better approval/support from the people in times of war/terror.

Since Trump's support is lower every week - one could argue war would be a possible move. I certainly hope I am wrong though, hopefully this is not something he is interested in pursuing.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 31 2017, 03:04 PM

Mertay and Kristofer illustrate my point perfectly.
Regardless of whether it will happen or not (a new war), this is how most of the rest of the world feels they have to deal with us. Scared and wary of us most of the time.
The President by himself can't 'declare war'. He must get the consent of congress. He can order a response in the case of an emergency i.e., Pearl Harbor or 911.
I don't think right now that either the American people or the congress have the stomach for another conflict. At this point he doesn't really have congress on his side.
We're perfectly happy fighting our proxy war against Iran over in Syria and continuing to battle Isis in Iraq.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2017, 04:00 PM

Wild speculation I would say. Is it any wonder Trump's approval ratings are bad when the majority of the media has waged war on him? No-one is going to war unless we are attacked. Ken is correct in my view in saying that the American people and Congress are not in any hurry to stomach another war.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2017, 04:29 PM

Of course the barbarians believe that, so what? Who gives a damn? I sure don't. We know what they are.
You could translate your next statement to meaning respected and feared, and some will think poorly of us. That's how it goes when you are the biggest and baddest gorilla on the block, it goes with the territory. I have never been too concerned about what other people think of me because I know that I do right by myself and others and I sleep well at night because of that. I am not going to change anything just to make someone who doesn't agree with me happy. Nor should the USA. If someone doesn't like that , well that's just tough shit.

Posted by: Mertay Mar 31 2017, 04:55 PM

If I were American, I'd probably vote for Trump as I see Hillary responcible for all the blood in middle east. I'm probably the most affected by that war in this forum.

Mine is just a guess I wish won't happen, but Trump is so much like our leader here its not funny. When a coalition was expected to emerge from the last election, he burned the bridges from a terrorist organisation (pkk, been fighting for more than 40 years) as there were only days away to making peace. Soon later in the middle of chaos we went for another election and he won again...I call this abuse of nationalist feelings.

Trump as a politician gains strength from popularism not ideology, thats what such politicians do. Doesn't have to be war but keep their voters high on a feeling of fighting with national problems.

...and erdogan also made his daugther his advisor, she quit after getting married and her husband is the new minister of energy

In 2 weeks we'll vote a few constitution laws which if accepted will give ultimate power to the president. If it passed pretty much goodbye for democracy in Turkey

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 31 2017, 05:32 PM

After the passing of the PATRIOT ACT (not blaming trump for that, just saying) and with the recent news that all of our browsing history is now available to highest bidder, privacy is truly dead. The govt is selling us out. The forever war is already here. Welcome to George Orwell's nightmare made real.
This is why the Orange King Must Fall.

Good news His former defense guy Michael kelly has asked for IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION in order to tell everything he knows. He registered as s foreign agent with the dept of justtice and for MERTARY, just to know, he took half a million dollars to represent the interests of Turkey during the Campaign. There is dirty money all over this administration and it's going to come out when Michale Kelly gets to testify. I can't wait. I hope they crucify all the guilty and put it on FOX news.

Posted by: klasaine Mar 31 2017, 05:33 PM

Feared yes, respected ... not so much anymore.
Your own slightly aggressive and defensive response is exactly why and again illustrating my point perfectly.
So much of the rest of the world, our allies included, see us as constantly just saying "Fuck you" to the rest of the planet all the time.
It's one thing to be the strongest kid on the block, it's quite another to be the biggest asshole on the block.

Most people around the world like Americans individually and also generally like the 'idea' of America. Part of that 'American ideal' and one that I personally feel is our strongest potential aspect and trait, is that we can be the biggest and baddest w/o having to act like a clumsy, spoiled child.

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 31 2017, 05:34 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2017, 05:51 PM

You do realize that the Dems embraced and expanded on the Patriot act once they got into power right? They didn't allow it to sunset or dilute it in the least and have used it to spy on the populace, members of the media and the Senate. Which is contrary to what those on the left expected would happen. When Gore ran for office, everyone on the left was saying how he would do away with the Patriot act. I called bs and predicted that if the Dems came back into power that they would do exactly what they have done.

Who is Michael kelly? You mean Flynn? He is asking for the same thing that just about everyone who testified about Clinton asked for. The fact is that this is common practice. His offer of testimony for immunity has been turned down at least for the time being. I don't think that Democrats really want him to testify because he would hammer them in his testimony.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 31 2017, 06:22 PM

AK RICH: You seem to be under the impression I'm a democrat. I"M NOT A DEMOCRAT They are as guilty as the rest. Don't think I am some sort of fan of their policies. They to have contributed to the forever war so please, please understand I'm NOT A DEMOCRAT nor do I support them. So yeah, I know they supported the patriot act. As I mentioned, I was not blaming trump or republicans. I blame Government. They have both contributed to the forever war. I am not affiliated with any political party. I have renounced even the Libertarians as their platform has embraced a bit of insanity, including giving guns to people with Mental Illness. I'm simply a citizen. A member of the rebel faction if you like. Bordering on anarchist at this point, as i seem Govt. Failing us. The forever war is here. The Guilty should be drawn and quartered. Michael Flyns (typo, not kelly, sorry about that, typing to fast) testimony will hopefully start the bloodletting that we need. He wants to talk, to tell the truth. I can't wait to hear it. The Orange King Must Fall.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2017, 07:17 PM

Because a lot the rest of the world seems to think that we owe them something, they seem to think our wealth should be redistributed amongst them even though we give away far more than any other nation, or because we don't embrace a form of Socialism that is a baby step away from a hybrid form of Communism/Fascism.
Some want us to abandon Free Market Capitalism and adapt a form of gov like some of their own countries that has their tentacles into everything.
A big part of the reason is simply because we can't be fully controlled and manipulated into embracing ideas that would go against our own best interests and the principles that this nation was founded on. Of course there are legitimate concerns about the USA just like any other nation but there is just no way to please everyone.
The top dogs in whatever you look at are always both loved and hated, c'est la vie.

Getting back to the threat of terrorism. It pales in comparison to the threat we face right here in our own country. In my view and many others, the biggest threat to freedom and democracy in this country is the Democrat party which is now, in my view, the Socialist/Fascist party and is largely unamerican and even America hating in some cases.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 31 2017, 07:21 PM

After these two months you blame the media for his bad ratings? You start to sound like...Trump himself! Have you missed that Trump has not accomplished anything worth mentioning so far? And that he has clearly shown that he does not intend to stick to his promises and that he happily will let his fan base down.

Or is all of this somehow also the medias fault? You do realise that it lies in both yours and my interest to not undermine the free press?

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2017, 07:49 PM

No, I am under the impression based on things you have posted that you are a progressive or yeah, an anarchist, which is worse than a Democrat in my view. You have claimed to be a Libertarian in the past but I just don't see it as your views seem to be inconsistent with that.
Don't get me wrong. I think you are an alright guy, just misguided, which I assume is the same you believe of me.


Having said yourself that you have just begun to get into American politics and the media reports in this country, I can't expect you to understand what it is I am talking about, but there is no question as to the bias to the left the vast majority of the media has in this country. There has been a constant drip of bad press since the election and so far it is all speculation with no real substance.
As I said before, I have issues with Trump as well and he certainly has said some stupid shit at times. But at the same time he is certainly not getting a fair shake in the media. The media in this country is the Praetorian Guard for the left pure and simple, they don't even try to hide it anymore. There were far worse scandals during the Obama admin that the media simply would not report on and if they did report on them, it was generally to explain them away.
You have talked about alleged lies from Sessions. But the biggest lies ever told to the American people in recent years came from Obama and Democrats concerning the ACA. These are confirmed lies. Lies that resulted in the biggest takeover of the private sector and the economy this country has ever seen. This was something that never had support from half of the country and was passed without the people being able to see it first after we were promised that we would.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 31 2017, 08:09 PM

Rich's post here encapsulates the division we face in our country. There are about 40 percent of the country who will follow the Orange King to the Road to Hell, just as the Germans Followed Hitler down the same road, no matter what happened, no matter what was said. They can't be swayed. They are simply brainwashed IMHO. I have managed to resist this, along with about half the country. The resistance, as it were. Will not succumb to right or left wing propaganda. We will remain a thorn in the side of the administration, until better minds prevail. #refuse_resist

Posted by: klasaine Mar 31 2017, 08:23 PM

No, they don't Rich.
In general, they do not, either as individual citizens or as sovereign nations think that we owe them something/anything. In fact the 'perception' - and I want to emphasize perception - is quite the opposite. Their perception, due to the rhetoric of EVERY administration since FDR, is that (in american eyes) they will never ever be able to repay us for saving them from the Axis powers. And by extension that we, the USA has carte blanche over world policy.

But we've fucked up a lot since WWII.
Korea, Viet Nam, Central America, Iraq - these were not very successful endeavors. I perfectly understand why we involved ourselves. I even agree with a lot of the reasons. But unfortunately, we caused more harm and damage than we helped and fixed. A lot of that damage was/is to ourselves in reputation and honor.

Don't get me wrong, I am by no means a sycophantic US apologist. We are a big, diverse, complex, confusing and still to some degree, by necessity, an imperialistic nation. Folks from other countries have a hard time truly understanding this place until they hang out here for a while. Conversely, Americans don't really 'get' the rest of the world until they have to engage with it. Club Med, a cruise or a 2 week trip to the elegant capital cities doesn't count - you're just a tourist spending money. A commodity. This is true from both sides.
I'm lucky. I have traveled a lot. For work when I was younger and didn't have a family and now because my wife's entire family lives in Italy. I go every year for more than a month and I hang out with 'the people'. I/we have friends there. I speak the language a bit. I go out drinking with the guys. I'll do a few gigs on some trips. I am not a tourist anymore. I get a whole other perspective. I'm just relating what I know first hand. *In actuality, we, the US, doesn't really factor into their daily life at all. Regardless of what we think and what we think the rest of the world thinks - we are not the center of the world.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 31 2017, 08:35 PM

For the sake of keeping these discussions in the open, please stay more factual - especially considering you know describing Trump this way upsets some members.



This post is also borderline. Rich, if you feel you need to add "Don't get me wrong" - you might want to go through your post a second time to make sure you stay away from personal attacks. It seems to me this post might have triggered Todds reply, which again makes factual discussions harder.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 31 2017, 08:39 PM

sensible or speculative/accusation theory thread ?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 31 2017, 08:42 PM

Implying I have less understanding than you is by no means an argument. If you believe your understanding is superior than mine then please explain why it is relevant to compare recent events with the insertion of one of the biggest US welfare reforms ever (ACA). Or are you against welfare?


perhaps - but without copy & paste

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 31 2017, 08:49 PM

I hope it is not me you are worried about , I could care less , the problem is, Is this how he feels and how can this Ideology ever be fair or non- biased ? To me it feels that there is so much hatred for the man , things can't be put in the right perspective


yes , but just think of all the fun we are missing out on

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 31 2017, 09:45 PM

Just so you know, the ACA enjoys high levels of support in public polls in the US, and for good reason. The ability to switch plans without regard for pre-existing conditions and forcing the insurers to disclose information about their plans means, for the first time in our lifetimes, there is a free market in this country for health insurance. For the first time ever, the beneficial effect of an open marketplace ensures competition among sellers and choice for buyers.

Dissenters tend to dislike the mandate to purchase insurance, but that's based on the fallacy that it's possible to opt-out of the health system. The supreme court observed that's not possible. When you're in a car accident, you'll be taken to the hospital. At that point you either have insurance or the insurance-carrying members of the public will have to pay for your care.

And dissenters like to quote Obama when he said you could keep your health care. But that's admitting that you needed him to explain to you things like: if your doctor dies, you will have to change doctors. Or, if your health insurer makes changes to your insurance plan, those changes might affect you. At the time, nobody thought it was necessary to explain such things.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Mar 31 2017, 09:53 PM

I can certainly understand why there would be widespread hate against Trump. To me - the worst 'proven' thing he has done so far - is to promise healthcare for everybody, and then present a bill in which up to 24 millions Americans would loose their health care. That alone is completely unforgivable from my perspective. If the bill had passed like it was - he would effectively have killed a big portion of his voters (over time).




hehe you might be right I do think these threads are kind of fun even without them though!



That is a relief - in other words many of you know your own best

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 31 2017, 10:55 PM

First off let me state I am glad this failed in congress recently , but @ 2:20 bernie clearly outlines Why ACA in failinging , and it's CNN

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 1 2017, 03:22 AM

I apologize. I should have said, 40 percent of the country will follow Trump no matter what he does, says, doesn't say, doesn't do etc. They are simply going to follow him no matter what. This is what I find so dangerous. Hope that's better

That's an example of what I was talking about. If the GOP health bill would have passed 24 million folks, many of who were Trump Voters, would lose all medical coverage in the coming years. So despite the fact they will be kicked off their health plans they are still "GO TRUMP!" and all. IT seems to defy logic doesn't it? At least it does to me. To embrace someone who is actively trying to hurt the very people who voted him in to office with the help of some 15,000 russian hackers as we found out today, who were posting fake news on social media and who are now showing up dead all over Russia.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 1 2017, 08:17 PM

In general, I agree with that. Maybe instead of saying a lot of nations I should have said some. Because the perception I have described certainly does exist in some corners of the world by no fault of the people within those countries. It is something they have been conditioned to believe by their governments. And there have been statements made suggesting what I have described coming from unelected officials within the UN in the past as well.

I also agree that it is good to travel to other nations to get a good perspective of the people there but it isn't necessary when you live at an international crossroads like we both do. Living at an international crossroads gives me the opportunity to meet, talk with, and befriend folks from all over the world as I have, not just with tourists from other nations but also folks who have immigrated here. You might be surprised by the number of folks you can meet from other nations just by going fishing down on the Kenai peninsula which is a world class sport fishing destination for people all over the world. If you share with a fisherman your secret honey hole and some fishing tips you can make a friend for life. I have neighbors that I have mentioned here in the past that immigrated here from Guatemala and that I have become good friends with over the years and talk quite frequently with about politics, world events and any number of things. So it's not like I don't have any real perspective of what people from other nations think and believe. And to be clear, I don't think you were implying that I did not have a good perspective just because I haven't traveled the world as much as you have.




I don't think I have made a personal attack. I was simply correcting what Todd thought that I might believe about his political position and I could be wrong but I don't think that even offended him. I don't believe the use of his new nickname for Trump was a response that was provoked by myself. I believe it is simply his new nickname for Trump and it doesn't bother me in the least.


Why not? It was an argument for you in response to jstcrsn's post concerning immigrants in your country, right? There is no question that my understanding of US politics is superior to yours just as your understanding of what is happening in your country is superior to jstcrsn's, And Mertay's understanding of what is going on in Turkey is superior to anyone who is not there too, Right? So it certainly is an argument since I have followed US politics for most of my adult life (I am 50) and you have not as far as I can tell.

My comparison of alleged lies vs actual lies was off topic from the rest of the post and was in reference to things we were talking about in some previous posts. It is relevant because it shows the hypocrisy of some positions held here in this thread. There are some folks talking about how they disagreed with this or that from the last admin that we never heard a whimper about when the previous admin held the Presidency even though those issues were discussed quite a bit here at the time.


First off there is no need to apologize to me about your nickname for Trump, I could care less and maybe it wasn't me but Kris you were making that apology to, I don't know. At any rate , it's no skin off my back.

40% of the country will not follow Trump no matter what he does. I believe that if that healthcare bill would have passed it could have meant some big losses for republicans in the midterm elections unless the RINO's are replaced by true conservatives. Conservatives like myself will abandon him if he tries to push through a healthcare bill that is Obamacare light.

That 24 million number is not based in hard sign up numbers but instead is based on survey data and is not accurate for a number of reasons. I believe as do many others, the actual numbers to be maybe half of that 24 mil number and quite possibly even less than that. Moving folks to Medicaid doesn't count. And a significant number of those would have qualified for Medicaid anyway (maybe up to 7 mil) without the ACA according to Jonathan Gruber who was one of the architects of the ACA.
Furthermore, moving all these folks to Medicaid doesn't guarantee coverage since an increasing amount of doctors aren't accepting it. For a good number of folks that Medicaid card is worthless.

We don't hear a lot of bad news about the ACA in the media like the fact that probably half a million disabled people with developmental disabilities to traumatic brain injuries are on a waitlist for care due to the expansion of Medicaid. And many of those on the waitlists are there because the ACA gives states more money to enroll able-bodied adults than it does to take care of disabled children and adults who qualified for Medicaid prior to the ACA.

New data also shows that in 70% of counties across the country people have only one or two choices for insurers. The entire state of Alaska where I live has only one.

And then there are the millions of people who have lost their doctors and health insurance plans that they liked and now have to pay higher premiums for less coverage, so the quality and choices in healthcare coverage have declined due to the ACA. All of which were things that we were lied to about in order to sell this lemon to us which the majority of people never bought into in the first place.

Also it should be noted that the ACA doesn't seem to be good enough for members of Congress who are exempt, so why should it be good enough for the masses?

I see no need to replace the ACA with anything. Simply repeal it and change some rules about purchasing insurance over state lines and an introduction to healthcare savings accounts, and to address the things that could actually bring down the actual cost of healthcare which the ACA did not do at all.

I could go on but I got things to do and I am growing weary of this discussion anyway but I am sure there will be some claims made that I won't be able to resist countering.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 1 2017, 10:41 PM

First , this wasn"t trumps plan , that's why m any people called it ryancare and in the first section of this thread I said I didn't think it would pass.

Obamacare is Failing , period! and I am glad they didn't pass this until Obamacare explodes

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 1 2017, 10:54 PM

Looks like we are going to let it "explode" as Trump said But according to the folks in the town hall meetings, they don't want it to go anywhere so it's not going anywhere since despite a purely republican house/senate/executive, this new health bill was so awful that not even the GOP could get it passed. It was that bad. So there ya go. To bad to pass when Republicans have full control in house/senate/exeuciive, all of it. If they can't pass it then, they are done. So he is moving on to taxes thank God. Whew! So we get to keep our health care.

As for me being offended, I'm rarely offended by anything. I don't really know when to be offended to be honest, so I usually just keep trying to explain myself. So it's all good


Todd

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 2 2017, 01:08 AM

Yes, by approving of the ACA in polls, you could say the US public is on the right side of history in this situation. As I described above, it's been a significant step forward. The person above who posted the Bernie Sanders video is advocating single payer health insurance, and that has its advantages. But, one step at a time.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 2 2017, 01:43 AM

I must agree I also think the single payer system is the only long term solution. Sadly, there is a storm of propaganda that insists it's the road to complete destructions. Seems to be doing fine in many other countries. I think we could take care of our own without price gouging and putting folks in the poor house just for the crime of getting sick. But this is the exact opposite of what many of the other side have been fed through various media outlets. So we get caught stuck in the middle. The good news is that at least the ACA is still with us and millions of folks are not going to get kicked off their insurance, and pre existing conditions are still protected.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 2 2017, 12:21 PM

If we all started to apply these rules of logic, our discussions would quickly get interesting! Fictive example reply:

* Since I live in Sweden I can provide a more objective and non-partisan perspective on the situation in your country. So my opinion is less colored and therefore more correct. Furthermore I have been abiding by the rules of logic my entire life (I am 35) and you have not as far as I can tell. There is no further need for me to defend my standpoint.

If I posted the above sincerely I would probably moderate myself out of the discussion.

So if you need to use such logical fallacies to defend your statement about ACA being associated with the biggest lies in US history, it seems to me you are running out of valid arguments.

And let's face it - how could a bill that finally helped people get health care, be so incredibly negative?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 2 2017, 03:50 PM

The ACA or Obama Care is certainly not perfect. I feel he should have pushed harder for the public option. Cest la vie.
What we have is guaranteed insurance, not guaranteed health care. Because it is essentially a 'private' insurance based system, it can be extremely complicated and confusing to navigate. When my family was insured under it (via Anthem) we certainly had our share of confusion and frustrations. I will say though that through perseverance, a lot of phone calls and research we were able to deal positively and effectively with the issues we encountered. Also, California being one of the states that prepared very early for the coming mandate, there was and still is a ton of info and even offices set up to help you - free of charge.

For reasons too numerous to get into here many states did not get completely on board with Obamacare, mainly due to the cost of transitioning and contentions regarding certain points of legislation. Several lawsuits were launched against the ACA, some of which are still ongoing and some have been settled by Supreme Court and lower court rulings. In the US you can hold some things up in court almost indefinitely.

Individual states cannot completely opt out of Obamacare but there were certain aspects of the law they can opt out of, or at least can have delayed. For example, every state was/is required to offer a health insurance exchange for residents through which they can enroll. When Obamacare was enacted, every state was offered federal assistance and MONEY in setting up these exchanges. Many took the assistance and set up their own state-run exchanges. Some partnered with other states in order to reduce the cost and effort involved. Others opted out. Their populous had to rely solely on the fed exchange with no in state help - even to just figure how to sign up. That, coupled with a faulty and unwieldy federal ACA web site caused huge problems, confusion and delays. States that set up their own exchanges had few issues. States that started setting up their own exchanges early and allowed federal help (and MONEY) had almost zero issues (CA being one of those).

This doesn’t mean they didn’t have to adopt state health insurance exchanges. They simply elected not to accept federal assistance (and MONEY) in setting up their own exchanges. Every state is required to have an exchange in place so that residents can take advantage of Obamacare, those that elected to forego federal assistance (and MONEY) in setting up their exchange instead received exchanges created and managed by the federal government. They didn’t necessarily have to set up their own exchanges, but the trade-off was that they lost the ability to control the implementation and management of the exchange for their state.

In the 2012 case NFIB v Sebelius ruled that states did not have to participate in the proposed Medicaid expansion if they so chose. Although states were initially required to join the federal government in funding the expansion of Medicaid benefits and services for needy Americans, the Supreme Court ruling allowed each state to decide whether or not they would contribute, regardless of whether they accepted federal funding or not. While many states ended up contributing state funds to the Medicaid expansion and providing additional benefits for low-income residents and other under-served groups, several states elected to opt out. Again eschewing some federal money.

Over the history of the ACA (about 6 years now) the states that refused to set up their own exchanges or partner with the fed gov and/or refused to expand medicaid have the lowest levels of insured Americans and also have in general the fewest insurers to choose from. I believe at this point there are still 19 states that have yet to expand medicaid ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

The ACA helped my family a lot when we needed it during it's first 4 years. It reduced our monthly insurance bill by easily half. My kid had his tonsils out, clinics are close by and there are 7 different insurance groups to choose from with multiple plan types. I will grant you that that's owing partially to CAs huge population.
*The 3 biggest insurers (Kaiser, Blue Cross and Anthem) in CA are recording higher profits since the ACA was enacted.
**Cali is already talking about our own single-payer plan if Obamacare ends up going south (or gets watered down to being essentially ineffective).
Hell, in the last two elections we voted to increase our own taxes 3 times.

And no, I am not a CA secessionist

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 2 2017, 04:16 PM

What is this, an April Fools joke? You do realize that your question employs a logical fallacy right?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 2 2017, 04:31 PM

No I don't see the fallacy, please explain it! And Aprils Fools is over.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 2 2017, 04:41 PM

Good grief, maybe you should go through this entire thread and delete all the posts that contain logical fallacies and lets see what's left when you are done.

Posted by: klasaine Apr 2 2017, 04:43 PM

I think the misunderstanding 'may' be this phrase ... fictive example reply.

Fictive = imaginary, ficticious.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 2 2017, 04:51 PM

I am still not getting any factual arguments from you about the horrors of ACA. And where was my logical fallacy which you referred to earlier? I am honestly curious as I don't want to be using those.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 2 2017, 05:01 PM

Did you not read the rest of my post that you replied to, the part where I was responding to Todd?
Anyway, the answer to your question. (And let's face it - how could a bill that finally helped people get health care, be so incredibly negative?)
Because the things that are bad in this law (not a bill ) far outweigh the things that are good.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 2 2017, 06:54 PM

So please explain what bad things "far outweigh" the fact that millions of people's health were saved thanks to ACA?

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 2 2017, 06:56 PM

There are some negatives to the ACA. Any complex solution to a complex problem will have negatives. But the ACA is widely held in this country to be a positive step forward. Public polling shows a majority of the nation favors it and some key elements of it enjoy almost universal support.

Here's proof: the GOP offered an alternative plan this year, but in the most important respects, it is the same as the ACA. Both plans have the same key principles:

1) A ban on denying insurance based on preexisiting conditions, which enables the public to shop for insurance.
2) A system that makes #1 economically feasible by encouraging everyone to have insurance.

The 2 plans differ in some details, for example the form of the penalty if you don't have insurance and they differ in some limits on coverage and premiums, but the key principles remain.

In other words, if both ends of the political spectrum are attempting to achieve the same thing, that's a pretty good indicator that it's a worthwhile thing to achieve.

There are problems in some states that are largely self-inflicted. Some states object to the ACA on ideological grounds, and are using that as justification to slow its adoption. As you might imagine, this contributes to health insurance problems in those states.

There is much room for improvement in the ACA. The idea that a single law can solve all the health care problems in this nation is ludicrous, but there is abundant evidence it was a good first step.

Posted by: klasaine Apr 2 2017, 07:08 PM

In case anyone missed it in the recent furor, my post #131 details the 'why' behind a lot of the negatives or problems.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 2 2017, 07:25 PM

Here is a forbes article indicating ( a year ago ) that the ACA , instead of saving an average of 2500 is costing 500 per family
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/09/28/dispelling-obamacare-cost-saving-myths/#7952770d1ae2

And many estimate at costing 2500 , thats a 5000 dollar swing . In that video Bernie himself ( who i can"t stand the sound of his voice admits premiums are too high) . So we have insured some by charging 200 million Americans more . Not to mention many of those that are paying increases also have deductibles as high as 10,000 . The promise of keeping your doctor , when Obama had to go on TV to apologize ( how bad do things have to be for a president to have a public apology ). These are a few reasons why many are fearful of Obamacare

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 3 2017, 02:19 AM

Sorry, I edited out the "As Ken said above..." .



Here's what we know about changes to health insurance in this country since the ACA:

1) More people have health insurance, about 20 million more.
2) The ACA reduced the federal deficit, in part due to medicare cuts.
3) For the first time ever, we have a free market for health insurance.

Here's what we don't know:

1) The cost of health care is growing more slowly in this country since the ACA, but we don't know if that's because of the ACA. This slowing is great news and the ACA was intended to help reduce costs, but the economics of the health care system are too complex to permit advocates of the ACA to claim this particular victory.
2) There has been some turbulence in the insurance marketplace in some states, but it's difficult to say with any certainty if this is due to the ACA. The ACA is intended to make insurance markets more stable over time, and probably will (that's why insurers have embraced it), but we don't know if any short-term fluctuations in the market are due to the ACA. For example, narrowing of provider networks may just be continuing a long-term trend in health insurance. Also, some states resisting the ACA is causing trouble.

It's difficult to make the case the negatives outweigh the positives. That's why there is little support in this country for simply abolishing the ACA. But that shouldn't be construed to mean there isn't more work to be done to improve access to health care in the US.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 3 2017, 03:29 AM

Bingo!! Positive outcomes. But, those against, simply refuse to see them. They typically listen to far too much Alex Jones (Faaaaar Right Wing Internet Guy) and Fox News. All of which decry the ACA as simply a "TRAVESTY", despite the fact it's helped millions of Americans, including me and my my family as well as Kens, as he stated. They simply hate it because it was Obamas plan. It's that simple.

Did you notice it took Kris four questions in a row to get a straight answer as to what was so terrible about it?

That's because there is all this noise floating about saying it's "terrible" but with no real info behind it. Just attack ads and Trump saying it's a "Disaster". A disaster that has helped millions and saved me wads on health insurance. So yeah, it's just the usual, folks listening to Rush Limbaugh, Trump, Alex Jones, and they can't help but get a bit brainwashed by it. It's just a natural outcome. The same say that someone listening to Marx and Lenin all day in their work truck would be pretty staunch Marxists after a while. Repetition is the key to propaganda. Facts are the only defense. But we live in a Fact Free World now, so it's hard. Most folks don't have the time to watch BBC, ABC, NBC, and all the right wing channels so they just focus on the right wing stuff, which bashes all the left wing stuff, and you get this huge split in the country. The only thing we are headed for is civil war part II if this doesn't calm down. All the survivalists (at least here in GA) are starting to question trump because of the mere hint of his ties to Russia, who'm they all hate. Now we get all the Militias riled up, next thing you know, the shooting starts. Bad news.

Todd

Posted by: klasaine Apr 3 2017, 03:50 AM

When we were taking advantage of Obamacare yeah, there were elements that were a major pain in the ass to deal with.
I'm an 'independent contractor' so I had to submit not only our tax returns but my schedule C profit and loss forms/declarations in order to qualify for the subsidy. Thankfully I have been filing a 'Schedule C' since the late 90s and I'm licensed and registered as a business in the city of los angeles. Unfortunately I know a lot of guys and gals that never really did that (the legit paperwork for indie contractor) and of course now bitch about how they don't qualify for a subsidy and then by extension "obamacare sucks" (Dems and Repubs alike). My point being that if you're not willing to work within the system (and figure the system out) then you can't expect to reap a benefit. This is why I personally think that the single payer system is best. Nobody's left out - even if they're too fucking stupid to figure it out (I'm referring to some of my own friends and family).

*At present 1) we don't qualify for a subsidy anymore and 2) fortuitously my wife now has a full-time job at a college and she gets family health coverage. But I'm still all the way for keeping the ACA and continuously making improvements to it.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 3 2017, 04:12 AM

I too got the subsidy and it really helped. Also I found a much cheaper plan that what I had before with great bennies! Helpful as I'm falling apart bit by bit. Having broken my back twice I need coverage. You nailed it with the paperwork. You gotta stay up on all the bits they need or you get really hammered. Again I have to agree with you single payer idea as the only practical solution to a vastly complex problem. Of course, Alex Jones thinks single payer is the work of the devil. All I know is that the folks who moved way down south to join the "Preppers" are getting really twitchy. I hope this all calms down and soon. I do NOT believe Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas are the templates for how we should run our country and that they were flukes. Sadly, many of my Southern brethren do not share my optimism.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 3 2017, 04:51 PM

For those who would like to know how the bad outweighs the good concerning the ACA. Just for starters I have found a piece that explains the effects of the ACA on economic productivity in order to save myself a boatload of typing and my valuable time, and to explain it better than I could.
Again, this is just for starters and really could be reason enough but there are in fact more things about the ACA to consider that make it a really bad law.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/effects-of-the-affordable-care-act-on-economic-productivity/

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 3 2017, 08:00 PM

With all due respect, I don't think this article says what you think it says. It doesn't contain any observations or measurements of effects of the ACA on the economy. It makes predictions, but there is no analysis of whether those predictions have come true. Second, as he clearly states, he is not making any claims about the balance of positives and negatives of the ACA. Third, the logical conclusion of his prediction is not that the ACA should be abolished, but rather the subsidy schedule should be adjusted. Fourth, he incorrectly assumes salaries are inelastic. If employer A offers more benefits than employer B, there's no reason to believe A and B would pay the same salary to employees. Fifth, this line of reasoning is effectively the same as criticism of progressive taxation, and that is hardly proven to be detrimental to the economy, let alone widely believed to be a bad idea.

That's just for starters, my time is too valuable to list more .

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 4 2017, 01:32 AM

Her is a NY Post article claiming differently , and things have only got worse since 2014

and we don"t have a free market for health until they can cross state lines . What we have now is the Government forcing( most of the us) to
choose between limited options , or face fines , which many are choosing to do because they have realized they can't afford what the Government is shoving up their kiester

You want to talk about Quid pro quo . Obama ran on stoping evil insurance companies from making profit . Go ahead look it up , they have made higher profits under Obamacare than ever before , same with the banks - they were given 80 billion a month that they don't have to pay back after Obama ran on getting ahold a big banks , low and behold who do big banks and insurance companies support , you guessed it Democrats

smell the money trail it usually goes back to democrats as often as it does republican

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 4 2017, 08:22 AM

We're seeing a slight decrease in quality of discussion here, with external links and less personal reasoning.

For me personally this discussion has even more strengthened my opinion that the advantages of ACA far outweighs the negative sides.

Thanks Ken, Rammikin and Todd for sharing their personal experience and reasoning!

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 4 2017, 12:34 PM

This post says to me "less facts more feelings " how are we to prove our stances without outside sources ? why did you say you started watching American news sources if not to get different facts to make an informed decision. My insurance went up 150 a month I have 2000 dollar deductible , no doctor visits or medicines are included , and I am the lucky . There are many stories people paying 1500 a month as well as Insurance companies completely pulling out of states ,reducing competition and/or leaving people without coverage . Government estimates indicate premiums will go up 3 to 4 percent this year alone and that's after all the increases both sides have discussed , except for the ones that got Government Welfare . I guess if I was getting someone else to help pay for my health care , I would like it too .

Are you just wanting everyone's opinion without information as why and how we reached that conclusion ?

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 4 2017, 02:54 PM

Sixth, the CBO already included Mulligan's effect in their estimates. Seventh, Mulligan would be the first to admit his numbers are outliers. Most estimates for the magnitude of the effect are less than half of his. Eighth, there are countervailing effects. For example, employees with access to health care will get sick less often. I could go on .





Seriously though, make no mistake, it costs us money, as a society, to avoid a dystopia where poor people have no health insurance. Nobody is saying this comes for free.

Further, if we want a free market for health insurance where insurance suppliers can't deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, the price we have to pay is: everyone must obtain health insurance. That's the only way the pre-existing coverage ban is economically feasible.

There is no free lunch, we have to pay a price, and nobody has advanced a plan that funds this more equitably than the ACA. Polls show public support for the republican alternative is extremely low: around 15%.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 4 2017, 03:17 PM

No we must use logical reasoning, as that is the most effective way to circumvent the information attack your country is currently undergoing.



This is interesting. So are you saying you were better off before ACA?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 4 2017, 03:26 PM

I don't do 'feelings'.
Whether it's guitar or Obamacare, I speak from experience and my own research that bears an authentic conclusion.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 4 2017, 04:15 PM

Sigh. AKRICH I must call you on the carpet again on your use of sources. HILLSDALE? Really?

They are one of the top 5 most conservative educational institutions in country. It's literally a feeder school for republican jobs on capital hill.

4. Hillsdale College: The school was in the http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/justice-clarence-thomas-amends-financial-disclosure-reports-virginia/story?id=12750650 recently when it was revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose the Hillsdale salary of his wife Ginni Thomas. Called the “citadel of American conservatism,” Hillsdale features http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/fp_masterlist.asp like Rush Limbaugh fill-in Mark Steyn, and is said to be a http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_108/Conservative-Citadel-Comes-to-Capitol-Hill-Hillsdale-College-204762-1.html to Republican jobs on Capitol Hill.

Needless to say, the way they interpret the "Facts" is waaaay right wing to say the least. The hardcore bias is so obvious as to be offensive IMHO. Try to find a genuine review of the GOP health plan from some place the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE which are NON PARTISAN. The use of partisan sources weakens one's argument.

Very good question/s. Are you saying we wer better before ACA with millions uninsured and straining our emergency rooms just for a cold or flu? I would not be able to agree with that. Based on personal experience and experience of others I"ve talked to, AVA has been a great help. Not a "Disaster" as Trump claims.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 4 2017, 07:40 PM

I was better off , But if only for this small amount which really did not hurt . the ACA is darn close to working . From my sources, about to explode as so many are losing their coverage and like I said in other posts , the Governments own numbers show premiums going up another 3 to 4 percent this year alone . Every program our government has ever implemented has been 4 to 5 times more than the amount " they" thought and that scares me . If premiums and deductibles stay where they are , One can only conclude that the ACA is a winner , on the other hand , if they rise and people start losing their coverage would you join me in saying somethin needs fixing .

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 4 2017, 08:42 PM

Yes mate, I'm all up for fixing and improving - that's what politics should be about!

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 4 2017, 08:54 PM

It's important to ask that question in the aggregate. Overall, the annual growth of health insurance costs is down significantly since the ACA. However, as I mentioned above, it would be premature to give the ACA credit for that. But, by the same token, it's not possible to say the ACA has caused an increase in costs.

Posted by: klasaine Apr 4 2017, 09:38 PM

I wonder if the situation would have been different if Sam Brownback (Governor of Kansas) hadn't returned the federal grant intended to help the state develop technical infrastructure for running the exchange. The return of the grant effectively quashed a state-run exchange.
Also, Kansas only expanded Medicaid coverage in 2015.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 4 2017, 09:44 PM

I fear the problem is more with "your sources" than the actual state of obama care. I have yet to see a right wing source saying anything positive about obama care and I"m guessing you watch Fox News, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, that sort of thing? Just a guess Those folks all decry ACA as a Disaster.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 4 2017, 11:43 PM

I know you won"t believe this todd , I only got cable last month , and only got it because it came with internet I needed . Never seen Fox news , a few stories on you tube , same with the others you mentioned , still don't have time for TV as I feel it is mostly a waste of time , sure you relax from time to time , I usually watch a movie with my wife or sports without her

Here is a little more on how the ACA has not been as sunny as some think https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_policy_cancellations_since_Obamacare

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 5 2017, 08:57 PM

I believe you BTW what are your primary sources of news/political info? Just curious as it seems you may be getting it from places that perhaps skew just a tiny pinch toward the rightish side of things?

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 6 2017, 01:30 AM

Life is a great teacher and that ( for everybody ) colors any story , political or other wise . I remember russian bread lines . Socialism always works at first , but what always happens is it destroys the middle class . Look at Venezuela , same thing , and to think it started out so great . But things get scarce , the rich make their grab and the poor and middle class get screwed .
For any one to believe the U.S. could do socialism right , is naive . It only takes One bad leader and there goes everything , A chance I am not willing to take , thats why I am usually against anything that steers us towards socialism ( sorry Ken )

Lets look at the democrats , They have been telling the African-American community for years they will be there for them , what have they really done for them ... Where is black lives matter , when they thought they were helping hillary win , the "Media" and the democrats could not stop talking about them , the democrats did not win so they don't need them anymore . If they were not being Used , BLM would still be in the spotlight nothing has changed , 100 % of blacks under the age of 35 are scared when they get pulled over , there are things we still to fix , but I am glad the media and dems aren't hyping the problem , cause the first thing we need to do is reduce tension between blacks and cops

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 6 2017, 06:26 PM

Kinda side stepped the question. I'll try again, what are your news sources? Radio? NewsPaper? You have discussed current events so I gather you get news from somewhere? Drudge Report? Alex Jones? I"m guessing internet based stuff? Just let us know


P.S. What you described in your first paragraph about how the rich get everything and the poor get screwed is exactly what we have going on now in the USA. The rich have NEVER been richer and the wage gap has NEVER been bigger. So the system we have now is producing the very results that you mention.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 6 2017, 10:40 PM

And why is that , could it be that the middle class took the brunt of obamacare , in this thread you and Ken received aid to help you afford it whilst I paid for you , and not even a thank you , I am crushed
and this answer my post . Democrats say one thing , but after 8 years of Obama , the gap widens .

as for my news , I will catch local news radio , maybe even a nightline or something enough to keep up on events , I pair that with a few conservative news / commentary you tube channels , keeps me up as much as I want for current events
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxeY-wRrb65Jt37QHa5xMog . Matt has just left the democrat party while crowder is a stronger conservative voice
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIveFvW-ARp_B_RckhweNJw

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 6 2017, 11:40 PM

Ahh That explains it. The right wing youtube channels are perhaps some of the worst sources of content available imho, in terms of "News". The right and left vids are un-sourced, biased in the extreme and often full of conspiracy theories like the Atomic Pizza thing that caused some guy to show up with a gun. At a pizza place, to save children who were not there, from being abused.

Blaming Obama is just something folks that lean a tiny pinch towards the right love to do. I don't blame him for the gap in wages. I'd blame Bush for that and Reagan and Trump. But blame is largely not the point. Trump is doing the very same thing you blame Obama for. WIDENING THE WAGE GAP. Making the rich crazy rich and screwing the middle class. After four years of him, once your taxes go up and your benefits go down, you might have a different idea of what Trump is about.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 7 2017, 03:24 AM

but you can"t blame Trump yet , he hasn't had time

Posted by: Mertay Apr 7 2017, 04:07 PM

...and only about a few days later after my comment USA bombed Syria.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 8 2017, 01:56 AM

Do you still think Trump is putins beotch

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 9 2017, 02:18 AM

Yup!!! Here we go Military contractors and the Military Industrial Complex are about to go nuts! Invest in Dick Cheney's old cohorts @ HALIBURTON or the rebranded BLACK WATER. Really, any company that benefits from wild overspending on bombing poor people in the middle east.

YES. Till he shares his Tax returns, he IS Putin's Bitch.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 9 2017, 02:41 AM

he is doin exactly what hillary wanted and now all of a sudden your against it
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/07/hillary-clinton-called-for-bombing-syrian-airfields-hours-before/22030847/

And you better do your research on Halliburton , they were the contractor hired by Billy
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/bill-clinton-and-halliburton.25750/

Looks like the Clintons do exactly what you get mad at Trump for doing

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 9 2017, 04:09 AM

wow. You gotta let go of your preconceived notion that I am a Hillary fan. I AM NOT. I didn't mention her at all. You did. My point is that under Trump, we are going to have a massive expansion of the Military Industrial Complex, the likes of which we have not seen since the Cold War. I assert that this is BAD POLICY because the shreds of discretionary tax dollars left over after Military/Entitlement spending would be better spent elsewhere IMHO, like helping the poor, aged, disabled. That is my point. My only point. Clear?

I support a reduction in our Military Spending as we are fighting ISIS who has no Air Force, Navy, Etc. We have domestic problems that buying more Tanks, and More Jets will not Solve, at all, ever.


Then you mention Bill Clinton. Again, NOT A FAN OF THE CLINTONS. I do not embrace the Democratic party, Republican Party, or Libertarian Party. Period. I'm independent since the Libertarians want to give Guns to the Mentally ill. My ONLY POINT on that was, again, the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex at the expense of domestic issues. Not playing the "Blame Game" as it's pointless. Blame is not Policy.

Todd

P.S. Let's skip the blame game and maybe discuss what might be effective policy?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 9 2017, 04:41 PM

The real answer probably lies closer to this ...



Talking about what Hillary would have done is as pointless as talking about what Picasso would've done.
Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and all sides have to deal with it. In real time.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda doesn't exist.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 9 2017, 07:32 PM

Well said Pointless comparisons are just that, pointless comparisons. Maybe one day the upcoming TAX MARCH will have an impact, or maybe the web site petition with over a MILLION SIGNATURES insisting he release his tax returns.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance

Once we can "follow the money" I think we will have a better idea of where he is really coming from and what he is and isn't likely to actually do. I don't think he would go against his own financial interests.

From the Petition Web Site
"Immediately release Donald Trump's full tax returns, with all information needed to verify emoluments clause compliance.
Created by A.D. on January 20, 2017

Needs 0 signatures by February 19, 2017 to get a response from the White House

1,087,839 SIGNED 100,000 GOAL
The unprecedented economic conflicts of this administration need to be visible to the American people, including any pertinent documentation which can reveal the foreign influences and financial interests which may put Donald Trump in conflict with the emoluments clause of the Constitution."

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 9 2017, 09:28 PM

The point is valid , Obama fires more cruise missiles than anyone and then gets a peace prize , all along the left and such have no complaints . Trump does it and all of a sudden , its seams the left comes out in full force , doesn't that seems vaguely resembling hypocrisy . Same with Haliburton
, When Bill gives no bid contracts to them - the left , nothing . When a republican gives them a contract ( because clinton already had them set up for a difficult situation ) ... More hypocrisy

As far as the comic , its funny yes , but we need to move that to the flat earth thread

Posted by: Mertay Apr 9 2017, 09:56 PM

They carpetbombed an airbase with 59 tomahawks yet only 4 dead soldiers... Russia already reported they knew the attack was coming.

Russia, Iran making hate speaches/threatening the USA benefits from this in their countrys. This is exactly the same thing what Trump did in election period and doing now.

Posted by: klasaine Apr 9 2017, 11:10 PM

Obama def did not get a pass on prolonging conflict. In fact that's probably a big reason why the Dems lost the election.
But I don't care what the left or right says about stuff that was in the past or never happened (because Hillary didn't get elected).
I'm way smarter than to pay attention to that bullshit and I think you and everybody else who participates here is too. I don't deal in 'maybe' or 'might have been'. It's absolutely pointless, unproductive ... and really fucking boring.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 10 2017, 03:20 AM

Sweeping generalizations aside, pointless points are still points so there is that But yeah, I'm concerned with Policy.

Agreed!! Unproductive and worse, boring.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 10 2017, 10:35 AM

The same could be said about wild unproven theories or someone looking to a comic to prove their point

Posted by: klasaine Apr 10 2017, 02:31 PM

You know I don't go for the 'wild, unproven' stuff. As for the cartoon - come on, it's satire. We need more of that.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 11 2017, 01:29 AM

Satire is fine and needed , I'm just afraid it will send some looking for any far fetched so called " proof " that gives it merit , so as long as the comics stay just that , I am all for them

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 11 2017, 02:47 AM

Ken you crazy fan of wild, unproven, ufo, conspiracy theories!!! Oh wait. Nevermind.

The bad news is that there really is no good solution for Syria IMHO in terms of any foreign Policy position available to us. I just dont' know how we can crack that egg. It seems that the only positive thing we can do is try to provide humanitarian aid. Sadly, the proposed budget cuts way back on that. Even though foreign aid represents about 1 percent of our overall budget

You see, if we bomb Assad, we are acting as ISIS air force. The big fight in Syria is between ISIS and Assad. The KURDS are holding their own and it looks like they are going to end up getting their own country by default. The KURDISH military/militia make use of lots of female soldiers. They do so for a very simple reason. The ISIS guys are told that if they get killed by a woman on the battlefield, they will NEVER get in to paradise. So they see a women with a sniper rifle, and they sorta wet themselves. They are going to defend the turf they have carved out no matter what.

So we have Iranian backed Militia and ISIS going up against Russian backed (the primary source of of all of Assad's Military Arms are from Russian Contractors, sadly) This is good news for Russia in that their weapons are on display for the world to see and the 'marketing effect" was expected to raise arms shipments from russia by 7 BILLION DOLLARS.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html
"The Kommersant daily said last week, quoting Kremlin insiders and military analysts, that the "marketing effect" of the Syrian conflict will boost Russia's arms sales by up to $7bn. "

So Russia is just there to do business. Especially since their economy has been in the tank (pun) ever since the price of oil took a nose dive. No worries, they can make it up on volume discounts in tanks/guns/etc.

So on one side you've got the Assad regime, with enough Russian Military Gear to last til the end of time, on the other side you have ISIS (sworn enemy of the west) and various Iranian backed Militia including Hezbollah (classified as a terrorist group according to the CIA and also sworn enemy of the west).

We can't really support either side and still keep any kind of "Moral Authority" or "World Leadership" or even dignity, IMHO. All we can really do is try to help the poor souls caught in the middle. The Syrian people. Did sending a few cruise missiles change anything? Nope. Just looked good in the headlines. So I'd say boost the amount of food /medical supplies/etc. as best as we can and try to help any families that are seeking asylum. That's about all we can really do, it seems.

Posted by: klasaine Apr 11 2017, 08:07 PM

I'm more of a Yeti, Sasquatch, Nessie guy. Maybe a little bit of the Chupacabra too.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 12 2017, 12:00 AM

Todd , I'm scared























Has hell frozen over





















I agree

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 12 2017, 02:36 AM

In other news, I'll go ahead and predict it. SEAN SPICER IS GOING TO BE REPLACED, fired, swapped, let go, forced out, etc. All this drama over his mis-speaking a bit on Hitler / the use of chemical weapons, has put too much heat on him and he's become a liability. I'm not reacting to his statement, I'm predicting the outcome Trump will distance himself, probably within a week or so. Time will tell.


CRSN!
Had to happen at some point

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 12 2017, 09:01 AM

Well said! Yet the entire world is doing the exact opposite! Why aren't we letting these poor people into our countries? Their reality is a pure nightmare. The recent terror attack here in Sweden was just a piss in the ocean, in comparison.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 12 2017, 12:05 PM

The entire situation is quite sad. To make it worse, we are "closing our borders" and such to protect ourselves from families trying to flee the horror. This, in a nation that 70 percent self identify as Christian. I'm guessing Christ would be the guy helping people, and families, not the guy sending them back at the border. Somehow, we, as a country, don't see this hypocrisy as a problem, but as a "security measure". I see it as a darn shame. Then again, even if we sent wads of aid, it would get stopped by whatever militia was controlling a given area. For us to actually help, we would have to get folks out of the killing zone. Then folks start saying "Terrorists are hiding among them". Which, who knows, they might be. But we have plenty of folks here doing crazy shit, so a few more wouldn't be that bad IMHO if it means we can help some families who need it. Just today some nut job went in to a grade school and shot his ex wife and two students. 3 folks dead and every child traumatized, but after he killed her, he killed himself so the case is closed and it wasn't terrorism. Just a nut job with a gun. So yeah, I"m not that worried about trouble from folks fleeing the war zone to be honest. We have plenty of trouble here already. I'd risk a bit more if it meant we could help.

Todd

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 13 2017, 12:00 AM

can you answer me honestly , Do you hate the fact that you were born into such a privileged society ?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 13 2017, 07:33 PM

No I am extremely happy about it. That is why I wish to somehow would like to give back to the less privileged. How about you?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 13 2017, 09:01 PM

I'm happy about it as well Like KRIS, would also like to help folks who got born in to pure Hell, like folks in Syria for example.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 13 2017, 10:46 PM

I am extremely blessed to have been born here and Now . I'm just trying to understand the mindset of this statement . Could you have said that if it was your wife a daughters that were killed ?

Do you think he might have done it because your so called handouts were not so " hot " after all ?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 13 2017, 11:10 PM

All of my relatives who stayed in Europe were killed by Nazis. All of them. My family has no Holocaust 'survivors'.
I don't hate Germans. I'm also fine with letting Nazis march. They have a right to assemble.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 14 2017, 12:28 AM

But not to kill

Posted by: klasaine Apr 14 2017, 03:45 AM

So far.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 14 2017, 09:51 PM

The urge to protect "me and mine" is quite strong and I"m not immune to it, it's a natural thing, and a good thing by and large. When the collective "me and mine" gets together, it can get out of hand. Politicians often use this type of thing as a fear based manipulation to exaggerate a given threat so as to use it as a form on control or to use it pass legislation that does not favor the people. Remember, any Govt, indeed any organization with funding only wants to do 2 things. Survive and Grow. The result of this is expansion of things like the DEA. Each org must meet their "numbers" to get their . budget renewed. Often they exaggerate the their results to get more money and grow more. An even better example is the DHS (department of homeland security) currently the largest govt entity in the entire US Govt. We keep letting ourselves get scared by things that are not likely to happen to us, but that happen to someone, so we give up a bit more of our freedom. Politicians play on this to grow their own influence. We don't let them have their way unless they can point to an enemy of credible threat.

Problem is, the current enemy of credible threat, ISIS, recruits online and makes people living in the states in to their instruments. As we know, the web is eternal so once a recruitment vid goes up, you can't get rid of it. This conflict will be generational. Meaning that our childrens, childrens children will still be trying to see the fine line between being manipulated by the politicans and or media, and the truth of a given threat. It's the "FOREVER WAR" that was talked about in George Orwells 1984. We are inching closer and closer to "THOUGHT CRIME" being a real thing.

When you can be "detained" for simply stating your thoughts on a given issue online, "Thought Crime" is a real thing. I think folks should be able to speak their minds online even if I don't like what they are saying, without risking jail time. Even if what they say is offensive. I do draw the line at "Hate Speech", but that's very hard to nail down legally. I'd define it as speech leading to violent action, which is again hard to prove. It's the violent action part that I'm really against. Folks grabbing a weapon and shooting innocent people, or running them down in a car.

I don't have the answer to this, or I'd be rich beyond belief or detained I hope we, as a society, come to find workable answers as we move forward. Because these issues will haunt our grand children. If we get it wrong now, I fear for the future generations in a serious way.

Todd

Posted by: klasaine Apr 14 2017, 10:12 PM

American Nazis (Aryan Nation, etc.) have killed plenty here.
They can still march.
It's a free country.
They need to have the freedom to assemble so that I can have that same freedom to rail and rally against them and what they stand for.
It's a free country.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 14 2017, 10:33 PM

yes they have killed , but there only 5000 ( membership ) and they have not killed lately . And I will stand with you with my guns to protect you from them Ken !
On the other hand , People have killed in the name of black lives matter , and society gets blamed .

So are my fears of black lives matter justified over my fears of Nazi's ?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 14 2017, 11:23 PM

If it comes to that I will gladly accept your help. Here's to hoping it doesn't.

Neo-Nazis in this country have indeed killed folks as recently as last year ...
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/07/18/neo-nazi-arrested-killing-three-wounding-fourth-washington-state

There's always stuff to be scared of I guess. Nazis are are probably the better organized (and patient) as they've had a lot more time to prepare for whatever it is that they think they're preparing for.
But as a wise man once said, "Fear is interest paid on a debt you may not owe".

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 15 2017, 12:22 AM

Irrational fear pretty much defines the right wing of the political spectrum these days. From 9/11/2001 until today (or 2016, depending on how you classify the Orlando attack) there have been more terrorist attack deaths on US soil perpetrated by right wing extremists than any other ideological group, including islamic jihadists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 15 2017, 02:48 AM

FACTS! How dare you Yeah, you nailed it.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 15 2017, 12:25 PM

Thats a pretty bold statement without any statistics to back it up .

If I get any information that isn't from the pew research , Todd says it isn't worth much , so in all fairness , I have to ask the same of you

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 15 2017, 01:32 PM

did you read the story . This nut bag killed those he new , at a house flying a confederate flag . So to put this a in racist killing category is stretching the truth at best , Isn't it

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-chicago-top-cop-black-lives-matter-killing-blacks/article/2610687

Posted by: klasaine Apr 15 2017, 02:39 PM

It says he 'knew' them but not to what extent (small town, 10,000 peeps). He had assault and hate crime convictions prior, as well as a drive by shooting conviction. Two (not one but two) Adolf Hitler tattoos and 3 swastikas tattooed displayed prominently. Not too mention the "Rahowa" (racial holy war) across his shoulders.
Everything this dude does is racially and ideologically motivated.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 15 2017, 03:57 PM

but those he killed with their confederate flag changes everything .
If this crazy would have killed any other ethnicity other than himself i would give you that , but ,
why did the news not give the nationality of the victims , because they were the same , period .
Don't you think if this guy killed a Jewish or African American it would have been a field day for the " media " narrative , does not common sense tell us it would have been all over The Web .
meanwhile while we try to figure out while the race of these victims were left out
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/wow-black-lives-matter-leader-white-people-sub-human-blacks-can-kill-whites-power/

P.S.
Gabriel's connecting melodies thread , i believe is calling your name

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 15 2017, 10:02 PM

Seems another false equivalency floating about? Nobody got shot/killed in the article about Black Lives Matter. It's just bluster from the other side. Bluster isn't the same as killing. Folks can bluster all they want. It's when folks from either side of an argument pick up a weapon and start killing folks that is concerning IMHO

Todd

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 15 2017, 10:52 PM

fair enough , but would you condemn her rhetoric

https://thinkprogress.org/12-officers-shot-5-killed-at-black-lives-matter-protest-in-dallas-6150db506e36

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 16 2017, 09:30 PM

I would condemn all rhetoric that supports the idea of violence. Violence begets violence. In the end, people have to do what they should have done to start with, sit down and talk it out.

You seem convinced that I have some sympathy for radicals? I appreciate them sure But I do not support those who advocate violence. We are closer to a violent outburst than we have been since the 60s. So I support leaders who would try to find a peaceful solution for the problems at hand.


Todd

Posted by: Mertay Apr 17 2017, 08:58 AM

Democracy lost again in Turkey last night by (around, still official count continues) 51 to 49

Around 2m unstamped voting papers were accepted claiming it was a simple mistake. Video's floating on facebook people voting for those who didn't show-up...

The upcoming presidency system will be very similar to pre-war Iraq, Syria...many friends and I started considering leaving country, everybody I know is very depressed right now. Its not about what we voted to happen or not but if voting actually mattered.

Posted by: bleez Apr 17 2017, 09:32 AM

I was really sorry to see the results coming through on the news. I hope its not as bad as it seems for you guys but...
you should come to Scotland we'll soon be some sort of bizarre free floating nomad country not affiliated to anyone

Posted by: Mertay Apr 17 2017, 10:13 AM

eheheh that sounds good

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 18 2017, 02:57 AM

He put Presidential terms at 10 years and gave himself all kinds of powers that used to belong to congress. Trump called and congratulated him. That alone is kinda scary. "Congrats!! You just built a dictatorship out of a democratic framework!!" Bone chilling.

I really hope Turkey doesn't head down the dark road that it appears to be going down. They are currently holding more than 100 journalists without any stated cause or charges. Mainly because they were critical of the govt. I was watching a show here called "ANTHONY BORDAIN PARTS UNKOWN" where he travels and tries out food. He went to Turkey and spoke to a buddy of his who was a journalist. A week later, the journalist was jailed.

I hope you don't have to leave as it's a tough time to leave and go anywhere now that so many countries are making it so hard for folks to immigrate.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 18 2017, 10:33 AM

Yes this is horrible! How do you stop this man?

Posted by: Mertay Apr 18 2017, 11:42 AM

As mentioned before if there's one man Trump admires to be, its Erdogan...



Money is before nationalism to his followers but an economic crisis isn't an option, the one good thing not being an EU member is being able to print your own money. This is why Greece bankrupted. EU after WW2 used this to build their countrys again, creating false wealth in bad times boosting inflation. Currently Turkey's economy is pretty bad too but he used this "trick" 2-3 months before the elections making it even worse, his support might decrease cause of this but on the long run.

We still have some trust left for the justice system and also nation-wide protests if agressive enough (like gezi from a few years ago) can work. All we want right now is a fair election.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 18 2017, 12:36 PM

Fingers crossed! In light of this, we have to give some credits to the US system for catching Trumps unconstitutional attempts. However I suspect the same was the case for Turkey in the beginning of Erdogan? Scary comparison either way..

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 18 2017, 04:57 PM

I suggest that you read the US Constitution, The Federalist Papers and relevant Supreme Court decisions before making comments on things you obviously know very little about.

Here is some other good reading on the topic.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9th-circuit-judges-dish-out-ruthless-take-down-to-anti-trump-travel-ban-decision/
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 18 2017, 07:54 PM

these are rogue judges making" Ideological" law from the bench ( to me , what they have done is unconstitutional ) , where were they when Obama banned ( several times ) , or previous presidents did the same
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-immigration-ban-muslims/2016/06/16/id/734234/

The president is entrusted with safety of the nation and needs to have the power to ban ( at his discretion ) anybody , period .
To strip that power away from the president , and his ability to inn act it immediately is what i consider a crisis

Posted by: Mertay Apr 18 2017, 09:55 PM

Although throughout the years they inflrated and de-independentize many branches of the broucratic system, they couldn't infltrate the constitution court (which is the highest branch of the justice system here). This new constitution will let him descide the judges placed there so this is sort of his final step to become the dictator he wants to be.

It patiently took 15 years to get him to this point, what American's must be careful mainly about is this independence of various organizations in their system (like justice, CIA, army...) on the long run.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 19 2017, 12:38 AM

This is also why our founders wanted us to keep and bear arms . Turkey definitely has a long and winding raod out and I wish you all the best

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 19 2017, 01:52 AM

I have agree with KRIS on this, I know your shocked Trump stepped over the line a few times and the checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place were there doing their job and checking his power. The right or wrong of it, is for the courts to work out in the end.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 19 2017, 03:50 PM

Bullshit. It is not the job of the courts to seize powers that are reserved for the President and Congress. And they certainly have no business making a decision based on what they think the President might have been thinking when he issued the EO. It's completely absurd. There is no such check and balance. Tell me what law or clause in the Constitution was referenced in that decision. It was purely a political activist move that ignored years of established law and precedent as the dissenting judges have shown. You might want to go back and re-read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers too. Judges on that court have shown time and time again that they will ignore the law and rule based on their political ideology which is why that court is among the most overturned courts in the nation. They are rouge judges pure and simple, and there have been many of them put into place over the years. Why is it that when Democrats can't get through the legislation that they want, they try and force it through the judiciary?

John Kelley from DHS tells it like it is.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 19 2017, 05:04 PM

fyi, in no particular order:

1) Nobody "seized" anything . In fact, the court ruled the president does have broad discretion in these matters. They simply ruled it is not limitless. He is obligated to demonstrate his action fits within the constraints of the constitution.
2) State of mind is almost always relevant in court cases. One's intention is fundamental to judging issues. In this case particularly so, since one of the arguments against the ban was that it denies the constitutional guarantee to practice religion freely.
3) The decision undeniably had a political flavor to it. But before you get too excited, the politicization of the dissent made it pale in comparison .
4) Snopes attributes the false rumor that the ninth circuit court of appeals is a rogue court to an erroneous blog post from february.

If somebody wants to get angry about this decision, they should direct their anger at the administration. It should have been a simple order that was easy to defend in court. Instead, it was poorly crafted and ineptly defended.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 19 2017, 06:14 PM

1) Not exactly correct. The only thing the President must show is that there is a rational basis that people from the countries that are banned could pose a threat to national security, which he does and the EO shows since the nations listed in the ban are identified in an anti terrorism law signed by Obama.
2) Non citizens have no constitutional guarantees. If they did we would not be a sovereign nation.
3)The dissenting opinion is based on the Constitution , the Law and case precedent. The stay on the ban is not.
4) Snopes is irrelevant and hardly an authority on the matter or an authority on truth. Loosing a case at the 9th circuit is almost a guaranteed win at the Supreme Court.
5)Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 19 2017, 07:04 PM

Correct is correct And regarding the ninth circuit, more than 99% of the ninth circuit court's decisions stand.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 19 2017, 09:22 PM

Please try to refrain from foul language if possible. You can simply type B.S. and we get it The forums are family friendly places so let's all use a bit of restraint, shall well?

On to the topic at hand. Rammikin sorted it out better than I could have so I"ll just go with what he said

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 20 2017, 03:07 PM

The idea that a President would basically have to get the ok from judges to implement an executive order concerning national security is ludicrous. And so is the idea that a president would have to explain to any judge the rational behind an EO that pertains to national security or share information that may be secret so that a panel of judges can second guess the President. Are a panel of unelected judges really supposed to be the final say on anything a President can do? Of course not. No, this is judicial tyranny and these judges have overstepped pure and simple. Trump could actually ignore the courts ruling if he saw fit. Would it have been better if the EO would have put on hold any and all immigration until further notice?
It's crap like this that is going to assure that Trump wins a second term as President.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 20 2017, 03:59 PM

The president does not need to get an ok from judges to implement an immigration EO concerning national security, as the ninth circuit court clearly said.

But who is the final arbiter on whether an action is truly in defense of national security? In our government, that authority resides with the courts. What you call "second guessing", others might call "constitutional democracy" .

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 20 2017, 04:09 PM

If that is what the court said then there would be no hold on the EO. If what you say is true then why do we need a President or Congress for that matter. The judges could just go ahead and act as Executive, Legislative and Judicial and run the whole show.
The judges aren't the check and balance here. If the actions of the President are somehow illegal or unconstitutional the check and balance lies with Congress and the impeachment process and not with the 9th circus.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 20 2017, 05:08 PM

Anyone with standing can challenge the executive or congress in the courts. That's the basis of the checks and balances system we use to prevent the president or legislature from acting beyond the bounds of the constitution.

But I think I know you well enough to know you're well aware of that. I think what it comes down to is: the court has the authority to rule as it did, but you don't like the decision. Judicial decisions rarely make everybody happy .

The bottom line is: this should have been a simple EO that stood up in court, but it was poorly crafted and incompetently defended by the administration, so it was hardly surprising the court ruled the way it did. Anybody who doesn't like the ruling should be directing their ire at the administration for mishandling this issue. The fact the original case wasn't appealed to the supreme court shows the administration knows full well the fault lies with them for screwing this up.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 20 2017, 11:43 PM

That's what I'd call it But the healthy debate on what is and isn't constitutional democracy is, imho, a good thing. It's the constant push / pull of these decisions and the response that define our democracy. As Rammikin said, it's up to the courts. If any of these get to the supreme court i'd be surprised. As RAMMIKIN mentioned mentioned, the Trump admin know full well this EO was pooooorly crafted and badly executed. They only did it to throw red meat to the base. So they could say, "we did what we said we'd do, and the courts stood in our way" so they have someone to blame That's politics.

But the good news for trump is that he pushed through his hyper conservative new Supreme Court Justice. So the overall balance is still leaning hard right IMHO. But the voting public is fickle, so I'd bet dimes to dollars that the next election swings wide back the other way. But time will tell

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 21 2017, 04:20 PM

Normally and in many cases that would be correct. Just not in this case. The Presidents powers here are well established. The court in fact does not have the authority to rule as it did.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 USC 1182(f)).

“Accordingly, when this policy [of open immigration] changed and the political and lawmaking branch of this Government, the Congress, decided to restrict the right of immigration about seventy years ago [1882], this Court, thereupon and ever since, has recognized that the determination of a selective and exclusionary immigration policy was for the Congress, and not for the Judiciary. The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).

"In the decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power”—absolute power—over immigration to Congress and the Executive, in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is found nowhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair."

"In later years, the Court has also allowed Congress to delegate its immigration authority to the Executive Branch. Congress has now given away much of its plenary power over immigration to the Executive in sweeping grants of power—more sweeping grants than in any other area of the law. For example, Congress has delegated the power to the Executive Branch to determine whether the United States is at war such that military members can be naturalized; to determine whether foreigners should be granted temporary protected status; to determine whether a person is allowed to work in the United States; to grant a person permission to be in the U.S. when the person does not qualify for a visa; and to decide whether a person’s deportation should be deferred."

http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/immigration-and-the-separation-of-powers

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plenary/


Stay tuned for that appeal. If it had been appealed earlier, it could have resulted in a tie in which case the lower courts decision would stand.


How far out in left field do you have to be standing to say that Gorsuch is hyper conservative? He is simply conservative, an originalist or constitutionalist, and does not in any way, shape or form resemble the far right. The way things are going now I would surely take your bet.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 21 2017, 05:24 PM

The court absolutely has authority. Denying that is tantamount to denying the constitution! A judiciary which lacks such authority is a characteristic you find in dictatorships. Further, in their decision, the court clearly acknowledged the president's powers regarding immigration bans when national security is an issue. By saying the court's authority is at issue and citing the administration's powers in this area you are ignoring the issues on which the case hinged, and you are setting up a strawman and arguing with nobody but yourself .

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 21 2017, 05:48 PM

You have your opinion and I have mine but you seem to be ignoring the information concerning the law and case precedent I have provided that clearly backs up what I have said. And btw the judges that truly acknowledged the president's powers regarding immigration bans when national security is an issue were the dissenting judges.

Heaven forbid someone from one of these countries commits an act of terrorism in this country after they were allowed into the country because of this decision by the 9th circuit. If it does happen, those judges may need to go into hiding because there are going to be a lot of folks who will be calling for their heads to roll, so to speak.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 22 2017, 10:18 PM

Still, healthy debate among voters remains a positive thing IMHO. After all, we can't change anything at all that's been done so far. The judges are on the bench and the President is in the white house. We can go back and forth all day long about who's got what authority and use various bits to back up our thoughts. But it's similar to arguing bits of scripture. There are bits to support or negate just about anything depending on your point of view. In the end, what we have in this thread is just concerned voters, voicing their thoughts.

For example, I called the new supreme court justice "Hyper Conservative". Which is how he comes off to me. Then again AKRICH comes off to me as "Hyper Conservative" as well, although I'm sure he doesn't see himself that way. He probably sees me to the left of Stalin and Mao

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 23 2017, 04:29 PM

See this is the problem and a big part of the reason democrats have been loosing so big going back to the midterm elections of Obama's first term. They have done all they could to define anyone or any view that is simply conservative as somehow being a far right boogeyman, or that conservatives hate clean air and water, or women and old people and anyone who wasn't born in this country. It goes on and on and on. Another part of the problem is that there are some republicans who are not really conservative at all have allowed the left to define conservatives in this way. I for one will not let any statement slide that seeks to demonize conservatives in this way and I think most people have grown tired of hearing these things from the left.
No Todd, Hillsdale college is not faaar right and neither is Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, and Gorsuch is in no way hyper conservative nor are his views and judicial opinions extreme in any way. The only way that I see that anyone could define a simple conservative view as being far right or hyper conservative is because of how far left they themselves are standing.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 24 2017, 01:57 AM

I re read my post and I did not infact call you the boogeyman (Mesa or otherwise) Nor did I intimate in any way that you were the boogeyman. This is something that you just sorta made up based on your own perceptions. I can't help you with that. Your perceptions are yours as are your thoughts, so if you think I"m calling you the Bman, all I can do is try to point out that I, in fact, didn't and was not trying to do so If I were, it would look like this "RICH YOU ARE THE BOOGEYMAN!!"

As to why dems lost sooooooo very badly in the last series of elections, everyone has their own view on that as well. My view on it is shaped by pew research polls and if the dems had paid a little closer attention to the frustration and discontent of voters in general, we may have had a different outcome, But again, that's just another view

I gotta say, we have very different definitions of what "FAR RIGHT" is. That much is clear. I would say RUSH LIMBAUGH is about as far right as you can get without being "Alt Right". But again, that's how I see him. You, being FAAAAAAR more conservative than I view him entirely differently. That just makes standard sense. You would view him differently. Of course you would. As you would view Trump and his ilk differently. Truer words could not be spoken.

However, as there is no single hard and fast litmus test on the sliding scale of left/right, it's down to our own views. Which is fine You are welcome to think of Rush Limbaugh in any terms you like. As as am I. I've heard him speak. I've rarely heard anyone I'd say is more Far Right wing. But again, just me Speaking my thoughts. and you speaking yours "he's not far right". We will have to agree to disagree on that and much else. But hopefully can do so in a spirit of civility.

As for "demonizing", I didn't do any of that either. But again, your perspective is your own. You have every right to it. Perhaps you think I am demonizing folks. You are welcome to think that as well. Again, hopefully we are all just concerned voters. Talking about democracy.

I"m glad that we have the ability to talk about politics. Thank God we are not in a full on Dictatorial state, yet. Hopefully we won't be, anytime soon. Once debate and dissent are seen to be a "real and present danger", we may become concerned over expressing our thoughts. Or even having expressed them at one time. For now, we still can, and I"m thankful for that

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 24 2017, 03:17 PM

Now re-read my post. Was I talking about you? Are you a Democrat? No, I was clearly speaking of Democrats and more specifically, Democrat politicians. I was using your statement about Gorsuch being a hyper conservative and some of your past comments about other people and organizations being far right as an example, as well as other examples from Democrats to illustrate a point. And I never said this was THE reason for the Democrats loss of seats across the board on a state and federal level. I said it was a BIG PART of the reason.
Not only did Democrats not pay attention, they have largely abandoned the middle class in recent years and have turned around and attacked them.

But please please, tell me what it is that you have heard Rush Limbaugh say that is so faaaaar right, or what Gorsuch said or did that makes him a hyper-conservative. What exactly is YOUR definition of far right or alt right for that matter since you toss around the terms so casually? Somehow I don't think it fits any standard definition of the term. And WTF does alt right even mean?

And concerning your last paragraph. Have you seen what is going on at Berkeley lately? It's not really a bastion of free speech anymore is it?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 24 2017, 04:32 PM

Non citizens have a lot of 'constitutional' rights.
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+non+citizens+have+constitutional+guarantees&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Being married to a non-citizen myself I can tell you that I'm pretty well versed in this.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 24 2017, 05:09 PM

Yes, made in haste, my statement was too broad. Sorry Ken.
Not all non-citizens have constitutional guarantees and not all non-citizens share the same constitutional guarantees as citizens.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 26 2017, 03:14 AM

You did mention that you personally have thoughts on why the dems lost. Those are of course, your personal thoughts. Frankly, I don't buy any of em as they are not based on any data. None that you have shared anyway. So theres that. You are welcome to think/say whatever. next!

As for Rush Limbaugh, My personal thoughts are that he is a far right wing wind bag, full of himself, and, full of crap. Avoiding any data that doesn't support his paranoid, whites only, Black presidents are bad, etc. Profile. I've known guys who LOVED him. All of them were hardcore, Rebel Flag in the truck Red Necks that worked in Construction and had no education to speak of. (I live in GEORGIA, the birthplace of the KKK, I"m surrounded by these folks, every day and I try to be as opposite as I can and still be proud to be a Southerner) I think this is the real problem. A lack of education results in being easily swayed by emotional banter. The kind of crap that Rush spews every day. Need examples? just take a chunk of any of his broadcasts. I can't listen long without becoming ill. Then there was the time he had his UNDOCUMENTED HOUSE CLEANER buying him DRUGS ON THE STREET. Talk about Hypocrisy. This is where folks usually throw a false equivalency in, instead of just admitting he is a total bag of wind and hypocrite. If you are a fan of his. I"m sorry. I can't stand him.

As I mentioned, it's a sliding scale without hard definitions in terms of far left or right. It's based largely on perceptual factors and who is the one making the statement. There's that.

If you don't know what Alt Right Means, I'm shocked. Steven Bannon called BREITBART the "VOICE OF THE ALT RIGHT" they are folks so far right that "far right" wasnt' good enough, so they call themselves "ALT RIGHT" they border on fascism and outright racism. Alt Right is a little more easy to define as it's a new creation. Here is a definition.

"The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value."


They are a white identity bunch that are frankly just shameful imho in every way. But again that's just me. I'm sure we have a few here and they have every right to be as alt right as they want.

As for Berkley, I never said it was a bastion of free speech. Are you suggesting I did? If so, I didn't. I don't konw why you'd bring it up. Berkley is Berkley. I have nothing to do with them. Are you reaching for yet another false equivalency? Seems to be a pattern

Don't get so worked up. Seriously. It's just politics and we are just voters, . already voted, talking about. It is what it is at some point. But feel free to get overly worked up if that is your thing. You have every right to get as overworked as you like. It's still a free country, so far


[
quote name='AK Rich' date='Apr 24 2017, 10:17 AM' post='746958']
Now re- knread my post. Was I talking about you? Are you a Democrat? No, I was clearly speaking of Democrats and more specifically, Democrat politicians. I was using your statement about Gorsuch being a hyper conservative and some of your past comments about other people and organizations being far right as an example, as well as other examples from Democrats to illustrate a point. And I never said this was THE reason for the Democrats loss of seats across the board on a state and federal level. I said it was a BIG PART of the reason.
Not only did Democrats not pay attention, they have largely abandoned the middle class in recent years and have turned around and attacked them.

But please please, tell me what it is that you have heard Rush Limbaugh say that is so faaaaar right, or what Gorsuch said or did that makes him a hyper-conservative. What exactly is YOUR definition of far right or alt right for that matter since you toss around the terms so casually? Somehow I don't think it fits any standard definition of the term. And WTF does alt right even mean?

And concerning your last paragraph. Have you seen what is going on at Berkeley lately? It's not really a bastion of free speech anymore is it?
[/quote]

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 26 2017, 12:32 PM

never brought forth your example as why, just assassinated character to try to end the argument . If rich is trying to understand what you view as alt' right , would not an example just clear things up ?
I'm glad no one on the left ever got hooked on prescription drugs . I thought he talked multiple doctors into overlapping prescriptions so I would like to see your " evidence " that he used an illegal worker

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 26 2017, 04:31 PM

So to sum things up. You have nothing to show me that illustrates that Rush is faaaar right and alt right is just another term made up by the left to demonize conservatives since racist, homophobic and sexist etc etc have all been played out and just aren't as effective anymore. Thanks for clearing that up!

Posted by: klasaine Apr 26 2017, 11:40 PM

Richard Spencer claims credit for coining the term "alt right" in around 2010 as the name for his on-line journal.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 27 2017, 12:05 AM

so do we get to start discussing fascism or better yet anti-fa

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 27 2017, 02:05 AM

It was his housekeeper. Maybe she was documented. I don't know. Rush Limbaugh was up on charges for getting 4000 prescription pain killers ILLEGALLY in four months time!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rush-limbaugh-arrested-on-drug-charges/
All this after decrying "DRUG USE" as being so awful and bad. The man is a huge hypocrite. Hows that for an example
Here is the court affidavitfor the search warrant that led to the drug find! He was using his house keeper to buy various narcotics for him on the street!!!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/warrants-detail-rush-limbaughs-drug-use?page=0

All of this after he constantly comes down on anyone taking drugs and how bad drugs are in general. Mostly, he blames cartels and Mexicans. All the while having his maid go out and get him narcotics on the street. Character assassination? no need, he did it to himself. Utter hypocrite.

I'm just talking about Rush here, so let's try to stay focused. Mr, right wing, anti drug, family values, having his maid go out to score for him. Before we start with all the false equivaliency, let's just admit this guy is a hypocrite wind bag. There's no other conclusion to be drawn IMHO.

So there's Rush Limbaugh for ya.
------
Steve Banon and the ALT RIGHT

If the previous definition didn't work, how about this one.

BANNON HAS EMBRACED THE ALT RIGHT, A LOOSE NETWORK OF WHITE NATIONALISTS AND ANTI-SEMITES.
The alt right is a loose network of individuals and groups that promote white identity and reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Often by leveraging social media and the Internet, alt right adherents express opposition to multiculturalism, immigration and often claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to advocate for “white genocide.”

Bannon “proudly” told a reporter at the 2016 Republican National Convention “we’re the platform for the alt right.”


For reference
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/stephen-bannon-five-things-to-know

There's the "ALT RIGHT" for ya!
-----------
DEFINITION OF "FAR RIGHT" no problem, here ya go. Let's just go with something simple.

Far-right politics are right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right.

Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition, real or imagined, as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. Many far-right ideologies have a disregard or a disdain for egalitarianism, even if they do not always express overt support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism.

Right-wing populism, a political ideology often combines laissez-faire, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism is often described as far-right. Right-wing populism often involves appeals to "common man" and opposition to immigration.

The term is also used to describe ideologies including Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views, which can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics
There's that then. Each point expressed and supported with links. Feel free to research further and feel free to COMPLETELY DISAGREE! it doesn't matter at all. It's just a forum guys. Think/Say, whatever comes to mind.

Personally, more and more I find myself drawn to the PIRATE PARTY which is very small here but much larger in Europe.

Todd

SIGNING OFF, LETTING THE OTHER SIDE HAVE THE LAST WORD ENJOY THE HECK OUT OF IT GUYS!!

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 27 2017, 03:17 AM

You highlighted it like you knew what you were talking about , thats the tactic of the far left . Lie and if no one calls you on it , it sticks .
And in your source story nothin about him having his housekeeper buy illiega drugs on the streets , but he was indicted for doctor shoping . His house keeper merely told the national enquirer he had a drug problem . I should not have to spend my time debunking , whats getting awfully close , to fake news .

Lets do some simple math 4 moths 31 days , times four 124 . 4000 divided by 124 equals 32 pills a day , he would be dead ,
get better sources




oh ya , i forgot , so there's that

Posted by: klasaine Apr 27 2017, 05:47 AM

Not today but it was mentioned that 'alt right' is a left coined term. It isn't.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 27 2017, 03:31 PM

So you still haven't told me anything that Rush has said or done for that matter that supposedly makes him faaaar right, or how Gorsuch is a hyper conservative. Lots of people get addicted to pain medication after surgery but that doesn't make them faaaar right now does it? And You describe Bannon and the alt right together and give me an uncorroborated report from a Mother Jones reporter that is supposed to confirm that Bannon is of the alt right. C'mon Man!
Ken has informed me where the term alt right came from. Thanks for that, I had no idea. But I see how some folks have run with the term and broadened it to include pretty much anyone who is conservative.
So now I wonder how many folks consider themselves to be in the alt right in this country. Maybe 10 or 20k out of 320 million or so, if it is even that many which I doubt it is. I would be surprised if the actual member count of white nationalists groups in this country reaches 5 digits.
What's a pirate party? Anarchists?

Posted by: klasaine Apr 27 2017, 06:27 PM

Interestingly, I can not find any hard numbers. And I too believe the number to be relatively low.

White Nationalists scare me about as much as ISIS scares me - which is very little.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 27 2017, 10:42 PM

be careful , last time we talked about irrational fears , there was a shooting

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 1 2017, 01:49 AM

this is a recent quote from Sweden
Swedish National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson has begged the government for help as the number of no-go zones has risen from 55 to 61 in only one year.

“Help us, help us,” Eliasson said at a press conference on the subject of the rising levels of crime and criminal networks in Sweden. Eliasson said there were at least 5,000 criminals divided into around 200 networks in Sweden operating in the now 61 no-go zones, many of which are heavily migrant-populated, Göteborgs-Posten reports.

Is this true or false ?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jul 1 2017, 05:49 PM

Yeah it's true.

To be honest we don't walk outside anymore. We order all our food supplies from the Internet. And sometimes we don't even get the delivery because of violence in the ever growing no-go zones.

Also, immigration has ruined our country in just one year. Statistics show immigrants rape someone once a week. Latest report says they eat children and drink blood. They have also adapted new technology allowing tele-transportation between no-go zones - and thereby ruining our country more effectively. Some reports even claim their physiology show machine-like traits (think terminator) basically allowing each immigrant to do twice as much harm. Help!!! I wish Trump would save us.

Most Swedes are considering moving to the arctic poles, though it is unclear if Swedish immigrants will be well received there. Either way we are now really happy about the ice melting quickly as it will provide new grounds for us to escape - even if the planet only has a few more decades left in its functioning state.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jul 1 2017, 06:25 PM

Sorry for my little ironic rant mate.

The story is not made-up but it is very exaggerated as usual: no one is begging the government for anything. However Dan Eliasson is asking other authorities to cooperate - as is recommended when dealing with organised crime.

Also there has not been an over-all increase in crime but police say they have got better at localising organised crime and can provide more detailed stats.

It is however true that these areas are not good places, in relation to Swedish standards.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 1 2017, 11:27 PM

you got me good ," my mouth was open",
I do hope your analysis is right

as long as we are being sensible , Have you seen Van Jones ( cnn reporter ) and another CNN producer caught on video , both saying Trump and Russia is a" nothing burger ", they only keep the stories because their rating have never been better ?I'll let you do the search seeing how mine are always " wrong "

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 2 2017, 09:42 AM

Van jones? CNN? All fake news! Didn't you hear Trump? The leaks are real the news is fake! Fake news! Fake News! Everywhere! Except fox of course.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 2 2017, 12:25 PM

Todd , this is the sensible thread, please start a " lets mock CRSN thread " if you feel the need .

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 2 2017, 05:54 PM

What? no mockery, I'm finally convinced. Fake news everywhere!!

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jul 2 2017, 10:47 PM

closing this discussion, as it feels quite exhausted by now.