The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

OK since no one will talk about the Elephant in the room. Is everyone on board with his run at the White House? I'm thinking the status quo lifetime Politician is what voters are tired of. This man with no real Political experience, brash comments and carry a big stick attitude is what most of downtrodden Americans are looking for.
And by chance if he somehow does not get the GOP nomination. Does he run as an Independent? and can he win?

I would say something, but I don't want to hear the usual "You're a RWRE Christian Conservative nut job wacko" so I have decided that since there are members here that believe that Hillary's coronation inevitable I will not take part in any 2016 discussion.

The poll numbers look like the wheels are falling off Hillarity’s bus.

I’m thinking there’s enough Clinton and Bush fatigue neither will end up in the White House.  I’m really surprised Jeb is polling as well as he has been.

I don't know..let's remember what happened to Clinton in 92 with the allegations of infidelity.  Can't count someone out just yet.  I've begun watching Bernie a little more closely...

What is kind of surprising, even to me, is how he is polling 25% or so... just shows where a quarter of the Republican party is....and how sad that really is...


But I still bet he will drop out soon - he just wants to have enough impact so he can have some input into the goings on.  That job takes way too much attention  The Donald will never stand for that.

He’s also polling well with independents.

Trump simply says what the career politicians are thinking but are too afraid to say.  I think people are appreciating the honesty and his unabashed non-PC way of speaking.

How long that will keep voters captivated remains to be seen.  Once the RNC starts funding soft money attack ads on Trump to push Jeb to the forefront, the sheeple will turn away.

If he really runs as an independent, he'll steal away some of the nut-balls from both parties. 

Probably many of the ex-tea partiers.

It would have the same effect as Perot running as an IND in 1992. 

My memory tells me Perot felt a little less like a joke.

Aside from Dana Carvey/Phil Hartman - which is a classic.

Would like to see the Trump ticket - he would pick Carly for VP.  That would be so great...the Bankrupcy King with the Queen of Running Hewlett Packard Into the Ground and Destroying a Great Company.

Oh please don't let him pick a Woman as his running mate. It's a ticket killer. If he is all about not being Politically correct. Then don't try the novel idea of having a Female VEEP. In what polls has it ever shown that having a Female running mate works?
Pick one of the several stiffs that were on stage with him last night and be done with it.
So much can happen in the next year so who knows what he will do when the heat ramps up the first quarter of 2016. At the moment I'm enjoying Politics worth talking about.

This really isn't politics on that side of the aisle somuch as it is a circus.

Hence the 'clown car' analogy.

Is it sad that everytime I hear one of these doofuses start talking, I hear this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4RHZ1ssCBA

No self respecting woman in this country would run for VP with him.  Ever.



Also, there is a kind of a sidebar in all this about the type of woman who would actually marry him...

(Do I hear a Roy Orbison song playing faintly in the background...??)

Trump should name Rosie O'Donnell as his running mate.

There is no way that Trump wants to be president because he genuinely cares about the electorate, Trump is in this for Trump.

He always is.  He’s the type that would wear a ribbed condom inside-out for his pleasure.

It takes a certain amount of narcissism to drive someone to run for president but the level Trump posseses is blinding...especially to him.

The Don has definitely put some life into politics and has the other candidates worried. At this point, it just looks like one big circus and he's the main attraction. He very possibly has some excellent ideas on making improvements on our already good economy, but I shudder to think of him going overseas and meeting with Queen Elizabeth or any foreign leader, for that matter. He's more arrogant and self loving then many of the politicians and that says a lot.

If I were to make a prediction, I'd say that he will not be our next Prez. It will be interesting to see if he gets the GOP nomination though.

Many politicians and political hacks have gotten so crazy with the way they talk these days, then add to that when the moderates have sat idle for so long and are afraid to go against what the crazies are saying for fear of losing those votes... well I don't know where they think that was going to lead us.  Well here ya go. Enjoy.

I mean you hear so much ridiculous stuff on the radio and TV, what's so different between that and what Donald is saying?

For one thing he wants to repeal the 14th Amendment... which would get rid of citizenship for anyone claiming it simply by virtue of being born in the US.

Now, it would also end the notion that States are at all bound by the US Constitution. So your right to freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure, and all other basic civil rights would be left to the whim of the States. Essentially, roll back the civil rights movement entirely, eliminate gay marriage, and well - every progressive stride over the last ~100 years or so. Oklahoma could just amend its constitution to make Fundamentalist Christian the state religion and authorize the police to search any "enemy of the state's" home they saw fit. Yay for freedom!

Also, nearly every idea, practice or suggestion he has come up with has been shown to be an utter failure. But if we just try to fail HARDER we will win.

Finally, the guy is actually on record as saying that in the past he has given political contributions to the person he thought likely to win because he expected favors in return. That is a person that should never be in a position of public "trust."

Just wow. At least when he was on the apprentice you knew when he was going to be on television and could avoid him. Now he is inescapable.

If he gets the nomination, I am just about convinced I will vote for him.  Let's get the insane clown posse thing going for real, so maybe - just maybe - people will finally get so full of the carp that we can finally start to recover from this long national nightmare we have had to deal with for so many decades.

Like I said, whats the difference?   Perhaps you don't listen to whats playing on the Radio these days (or the conversations I overhear) at some of the "workin people" job sites I often end up on around this great state, for instance.

This afternoon they showed a clip of an interview with Mr. Trump on the very subject of the 14th Amendment. My thoughts had previously been that if he truly feels that anyone born here doesn't deserve citizenship, he needs to run it through the right channels and they need to change the law/amendment. During his interview, he said he has no intention of doing that and will take his chances with lawsuits and the courts and figures he'll come out the winner and just begin shipping people back home. His theory was that it'd take 8 years to get it changed legally and he'd be nearing the end of his second term. The number crunchers have been indicating that this will cost a massive fortune and they may be right. Will there be a savings in the end? Who knows?

I do like his tax plan. He wants to lower the rates to 1% minimum up to 15% maximum. He and his friends would be the big winners, but most of us would come out ahead on that deal. The problem is if you slash taxes that dramatically, who's going to pay our country's bills?

Um, not thinking we’d be able to rely on Greece to pay them for us.

"Pretty things!"  That's about the depth of thought that went into his tax plan.

The top 5% of tax payers chucked in nearly $600 Billion in tax revenue to Uncle Sam. The bottom 50% coughed in almost $30 billion. So we we halve the tax rate for the top 5% and cut the bottom bracket by a factor of 10 - we will lose more than 50% of our income tax revenue. Going from ~1 trillion down to maybe $400 billion.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

Our current deficit is $500 billion. So Trump's tax plan is to double the annual deficit while simultaneously increasing the wealth disparity in a country with among the worst wealth disparity in the history of the world. Brilliant!
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget

That would work out fine if we unfunded all science, education, energy, environmental programs, and then choose to de-fund either transportation or the VA on top of that.  (or cut the military spending by 50%). But hey, it would be really, really good for a couple of people. They'd probably die before the country descended into Mad Max style chaos.

AND relying on China to keep giving us loans doesn't look to promising anymore. Maybe we could just print more money? Mr. Trump may agree to have his face on new currency.

Earlier today I learned that Mr. Trump is in agreement with Mr. Carson's plan of going strictly with H.S.A.'s and eliminating our entire Medicare system. No details on the plan. That seems to be the entire plan. That pretty much cinches even the 1% thought I had of voting for him.

Let's get him in there and get this slow slide toward insanity over with - make a fast, sharp cut once and for all - get it all in place, let the teabaggers get a big ole' dose of what it is they are really talking about, since they are too stupid to think 13 minutes ahead.  Then after his first term maybe some sanity will re-assert itself.  And hopefully before a second...

I thought (naively) that the criminal acts of the Baby Bush regime would make people blink a few times, shake their heads, and maybe emerge from the long national stupor we have been bogged down in for so long.  What a silly notion...  So, maybe it will take a good solid Trumping before it gets beaten into our collective consciousness...



End result of our headlong rush to "Teabaggerism"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM65JpsvN5M

Any of them will do. It's not like Trump and Gentle Ben are espousing something new. Most of the candidates and the party platform are in agreement on those positions.

It's all the same Clown Show.

Yea, I feel like his running mate will be Charlie Sheen...you know because his dad was president.

Just saw a hilarious quote - Obama was talking at a fundraiser... I didn't see it, but I can believe he would say this....  Not only is it a Clown Show - it is the "Most Magnificent, Hilarious Most-Wussiest Bunch of Whiners Clown Show".


“Have you noticed that every one of these candidates says, ‘Obama’s weak. Putin’s kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out’?” Mr. Obama asked a crowd of Democratic donors in New York, referring to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
     
“And then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at a debate,” he added to huge applause from his partisan audience. “I mean, let me tell you,” he added with gleeful scorn, “if you can’t handle those guys, you know, then I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you.”


Still hoping Trump will throw his support to Romney, so we have Hillary and Romney running...at least a little semblance of sanity to the rest of the world....

Trump: "You know the movies. Shoot first, talk later. Right? Right? Right? You shoot first, you talk about it later."

But isnt that part of the problem?

“Shoot first, think later”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-scotus-comment-720a8830-87f7-11e5-bd91-d385b244482f-20151110-story.html

Trump has to be a plant. 

I'm not sure if he's meant to make other GOP candidates look better by comparison or worse by association.

I read this twice.  No reference to Trump.  What does this have to do with Trump?

Have they lost all reason? Trump wants to force Muslims to register in some kind of database. Carson thinks the Great Pyramids were grain storage. And they're the front runners? What next, Bat Boy for VP?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260370-trump-refugees-could-be-trojan-horse-for-isis

Then there is

Instead of accepting Syrian refugees, the U.S. should purchase a "big swath of land" in Syria, which "believe me you get for the right price."
After buying the Syrian land the U.S. should then convert it into a safe haven for refugees...So what I like is... build a big beautiful safe zone"

Didnt the Germans have another name for that?

Godwin

Precedent

...something about powerful people with wierd comb-overs...

Kinda hard to Godwin this topic when it seems appropriate.

Hey, Mr. anti-authoritarian started referencing Germans and their odd proclivities of how to deal with the Jews and strips of land...

If the shoe fits.

Ditto.

Now that were pumped, how about a short detour down this dark alley:
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/11/22/what-donald-trump-might-have-seen-on-911-hint-it-wasnt-cheering-arabs/

Wow.

I can care less about Trump.  But I’m surprised at how easily you are taken in by media sources which keep doing these constructs to make him fit the mold of the typical GOP bigot.  Try harder Patric.  There’s plenty to not like about this guy without resorting to op-eds which mangle facts.

He’s a DB, but the racist/xenophobe profile of the leading GOP candidate is getting old.  What is everyone going to do when Carson becomes the odds-on favorite and the media starts to paint him as a racist?

Especially him fabricating or following an old disproven story about how thousands of Muslims were cheering in NJ when the towers came down on 9/11.  And then doubling down and saying 'they did too', when confronted with the facts.

I still think it's possible he's a democrat plant to make the current clown car move so far right it hurts them with independents.

The Trump-Hitler comparison is getting painfully obvious. It has to be a parody.

- never held elected office before
- wrote a bad book about what a great leader they are which clearly shows they have no idea what they are talking about
- blames immigrants for most problems (spreading crime and disease, ruining the economy!)
- one was an immigrant married to a native, the other is a native married to an immigrant
- in favor of registration of religious minorities
- vilifies the previous administration
- ultra nationalistic
- favors militaristic solutions to foreign affairs
- underdog candidate that no one took seriously
- encourage supporters to beat dissidents/protesters
- both keep copies of Mein Kampf and My New Order on their nightstands (seriously, Trump used to keep the collected works of Adolf Hitler on his nightstand. I just assume Hitler did)

You can call Godwin all you want, but no one calls for a registry of a religious minority unless it is in jest.


Here are some fun quotes for you:

1. “Do not compare yourself to others. If you do, you are insulting yourself.”

2. "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, people will believe it."

3. “Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”

4. "Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies ... and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of stuff."

5. “If you win, you don't have to explain ... If you lose, you should not be there to explain!”

6. “I do not see why man shouldn't be as cruel as nature.”

7. "The more economic difficulties increase, the more immigration will be seen as a burden."

8. "Great liars are also great magicians."

9. "I can fight only for something that I love, love only what I respect, and respect only what I at least know.”

10. "Any alliance whose purpose is not to wage war is useless."

11. "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized."

12. "Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."

13. "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."

Yep, I've always thought that there was a difference in calling someone a Nazi because you're losing an argument (Godwining) or because you actually sound Nazi-like.  In this case, Trump is leaning toward the latter with the rhetoric he's spewing.

No, Trump is owning the whole rabid racist bit. He posted this little fact challenged facebook tidbit that looks like it came right from Stormfront:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pH5q3b5G--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1530833601135304231.png)

Did you know that 90% of banks are owned by Jews?*

*made up number, but it supports my racist world view so I'm going to run with it [that's sarcasm for the idiots out there]
- - -

If you are trying to make a race baiting point, you don't need to fabricate numbers. Black crime statistics are a serious problem that should be addressed (as in, why is this group of our citizens stuck in a cycle of violence. What can we do to change it.). But to try to make it sound like white people are somehow at great threat by black people is about as bad as you can get...

Statistically, 14.7% of white murder victims were at the hands of black assailants. Not exactly the 80+% Trump claims.  All the numbers are wrong. But hey if it fits your narrative.

Coincidentally, the "statistic" from the non-existing SF report actually comes from a neo-nazi Twitter account. (https://twitter.com/CheesedBrit) But Trump found it on the interweb, so it must be true! Seriously, this has to be like the time Kang and Kodos ran for President in the Simpsons.
- - -

Also - on my previous list of Trump vs. Hitler, I added "encourages supporters to beat up dissidents/protesters." God I hope they were wearing brown shirts.

Its not so much Trumps shock-jock style of acidic one-liners that so depressing, its how many potential voters are apparently wanting to embrace fascism.

They don't know the meaning, origin, spelling of the word.

And for a lot of Okies, that Lefty/Commie Woody Guthrie hated Fascists,  so they can't be all bad, right?   

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/11/23/we-have-a-nazi-analogy-problem/

Very interesting.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/14/3701084/donald-trump/

"In his essay, Barthes contrasts pro wrestling to boxing.
This public knows very well the distinction between wrestling and boxing; it knows that boxing is a Jansenist sport, based on a demonstration of excellence. One can bet on the outcome of a boxing-match: with wrestling, it would make no sense. A boxing- match is a story which is constructed before the eyes of the spectator; in wrestling, on the contrary, it is each moment which is intelligible, not the passage of time… The logical conclusion of the contest does not interest the wrestling-fan, while on the contrary a boxing-match always implies a science of the future. In other words, wrestling is a sum of spectacles, of which no single one is a function: each moment imposes the total knowledge of a passion which rises erect and alone, without ever extending to the crowning moment of a result.
In the current campaign, Trump is behaving like a professional wrestler while Trump’s opponents are conducting the race like a boxing match. As the rest of the field measures up their next jab, Trump decks them over the head with a metal chair.
Others in the Republican field are concerned with the rules and constructing a strategy that, under those rules, will lead to the nomination. But Trump isn’t concerned with those things. Instead, Trump is focused on each moment and eliciting the maximum amount of passion in that moment. His supporters love it. "

The rest of the article puts up some more interesting tidbits.  Gives one an interesting lens through which to look at things.

After Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter he is history. The other's have been waiting for his moment thinking that his lies will catch up with him but its not truth his followers are interested in. They have already constructed their truths. But everyone has someone in their family or circle of friends who has some disability. Respectable people will not support Trump's lack of character. He has placed the noose of his own construction around his neck.

Kasich is still the most reasonable, experienced, level headed candidate the party could win with despite not being an "outsider".  A republican for sure but not a glory seeking, extremist, liar.

And Kash doesn't have a prayer either. He tried to push some far right "reforms" as governor of Ohio and both the voters and the legislature pushed back. That makes him weak in the eyes of the party's ideologues.

The last nail has been driven into Trump’s coffin time after time, yet he still leads the polls.  He’s the proverbial “turd in the punch bowl” or uninvited party guest.  No one professes to like him yet no one has managed to tune him out.  He’s acerbic, politically-incorrect, obnoxious, and boorish.  He speaks his mind and apparently lacks any sort of filter.

I won’t vote for him, but I think it’s hilarious to watch him shake up the presidential election process.  Maybe it’s time we re-evaluate why we keep electing people who are overly concerned about correctness and making sure they say everything the focus groups think they should.

It also speaks to most of his supporters being really horrible human beings.

Here's an op-ed from the NY TIMES on Trump's version of a police state. Honestly, I think he believes the president's authority is limitless and he'd act accordingly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/donald-trumps-police-state.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/donald-trumps-police-state.html)

"You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you're not one."

"And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's okay to rough up black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there's someone left to help you."
http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-nazis-campaign-ad-john-kasich

You mean like a table-full of people playing “Cards Against Humanity”?

Can't tell if that's a serious critique or not.  Comedy (and I put Cards against humanity in that category as a comedic outlet), is often expressed in the absurd or grotesque or just in general by making fun of pretense and conformity.  People need those kind of emotional outlets, because it allows us to vent or at least release those thoughts in a "safe" environment.  But most of us understand the difference between a game, or a really funny (but disgusting) comedian, and real life.  We laugh, even if we know we aren't supposed to, and then we put all that back up in the mental lock-box where it stays most of the time while we go about the business of living in society.  We know the difference.  Unfortunately some of us apparently no longer seem to understand this difference, and those people are the core of Trump's support.

I agree with your first statement... but in regards to your second statement.

Trump is doing the exact same thing. He is reading polls on what the right wing of the Republican Party wants to hear and repeating it in one liners. He has no conviction on any of these matters and has readily flip-flopped from his statements in the past (when he was giving money to Democrats). Worse yet, he has no basis for his statements, which are usually demonstrably false, just that he thinks they will be popular. And they are, and his supporters don't care about facts.

Also, the ability to be "concerned with correctness" is also a litmus test for being diplomatic. If you can't avoid making fun of or generalizing Latinos, handicap people, black people and/or Muslims - how would could you possible manage world affairs? Balancing Israel with our Arab "allies." Or supporting our allies against Russia without escalating things? It is terrifying to think of Trump managing a serious situation.

Finally,

I started watching the Man in the High Castle on Amazon Prime over the holiday. Every time I saw the brown shirts I thought of Trump supporters. The correlation is sad.

CAH is a scream.  No less than cannon_fodder & Mrs. cannon_fodder introduced MC and I to the game.

When Swake said Trump’s followers were “horrible” I couldn’t resist the urge to insert a CAH reference.  I’m impulsive that way.

Yeah...and they got the idea from us...

Osage Reservation
Cherokee Reservation
Apache Reservation
Navajo Reservation
Muskogee Reservation
Crow Reservation
Sioux Reservation...

The Art of the Deal:

Trump:  Mr. Assad, we would like to purchase a large tract of land from you. For the right price...

Assad: What is the purpose of this? I don't understand why the US of A is wanting to buy land in Syria?

Trump: Don't you worry, can we buy some land?

Assad: Sure. All the land around Raqqa is for lease.

Trump: Really?

Assad: No you idiot. I don't even control that land. It is full of people even I consider to be vile barbarians. Don't you pay attention to anything?

Trump: Well, how about some of the land you do control?

Assad: Seriously, what do you want the land for?

Trump: Well, I want to locate people there that don't want to fight for you, some others that overtly want to overthrow you, and all that don't really like you very much. I then plan on shielding them with American military might in order to create a perpetual third-tier protectorate to oppose Islamists, Russians, and the Assad regime, basically a defacto puppet state,  smack dab in the middle of the region and on your territory. Cool?

Assad: Absolutely. Write that check to Bashar Assad. That's B-A-S... As soon as it clears, I will totally help you subvert my reign...

You guys think Trump would carry Oklahoma?

Without a doubt. Last poll he was up on Carson by nearly 10 pts. Everyone else a distant third.

Since then, he has really ramped up his rhetoric about tracking Mooslims, closing mosques, and "punishing" the family members of terrorists. He has also spoken louder about busing immigrants back to Mexico, keeping Mooslim refugees out, and generally trumpeting how us Natives are better than them there immigrants. Finally, he has made fun of the mentally and physically handicapped individuals. All the while having no real plan or policy to do anything.

All in all, probably upped his numbers in Oklahoma.

He's going to win in a landslide in Oklahoma.

Now he's working on alienating yet another minority group. Trump speaking to a gathering of Jewish Republicans:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-courts-jewish-republicans-with-offensive-stereotypes/

I've been saying this and the theory is also gaining traction to some extent.  I think Trump is a Hillary operative to make the Republicans so unelectable in November that she'll win.

I know, probably not the case, but crazier has happened.

Someone say “crazier”?

(http://halfguarded.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trump-Crazy.jpg)

Actually, this is my favorite picture:

(http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Donald-Trump-Finger.jpg)

I’m starting to wonder what the voter turn-out would be in an election between Clinton and Trump.  Both have so many detestable qualities, we could see a record low turn-out or someone could have a really great shot as an Ind.  Trump, going Ind. if he doesn’t win the nomination, would hurt the chances of a GOP candidate worse than a Dem, just like Perot.

(https://i.imgur.com/3ITfqWa.gif)

Sweet baby Jeebus...

I'm not easily offended, and the things he says don't really offend me, but I certainly recognize them as things wouldn't say in polite company. Let alone things you would say to the people you are trying to win over. The problem is, he apparently doesn't understand that. Even when he is trying to win someone over, he can't help but spew stereotypes.

I also love is constant passive-aggressiveness:

ZOMG!  He's a Muslim! If we would only man up all over ourselves and call ISIS names that would help their recruiting, THEN we would be able to defeat them. But he won't call them names and alienate our allies for no actual reason, because he's a MOOSLIM! Or because he is listening to the advisers on the issue. (but probably because HES A MOOOSLIM!)

Also... we are dropping so many bombs on ISIS that the Airforce has requested additional funds to ramp up munitions production.

Just once, I'd love to hear an actual plan from The Donald. Maybe we should invade Russia in the fall? That usually ends well.

It gets better:
(http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_50/1329681/151207-trump-ali-jpo-351a_8384dc4598fa9075467ab1a952e7af2f.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg)
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-0/p235x350/11208659_10155526648685725_8624161415895958410_n.jpg?oh=1e421dd4fc7728be3cb8369a9f94b1a8&oe=56F03DBF)

Or this one?

(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5665a6ad210000c9005ac70d.jpeg)

(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/tyson-trump1.jpg)
(Mike found Allah in prison)

This should go without saying, but you only get points if you find said athlete AND the Donald in the same photo.

I’m sure by now everyone has heard The Donald has double-doubled down on the Muslims.  If it were up to him- no Muslim immigrants and not even any Muslim tourists would be allowed into the country.  Jeb has called his comments “unhinged”.

I’m starting to think Trump’s got a slight fixation on the Mooslims.

And yes, he’s going from the amusing turd-in-the-punchbowl, assclown, uninvited party guest, obnoxious frat boy et. al. to downright troubling.

While there has been movement in the field, Trump still leads the GOP.

Cruz is now touching Carson's toes but the Trump lead is significant.

Someone's trolling the GOP.

Not only not tourists... he wouldn't even allow US citizens who are Muslim to return to the country. Which is fantastic, because it is unconstitutional, immoral, AND against international law.  Of course, he wants to have the Muslims that stay here wear some sort of identifier so the rest of us "normals" can tell they are Muslim.

Seriously, it took Hitler a couple of decades to ramp his rhetoric up to flat out call for special badges and a ban on Jews coming into the country. Trump got there in mere months!


(https://moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/armband.png)

At the last group that made a certain religion wear specific identifiers wore are bands too...
(http://www.pzg.biz/armband.jpg)

If only we had a "final solution" to the Moooslim question...

Seriously though - how do you exclude people of a certain religion without doing what the Nazis did (Your grandmother was a Jew! As if the premise itself wasn't stupid enough)?

"I would like to come to the US of A."

*Ok, just a few questions:
Are you a terrorist? - No
Have you been convicted of a crime? - No
Do you have any communicable disease? - No
Do you have the means to pay for your stay and your return to your own country? - Yes
What God or Gods do you pray to? ---*

"What?"

*Seriously, its on the form.*

"Why?"

*If your Moooslim, we don't let you in*

"Oh, in that case, I totally pray to some other God. Not the Mooslim one."

*Okay then, thank you Mohammed. Hope you enjoy your trip.*

The Real Clear Politics averaging on national polls has this ugly racist Nazi polling at 30% of Republican voters! He’s up by 15 points over Cruz and Carson. He’s polling at 43%!!!!! of all voters in a theoretical vote vs Hillary.

pancakes is wrong with people? Is this actually how Hitler happened?

Well no...but the polling numbers are bothersome.

I still think Trump is a Dem operative.  That's my theory.

Here's the thing...It doesn't just make the GOP look horrible.  This is source of national embarrassment.

It makes our populous look like a gaggle of dirt bags.

We are scaring the whole world with this idiot.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7sezvUI5a1rty504o3_500.gif)

That part is actually not true.  It was either he or his campaign manager who clarified this point, which is somewhat puzzling coming from Trump’s camp considering the male shooter in last week’s terrorist attack did this after traveling abroad and taking on a Pakistani fiancee and ostensibly being radicalized on that trip.  I mean returning from vacation and starting a beard is a very very clear sign you’ve been radicalized, right?

Hmm...

(http://assets-s3.mensjournal.com/img/essential/the-sad-state-of-political-beards/618_348_the-sad-state-of-political-beards.jpg)

Interesting...would he need to prove his blood line?

Whitehouse press secretary is saying the Trump proposal to ban Muslim immigration "disqualifies him from serving as president."

There, that's settled.

It's all over now.

CF always returns from Canada in May with a beard.  I hope the brown shirts don’t find out.

What's that all aboot?

Yep, you are supposed to start the beard while you are still on vacation.

 ;D

LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0

Originally he said all Muslims. He later clarified that he didn't mean US citizens who were in the armed forces, but it applies to everyone else.

His press people later clarified his clarification saying that it didn't apply to any US citizen? I didn't hear the clarification on the clarification.
- - -

MORE FUN!

Yesterday he took to Twitter to blast Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, for using a "Washington Post tax haven" to prop up his unprofitable company (Amazon).

This is fantastic because Trump supporters say he can run a country because he knows business. But clearly, he has no clue what he is talking about.
1) If Amazon was not profitable - it wouldn't need a tax shelter. As it turns out, Amazon does make money (ironically, Amazon makes in a year about the same amount Trump inherited from his Daddy). But...

2)If the tax shelter worked by simply losing all of the company profits - then you're doing business wrong. Any company can avoid paying taxes by simply NOT MAKING MONEY. That's what you call stupid. Not that it matters because...

3) Amazon and the Washington Post are not related companies. Jeff Bezos owns shares in Amazon, about 19% of the shares. Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post (through a holding company, but it is his). To the non-business initiated (like Trump), that means that any money Amazon makes would be taxed no matter what happens at the Washington Post, because they have NOTHING to do with each other as far as the tax man is concerned (or the board of Amazon, or investors, or...).

Let me explain it to you like you're The Donald: I own shares in Amazon. I also own shares in Ford Motor Company. I also own a law firm.

If Amazon makes money and issues a dividend to me (how I would make money from Amazon), Amazon has to pay taxes on its profits before it pays me (because Amazon is a person too, it has to pay taxes). Same with Ford. Now, if Amazon made $1 TRILLION and my law firm lost $1 TRILLION (good for me!), Amazon would still have to pay taxes in its profits.

Idiot.

Trump Names Oklahoma Team

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/trump-names-oklahoma-team (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/trump-names-oklahoma-team)

They have finally dropped the whole politically correct pretense and letting you see the real GOP...  This is what it means to be one of the Hijacked Republican Party of Amerika.

Sort of.  Hitler and all the other extremist groups of the time actually had more than just jingoism and dogma.  They offered - and were wrong, of course - an alternative economic path to people that had been suffering from the excesses of the economic structures in place at the time.

Today's Hijacked Republican Party doesn't have the bad economic performance - there are increasingly disfunctional economic structures in place due the the dismantling efforts of the HRP, but they aren't quite destroyed yet.  We are seeing the first stages of psychotic, rabid-dog, bite-themselves, reactions by the less educated (more conservative), more fearful-of-the-future types who think that somehow the last 35 years has lead us toward the pinnacle of human society (starting at RayGun).  And of course, the more the state is like Oklahoma overall, the more wrong it is.

Jeffrey Lord of American Spectator likens Trump to the early Reagan candidacy. Talk about a slap in the face. He also says Democrats use race as a divisive tool to control them and have for a hundred years. Can you say revisionist? Delusional?

But don't pay much attention to the polls that are being used. He draws 35% with +/- 6%. That's the margin of error for a poll of just republicans. Cell phones and land lines are creating havoc for pollsters. All that's clear is that a huge amount of the Republican base isn't really republican in the way we think of fiscal conservatives. They are unsophisticated politically, unschooled in business principles, unhappy with the new economic world and... they are batshit crazy.

Uh-oh....I must have been radicalized over Thanksgiving and didn't even know it!!  I started growing a beard while on vacation!!

I might have read it incorrectly, but I think what he meant (and clarrified on a this tweet)

The @washingtonpost loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon! Big tax shelter

was that the losses at the Post are used to reduce the tax burden caused by the Amazon profits. Effectively reducing the tax bill for Amazon.. While this is certainly not illegal and should be employed if possible (the former tax accounting is getting out), it is something that is often used as an us vs the rich thing that is used by all the candidates in an election cycle.

Except Amazon doesn't own The Post. Bezos does. Bezos is not Amazon.

Exactly. As I explained above...

Amazon makes $300,000,000, on which it pays 35% corporate tax = $105,000,000. No matter how much money the Washington Post loses, Amazon pays this tax. Because Amazon has zero ownership interest in the Post.

It then declares the rest a hypothetical full dividend, with ~20% going to Bezos, $20,000,000. Bezos can personally offset that gain against losses he actually incurs at the Washington Post - but since that is owned by a holding company, he would have to take a write-down (actual loss) in his ownership of that company to realize the set-off. Which won't happen anytime soon (less he admit really early he paid too much for the paper, and he isn't known for bad investments).

Also worth noting, and I did above, that BUYING A COMPANY TO LOSE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU MAKE WOULD BE AN INCREDIBLY STUPID TAX STRATEGY. If you make no money, you pay no taxes. You could skip that entire problem but just not making any money to begin with or giving it all away...

Which is why I thought it was so great. Trump is known for being a "business man" but clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Guess when you inherit a real estate empire from Daddy your "people" do all the real "deal making" for you and you just have to be a brand. Oh yeah, that's all The Donald™ is.

Why would he have to write anything down. Bezos holding firm owns 100% of the post (right?) so the posts earning would then be entirely on the holding companies books. Right?

I did mispeak earlier when I said it would reduce Amazons taxes. I still think it reduces Bezos exposure though. That is as long as the Post is a turd.

I imagine Bezos likely either had a personal interest in media or he really was attempting to use it as a sort of dodge. Because who in their right mind would buy a newspaper to make money?

It doesn't necessarily save Bezos on taxes, even if it loses money. I owned shares in Blockbuster as it was losing money for years. I never said a nickle on my taxes, UNTIL I sold my shares for a loss. Then that loss offset my other income for the year. That's because profits and losses stay within the corporate form until distributed or realized.

Also... What kind of idiot investor would buy a newspaper to make money?

Warren Buffet.

Bezos, through his partnership, unloads thousands of shares a year. In one particular transaction alone this year, he unloaded over $500 million. So yes, he could mitigate his tax bill by owning a dud company. I don't know for a fact, but I would imagine early on Bezos owned a huge steak in the company. Today I believe he owns south of 19% of the company (still something I would love to own, but less for him). He has obviously been making sales over time.

Second, Trump may have been more right than wrong when he mentioned no profit Amazon. They haven't exactly been raking in profits lately. Revenue yes, profits no. The last four years have yielded net income of (241M), 274M, (39M), and 631M (most recent listed first). That is a combined profit ratio of 0.23%. Ouch.


This in itself is not an indicator of a wise investment.

First, Buffett's paper investment was much different than owning a paper like the Post. Large national types have been shown to be losers over time because of the competition. Buffett however bough papers that for the most part were the big dogs in there market and would not compete with the likes of the Post, our Tulsa World for example. Competition is thinner and margins are higher (potentially).

Second, Buffett has had some doozies over the years (albeit more winners) so his stamp is not necessarily an indication that it is a wise investment.

(http://www.tescoplc.com/watford/images/tesco.jpg)
(http://www.1vuelos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/US-Airways-Logo.jpg)
(http://web.colby.edu/jewsinmaine/files/2011/02/Dexter-1957.jpg)
(http://www.stocklobster.net/salomonlogo.jpg)

Amazon has always had low profits, if any at all. At it's heart and as evidenced in Amazon's margins it isn't a traditional tech company. Amazon also always pumps so much money back into growing the company in new ways.

Don't forget Jeff Bezos' most famous quote: "Your margin is my opportunity."

Let me try once more...

First, any transaction would have NOTHING TO DO WITH AMAZON. Nothing. Period. End of story. Nothing Bezos does with the Washington Post will have any affect on Amazon taxes. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The assertion that buying the Washington Post saves Amazon taxes is categorically false. Not sure how to be more clear on that.

Second, he sold $500mil of AMAZON STOCK, presumably for a near 100% gain on his basis. His tax liability to Uncle Sam is 20% Cap gains and 3.8% for investment tax. Or ~ $119mil.  He purchased the Washington Post for $250mil. So, if tomorrow he gave away his entire holding in the Washington Post (realized a total loss) he could reduce his tax liability to $59.5mil.

SO--- by losing $250mil, he could save $59.6 mil. For a net loss to his personal fortune of $190mil. Losing net $190mil is a really, REALLY stupid tax strategy. Which is why I assume The Donald thought of it.


Amazon is not a very profitable company (given the investment required to generate the return). Low margins and high investment into R&D. The low profitability is best reflecting in their ridiculous PE ratio. The valuation is based on dominance in the marketplace and a presumed ability to leverage that for growth or profitability in the future, fair or not... who can say. But I don't hold Amazon stock and never will if the PE and dividend stay level.

BUT --- that is actually counter to Trumps argument. If Amazon isn't terribly profitable, why would it be willing to go to great lengths and take large risks for a tax avoidance strategy?  Obviously, this ignores the fact that Bezos owning the Washington Post HAS NO EFFECT AT ALL ON AMAZONS TAXES.

Trump can make fun of Amazon's business model all he wants. But he is bashing a staple of ecommerce and the man who started a business, maybe even an industry from scratch. Meanwhile, he inherited a fortune and a real estate company and leveraged that into a fortune and a real estate company (http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/) - the combined value of which are purportedly less than the value of his inheritance if he had just bought an S&P mutual fund. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html) Trump claims he is worth $10bil (he also claims he is worth around a billion, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 billion. Depending on who he is talking to and what time of day it is). Bezos started a company in his garage and is worth nearly $60,000,000,000.00 (it should be noted that Bezos grew up in a wealthy Texas ranching family and went to Princeton, but still...).

Hence - the Donald can give advice on how to sell oneself as a brand, but should shut his mouth when the grown ups are talking about business.


(on the newspaper thing, you are correct. Buffet is going after regional papers where local news matters. Way better margins and more opportunity for revenue. Odds are Bezos purchased the paper as a way to park money, play newsman, and/or as some sort of nostalgic/philanthropic gesture. Though, I admit, I'm not certain on if his asset purchase will turn out to be a solid investment or not)

I can't help but notice the similarity of Trumps appearance to Mussolini's in the late 30's. Mocking, smirking and adolescent. It seems he taps into something we all endured in middle school as hormones exploded but learned through social pressure to modify. He hasn't modified.

A man seeking to prove he was worthy of joining the Islamic State group planned to carry out a New Year's Eve attack at an upstate New York bar using a machete and knives provided by the FBI.

Any distinguishing hair features?   ::)

Some conservatives are actually starting to ask what Trump's platform is.

Get rid of taxes on the wealthy - yay!
Get rid of government regulations that effect the wealthy - yay!
Pro choice - well, we can give up one of our strong points.
Waive magic wand to make foreign governments do what we want - yay!
Pro Universal Healthcare - wait, what?

lol. The guy has been running for MONTHS and been blathering on and on for decades, and some people are acting like this is news.

Nor have 30% of Republicans.... all those hormonal adolescents that adore him so much.

Trump in Tulsa Rally    --ish

https://www.facebook.com/events/427458830777473/

Trump has been endorsed by Palin.

This is going to be great.  I'm excited by it.

I'm sure all comedians are thrilled by this!  Non stop material through November.  Or whenever.

This must be what it felt like when Reagan was gunning for nomination.

I'm sure he and Palin will do great.

She looked 3 sheets to the wind and I expect she's angling for VP...

A now with Palin! I may have to go to just experience the cray cray.

Of course she is going to endorse Trump. She's irrelevant, if she didn't do something big soon people would forget who she is. Trump gets the most attention, so Palin gets the most attention. Plus, Cruz couldn't have her as a VP candidate and still be seen as the grown up in the room.

Heck, even God doesn't want Sarah Palin involved in government, at least, according to her...


And she lost. Ergo, God didnt think she was the right thing for America. Sarah Palin believes God wanted Obama in the White House. Or, at least, she said she believed that before he won instead of her. She certainly hasn't treated him as if he were endorsed by God. I wonder what changed her mind - I win, it means I'm endorsed by God. I lose... nah, it doesn't mean anything!

Of course, this level of denial is par for the course:


Said Sarah Palin after a 263 page investigative report found that she abuse her power as governor and violated multiple ethics laws. When in doubt, just smile and lie. 

Teen pregnancies while espousing the virtues of no sex education, bloody family brawls, wife beating, shooting animals from your front porch, pride in ignorance, and explaining a speeding ticket by saying you weren't seeding, you were "qualifying..."  It's white trash TV! Seriously, you couldn't make up a better SNL candidate. Too funny.

Read all of these in your best mocking SNL character voice:

















Damn she's great.

Of course, by snagging the Palin endorsement he not only keeps Cruz from getting her but also secures his credibility as tea party worthy. Remember he is a "businessman". Find your enemy's strength and take it away.

I can't help but think that Trump made some kind of gentlemen's bet with his other wealthy cronies that he could jump party, say outrageous things, destroy his detractors....and still get the nomination. If he gets elected he'll be impeached within a year.

How can any candidate see the value in a Palin endorsement?  Her 15 minutes were over last decade.  She’s a dim-witted rolling train wreck that is only capable of spouting platitudes which are fed to her. 

C, that might be the best description of the Wasilla Quitta ever typed...

Upon further thought, is Trump really serious about becoming POTUS or is he simply trying to strong arm the GOP into taking on a different dialogue?

Who remembers the Richard Pryor film, “Brewster’s Millions”?

Monty Brewster ran for mayor of NYC as “None of the above” because the rest of the candidates were pure crap (well also as a way to blow millions as stipulated as a clause in his inheritance) and he had absolutely no interest in winning the seat but he raised political conscience in the process.

How much has Trump really spent on this campaign so far?  He gets more than enough free media attention and I’m sure he manages to work business in with his campaign travel schedule.  Certainly he’s figured out the tax benefits of running a campaign out of his back pocket.

According to the Washington Post, Palin was a no-show this morning in Iowa but was said to be in OKC with Trump waiting for the Tulsa event...

People on the coast really have no idea where Tulsa is, do they?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/20/sarah-palin-is-a-no-show-at-trump-campaign-event-in-iowa/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/20/sarah-palin-is-a-no-show-at-trump-campaign-event-in-iowa/)

Crowd Grows for Trump Tulsa Rally

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/x_large/public/201601/image2.JPG)

Right on...

(http://media2.kjrh.com/photo/2016/01/20/tuslamediabadge_1453310906848_30250007_ver1.0_640_480.jpg)

I wonder if Trump might be slightly autistic:

Trump isn't autistic, and he isn't dumb, according to many physiologists, he's a classic narcissist (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201511/therapists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder). For some reason the media is just now picking up that story, but Physiology Today discussed it months ago. He shares the trait with many other notable world leaders: Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Putin, Hitler, Stalin, the fat little sucker in North Korea, Hugo Chavez...

Most presidents have to be a bit of a narcissist (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/the-10-most-narcissistic-u-s-presidents.html), but some professors are actually collecting clips of Trump for use in class (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists).

Which makes sense. The man has been wealthy his entire life. He was set up to succeed bu his father; he went to the best schools, enjoyed the best in life, and inherited his father's connections, business empire and his wealth. He was instantly surrounded by competent people who could manage the business and the details. Trump was smart enough to build his brand out, he knows his value isn't really in his real estate, it's in his brand. Plastering his name on towers (almost always not his), golf courses (mostly not his), Casinos (they were his until bankruptcy), TV shows (his), etc. He is a great salesman, he built his brand such that people will pay him just to be associated with him.

But he doesn't have a great grasp of business initiatives, he isn't an economist, a CPA, a broker, or a banker.  He doesn't have great hands-on management techniques. He isn't a project manager. And he has no grasp of foreign affairs, global politics, military matters, or managing an economy. He's a salesman.

His shtick would probably have worked with either party, and I don't think he has a strong conviction either way. But there is a certain element of the GOP right now that is just angry, irrationally so. They don't care if there is any "beef" to an idea, or even truth behind a statement - just say the right buzz words, agree with them, and say angry things. That's all he needs to make the sale to ~35% of the party. And Sarah Palin will fit in great.

Like I said, he's a great salesman. If he weren't born rich, he'd be selling cars, real estate, or insurance. I think he would have been successful at it too. Probably not really rich level of success...

And for the record, I have disliked The Donald for nearly 20 years, back when he was a liberal. So I'm not just hating on him for his tea party beliefs.

So...she is the standard RWRE teabagger....

Perfect caboose for the Crazy Train.
 Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay, ay, ay



Which actually reminds me of another film, "The Producers."
Other than giving us "Springtime for Hitler" the plot may be relevant in quite another way.

It's beginning to look like the movie "Idioacracy" was actually a documentary...

Did he really claim 9000 had to be turned away when fewer than 7000 showed up?

The fire marshall cut off entry at 8,937. There were very few empty seats.

Why would the fire marshal cut off entry when the full capacity for the arena is 12,000? The fire marshal shouldn't care if people have to sit behind the stage.

Tusla? is that Tesla's distant cousin? Anyway, someone printing the tickets has a dyslexic tendency.

Do you mean psychologist, or psychiatrist? Narcissists are scary people. We all have a little bit if we have any success at all, but a classic narcissist is capable of tremendous damage to others.

You mean like the current president and several before him?

I am not qualified to judge, just did some reading up a year ago when a friend of mine faced one during a divorce proceeding. Apparently they are great fun til they don't get what they want. Lots of soap opera characters seem to be based on narcissism.

Its difficult to treat as well.

I was married to a classic one, I was too stupid to recognize the core of what was going on before we got married.  The worst behavior always came on “someone else’s day” whether it was a birthday, a graduation, someone having surgery, or even a funeral and all attention was not on her.

Ouch.

At least you recognized it and escaped in time. My friend got set up in numerous ways. Was even committed against their will to a psych ward. Justice eventually prevailed but the spouse is still in a position of some importance.

The physiology journal and articles I linked to discusses this. Every president or significant leader is likely to be somewhat narcissistic, but that is a far cry from being a clinical narcissist. Simply put, to get to the top you likely had to put yourself first and have the confidence to believe you are better - but some people take it a few steps further.

I would have to guess that was the total number of available seats. The area behind the stage was closed off with drapery. Maximum capacity at the Mabee Center is 11,200.

I'm waiting on the "I heart Tusla" Tshirts.

This is how.
http://news.yahoo.com/palins-emergence-underscores-gop-split-082027150--election.html#

Or “Dont Hate Teh 198"

Aaaaaaand done. Someone is already selling them.

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/t31.0-8/12605455_879643892134131_292825211976334920_o.jpg)

paypal is stevo@winghead.com.
18.00 mailed
15.00 regular
13.00 if you mention Bernie.
Sizes XXL and larger 2.00 extra.

Are you guys talking about me again?

If the Foo Sh**s, wear it.
 
 ;D

I thought we agreed not to tell anyone else you were my second wife, Michael.

Donald Trump Calls for Apple Boycott While Tweeting With an iPhone
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/19/trump-apple-boycott-while-tweeting-on-iphone/

Donald Trump on Friday had an unusual encounter with a protester (in O[a]klahoma City).

A protester in the seats behind Trump on Friday lifted a sign that read "Islamophobia is not the answer."
Waiting for security, police or staff to spring into action, Trump paced the stage and came close to the man, who had removed a jacket to reveal a shirt with the words "KKK endorses Trump" and a yellow star reminiscent of those worn by Jews during the Holocaust on his chest.

"In the good old days, they'd rip him out of that seat so fast, but today everybody is politically correct -- our country's going to hell for being politically correct," Trump said, as the man was whisked away after a few minutes.

"The police: they're afraid to move. They're afraid to move," Trump added. When a smiling protester was escorted out of his last rally in Las Vegas earlier this week before the Nevada primary, Trump said that he wanted to "punch him in the face."

Friday's encounter comes one day after former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke discussed his support for Trump.
http://www.koco.com/politics/trump-confronts-protester-in-strange-encounter/38221110



Friday evening was not the first time Mr. Trump has questioned the alacrity of police. But he used the moment to go into his views on waterboarding, and bring up a debate in which he was asked about it.

“What do you think of water boarding? I said I think it’s just fine,” Mr. Trump said, recounting his answer. “And frankly, if you want to go a step above, or two or three steps above, that’s O.K. with me, too.”

Speaking earlier in the day in Fort Worth, Mr. Trump, who has been the subject of numerous articles about his business dealings and past statements, also said that, if elected, he would “open up” libel laws, so that when journalists write “purposely negative horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

The second he suggested a database for Muslims I checked out. Never forget.

Fort Worth???

They couldn’t give him a tour in a convertible through Dealey Plaza after that?

Dude is clearly unhinged.  "I really want to punch that f**ker Putin in the face."

Oppressing the free press; no historical comparisons there.  ::)




Now he's getting his wish.


(CNN) A photographer covering a Donald Trump rally in Virginia said a Secret Service agent choked him and slammed him to the ground Monday as he tried to leave a media pen at the event where a protest erupted.

Time magazine photographer Chris Morris told CNN that as he tried to exit the media pen, a Secret Service agent began choking him.

"I'm not pressing charges," Morris said Monday. "I stepped 18 inches out of the pen and he grabbed me by the neck and started choking me and then he slammed me to the ground."



Im hoping April Fools is his big day, otherwise we might want to really take a closer look at Germany in the 1930's.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BCYYkMim_BA/

No matter what that guy said there is no way that should be the reaction.

This should be mandatory viewing for anyone proclaiming allegiance to Trump:

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


Seriously, I would love to hear a supporter defend any of those antics:

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


Watch the video:

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

TIME Responds to Confrontation With Secret Service at Trump Event
http://time.com/4241899/donald-trump-rally-time-photographer-chris-morris/

Supporters of Trump...just the kind of people we are making by the ongoing degradation school systems throughout the nation, and particularly in Okrahoma.  Ignorance and Stupidstition are rampant, gaining ground, and will put us back into a medieval dark ages much sooner than we can possibly imagine.  Our age of enlightenment has been in the ending stages for several decades now, and one can only expect it to continue.


http://kfor.com/2016/02/29/oklahoma-city-teachers-powerful-open-letter-about-the-struggles-of-teaching-is-gaining-attention-online/

I don't know what it means, but the turnout at my precinct had two lines and the Republican one didn't have much activity. Perhaps they are all better employed than the other line, but I expected the opposite.

H, no amount of education makes up for faith. These are emotional/spiritual decisions that override education. Throw in propaganda and generations of erroneous assumptions and you have the basis of political parties. Not to be too philosophical, just making note from experience. So many times I have had conversations with people who are quite knowledgeable about their particular industry, but just plain damn stupid about real life. When they say, " my daddy always said...." or "what church do you go to..." I just tune out.

Living here as someone with a decent comprehension of world events has made me evolve over the years from a secular Christian to an atheist.  I'm sure that will likely not surprise some of you, but really, with the events I've dealt with in the last 18 months, it's the conclusion I've come to.

That doesn't mean I will lambaste everyone of you of faith.  I've learned that many atheists do not care if others are of faith, and will not speak down to someone who does espouse it.  It's a personal decision.  Like the decision I made.

The only time I will let someone have it is if they start proselytizing.  I draw the line there.

What I’ve found is people who denigrate other’s spiritual belief system (or lack thereof) generally aren’t comfortable with their own beliefs so they feel they either need to recruit others to validate their beliefs or need to knock down someone else’s spiritual beliefs.

What MC and I view as spiritual is deeply personal, comes from much life experience, and I don’t expect anyone else to “get it” quite like we do. 

That, IMO, is the way it should be.

Back to the topic at hand:  A politician or aspiring politician heavily espousing their religious views in an attempt to get elected is a major red flag for me.  It’s kind of like the plumber with the ichthys on his van and business card.  If you’ve got to trade on some sort of public proclamation of your religious identity to earn business, that means you probably aren’t taking care of business properly in the first place.

Unreal. I have not looked into this, just saw the chatter on it. I assumed it was some freelance journalist for Gawker or tabloid X trying to get "the shot" and ignoring protocol. But a White House credentialed journalist for TIME? That's a pretty respectable journalist that is unlikely to suddenly go rogue. I certainly wasn't expecting the level of violence displayed in the video.

The facts appear to be:

Black Lives Matter protesters were given a police escort out of the Trump event, photographer took a step forward to take a picture of the protesters. He was commanded to get back in his press pen (since when do we corral the press with secret service detail?), told the man who commanded at him to "F*** off" and was then slammed to the ground by his throat.

NEWS FLASH!!! You can be as rude as you want to law enforcement, you generally shouldn't be rude - but it is not a pass to harm you. Then again if a Secret Service Agent is consistently told by his charge that he should be more violent, it is probably just a matter of time before they start being more violent.

It went from a fairly standard looking encounter to mad dog choke hold in a split second. The journalist had a camera in his right hand, his left arm is visible. Neither makes any movement or shows any sign of aggression towards the agent. Did the agent believe the journalist was going to attack the Black Lives Matter protesters? Or will he admit he was just angry that someone dated question his authority to command the press.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPC6VftJUgNtYmk/giphy.gif)

Looking at the comments online, I fully expected to see the journalist running errantly and grabbing the agents throat first. Trump supporters are desperate to paint this in a positive light. Why not just say the Secret Service doesn't work for Trump and leave it at that?

Kicking out black students as well, even ones not protesting:

http://www.kgw.com/news/politics/black-students-ejected-from-trump-rally-in-ga/62959854

I am at a complete loss as to what is happening to the GOP. I have always identified as a Republican even though I do lean left on many social issues, I have always voted the party line. Well, I can't say always, I did vote against Pete Coors in Colorado years ago for good reason. Now I am at a complete cross roads and maybe that was the point of this election all together.

I look at the Democrat side and I see Clinton and Sanders, two people that I can't be more against. I do not trust Clinton as far as I could throw her and the only Bern I would feel would be in my pocket book.

I look at the Republican side and I am horrified. Cruz scares the living daylights out of me. IMO he is so far right he needs an aid to wipe his own arse because he can't reach it. Carson, if he is awake has good idea's but doesn't seem to be able to command the attention and that makes me think that on a larger scale he would not be respected by other world leaders. Of course in many ways that would resemble our current President.

Rubio is in my opinion the only halfway sane choice, though owned by his PACS.

Trump...This is where the train left the runway.

I do not understand how so many have been taken by this con artist. WHAT you say? Con artist, how dare you...

I identify as a Democrat ( yes Reagan did at a time as well but after YEARS of enlightenment he changed ) Trump has given millions to the Democratic party as recently as 7 years ago.

If I ever run for President I would run as a Republican because those people will elect anyone. Seems to be correct there.

How can one have so much support from the evangelical masses just because he says he is a Christian? One minute he is bashing a woman's looks, her monthly cycle and then the next is saying I am a Christian. Calling someone a loser, a liar, a low ratings radio program hack, but I am a Christian and therefor it's ok that I say these things. Bashing the media for the coverage he receives but yet he receives the most because they all know at some point during the day he will do something so off the wall that the rating will sky rocket.

I have said from the start that one of two things will happen. Either he will be the GOP nominee and will be a wolf in sheep's clothing going straight down the Democrat side if he is elected, or... He moves to the Independent card and splits the GOP vote causing the Democrats to win the election.

Either way this election goes, Democrats or Republican, this country is in big trouble. The hate and the divide in this country is going to get much larger and there is no one on either side that can stop that and bring this country together.

Ever wonder why you never see an article about Trump's mom?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kg9-axPBw1g/hqdefault.jpg)

Jesus'll get him...so sayeth the prophesy

I largely agree with you across the board.

The slate of Republican candidates is underwhelming:

- Carson is DOA. He is well versed in medicine, intelligent, and soft spoken. But knows nothing of politics, government, world affairs, or, oddly science.

- Cruze is an extreme conservative hawk. Carpet bombings, police state, and a caricature of the conservative platform. He considers his unwillingness to compromise or discuss other viewpoints as his greatest strength. I consider that the death knell of a Republic and the mark of a bad career politician. He also isn't very high on the truth-o-meter. Finally, I simply dislike almost all of his entire platform.

- I think Rubio is a straightforward person, I feel I could discuss issues with him in a constructive manner even if I disagree. He is too far right for me and wears his religion on his sleeve as a litmus test for the masses - but I don't know how much of that is an election act (which would be troubling too). If elected, I think he would have a pragmatic vein, but it certainly isn't a point he wants known. I also fear he is a politician first and foremost, governed by the polls. Wanted to get re-elected so badly I fear his pandering while in office.

- John Kasich has ideas that are too conservative for me, but has shown to be pragmatic in actually governing. I feel like I could have a discussion with him too, probably even reach some common ground and reach some compromise on other issues. If he had a different position than mine, I think he could at least explain it to me in a way I have to respect. He also has little chance of ever winning.


- Hillary I think would do a respectable job as she did a respectable job as Senator and I think a fine job as Secretary of State. She is a bit left on some of her positions and is a consummate politician. God knows what she really feels strongly about, but her positions are well known and we know what she would do in the White house. Also, she is heavily vetted. All the dirt there is to know has been thrown about for 30 years - if Benghazi and Email Gate are the worst there is, she's probably more above board than most politicians. That said, I can't fully trust her and I just don't really like her. Not too mention the favors she owes to donors and the Clinton followers for the last decades.

- The Bern. I really like the Bern on a personal level. Not necessarily his positions, which are too far left for me, but I feel like he means what he says in a very straightforward way. His positions are clear and he tries to bring out a positive message of what he stands for, and it isn't vindictive, hateful, or fear mongering. Considering that his policies would never be fully enacted, he might help balance the Tea Party and get some centrist compromises (recall he is really an independent, not a Democrat). I do think the middle class is getting screwed (bore out by statistics). I do think education should be a primary goal and that college is far, far more expensive than it was in the generation that led to our economic boom. And I do think we subsidies big business and wealth at the expense of most Americans, which is a problem because the economy works best when money sloshes around at all levels (not just the top). As wealth has become more concentrated, our economy has steadily slowed down which has led to more and more reliance on government. The Bern as a dictator would be terrifying, but as a President it would be interesting. Maybe I'm just saying that because I like him as a person, and everyone else sucks.

- The Donald. He lies far more often than not. He boasts of wealth it appears he doesn't really have. He makes blustering threats. He cowers before any criticism. He belittles people. He relies on fear, anger and hatred. He has no real policies. The ideas that he has spewed are all dead on arrival or utter nonsense (Mexico WILL build that wall! We will repeal Obamacare and replace it with socialized medicine). I truly fear he would cost America our world standing as no one would take us seriously, as well as starting wars, chasing away allies, and being so erratic the markets would tank (consistency and stability is all they ask for).  I'm hard pressed to think of someone I would less like to see in the White House.

Ham Sandwich, 2016

It’s hard to find substantive compilations of Hilarity’s best accomplishments which seem to be very meaningful.

The only benefit I can see with another Clinton administration is memories of the Clinton economy.  Even though right wingers tried to paint the Clintons as leftists and collectivists, they were generally good to big business and Wall St. which helped with explosive job, real estate, and investment/retirement account growth.  It sucked when the bill was finally due on all that, but it was fun while it lasted.

Of course, they had the benefit of a tech boom which should have made any administration look great. 

There’s a certain known factor with the Clintons which seems like less of a risk if her years in office were much like Bill’s.  She knows the position and what it takes more-or-less firsthand.

The reason I cannot vote for her is she is a dishonest, corrupt, and conniving individual.  I have no idea who all she owes favors to but the list appears to be pretty long.

I'm not counting Bill's accomplishments among Hillary's, but I do count his liabilities. Warranted or not, they have a reputation of building strong alliances that seem to come with strong debts. That does show an ability to curry loyalty, but I'm just a bit dubious. I'm not a big Hillary supporter, but I do respect her.

As a Senator she did a lot with veterans benefits, the DREAM act, pragmatic stuff on healthcare (incentives for companies to produce/stockpile flu vaccine which was unprofitable, home healthcare stuff), and passed healthcare provisions for 911 first responders (she was the senator from NY after all).

As Secratary of State she negotiated a cease fire between Israel and Hamas that largely still holds. She pressured other governments on human rights. And managed the Arab spring fairly well (criticize Benghazi all you want. The Secretary of State does not micromanage either security details or military responses to attacks therein. The fact remains we had embassies in numerous countries that hate us that underwent revolts and we held it together fairly well. If anything, the Benghazi thing goes to misinformation early on, which goes to my trust issues with her - not ability).

Is she one of my all time greatest anything?  Nope. But she did OK as a parachuting senator in NY. I think she did as well as most as Secretary of State. The Clinton's aren't known for major accomplishments, they are known for doing good enough and staying out of the way. Let the ship meander a bit with the current, no sudden steering (arguably that bit us on the butt with the banking boom, housing boom, and terrorism thing). She certainly didn't embarass herself or the nation, which is more than I hold out hope for with some of the GOP front runners.

I can't agree that she is outright corrupt (to me that's a high bar, I suspect she stays on the correct side of the law...even if it were dishonest), but I do share your concerns about conniving and general trust issues. Also, I'd rather have a beer with Bill, George, or Barrack than Hillary... I just don't like her. I get the feeling she's fake.

But I also feel she has the inside track on the nomination. Even when the Bern wins, she gets more delegates. If it came down to Trump or Hillary, I'd absolutely have to vote Hillary. Again, not sure who I wouldn't vote for over Trump.

The only Bern he would put in your pocket would be to raise the minimum raise - and that has been proven for decade after decade to do much good for everyone - even people higher than minimum.

I am not referring to just you personally when I say this - it is always interesting - horrifically so - to see how people seem to think that spending a few billion here or a few more there by a Democrat can possibly be worse than spending trillions in massively wasteful endeavors by Republicans.

Obamacare for next 10 years - said to cost almost $100 billion per year.  As opposed to Bush throwing $2.4 trillion at big banks in a two week period.   Yeah...$100 billion a year is so much worse.

Or free tuition - estimated to cost $62 billion (The Atlantic) - which must be just so much worse than Bush's Medicare D prescription plan which gave over $900 billion to big pharmaceuticals for about 4 years before ANY beneficiary got one prescription from the plan.

Or maybe any or all of his other spending - even if it amounted to another $100 billion - could possibly approach throwing $4 trillion dollars into fighting the wrong war!  And by the way, killing 4,000+ of our kids, and wounding tens of thousands of others.

Or leaving the Bush tax cuts in place for year after year - which took us from a $300 billion surplus in Billy Bob's last fiscal year to a $300 billion deficit in Baby Bush's first fiscal year.  That's over half a trillion swing in 1 year of tax cuts that still hasn't been addressed, while the same Clown Show that decries the Federal Debt continues to advocate dramatic increases to it every year.

Bush's LAST fiscal year added $1.9 trillion to the debt.  Obama's first fiscal year cut that to about $1.5 trillion, while giving all the rest of us - the NOT 1%'ers - a small tax break as part of the stimulus plan in 2009.  Totaled about $300 billion for the other 350 million of us....not even close to the $500 billion per year break the 1%'ers had been enjoying for 8 years by that time, but hey, we take what crumbs we can get.

Bonus - Bernie says he won't get us into another wrong war, either!!  Yay for team Bernie!!


Big picture - took over 200 years to get to $900 billion in Federal debt at end of Carter's administration.  End of Reagan's first term we were at $1.8 trillion - over double.  By his second term, $2.85 billion.  Tax and spend is NOT a Democrat thing - the reality is it's a Republican thing.


Here are the real numbers for your viewing enjoyment;

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

As opposed to all the upstanding, truthful people that are in the top 4 of the other side....

Good post!




Not trying to add much, just wondering for the audience at large, how if 4 killed in Benghazi is worth all the commotion about Clinton, Obama, etc....where is the commotion for the 80 or so killed in embassy and consular station attacks during Bush's regime?   Not to mention the hundreds wounded during those attacks??  Seems like there should be about 20 movies - to be fair and balanced - like the "13 Hours" movie that came out a while back.  And since the 4 rated 7 or 8 failed Congressional investigations, that would mean there should have been 20 times that or about 140 investigations of the Bush State Dept.  With that many extra calls for criminal prosecution and impeachment, et. al.

The whole Benghazi investigation is embarrassing as hell and a complete waste of time.  Had that happened under any other SOS, it would have vanished like a fart in the wind within days.  It’s like the Oklahoma Legislature trying to repeal daylight savings time or get the Ten Commandments monument put back on state property when they really need to be thoughtfully addressing the $1.3 billion (and sure to grow) budget hole.  

It’s time people hold Republican’s feet to the fire for lack of action and abdication of duty on the issues which really matter.  That’s what Trump is all about:  He’s a boor and a blowhard, but he’s tapped into the frustration people feel about Republicans in in Congress, the Senate, and the GOP leadership in general.

As a fiscal conservative, I’ve always thought a free college or advanced technical education for those who meet certain financial and academic or vocational criteria was worth more to the economy than tax breaks for large corporations.  I consider that a far better investment than welfare programs  or huge expenditures in the penal system.

Bernie has introduced some dialogue that is sensible.  Comparatively, he’s definitely a saner alternative to the Democratic establishment which Hilarity embodies than Trump is to being the the alternative to the GOP establishment.  

The only difference, and to me it is a huge difference is the lies she told. The lies she continues to tell. She out right lied to the families and now she is lying about those lies. That is the difference. The lady peddeled a video even when she knew it had nothing to do with a video.

All lives lost in all of our embassy attacks are extremely important, non are above the other. Each one should have the light of the media shown brightly upon them. But the media gets to decide on what gives them the best ratings.

Bern is honest, or so it seems at this point. Education is very important and I agree with him along that line. How do we pay for it? Oklahoma alone is about to completely tank the education system here because they can't pay for it. How do we pay for higher education as Bern proposes? Yes I would love for that to happen, we lag behind everyone in education and if free higher is the answer then fine, but how can we pay for that when we can't even pay for K-12 now?

My only hope is Trump tanks soon.

This is amazing. A serious political discussion where people disagree, have points and counter points, and move the discussion forward.

Re the education issue:

The problem is two fold:

1) The hardcore anti-government types consider all government spending bad. 

They fail to realize that the government is capable of investment. The return on investment will not be immediate dollars and cents - but roads, bridges, dams, water infrastructure, airports, shipping ports, and other forms of infrastructure no-doubt have a significant return on investment. And once built, they MUST be maintained to preserve that return. Not only is the construction and maintenance economic activity in and of itself, but the real payoff is the economic utilization of the asset.

They struggle even more with intangible investment. Healthcare, research, and education are investments. A healthy workforce is more productive, prosperous, and capable of taking care of themselves. Preventative care costs 10% of what it costs if we let it fester and provide emergency care. You want more people off government rolls? Healthcare is part of it.

Research should be a no-brainier.  From velcro, to commercial rockets. GPS, the internet, microchips, bar codes, aerodynamics, medical and health research galore, composite materials, most significant aviation advancements, and on and on and on.  You list it out and it kind of sounds like the basis of our modern economy. Commercial research is a key component, but government funded research allows teams to go after angles that don't have immediate returns on investment (as are demanded by the market). Intel sure as heck wasn't going invest big and then wait 20 years for the microprocessor to become commercial viable.

And it is all worthless without education (warning a mini history of education follows). Immediately after the revolution many states set out to establish public schools, particularly in the north where making a living on the farm wasn't a given.  By 1821 Boston had public elementary, middle, and high school. It is no accident that Boston is the seat of some of the greatest colleges in the world - it has long viewed education as a key.  By 1870 all states had public elementary schools and part of reconstruction was building public universities throughout the South (U Arkansas, Auburn, etc.) and land grant Universities in the North (name a major State school, great chance you named one...). By 1900, all 30 northern states and 4 southern states required school attendance through elementary school.

By 1918 every state required elementary education. By the 1930s and 1940s most communities had their own high schools and took pride in their level of education. By WWII, 50% of Americans had high school diplomas - far exceeding anywhere else in the world. And it paid off - essentially every enlistee could read, write, and think. Battlefield communication, promotions, and the ability to follow instructions to repair the machines of war was a huge advantage.  After the war education was seen as the way to prevent the boom and manufacturing/agricultural bust that we saw after WWI, and Uncle Sam agreed to pay for hundreds of thousands of GIs to go to college. When the Baby Boom came, college was heavily subsidized by government - the average student could pay for tuition and fees working 200 hours at minimum wage.

That gave the United States among the highest levels of education in the world nearly from our founding through the post-war baby boom. It gave us the leg up in the Space Race, in banking and commerce, in manufacturing technology and productivity, in agricultural efficiency, and in technology. From the rifles and ironclads in the Civil War, to nuclear weapons and the Stealth Bomber. From the steel plow to the G7 Intel Processor. From Wallstreet to Hollywood. There are a number of reasons America dominated the 20th Century, but a corner stone is education. Take away education, and our natural resources, population, and ability to work might be meaningless. There are plenty of people willing to work hard in plenty of other places.

But starting in 1980 we (by "we" I mean the generation that benefited most from free or heavily subsidized colleges, from massive government outlays on interstates, water projects, and government research programs) decided that government subsidies led to free loaders. We cut back on everything except military research. Education funding started a free-fall - the cost of college went from 225 hours at minimum wage in 1980, to 700 hours in 1995 (for public universities fees and tuition, not counting room and board (http://www.buzzfeed.com/gregschoofs/how-much-college-did-your-summer-job-pay-for#.xbbRYLawg)).  It stands over 1,000 hours today.

We subsidize mortgages, horizontal drilling operations, and NBA franchises - but student loan rates are often above 8%. The average college kid graduates with $35k in debt ($25-35k depending on the study). AVERAGE - we are not just talking about the high on the hog idiots or the "my parents paid for it all" kids. The average payment is between $280 and $400 a month, for 10 to 20 years. A new car, savings for a house, money to start a family. Whatever it is, its gone to the bank. A burden their parents very likely didn't have to face. We also stopped meeting the demand for public education. PRIVATE is a great buzzword. Private schools jumped in to fill the shortfall and make a profit. Generally, these private schools are substandard.

As a result, the number of Oklahoma kids going to a University has actually dropped off in recent years. This isn't a unique trend.

It is easy to look at some drunk at an OU tailgate staggering towards the dorms and mock them. Its easy to see Black Lives Matter protesters and write them off as whiners. But most will turn out to be productive members of the economy. The investment will pay off. Look at Animal House, a caricature of college life in the 1960s from the 1970s... but that generation went on to win the Cold War and develop the internet.

Education is NOT essential for everyone to succeed. But if we want welders to have jobs, we need people to design pipelines. If we want factory workers to make whatever it is we need tomorrow, someone better invent it and figure out how to build that factory. It worked for the first 200 years...



and #2)  The "support" for education is often support to co-opt it.

Education is not controversial. It teaches the best facts we have available as designated by the experts in that field. It isn't religious or anti religious, it isn't liberal or conservative. If your religious or political views differ from the available facts, your preacher or political leader can tell your kid what you want them to believe. That's different than teaching to reality.

Teaching the Bible as a history text. Teaching "Creation Science" as a scientific theory. Teaching abstinence only as the only form of "sex education."  None of this is actually education anymore than Chinese kids being forced to read Mao's Little Red Book was a legitimate education on economics.  "Does life begin at conception" is a question for bioethicists,  philosophers and priests - not a high school science teacher. "I am the Lord Thy God, Though Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" is a great lecture for a preacher or a Deity. We spend so much time creating controversy because some people don't like what a particular field of study has learned.

It is further co-opted by people trying to get the latest and greatest technology or tool into the classroom. By that, I mean sell crap to school districts.  Some tools are important, clearly kids need to learn how to do internet based research and word processing. Art on computer is as important of a skill as art with a paint brush. I get that... but a digital screen in every classroom is not nearly as important as a teacher in every classroom.

At 15:1 a student has to actively try not to learn. At 30:1 a teacher is just a babysitter and only certain kids will learn anything.

And while I'm at it... teachers should never be rich. They are never going to get paid Baseball Allstar money. But we used to have a good understanding worked out - you will never be rich, but you will make a decent living, you will have good benefits, you will have a stable job, community support, summers and holidays off, and a retirement package. That attracted a good group of people (we don't want the guy going "I hate kids, but the job pays so well) who stayed with the profession. Sure, there were lazy teachers - but there are bad employees in any field. But now we have created a market with low pay (Tulsa starts at $32k), dwindling benefits, and job security stopped being a thing 15 years ago. Remember what I said about $400 a month in student loan payments... how bad does that suck when your take home pay is $2000 a month and you aren't getting the other parts of that agreement? And we expect them to pay for their own supplies?  But gee... for some reason we just can't find enough teachers in this State.

The OK House pays $38,400, plus ~$9500 per diem, plus ~$6600 mileage ($54,500) for a 4 month a year, part time job. And we don't seem to have a shortage of people looking for that job.


/venting ; rant

I have talked about perspective quite a bit in the past...there are lies, then there are lies.... We have watched the Republicans go after both Clintons since his first run for President - 1991-1992.  They have had every single orifice probed, prodded, poked, opened, investigated, and lit by the harsh glare of public scrutiny.  Yep, they lie...Billy Bob lied about a bj in the Oval Office.  So what??  Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction that led us to spend $4 trillion and kill 4,000+ of our kids in the wrong war.  Can any sane mind on the planet somehow equate the two in degree of "badness" ??  Where are the investigations for Bush's actions?  Who got hurt and by what degree, by those lies?

Yep, Hillary probably lied about some of the Benghazi stuff - it is just as likely that she was fed multiple information streams and ran with the one that both seemed most likely and provided best 'cover'.  The bottom line - she did nothing illegal nor really very immoral there.

Emails - well, how much time has been wasted on that so far?  She said she didn't receive classified information.  True at the time.  Today, if received it probably would be a lie.  When all this was going on, the information was NOT classified.  It has only been classified in the last few months AS it is being released!!  It was not a crime to use the personal email server - it was only "not recommended".  One cannot with any intellectual honesty at all try to go back and apply today's law or morals for that matter on "yesterdays" events.  That is even enshrined in the Constitution the RWRE crows about so much, but ignores even more - and actually reads never!!  It is referred to as ex post facto.

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

Perspective is when you look at the "weight" of one lie versus another....  1 lb of 'badness' versus 1 ton of 'badness'.  Intellectual honesty enters into the discussion when one weighs those with proper consideration for the relative seriousness of each event.  Example, 4 dead at Benghazi, versus 80+. 

Oval Office hanky panky - killing 4,000 of our kids.

Minimum wage going DOWN 30% + over the last 40+ years, C-suite pay going UP 700 times over the last 40+ years.  And we in the middle subsidizing the big paychecks of the 1%'ers.


nathanm has posted lists at least a couple of times in the past relating Progressive versus Conservative.  I have not been able to find them and since he hasn't been around for a while, he probably won't repost, but it pretty well covers the big picture differences.  One little quote I use summarizes very sparsely the big picture, but wish I could find his lists....   "To Democrats low wages are the problem.  To Republicans low wages are the solution."   I have been somewhat surprised by a fairly sizable number of women I know who have children...from older women of my Grandparents generation to younger ones the ages of my kids...who otherwise are pretty much 'Okie' conservative.  They have told me that they would mostly rather have a Democrat in office, because they know that when Republicans are in power, their kids are more likely to go hungry.  We see that in Oklahoma as the tens of thousands of kids who do go hungry way too often.

What is truly sad is the blind eye turned by so many of the RWRE towards balancing the equation - it is literally the "means justifies the ends".

Kind of amazing, isn't it?  Gotta love it!!   Once in a while when the planets align just right....we do get there from here!

Out of your entire post, this is the only point I have to disagree with.  I have been suspect of the 15:1 ratio for a very long time and the drain it is on school budgets.

When I went to Jenks in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s typical class size was 25-30 students for basic curricula: science, math, english, history/social studies and there were no permanent teacher aides assigned to each teacher.  You might get an ORU teaching student as an aide for a few weeks at a time and there were floating aides, but one instructor was more than capable of handling a classroom.  With the exception of math, which I struggled with from algebra onward, I was generally a B student in core curricula.  Most of my peers at Jenks did about as well as I did, if not better.  Those few who struggled more generally were not from stable home environments, were doing drugs, or should have been in remedial reading or math programs.

I was far more interested in what went on outside the classroom than what went on inside it.  I was the kid that got progress reports saying: “Conan is such a bright student...if he would only apply himself more diligently to his work..."

That did not change when I finished my last three years of high school at Cascia Hall where class size was 10-20 students in any subject.  I was still a B student in history and english.  Amongst my peers, lazy kids did poorly and motivated kids did really well.  Same as it was at Jenks.  Advanced science and math still kicked my donkey.  No matter the class size, I was always going to suffer through those subjects.  I figured out much later in life, I’m a kinetic learner when it comes to more complex subjects.  Learning physics, chemistry, and trig from a book was too abstract for me to follow.  Seeing it in real life made light bulbs go off.

The interaction can be more personal with 15 students in a classroom, but there are several generations of highly successful Americans who came up in 25-30 student classrooms.

Somewhere, cats are snuggling with dogs, tree huggers are buying coffee for loggers, and my brother-in-law is praising my work ethic. The last few posts of Conan and Heiro mean we have travelled from our extremes and met in the middle. I find little to criticize in them. Because they are based on fact and experience.

The propaganda foisted on us this past few decades has nearly ruined a generation of young people. Yes, lawyers lie, ergo politicians lie. They don't call it that, they call it spin or perspective or whatever, but they lie. Rubio lied three times in the few minutes I watched him while visiting Tulsa. I'm sure he justified it by protecting America from the evil Trump, but they were lies. Trump did disavow the Klan (just after he did the calculation in his mind that their votes and their money weren't worth the negative pr).

All of this blustering, e-mail scandals, embassy scandals, etc. go back for decades. You know she murdered her lawyer, right? It all is cover for the fact that Congress is adept at acquiring power for themselves but totally devoid of the personalities necessary to govern! Easier to attack opponents to your platform than face losing your phoney baloney jobs.

My favorite "this must be peak of the crazies" moment this week was the Congressman from South Dakota who blatantly displayed this sickness by exclaiming that "even if Trump does support the Klan he's better than any Democrat!" Really? Really? Hillary and Bernie are that bad? I have never heard any Democrat sitting in office spew like that against an entire party.

This is great drama, but the Republicans will survive this mess, the country is not at the brink of catastrophe if Cruz or some republican doesn't win and no Mr. Rubio, take it from someone who was an adult at the time, we are not at the dawn of a new morning, you are not the leader of the rebirth of the Reagan revolution and the country was not mired in failed presidencies in 1980. It was however another challenging decade. So is this one.

BTW, I feel the Bern. I can not be prouder of the fact that Bernie took Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota and Vermont. Four states I can move to when this state folds. In my mind he has already succeeded by changing the discussion. What was a year ago considered liberal drivel I've now heard all four serious candidates use his rhetoric in their speeches.

I did not intend to advocate for a 15:1 ratio as a standard. I do believe it is better, but it is probably cost prohibitive. I was trying to establish boundaries - that at 30 and above the teacher begins being a babysitter or lecturer as opposed to a teacher. At some point kids that choose to learn can, but most will not. At some other point, essentially no one can learn. I am not the proper person to decide where that point is - nor is the teachers union as they have agenda on the matter.

This article appears to be a decent unbiased review of the subject:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/does-class-size-matter-research-reveals-surprises/

It has a rational discussion and cites studies if you want additional information...It concludes that, generally, lower class sizes are better. But fails to reach a conclusion as to if a larger initiative would work, or if it would be worth the cost. It appears to be an open ended question.

But I did not intend to suggest we need 15:1 ratios as a standard.

Amazing how the Brietbart crowd took stills from this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NysHcoit_Hg

and reversed their order to make it look like the unsuspecting secret service agent was attacked by the TIME magazine perp.
Now the USSS expanded role goes beyond protecting candidates to enforcing their campaign rules? 

Another video:  http://ti.me/1TkNEQJ

After watching John Oliver on Sunday do his piece on Trump, at the end of the segment he had a plug for a Chrome Extension (which I now have installed) and it changes all the instances of the name "Trump", to his real family name (Drumpf).  It makes it quite amusing.  And reading this thread, it changed it and I forgot that I had it installed.  Quite a laugh.

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/john-olivers-make-donald-drumpf-again-chrome-extension-exactly-what-we-needed-super-516084

Trees are good.   

I have mentioned before that I am not extreme right or extreme left... I am extreme moderate.

Our self identification is not so important. I thought I was moderate till I was schooled on this forum! Now the truth is the definitions have shifted but I stayed the same.

This forum showed you as being an extreme, frothing at the mouth, left wing radical...??  Compared to some here.... even though you are a moderate in the real world...!

Outside of Oklahoma

There are occasionally just the tiniest of slivers of light here in Oklahoma.... Bernie won the primary!


Anyone know what happened to nathanm?  Fed up with the bs??

I can and do agree with you about the lies. No lie is better or worse, they stack right up against each other with the same degree of holy batcrap! But if you or I had known about a WMD lie before Bush was elected you can bet your bottom dollar he would not have been elected. King Oral Office pants down would again never have been elected if that affair had happened before the election. That's the difference, her lying is before she has been elected and its out in the open and hurting her.

Does that mean she wouldn't be a fine President, no way, I think she would do a very fine job. She has the vast experience in Washington that's for sure and with that said she does have the connections.

The one thing that just blew me away was Oklahoma voted for the 2 extremes. Cruz, the so far right and Bern the so far left. Goes to show that we really have an all or nothing type of State. I am very pleased to see this great discussion here though.

What he flip-flopped on:

Mr. Trump has suggested that he’d order the U.S. military to kill families of Muslim terrorists and institute interrogation techniques worse than waterboarding, itself widely condemned as torture. Torture and retaliatory executions are both war crimes under international law.

In a recent interview, former National Security Agency and CIA director Michael Hayden said that the U.S. military might refuse such orders, which would constitute war crimes. The U.S. military has been trained for a decades that an order to commit a war crime is not an legal order and thus must not be obeyed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-says-hed-force-us-military-commit-war/

UPDATE:  A few hours later he flip-flopped again, saying he would obey the law ONCE HE CHANGED IT to his liking.

Well, ya see...there is the rub... we did know about WMD.  And he was elected.  And the lies flowed forth that led to killing 4,000 + of our kids.  Creating torture as just another day at the office - against our law as well as international law.  Squandered $4 trillion fighting the wrong war, as well as diverting our attention and success from the real war that has the dubious "honor" of leaving us with ISIS today.

How did we know about WMD??  Well, at the time - in 2002-2003, well AFTER the election and 9/11, the CIA said they knew the Sadam wanted nukes.  He had made inquiries into the processes.  But they most importantly said they were pretty sure he had made close to zero progress on that front.

On the other WMD front - chemical weapons...it was well know he had them at one time, while fighting Iran.  BECAUSE  WE SUPPLIED THE INGREDIENTS and the instructions, some of the equipment (Germany was in on this, too), and all the encouragement a cheesy little tin-horn dictator would need to use them.  Which he did against Iran and the Kurds.  And by the time Baby Bush decided to go to war against him, it was also well known that he no longer had the chemicals he needed in any meaningful quantities, because we finally had stopped supplying him, and he ran out.  But that didn't stop the building of the house of lies.

In Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, he brought up mobile WMD labs....which were just a little bit later found to mobile milk pasteurization and hydrogen generation trailers.  "Oops...mea culpa...!!"

And then Bush threw the CIA under the bus in a way that surpasses anything 10 Obama's could have ever done....  But then, the CIA was also lying just because the "boss" told them what he wanted to hear, so they told him that...at least some of that...  Plus, isn't that just a big part of their job anyway??  At least it is supposed to be - OUTSIDE the US.  

See;  Rafid Ahmed Alwan
See;  Curveball



As for Billy Bob...well, affairs don't mean squat to this country - especially the RWRE.  If they did, Newt Gingrich would never have been tolerated for the more than 10 years he was keeping his harlot hanging around -  this was rationalized and excused even when he told his wife on her sick bed (she is still alive, so wasn't death bed event) that he was through with her and was going with the hooker.  (I have talked about Newt before, and was censored when I used the term whore, so took a more PC word this time...but I am going with the RWRE Biblical interpretation of what this woman would be referred to.)

And my theory about the whole Billy Bob/Hillary relationship is that it is no one's business if they wanna be swingers and everyone involved IS involved, like is the most likely scenario.

Hail Victory! Hail Trump!
(http://i.imgur.com/rkyTpdY.jpg)

Hail Vicotry! Hail Trump!
(http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/pic-41.jpg)

You can't make this crap up.

omg. Does this guy have a PR person? Does he listen to anyone?

I didn't care much for the criticism over quoting Mussolini. Even a blind hog finds an acorn ever once in a while. It was an insightful quote. But for heaven's sake.....

He IS his PR person!  And it is working for him.  Just shows how feeble minded about 1/2 of all Republicans are.

This election is a joke.

Trump Defends His Fake ISIS Video: "All I Know Is What's On The Internet"

http://factually.gizmodo.com/trump-defends-his-tweet-of-fake-isis-video-all-i-know-1764626302

Wasn’t that the Obama & Clinton line after Benghazi?

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/20/trumps_jackbooted_thugs_against_political_correctness_violence_fascism_and_the_real_assault_on_free_speech/


On Wednesday, 78-year-old, cowboy-hat-donning John McGraw was charged with assault and battery after sucker-punching a black protester named Rakeem Jones at a Trump campaign event in North Carolina. When asked by Inside Edition why he punched the young activist in the eye, McGraw replied that "we don't know if he's ISIS. We don't know who he is, but we know he's not acting like an American, cussing me…If he wants it laid out, I laid it out."

"He deserved it," the 78-year-old Trump fan added. "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don't know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization."

When asked where his knowledge on foreign policy comes from and who he consults:


http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-foreign-policy-adviser-220853#ixzz43YAYJxEf

Trump's wall, broken down.  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI

Trump's top brownshirt arrested for battery:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/29/donald-trumps-campaign-manager-was-just-arrested-and-charged-with-battery/

Serious?  Pushing someone away from a presidential candidate is now “battery”?

I’m not a Trump flak by any means, but we are turning into a nation of pussies.

It was an unwelcome, unauthorized touching. Technically, I am guilty several times a day of the same thing.

I too am no Trump apologist, but I am stunned by how the establishment is taking him apart piece by piece. Its gruesome to see the media, extremists from both parties and celebrities combine to hate on him. People who wouldn't normally have coffee together are now united by common cause.  Yet, his followers are still sure he's going to be elected.

"I never told anyone to physically assault anyone, and didn't tell them I'd pay their legal bills if they did."  - Donald Trump in a recorded conversation to the Washington Post, a couple week after a recorded speech in which he told the crowd to physically assault people that spoke out against him and then offered to pay legal bills if anyone did so.

And now his campaign manager is arrest for assault?  The hell you say! I'm biased here because I loathe Donald Drumpf to the core. But...


A horde of reporters were following Trump. Trump's campaign manager decided he didn't like one of the reporters so he removed her using physical force. A man physically grabbed a woman and yanked her to where he thought she should be. Is that acceptable behavior?

A middle school kid would get detention if he physically pulled a classmate away from the chalk board. We have lower standard for presidential campaign managers?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.03.html

A battery is not necessarily someone getting beat up. The "touching" can be more of an offensive act than physical abuse. I agree wholeheartedly that this was not someone getting beat up, but it isn't acceptable.  They didn't charge him with domestic battery, aggravated battery, felony battery or any of the higher charges. This is the lowest available charge for battery.

He didn't want her asking The Donald a question, instead of being an adult and using his words he just yanked her away. If anything, a member of the press should get MORE protection from being manhandled by campaign politicians and those they employ.

If your wife was walking along Riverside and some man grabbed her and yanked her back like that, we'd have a significant problem. Mostly because she'd kick his butt, but I'd like to think we'd have a few things to say about it.

The reporters bruises:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdNWzntWAAESzuG.jpg)

I'm no fan either but these are the types of things that are making him MORE popular because of how ridiculous it seems. Again, there is plenty to go after without resorting to the outlandish. The guy is a jerk. Focus on that.

Why is it ridiculous? If I did this to a store clerk who I was upset with, I too would be arrested. We have lower standards for campaign managers treatment of the press than customer treatment of store clerks?  Hell, if I yanked my son hard enough to leave bruises on his arms like that the school would be legally required to report it.  Even if he utterly deserved it and I am, after all, his parent. It is my job to discipline him. Still... it might not be allowed.

Why is it outlandish? I posted the language of the law above, he clearly broke the law. We just aren't serious about that one? Then change the law. You can hate the fact that physical force isn't allowed. You can try to change the law to make battery illegal if you use "too much unwanted physical touching." But given what the law says... I don't get why it is ridiculous or outlandish.

I got it. I don't like what The Donald is saying. Can I slap him hard enough to leave a bruise on his face? Same level of forced used by his minions against a reporter (enough to leave bruising). Would you be surprised when I was arrested for slapping The Donald. Would that be outlandish and ridiculous?

Different standards apparently apply to different groups of people.  
For example, this broad new law from the trooper's union:

Senate Bill 55, by Sen. Kim David, R-Porter, and Rep. Lisa Billy, R-Lindsay, would make the act aggravated assault and battery if the person made physical contact with the officer.
The measure was requested by the Department of Public Safety.

As far as Trump's manager being singled out, its just one episode in a long string of manhandlings he should be held accountable for.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/19/caught-on-camera-trumps-campaign-manager-grabs-trump-protester-by-the-collar/

I'd say if the store you were in was like Walmart on Thanksgiving, then you probably would not be arrested. Which is probably what the situation was like in this case. You are comparing apples to oranges. I am not saying there wasn't a law broke, but if you recite the series of events 9 out of 10 people will think it is ridiculous. Which is why Trump's support keeps growing. Because the perception is that most of these attacks are weak.

Regarding your last point is exactly what is happening to "The Donald". The only problem is Donald isn't grown up enough to be respectful in return. People get in his face figuratively and then he responds. To the instigators it is a gotcha moment. It's like one of my kids (Cam) hitting another (Jax) and then Jax retaliating. Then Cam complaining that Jax hit him. To me they are both in trouble because both acts are equally wrong. Inciting the violence is no better than the retaliation.

Yanking my wife by some dude or one of Trump’s lackeys relocating an individual (reporter or not) away from his boss is an apple v. orange argument.

From what I saw, Lewandowski more or less pushed her out of the way.  We don’t know if it was because he didn’t like her or he was charged with making sure The Donald’s exit was unimpeded.  Trump, as a leading presidential candidate, is now under Secret Service protection.  There is an entirely different protocol when you might well be the target of assault or assassination vs. a store clerk you got pissed off at or the kid who got pushed over on his skateboard because he came too close to a cyclist.

What would they have done had that been an SS agent?

Relocating? Without saying a word to her he grabbed her arm and yanked her backwards with enough force to leave bruising. If anyone "relocated" your wife that way, you'd have a serious problem. I doubt you'd give two craps about who their boss was.

A secret service agent, and all law enforcement agents, have a defense to battery if it is a lawful use of force. Donald Trump is under secret service protection, they didn't feel the need to remove this woman. The professionals in charge of his safety didn't touch her, a campaign manager did. He can assert defense of others as a defense... but in that there is zero evidence that sh was assaulting anyone it would fail.

And since when does the secret service protect presidential candidates from credentialed members of the press? I call shenanigans. They thought a Breitbart reporter was going to assault the Donald, so they had to assault her first? Stupid secret service not figuring that out, thank God the Donald's people had it covered!

And by the video she wasn't impeding anyone. Not that it would matter if she did. A Trump employee still wouldn't have the right to physically move her.

This woman was doing her job, asking a presidential candidate a question, when she was assaulted. By definition, that's what happened. Again, you can argue that the you don't like the law. That it should be legal to use physical force against people you don't like unless that force causes them to bleed (or whatever). But the law is clear. Even if you blow cigarette smoke in my face, it can be classified as a battery.

You are also right, such laws aren't universally enforced and they shouldn't be. But when it is high-profile and caught on camera, it is much more likely to be enforced. This same outcome would have happened if an NFL player or NBA player did this to some woman in public. If high profile people can assault women, why can't I? Or the same thing would happen if I yanked on a high profile persons arm in a similar manner.

Here is what the guy said before he realized there is a video tape of the incident:


The guy apparently assaults so many people he doesn't remember any particular incident. He said the same thing before video surfaced of him manhandling some protester.

erfalf:

These aren't kids on a playground. These are adults at the highest levels: a national reporter and a leading presidential candidate. I'm not advocating for ticky tack assault charges carte blanch - but if it acceptable for them to use physical force to get what they want, why not everyone else?

I agree that, with kids, you have to allow them to work it out by themselves to a large extent. If you knock down my card house, I kick your shins. But again, these aren't kids... what's she supposed to do - slap the Donald? And are you saying that by trying to ask The Donald a question she "was asking for it?" I know that's the law The Donald would advocate for, but that isn't the law. She can say anything she wants and they have no right to touch her. Think you should be able to assault someone for asking tough questions? Go change the US Constitution.

- - -

What's the alternative? Trump employees can use physical force against the press and the law just doesn't apply to them?

I damn well guarantee you that if Trump was walking past me and I reached out and yanked his arm hard enough to cause him to go backwards and leave a bruise --- I would be arrested. And I'm sure I would be sued by Trump. Same if I did this action to his campaign manager.

Why do they operate under different rules?

I the good old days someone would have beat the hell out of the campaign manager for man handling a women. In the really old days her husband would have shot the bastard. So maybe we are pussies for just arresting the guy.

In the good old days she wouldn't have had the opportunity as she would have been in the kitchen baking a pie.

Yes, more restraint should be shown.   It was careless on his part and he overreacted.   Most likely he had been asking people repeatedly to step back and momentarily lost his composure.   (Or at least that is the excuse when other people do it.)

Sorry, I still don’t see the correlation between people crowding a presidential candidate or celebrity and getting yanked, relocated, pushed, et. ad nauseum and something like this happening in the “real” world.  If my wife was stupid enough to crowd a celebrity or political hack er candidate and she got shoved or pulled she could deal with it and wouldn’t be pressing charges over a three finger bruise.  Chances are the guy would be sporting a bruise or two in a very painful place had he pulled that on MC.

Without being there it’s hard to make a judgement call.  I didn’t hear any audio.  Was she repeatedly asked, along with others, to get back and did not oblige and was finally pulled back as a last resort?  Was his campaign manager calling her a bull dyke when he yanked her arm out of spite?  I think context matters here and why she was “battered” in the first place.

Call me callous and insensitive, but this has been blown way out of proportion.  The only reason it even matters on the national stage is because he’s Trump’s campaign manager and likely the only reason anyone even thought to file charges in the first place. 

It matters.

When was the last time you were looking at a situation and thought to yourself, "It'd be okay if that guy grabbed me hard enough to bruise."?

Or..."I think it'd be alright, in this situation, that that dude could cause me bodily pain."?

I don't give a rat smile if he's with Trump.  Trump takes a dump just like anyone else.  He's nothing special...just well known.  It's sad people think that's a good enough reason for one person to hurt another.

'merica

That's  'murica....

Conan:

I fundamentally disagree on many levels. I tend to ascribe to the broken windows theory to a certain extent.

A politician nor celebrity has no more right to assault someone than anyone else. Nor can they have their minions assault people for them. In spite of what our society may say, celebrities do live in the "real world."

And I don't need to be there. There is a video showing what happened, as well as witnesses and photos of the bruising. So far every form of evidence supports the victims statement - and tends to show the defendant's statements were all lies. Even if they asked a member of the press twenty times to not ask Mr. Trump any more mean questions, they still don't have a right to assault her. You'll not she has been a reporter for a very long time and has somehow managed to not be assaulted in all of that time. Now--- there might be circumstances that explain why the guy lost his temper and assaulted her, but it doesn't change the facts. You can't get angry and assault a woman in public.

And I don't think it has been blown out of proportion. The guy violated a very clear statute and the statute was enforced. It shouldn't be a major deal - it shouldn't entail jail time or any life altering consequence. This certainly wasn't an aggravated assault. When this happens to other people it doesn't get near the attention (with that I agree), but rest assured --- it happens. The examples I gave above (yanking Mrs. Conan on the trail, at a bar, or whatever) could result in the arrest of the offender, particularly if it was on tape. If there is no prior record the guy gets a few days of community service and court costs and the charge is deferred (as if it never happened).  If they move for a year of jail time or something, then we've hit la-la land.

I would expect the same thing to happen if Bernie, Hilldog, or Cruz people assaulted someone.

Also... thanks for a civil discussion. This board has been getting pretty good at discussing controversial topics in civil and productive manner. On the internet even!

Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

2008 - Trump backs Hillary for President
2012 - Trump gives Democrats money
2015 - Trump runs for GOP presidential nomination
August - Trump says he will not support the GOP nominee if it isn't him. He says this repeatedly. He says it publicly. He says it during a national debate.

It is then pointed out that certain states, Virginia, NC, and South Carolina may not let him on the ballot unless he signs a similar State pledge.  He suddenly starts changing his tune.

September - Trump signs a written pledge to support the GOP nominee, no matter who it is

"I am totally pledging my full support to the GOP."

"I have no intention of changing my mind on this."

"I see no circumstances under which I would tear up that pledge."

"The best way for the Republicans to win is if I win the nomination and go directly against whoever [Democrats] put up," said Trump. "And for that reason, I have signed the pledge."

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COAFgi5VEAAd-z-.jpg)

NPR runs a story prognosticating the recent turn of events... (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/03/437198983/will-donald-trump-really-back-down-from-a-third-party-threat)

2016, March - Trump changes his mind and again says he will only support the GOP nominee if it is him.

- - - - -

I think such pledges are stupid. I think political parties are stupid. But this is another example of Trump saying or taking part in whatever lie is expedient at the moment to advance Donald Trump. I assume he will just insist he never signed it and his followers will have a theory on how his actions, tweets, words, and signed documents aren't really what happened.

I heard the Libertarians got on the Oklahoma ballot. No idea who they are running... they probably have my vote just as a protest.

Trump is such a class act!   All of it low...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/video-compares-trump-and-obama-talking-about-women-and-we-cant-stop-crying_us_56f29d0ce4b0c3ef52174a7b

Cannon, you must also think poorly of Cruz and Kasich since they both waffled on the same pledge? Trump isn't putting on anybody. We all know that he is an opportunist, a narcissist, and a bully. In short, a successful businessman!

Seriously, he has let loose the frustration that the powerless carry with them in a big duffel bag. For instance, other than lawyers or college graduates who have had a few hours of law, common folk don't consider his  surrogate's actions as tantamount to assault and battery. And that is who he represents. 

Yo momma

I seriously doubt the campaign manager intended to inflict harm on anyone, it’s a crowded situation and he’s trying to safely get his boss out of the building.  Until we can find empirical evidence he gets off on yanking women and beating them, that’s the assumption I will go with since I did not personally witness the incident.  We don’t know if he thought she was an annoying fan wanting a selfie (looks like a phone in her hand) or if she’s been asking when he’s going to kiss and make up with Megyn Kelley for the 10th time and The Donald said “Sic her!".  If Lewandowski was in full adrenaline mode, he may not have even been aware of how hard he pulled on her arm or maybe he had a few too many and was on a black-out drunk, who really knows but him?  Why he lied about the incident for a month is beyond me.  If he hangs out with The Donald, I’m sure he’s somewhat of a D-bag.  

This is what I take exception with and it’s probably because of the way I would have reacted.  I also assume at times that not everyone else on the planet has had common sense bred out of them:  You’ve got a crush of people surrounding The Donald while he’s trying to leave.  He’s now a high value target as a presidential candidate.  If you are going to crowd in, it should come as no surprise you might end up getting shoved or pulled out of the way if you are trying to get up next to him.  Try that with Obama or even Hillary and see what happens.  There absolutely is a different protocol in approaching a president or presidential candidate with something in your hand pointed at that person than there is to approaching you or I.  Perhaps they need better security in place with barricades to keep people back from The Donald now and this won't happen again.

If I were in the situation and ended up with some light bruises, it would have never crossed my mind to file charges on someone.  If the guy had taken aim and punched me in the nose, that’s an intentional infliction of harm and I’d have no problem filing charges.  Again, this incident is only noteworthy on a national scale because of who the alleged assailant works for.  We don’t need to have hours of televised discussion about the plight of battered women because of this incident.  Sorry guys and gals, this isn’t the kind of thing that women go running to the help of DVIS for.

We see examples every day, somewhere on the news, of reporters and paparazzi being shoved out of the way by bodyguards and LEOs escorting anything from celebrities in and out of nightclubs to accused criminals going in and out of jails or courthouses during sensational trials.  It’s not much unlike a mosh pit.  It’s a crush of people, smile happens and we don’t hear about battery charges being filed.  We might when someone’s camera gets smashed out of frustration.  You and I seem to differ on the idea that ending up with bruises is a distinct possibility if you are trying to sidle up to someone like this.  Is a rough man-handling warranted?  Absolutely not.  However, any experienced journalist has to know it’s a possible job hazard as per countless other examples we see daily on the news.  

I’m probably just a dinosaur from another time when you didn’t run to the cops with every minor incident.  I was taught just because things didn’t go my way or because someone bumped me a bit hard in the lunch line and I ended up with a bruise I wasn't suddenly a victim.  I’ve been intentionally crashed several times when I was racing cars and I knew it was intentional.  If you enter that arena, it’s a known possible outcome and if you can’t handle it, you don’t do it.  The stakes are much higher than getting your arm yanked when that happens.  It might end up in a heated discussion immediately afterwards, then we’d share a beer and laugh after tempers had cooled off.  I work for one of those guys in my day job to this day.

The whole point in that useless personal experience diatribe above is pointing out there are certain situations you have to realistically understand there might be an adverse outcome if you crowd someone else or are in tight quarters.

So, did the reporter have the right to file charges?  According to Florida law, absolutely.  Under that same Florida law, she had no more right to touch Trump without his permission than his peon had touching her (no idea if she touched him or not, but simply saying he could have filed charges on her if she had touched him without his permission under this law).  Was she seriously injured or emotionally scarred for life?  I’ve not seen anything which would indicate injuries near that serious.  I simply feel investigative and prosecutorial resources are best used helping victims of serious crimes, not something in which the results resemble bad playground behavior.

And you know me, I always appreciate a spirited, respectful discussion.

There’s little doubt Trump is a D-Bag and a scary prospect as POTUS.

I had heard recently that there may finally be enough support (I believe it requires a petition I was only half-listening to the radio when I heard it) for “Libertarian” to finally become a recognized political party in Oklahoma.

She lost her job over it. All she originally asked for was an apology but then Lewandowski, the Trump campaign and her employer all called her a liar. To make matters worse there are reports that Trump has been paying her employer for positive coverage.

It took filing charges to get the video that proved she was telling the truth.

Saying she lost her job makes it sound like she was fired.  

She quit.  

With her new found celebrity, and some help from Gloria Allred, I’m sure she will have no trouble finding a new and better income stream.

We already knew Trump isn’t above paying for good publicity.  He’s been doing that for 30 years.  ;)

Oh, I know she's far from innocent. Calling her a "reporter" is far harder than calling her a victim, and she's not much of a victim. There are no good actors here.

But don't let this guy off the hook. This isn't the only time Lewandowski's has been accused of being personally physical at rallies and as campaign manager he is very much at fault for his staff constantly being rough with protesters and other reporters. Even when he personally doesn't place a hand on anyone. 

Trump is stripping away that thin veneer of civilized behavior that covers the right wing extremists.  Showing them for what they truly are - giving the rest of us a little peek behind the curtain.

Hopefully, we will learn from this rare opportunity of truth about the extreme right.

I do think poorly of Cruz. And I said the pledge was stupid. Kasich's response was the best: none of us should have answered that question. And yes, I do hold it against both of them. They each stated something that they are now backing out of. But the "everyone else is a DB too" argument doesn't cut it with my teenager, and I like to think we can hold the president to a higher standard. Plus, I think those two did intend to stand by it when they made it. Going back on your word to sign a pledge you don't believe knowing you intended to break it is a new level of loser. Particularly when he is winning and could, presumable, just let the issue lay.

And, fwiw, the actions aren't "tantamount to assault and battery," they meet the legal definition.
- - - -

Conan:

I take exception to your characterization of it being a safety issue. Trump has secret service protection and police protection wherever he goes. He also has a private security detail. None of them thought anyone was threatening enough to intervene. Only his campaign manager. Who chose to intervene only against a reporter from a news organization Trump views as hostile and then lie about it. As you said, there were dozens of people crowding the candidate, as there often are. Yet only one was yanked away... for safety. If the any of those law enforcement officials had to intervene and stated your reasoning, I would accept it. It's not like he beat her after he yanked her away.

My major issue is the characterization of "us and them." If "we" get too close to "them" we should expect to be assaulted. But if "we" did the same thing to "them," then we should expect charges.  Not in my America. We are all equal under the law.

I have never, in my entire life, intentionally laid hands on a woman in such a way that I left bruising. He had no legal right to do so. Our laws require us to keep our hands to ourselves. He didn't. These are the consequences he risked. If I went up to Trump's wife and yanked her our of Saks Fifth Avenue, I'd expect some issues with the police.

The alternative is that Trump's campaign manager can batter anyone he feels like because he is a campaign manager for a major political candidate and you are not. You should expect such treatment. He doesn't have to put up with the likes of you. I detest that sentiment.

As I said, I'm not calling for blood. This shouldn't be a major ordeal. And...like I said in my initial comment. I'm biased. I have disliked Trump for more than a decade and despise everything to do with his politics. But if I thought it was unjust, I'd admit that and then add that it couldn't happen to a worse person.   ;D

If I were Trump, I’d tell my campaign guys to leave the thuggery to the Secret Service and the local constabulary.

This is what is odd, she was defended by her employer all the way up to the CEO, Larry Solov and she acted like she had no support from them.

This is such a new age with people essentially able to broadcast to the entire world with social media.  I’m in disbelief about this whole Twitter battle between Fields, her boyfriend, Lewandowski, and Trump.  If you feel you’ve been wronged, go file a police report. 

Everything around Trump’s campaign is just so freaking bizarre.  It’s like a Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy caricature.

Trump vows to appoint Supreme Court Justice who will investigate Hillary's Emails:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/30/Trump-says-he-would-pick-Supreme-Court-justices-to-investigate-Clintons-email/4701459359250/

Dear Mr. Trump...

The United States of America has three branches of government. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws (that's the branch you are running for) - it conducts lots and lots of investigations and has and is currently investigating Hillary's emails via the Justice Department. There is the legislative branch - those are the law makers that can and do conduct investigations through committees. They have and are investigating Hillary.

Then there is the judiciary. On the Federal level we have the District Courts. Those are trial courts. They hear cases in which juries usually decide the facts. They do not conduct investigations. Then we have Circuit Court of Appeals. As the name suggests, they hear appeals from the District Court - deciding if they messed up or clarifying points of law. They do not conduct investigations. Then we have the Supreme Court, if is often referred to as a Constitutional Court. It does and can hear appeals on many issues, and can reserve original jurisdiction on several matters that aren't on appeal, but mostly it resolves Constitutional points of law or settles disputes between the Circuit Courts of Appeal. It does not conduct investigations.

Now, in much of Europe and many Common Wealth countries, judges can conduct investigations. Rarely does the Constitutional Court do so, but I think they can. But you are not running for President of Somewhere Over the Rainbow Land. So, in this country, whatever Justice you appoint will not be conducting any investigations.

You might also find this helpful. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo)

There’s a couple of points you have missed though: Breitbart has generally been considered to be in the tank for Trump, they are far from unfriendly to him.  She was musing that whomever grabbed her must have thought she was with the mainstream media.  Even Trump knows Breitbart has been friendly to his campaign.  Whether or not they recognized her as a Breitbart reporter is beyond me.  She’s a very attractive woman, a face you would not forget easily.

In fact, she must have thought being with Breitbart gave her carte blanche to accost The Donald based on this exchange with another reporter after the incident:


http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/michelle-fields-trump#.ovKwp1DLX

Trump claims she actually grabbed or touched his arm without his permission first.  She had no right to touch him with out his permission.  That’s battery under Florida law.  He chose not to press charges, according to The Donald.  It works both ways.  

She claims she was nearly pulled to the ground.  The video shows no such thing.  There’s no doubt she got a jolt out of it.  I doubt Lewandowski intended any harm, who in their right mind would in a room full of witnesses?  

We are all equal under the law to an extent.  There have to be some limitations to that, much as the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give absolute power to own any firearm you wish and not without training and a background check in most states.  Certainly, the president cannot break into my house and shoot my wife with total impunity.  

I contend you don’t just reach out and touch or grab POTUS or a leading presidential candidate unless their hand was extended first and not expect that there might be repercussions as someone might mistake you as an assailant.

Trump’s lackeys would do well to keep their hands in their pockets and stay off Twitter from now on and let the paid professional thugs do their thing.

If nothing else, Trump has given us all something to talk about out of the ordinary this campaign cycle.  I figured he’d vanish like the proverbial fart in the wind after Super Tuesday if he even lasted that long.  Somehow this trail of smile he leaves behind just makes him more popular.

This is the most bizarre part. The news organization that she worked for, Breitbart, isn't remotely hostile. They actually act as Trumps mouthpiece and several editors and reporters have claimed (anonymously) that Trump is paying Breitbart for positive coverage.

A scary thought just occurred to me.  if Trump won, what if he selected this buffoon for his AG?

(http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-6877591b0630a9d087acd4dda8f3f63d.jpg)

I hacked in and then ran that scenario through the Pentagon's newest super computer contingency simulator and this was the output:

(http://cdn1.thecomeback.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dumpsterfire.png)

I don't know about Trump, but Cruz certainly would.

Playing catch-up on the whole Brietbart-Trump incestuous relationship

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/breitbart-deletes-post-ben-shapiro

Paris Hilton 2020.

It just occurred to me that Paris Hilton is essentially Donald Trump without the hatred, but with actual business success. Where Trump has managed to "under-perform" the market by more than 50%, Hilton has beat the market by large multipliers (she's worth $130mil and has "only" inherited $5mil relatively recently). And like him, she is a reality TV star, from a rich family, who has loved ones who have done naked photo shoots, and is utterly clueless on every criteria of competence important for a president.

If someone wants to argue in favor of The Donald, they should cast him aside in favor of Paris Hilton. She's more successful than Donald.

Oh, you mean real America...

Do you know this to be a fact about not being assaulted?

Does she bruise easily enabling her to make a big deal out of something she didn't deserve but is now playing to the hilt?

Best summary I’ve heard yet on this kerfluffle.

Interesting....just how any previous or lack of previous incident could have any possible bearing on this one...?


Well, unless of course, she has a business card for advertising/promoting S & M type activities....

That's like the convenience store getting robbed for a second time, and the clerk somehow is at fault because they were robbed once before.  Two makes a trend, so the robber can't possibly be at fault for the second one.

Just as a comparison - shows how far we have come (downward) in just a short 46 years.  From this to Trump.  What a ridiculous path we have chosen to trod since.

The most significant 20 minutes in human history.

http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/

(http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/775864450392522753/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-775864450392522753;1043138249%27)

He took his loses over the weekend with the usual grace. Declaring the Boston Globe "stupid" and the delegate process "wildly corrupt" and designed to defeat him. It turns out his own kids aren't going to vote for him in the NY primary, because they didn't realize they needed to be registered Republicans by a certain date.

Apparently now knowing the rules of the game you're playing runs in the family. But just because you don't know them, doesn't mean they aren't stupid, unfair, corrupt, etc. etc. etc.

Trump and his people always seems to compare, or try to compare to him to President Reagan. So lets compare.

The first and most important comparison IMO would be the future of the country and the message given by both men. Trump, as we all know is "Make America great again", but with that comes the fear mongering of just how do that. Lets build a Wall (play off the fear and hate of Americans). Lets ban all Muslims from entering the United States (play off the fear and hate of Americans). Rip up the Executive order concerning Iran and nukes (play off the fear and hate of Americans)..This list goes on and on and I really don't have that amount of time but you get the point.

Reagan on the other hand was one very important thing, Optimistic. No playing off the fears or the hate that may have been in the minds of Americans in the late 70's, no it was the optimistic outlook he gave and he stayed away from personal attacks. Why is this? Reagan always felt a part of the American people. When asked by a reporter on Election Day 1980 what Americans saw in him, he replied, "Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves and that I'm one of them? I've never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them." Reagan always saw himself as an American citizen first and part of the people.

During his campaign he did bring up the threat from communism and the nuclear-armed Soviet Union, inflation and economic stagnation, his belief that an over-bearing, over-regulating, overly distant federal government was sapping the nation's spirit and strength, and the public's sense that the country's best days were in the past. Through optimism he brought the hope and dreams back to the people though, not through fear and hate.

Trump and Reagan were both Democrats and as Trump puts it, "people change"

This is true..........SORTA....

Trump was a Democrat as recent as 2009 and in 2005 he gave a huge amount of money to the Clinton campaign, (foundation if you must) and they (Clintons) attended Trumps wedding. Trump changed his party from Republican to Independent Party in 1999, and switched again to Democrat in 2001. In 2009, 7 years ago he switched to the Republican party yet again. In this 7 year span he has changed his stance on Abortion, Gun Control, Healthcare, Immigration and so on and so on, you get the picture. My point is 7 years and the second is the party/issue flip flop he does. If he does not get the nomination he will flip once more to Independent.

Both men did make a switch but almost all the similarities between the two end there. Ronald Reagan's odyssey from Hollywood liberal to conservative backer took place over almost TWO decades and even then Reagan endorsed the presidential candidacies of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as that of Nixon in 1960 "while remaining a Democrat." No flip from party to party to party. The two main issues Reagan flipped on during his campaign was funding to bail out NYC in which he changed his stance when he saw how much Ed Koch had made steady progress toward restoration of fiscal soundness and opposed Congresses cut of 300 million in loans. The second was a federal loan to Chrysler where he did oppose and then back that loan.

Reagan knew he was not elected to be president of the right wing, he was elected to be president of the United States of America.

Trump says he is generating more enthusiasm than Reagan did. "I think that the closest thing I can think of is Reagan, but I don't think it's the intensity that we have," Trump told Bloomberg Politics. "Now, Reagan had a little bit of this but I don't think to the same extent – but he also won ... and everybody tells me that they've never seen crowds like this, this far away from November."

Reagan didn't talk about himself and Americans appreciated this at the time, and it is a marked contrast to the bombast and narcissism of Trump. Ever notice how Trump continues to talk about how he is doing in the polls, how he is doing here or there and not really talking about issues. Its always about how HE is doing.

Reagan gave me the hope of a better America through optimism. Trump is giving people hope through fear and hate. That's the difference to me.

Don't forget Reagan;

-  brought us Iran/Contra - arms for hostages, which gave us our our "great American hero", twice convicted Oliver North.

-  Largest tax increases in the history of the country to that point - 2 of them. When he saw what a catastrophe his tax cuts had been for fiscal policy - the debt.

-  Amnesty for illegals.  (One of several - ALL brought to us by Republicans. Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush)

-  Took the national debt from about $900 billion (over 200 years) to almost $3 trillion (over 8 years).


But we DID feel better about ourselves....

Thanks for getting the point... not.

Got the point exactly.  Just letting the world know that Reagan was not "just another Messiah"...he had major flaws, too, that have been glossed over for decades by the Murdochian Media.  Look at the history of who he surrounded himself with - in particular as relates to race relations.

But he did make us feel better about ourselves....

And his tv show was really good... "Death Valley Days" !!

If Trump "Palin'd" himself and chose the Oklahoma governor as his running mate...would that get her out of our hair?

If so...how bad is Todd Lamb?  Is he freakishly bad as well?

Edited to say "nevermind"...

Cough..sue Colorado to stop medical marijuana,cough,cough

Yeah, it was a dumbassed question.  Two points deducted

I was just watching Trump trying to get to his thing in California...I've never seen a presidential candidate do what he and the SS had to do to avoid protesters.

St. Ronnie made a campaign visit to Pittsburgh once. If you recall, that was about the time that the steel industry was in a death spiral. Thousands were out of work and the local economy cratered. The tax base for more than one western Pennsylvania community had all but disappeared. St. Ronnie was not popular.

He was scheduled to speak to a group of wealthy Republican donors in a downtown hotel. His staffers arrived in a big black limo in front of the hotel and were thronged by protesters while St. Ronnie buggered in through the back door.

Heh.....!!

(http://i.imgur.com/4kC7gpL.jpg)

(https://chuckieb123.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tin-man-edit.jpg)

Gonna need a really BIG oil can!

And Kasich is out too...not that it really mattered much...

Kasich Dropping Out Of Presidential Race; Donald Trump Assured GOP Nomination

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/kasich-dropping-out-presidential-race-donald-trump-assured-gop-nomination (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/kasich-dropping-out-presidential-race-donald-trump-assured-gop-nomination)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/styles/placed_wide/nprshared/201605/476760383.jpg)

Oklahoma Gov. Fallin endorses Donald Trump's presidential bid, welcomes VP talk

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/oklahoma-gov-fallin-endorses-donald-trump-s-presidential-bid-welcomes/article_080dc9e2-e5b4-5fb9-b2de-92703ecc87a7.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/oklahoma-gov-fallin-endorses-donald-trump-s-presidential-bid-welcomes/article_080dc9e2-e5b4-5fb9-b2de-92703ecc87a7.html)

Oklahoma is a state led by a bunch of deranged morons with serious illnesses.

At least it gets her out of OK.  But then we will just elect the next one just like her....

We got used to using the phrase "President Clinton" once; we can do it again.
...but that campaign voice ::)

Kind of like we got used to saying President Bush again?

I think Trump is wise enough to realize having Murr Failin’ as a running mate would be the kiss of death much like Palin in ’08 was for McCain.

I wouldn’t put it past him to give her a trial seat on his staff though.  :o

He's so wise he made Ben Carson the chair of VP selection committee.

Valuum Ben?

(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/video/2015/10/ben_carson_is_calm_at_gop_debates_he_also_closes_his_eyes_when_he_speaks/sleepingcarson.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg)

Trump might be scary, but he's nothing compared to his minions:



Ken Shupe responded to a woman who was stranded on an interstate in North Carolina on Monday. Shupe is a tow truck driver; the woman had been involved in a wreck, according to reports.

Fox Carolina reported: ”When he saw ‘a bunch of Bernie Sanders stuff’ he said he told the woman, ‘very politely,’” that he could not “tow her car because she was ‘obviously a socialist’ and advised her to ‘call the government’ for a tow.”

Attempts to reach Shupe by The Washington Post were unsuccessful Thursday morning.

Cassandra McWade — who said she had a Sanders yard sign visible in her car, as well as a bumper sticker — said she was “totally in shock” as she watched Shupe pull away.

“Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and he just said get in the truck and leave,” Shupe told an ABC affiliate.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article75941847.html

I don't think much of Mark Cuban, but I do think he has good instincts. He said in an interview recently that he thinks America is becoming "Tribal". Separating into defensive groups of like minded people. It is much easier of course to market to people (or control them) when you know their tribe's wants and needs. That is why he thinks Trump has done so well. He believes in nothing really, other than winning.

Remember last week stood by his statement that Cruz was owned by Gold-man-sacks and how Hillary was bought and sold by Wall Street?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/05/trump-names-former-goldman-partner-soros-money-manager-as-finance-chairman/

Remember a couple of months ago when Trump said Americans are overpaid and raising the minimum wage was stupid?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-open-to-raising-minimum-wage-bushes-have-no-plans-to-back-trump-buzz-grows-for-kaine-as-clinton-vp-2016-05-05

Remember how Trump said you could trust him, because he is self funding and doesn't take donations (he was actually loaning his campaign money, not donating) until he had the nomination locked up and then changed his mind the day after?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-wont-self-fund-general-election-campaign-1462399502

Remember when Trump said we should eliminate the deficit, that borrowing more money was just dumb and then announced a tax plan, which he abandoned a couple days after locking it up and decided we should totally borrow more money?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-reverses-stances-taxes-wages-he-turns-fall-election-n568816

Remember when Trump said the best way to stop terrorism is more torture and to bomb all the women and children so that there wouldn't be any more terrorists int he future, and the military had to speak up and say they wouldn't follow orders that are war crimes, and then Trump decided he didn't really mean it?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/

Remember how one Friday Trump was happy to bash David Duke, then Saturday he said he "doesn't know who David Duke is" so he can't disavow the endorsement, only to say on Sunday that he never heard the name "David Duke" because of a bad earpiece and disavowed the endorsement (he said the name David Duke in the response!)?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

Remember when Trump was "very pro choice," which is before he needed votes in the south and decided he was against abortion, which is before he got their votes and then decided he was pro-choice again?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/donald-trump-abortion-laws/

Remember when Trump said bringing in skilled workers with H1B visas was destroying America, and then said that we need skilled workers and the program was vital, which was a month before he said the program should be killed, until he changed his mind and said we should revise it but we need the program, which was a couple weeks before he decided he is against the program all together?
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/03/04/trump-flip-flops-on-immigration-during-debate/

Remember when Trump was in favor of universal healthcare and a Canadian style system before he wanted to repeal Obamacare but keep the individual mandate which is before he decided he didn't like universal healthcare, Obamacare, or the mandate and picked up the party line?
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/23/donald-trump-incoherent-obamacare


This isn't over the course of a lifetime, over years, or changing direction on an issue because of a honest discussion or life changing event - these are changes on core political issues over the course of a few months - and sometimes back again.

Thanks for that, CF, I'll save it and re-use it with attribution.

Next President.

Might not be the worst thing that could happen.  He is holding up a mirror to the face of the Replicontin party, showing exactly what it has become....the Hijacked Republican Party.  If he pushes all the things he has talked about - most of which the RWRE wets their pants over in the late, dark hours of the night, the rest of us get to see what is behind all the politically correct/fanciful Murdochian Fantasy World View and the Koch Brothers BS Train.

Trump, the reality TV star-turned-GOP front-runner, brought the campaign to a new and – even for this race – surreal place this morning when he raised rumors implicating Cruz's father, Rafael Cruz, in the assassination of JFK. Now Cruz the elder is a fairly repellant figure, but if you're going to basically accuse someone of being involved in what has been described as the "crime of the century," you should do so on a firmer basis than, say, an article from the National Enquirer, which is what Trump has.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-03/oh-my-god-ted-cruz-is-right-for-once-about-donald-trump-of-course

Hard to say what the truth about Daddy Cruz is.  He absolutely fought with Castro in the revolution - that one part of his story is apparently well documented, and he even talks about it.  And then is said to have an epiphany, where he converted to Capitalism.  Time frame is a little obscure.  And where were the Cruz family members that it took them 10 days to get back to Canada when Teddy was born so could get a birth certificate?  Visiting buddies in Cuba?   Planning something "big" for the 70's and the kid interrupted the process??

Daddy was said to have renounced Communism in 1959...after killing how many of our allies??  Or did he just go undercover...?

Neat little package of information was fabricated as to how his conversion occurred - the Cubans 'beat' him, yet he was somehow miraculously able to transport to Texas with a "student visa", which he was able to somehow procure as a poor kid getting fleeing Batista's regime...?  How did he get the money to bribe government functionaries?   Uh, huh...so much more plausible than Obama being born in Hawaii....

Gov. Mary Fallin named as Republican National Convention Platform Committee co-chairwoman

By SAMANTHA VICENT World Staff Writer

So when is she gonna make a statement on the latest 8 years rather than the previous 8?


Well, what can ya expect from Failin'...?

Why is it Republicans always use lurid terminology?  "Leading from behind"?  Hmmm...like that question I asked my friend today at lunch.

I try to use lurid terminology and am not a Republicontin....   What I find most difficult is keeping pace in the lies, distortions, twisting, and dissemination.  I just can't get there from here.  Oh, well...I guess that's why they are more successful with their propaganda - people WANT to believe in fantasy.  Truth, justice, and the American way is just too hard and uncomfortable to deal with so they go to the Koch Fantasy World Agenda.

ITV’s Good Morning Britain asked the man who has widened the world’s understanding of time, space, stars, galaxies and black holes if he could explain the popular appeal of the billionaire tycoon.

Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist and the author of one of the world’s best-selling books, replied: “I can’t. He’s a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/31/stephen-hawking-donald-trump-popularity-inexplicable-and-brexit-spells-disaster

Paul Ryan Endorses Donald Trump

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump)


So there you go...it's going to be okay.

If you say so.  ;D

The fact that everyone in the GOP has been “breathlessly" awaiting Paul Ryan’s endorsement of the presumptive nominee tells us how far the GOP has fallen since 1980 and 1984.

Trump is no Reagan, and how the Hell did Ryan ever become some sort of barometer for conservatives?

Good question.  Can you bring yourself to vote for Hilliary?

Not even on my worst demented day, Red.  Just won’t happen.  I’d rather take a head-long dive into a tree shredder.

So, yeah, Asplundh may just have to be my candidate this year.

That brings an interesting toss up. Some Bernie supporters will certainly not vote for Hillary and some staunch Republicans will not vote for either Trump or Hillary. As yet, there are no estimates of their numbers. Perhaps after the conventions we'lol have better information. But I wonder if the none-of-the-above-I'm -staying-home vote could be enough to sway the election.

Hijacked Republican Party.

My first Presidential election was 1972.  And from that time on, I have only been able to vote FOR a candidate one time - Gerald Ford.  All other times it has been a vote AGAINST a candidate.


How sad - I think before that there were occasional opportunities to vote for someone - maybe Eisenhower.

Over the weekend Trump declared that the multiple class action suits against Trump University are only going forward because the Judge is a Mexican.

You see, Trump is building a wall. And the United States Federal Judge is Mexican. So Trump has only won half of his motions and the case gets to go forward.

What do you call it when you judge a person based on their race or ethnicity? Oh, that's right. Racist.

He is the mirror to over half of the Hijacked Republican Party - showing the truth behind their previously "politically correct" thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.  This is what they really are.  It is finally coming out of the dark, dank, hiding places they have kept it for so long....

A new poll show Hillary up over Trump by 7 points....


In Kansas.

Romney beat Obama by 22 points in Kansas. Could even Oklahoma be in play?

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/capitol-report/2016/jun/10/poll-shows-clinton-leading-in-kansas-bro/

Still think you guys are reading WAY too much into Trump. In the end I truly believe 80% of the reason he is winning is solely because he is a celebrity. That's it.

You recall in '08 they would ask random people on the streets (aka voters) what policies they liked about Obama, and no one could really name anything...except they were getting free phones ;-)

You ask they same types why they support Trump and I bet you will get similar responses. The only difference is that Trump has no filter and doesn't go out of his way not to offend people where Obama was far more refined. On the flip side though, Trump is FAR more of a celebrity than Obama ever hoped to be. In other words, he has more latitude to get away with all that garbage.

Thanks to a new program started by Reagan and under Bush to include cellphones...

SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Ha! A good example of both how government tends to grow and about how internet memes are usually wrong.  ;)

When does Nate Silver usually start weighing in on POTUS elections?  He’s a good barometer.

I think 538 is holding off on aggregated polls until after the conventions. I like seeing an aggregate because it's easy to tell which are outliers pushing one candidate over another.

One poll I noticed this morning watching the talking heads was that in Utah, Trump and Clinton are even.  Let that sink in.  That's Utah.  Trump is a train wreck.

I've read so many things going poorly for the Trump Campaign the last few days. 

I can't tell if it's true or if the news providers are telling people what they want to hear.

I am still surprised he has stayed in it this long...I really thought he would drop out way before now. 

Wouldn't that be a great soap opera twist - Trump withdraws at the convention?

Ironic Trump fact of the day -

A few years back he was sued on a business deal gone bad. In discovery they started fighting about emails - the other side wanted Trump's emails and other communications. Trump didn't want to produce anything, so eventually the judge ordered the emails to be produced. But Trump claimed that he personally never used email, that any emails any of his organizations used were deleted, and that the decision makers in his organization all used personal and/or public email servers. No emails were ever produced in response to the Court Order.

The lawsuit was then settled.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

https://www.rt.com/usa/346696-donald-trump-deleted-emails/ 


If you haven't paid attention to all the lawsuit, legal threats, and utter nonsense The Donald does with the Courts - you're missing out. He sues journalists for $5,000,000,000 dollars for saying he isn't a billionaire. He threatens to sue anyone who disagrees with him (including attorneys during Court proceedings). I'm sure he has some legitimate lawsuits, but he has many that are just bluster and an attempt to shut up critics (pesky First Amendment).

The Onion posted

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
"But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Wow.  This guy...

Secret message to his Trump Militia. No one was supposed to notice.

Truth.  She has been after that goal for years.  She even said, "If the Second Amendment is a personal right..."   Even though the Supreme Court has actually defined it as such.  (Heller)

The saving grace here is that if she wins, it is unlikely she will get a veto proof Congress to go with.  

Supreme Court justice is much more dicey.  That's why I have mentioned before that the current congress (undeserving of capital letter) is being totally stupid.  They have a great opportunity here to ratify a serious candidate, nominated by a moderate "Republican" President, who has a good judicial background that would most likely maintain the status quo as closely as we could ever hope for the next couple of regimes.

I am even more scared of one of them choosing a justice than I am of either being in office.  That really sucks!!

They're more correctly called brownshirts rather than militia. Militias had some form of organization.

"They're cummin' fer year guuuuuns!" Why are gun nuts such fearful people? Remember, it was Obama coming for your guns 8 years ago. When did that happen? Edward R. Murrow said, "We are not descended from fearful men." He said that from London during the blitz. Yet here we are less than a century later seeing the NRA and Herr Trump using fear as a tool to manipulate people. Get a grip.

(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/obama-gun-control-room-body.jpg)

So he does have a place to put them ready to go.
 
 ;D

Nah, that's just the place he was going to store the bullets.

I was surprised to see his militia demonstrating outside the republican convention. Someone sent me a link for a guy who pranked them during a rally speech. It was funny till I realized that the press had not covered their rallies. Their behavior would have scared most Americans. Dang liberal media.

That is why there are organizations like the NRA.  It is not due to lack of desire or trying - how many times have you heard him talking about it in those last 8 years.  And before.  Intent is the predecessor to action.

Not fearful at all - that's what I was getting at about the Congress and Courts being where they are now.  That's why I am Lifetime Member NRA.  Will always be vigilant about our rights - not just the 2nd Amendment, but ALL of them.  It's "We, the People..." - in the amendments that mention "the people".


There is a poster that says, "There are 170 million gun owners in this country, with about 20 gazillion rounds of ammunition.... If we were a problem,  you would know it."

With all the talk about gun control, I still haven't heard ANY politician say exactly how they are gonna take guns away from criminals - just law abiding citizens.

Wait... whose threatening to take your guns away?

I know I've been hearing it on Obama for 8 years now, but he has done absolutely nothing with gun control or gun violence. So that's 8 years of utter fear mongering and BS. Under Bush, it was the Democrats that ran Congress who were going to take my guns away, they didn't do anything in 8 years either. Then there was the Republican Congress under Clinton, who passed legislation putting a waiting period on handguns and banning sales of new assault rifles with certain characteristics... but that you could certainly still own and could always still buy (just not new). But Clinton never took anyone's guns away. Before that was Bush I who didn't take anyone's guns away. Reagan was in favor of gun control, but he didn't take anyone's guns away either. I've been hearing the same stupid line for at least 20 years, and still no one has tried to take my guns away. Not once.

Yet more than 50% of gun owners think the gubment' is trying to take their guns. Charleston Heston said you can have his gun when you pry it from his cold, dead hands, in 2000...he's now been dead for nearly a decade. Still no one has pried that gun from his hands.

So lets recap: no one has said they are going to take your guns away and the Federal government never has taken guns away as a matter of policy. 

But boy, is it an effective scare tactic!  THEYRE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS PEOPLE! ALL OF EM! Day took er jobs! Save the guns! Any. Day. They're coming! I know they didn't take your guns for the 200 years before the NRA, but now they only aren't taking them because of the NRA! In fact, if it wasn't for the NRA the Queen of England could march right in and take your house. How would you like that? And notice we haven't had any alien invasions since Will Smith started protecting us all by joining the Men in Black!

Where's this level of enthusiasm for our 1st Amendment rights? Or the 4th, or 6th, or... you know, Amendments that are actually violated by the government on a daily basis. Literally every, single day. But lets totally concentrate on that one amendment that really isn't under threat.

Obama has acted repeatedly - as has Hillary - that their intent is to remove guns from private ownership.  They and many others explicitly support the agenda of the Brady Bunch Clown Show.

And as I said just a few minutes ago - intent is the predecessor to action.  He wants to be he also has been unable to because of the checks and balances that we have.  He has been unable to accomplish anything, but most certainly NOT because he didn't want to!!  

Recap - Yes, they have stated that the intent is to take guns away.  Because they haven't is a matter of a strong, robust opposition to concept.



As for Obama's previous intent -

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to a case where a homeowner defended himself against a burglar who broke into his house....twice!  Hale DeMar.  The state law was to give homeowners some measure of 'castle doctrine' protection - provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.  Twice.  The governor vetoed it when it did pass, which was overridden.

Written a little over-dramatically, but covers the basics....
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-01-22/news/0401220356_1_alarm-bedroom-police

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

What would you call it when he votes against peoples right to defend themselves in their own home?   Twice.





Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Feb 11, 2008 interview.  Pre-Potomac primary interview by ABC7 and Politico.


Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.



We could also address the actual problems that cause the "violence on the streets" - it is illicit drug activity.  Creating profits that fuel the demand for a variety of illegal things, including guns, drugs, murder, prostitution, burglary, robbery, etc.   Where is the effort to eliminate the profit?  Eliminate the root cause??

Instead we keep wasting time, energy, money on things that don't even address the symptoms, let alone the root cause!   Because "the light is better over here..."

You mean that horrible Republican Brady and the horrible Republican Congress that passed the Brady Bill? Where they required gun dealers to actually verify the statements made that the buyer was legally allowed to own a firearm. The horror! Thanks Obama (for not being Republican and not having anything to do with the Brady Bill, I guess?)

Both Hillary and Obama have repeatedly and consistently said that they do not intend to remove guns from citizens who are legally allowed to possess firearms. Not only have they said they aren't going to do it, they actually haven't made any attempts at doing it. It has as much basis in reality as the news story that Trump won't release his tax returns because it shows donations to NAMBLA. A really fun conspiracy theory, but no basis in reality.

If Obama and/or Hillary was a dictator with no checks, do I think they would enact stronger gun control than Donald "I was in favor of gun control before I was against it" Drumpf? Sure (until Donald changes his mind again). Obama and Hillary would both allow local governments to restrict conceal carry or open carry. They would have stronger background checks. They would try to ban new assault rifles. I can see either of them doing those things. But those restrictions in no way amount to "taking our guns away!!!1!!1!!1!!" They are in no way trying to ban private citizens from owning guns. It's just nonsense for a huge number of reasons (ignoring the shear logistics [hi, we'd like 340 million guns please-] the fact that police/military wouldn't implement it, the fact it wouldn't pass Congress, the fact that Courts wouldn't uphold it on 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment grounds).

In 2008 the NRA warned that Obama was going to introduce a "10 point plan" to change the 2nd Amendment. In 2000 the NRA warned that the Democrats in Congress had a plan to take away all privately owned semi automatic weapons. Now Hillary has a secret plan. Eventually, you have to just admit its bluster, a scare tactic, and a conspiracy theory to keep the cash and influence rolling in. You can only cry wolf a decade or two before rational people stop listening to you.

/sorry for the thread drift

Yeah... Republicans...People acting on Brady's behalf.  Dems got no monopoly on being wrong on the subject - George H W Bush resigned his Lifetime NRA membership to placate the nattering nabobs of negativity - very casually held principals sacrificed at the first sign of discomfort for political expediency.  And see how wrong they are about so much other stuff right now...Trump.  Cruz.  Ryan.  


And there has been no one as vile and disgusting on the topic as Trump.  His comments about the NRA taking care of Hillary.  You can tell that I am very pro-NRA.  I am even MORE against violence and threatening same.  It takes the most horrendous low life of bottom feeders to even say something like that...and his minions are exactly the same - continuing to support that ugliness.  There are not words... that I can use here!  

When added to his comments about POW's and mocking of the handicapped...well, I am at a loss for words.  Amazingly.  And the people that still support him - just as bad - it says exactly what they are, too!


We do have direct, applicable experience of exactly where Clinton's head is on this - she and Billy Bob were the architects of the semi-auto rifle and magazine ban during his term.  It was made absolutely obvious at the time that was just the first step to where they wanted to go.  They have "admired" Australia's method of gun control for a long time.  Even after the expiration of the ban, when it was completely obvious that it made NO difference they continue to advance this failed policy as something we should do again.  It's simple insanity - trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  How about working on some of the things that are actual causes??  As mentioned again earlier.


Edit;

Chicago is up to 2,526 shootings for the year in Chicago.  Up from I think about 1600 when I started posting about this.  In spite of draconian gun laws.  Shows what a mess Obama in the state legislature, and his buddy as mayor have made of the city.  Not improving at all - getting worse!   Perfect example of "looking where the light is better".

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

Speaking of Trump - guess who refuses to release the names of his bundlers? Ding ding ding!

Guess who had dinner with Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire who was financing "Little Marco" and turned him into a "puppet" for big donors?

Harold Hamm agrees to speak at the GOP convention after Trump hints he might be appointed secretary of energy. Donation time!

Guess what every member of his "economic advisory council" has in common? Economic degrees? Nope. Experience in world economics? Nope. 6 figure donations to the Trump campaign?  Ding ding ding!

Guess who isn't, and never has self financed their campaign?

Gee Donald, it's almost like you mock others for activities that you engage in even more egregiously. Hypocrite.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-fundraising-bundlers-226803

I can't express how much I dislike this man on every possible level. I HATE conspiracy theories, and nearly everything this guy says is a conspiracy theory:

Losing the polls, media conspiracy theory.

If I lose the election, conspiracy theory.

Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy theory.

Mass shootings, conspiracy theory.

Man climbing Trump tower:

Clearly a conspiracy theory. Behold, Hillary Clinton is all powerful!

You may be a moderate when it comes to other items, but when it comes to gun-control you are pretty much full on hard-right conservative.  I own three guns and not once have I been worried about them being taken.

However, the tell was when you indicated you were a lifetime NRA member.  Then the light went on.

The NRA got so bad early enough on that George HW resigned his lifetime membership based on how the NRA acts.  Which really is more like an arm of the gun lobby and more for gun manufacturers than what they used to do...which is educate gun owners.


Saint Ronny even said this:

There's a new stand up special on Netflix:  "David Cross - Make America Great Again."   Very political / very offensive / highly recommended.   He does a great routine on Trump and his supporters (also, gun-control, religion, etc).

St. Ronnie...I love it!  That's great.


And I have mentioned Lifetime Member NRA on numerous occasions.  And I have actually touched on that here before - I guess it could be considered hard right conservative - I am VERY much into what the RWRE  SAYS about gun control - they take their lead from me!  Probably beyond.  Lets encourage law abiding citizens to have guns and learn how to use them properly.  I feel as passionately about shooting sports as some people feel about other sports around here.   That does NOT mean everyone should have guns - we already have reasonable, common-sense laws in place - thousands of them.  That are not effectively nor consistently enforced.  How about showing we can enforce the laws we have before just creating more bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.  How about addressing actual root causes before trying to impose on the rights of the people?  

And while we are at it, how about if Hillary stops lying about "gun violence".  When you, me, or pretty much everybody hears that phrase it means people killing others with guns.  It is intellectual dishonesty at it's "best" when she spews her BS about it.  She asserts "90 people a day die from gun violence in our country. That's 33,000 people a year."

The CDC publishes statistics on causes of death for all Americans. Here are the figures from their 2013 update:

    21,175 suicide by gun
    11,208 homicide by gun
    505 accidental discharge of firearms
    32,888 total deaths by firearm


How many of the 11,208 true gun violence deaths are caused by illegal drug related activities?  In the top 15 highest murder rate cities, with the largest amount of gang activity?   Most of them.   Root causes - why not address those first??  Drugs.  Mental health.  Those two items likely cover essentially all of the gun related deaths in this country.  (Suicide is a very serious mental health issue.)  Cure them and we would probably be as low as the rest of the world on gun deaths.  Maybe lower - 505 accidental discharges?  About like bathtub falls.  But those are both difficult problems that require actual thought and action.  Where "gun control" is a convenient, mindless sound bite - easily spewed - that gives people a warm fuzzy that "something" can actually be done without the true required investment.

One other data point that gets a lot of attention on a national level - AS IT SHOULD - is domestic violence.  Just over 1,600 women were killed in 2013 by domestic violence.  And while the reporting on it is highly biased as shown by their reporting of it - "the most common weapon used was a gun" - it was actually 53% killed by a firearm.  This is definitely a mental health issue - it takes one sick, pathetic, disgusting, SOB, whether male or female, to commit violence against their partner.  There is no excuse for it ever, and like killing someone drunk driving, I feel it should be a capital offense (another little 'right wing' characteristic of mine...?)


I am also very much that way about the 1st Amendment.  And all the others that mention "the people" in them.  Non-people amendments don't need 'help', they can take care of themselves.  That is "architecture" of the system.   And what takes it back away from the RWRE is things where "the people" are definitely affected, but the RWRE is out to get them on.  Like the Miranda event where police have to tell people they have certain rights or it cannot be used in court.  That is the antithesis of what right wing extremism is all about - even to the point of not just endorsing, but advocating torture.

I am neither extreme right, nor extreme left - I am extreme 90 degrees!!  I am an extreme moderate....!


If you haven't been concerned about your guns being taken, that's great.  No one should have to worry about it.  But that also shows they don't really mean that much to you one way or another.  Do you participate in any shooting sports?   Your interest and participation is certainly not at the level of one of our soccer fans here.  Or any of the various OU nutcases fans around the state!


Like I said before - 170 million gun owners not a problem.  Millions of them with AR styling.  Not a problem.   It is propagandized as a problem because "the light is better over here..."

Trump is Bat Sh%t crazy. Now Obama is the founder of ISIS? FOUNDER! AND he backed those words up. I can see people saying he created the vacuum that helped create ISIS, but he was the founding father of ISIS?

No faster way to get Hillary elected than to have someone like Trump run against her. The Dems must be beside themselves with pure joy at these latest comments.

Put the two Vice President candidates on a ticket together and then we have a winner.

wow, just plain and simple wow.

The NRA is no real friend to the average law-abiding gun owner and have not been since they veered off course in 1977 toward politics.

They whipped up such a frenzy over “assault weapons" before/after Obama was elected the prices doubled virtually over night for the guns and for the most common ammo sizes.  None of this was ever based in reality.  All it did was cause artificial shortages and double prices for people who use this type of weapon for sporting and recreational purposes.

Why do they keep manufacturing crisis and pumping out non-starters?  It keeps their membership rolls very flush.  What would they be without their lobbying and advocacy for the average gun owner?  They have managed to stretch the truth and outright pull what they know are lies simply to get the sheeple to follow and to keep sending them money.

At one time I was close to joining the NRA.  That was before I read a letter from LaPierre addressed to President Obama which showed a complete lack of respect for the President and the office of the Presidency.  All LaPierre was doing was trying to flex his muscle in front of the NRA loyal while ruining a chance at any meaningful discussion with Obama or other Democrat leaders with his childishness.  I also started examining much closer the rhetoric coming from the NRA and realized they were full of smile.  The NRA is a clearly partisan association with no interest in finding middle ground because that isn’t what makes them money.

It had been speculated for some time that Drumpf was nothing more than a foil for Hilarity.  Way back when he entered the race.

Ya gotta fight crazy with crazy.  You know that.


Manufacturing crisis..?  Like the manufactured crisis of "gun violence" in America being caused by guns??  Talk about a classic example of "The Big Lie".  You have to be familiar with that - it's the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."  Like the extremist anti-gunners do.

And so much of the RWRE that they have driven YOU to be a 'recovering' Republican.  Your party was hijacked in the 80's.  Mine was hijacked in the 60's.

Maybe we should get together and start a party of reasonable people with measured, rational thought?

He didn't even create the vacuum - Saddam Hussein being eliminated created that particular vacuum.  And that was a morphing of the already existing Al Qaeda scheme.  Related to Taliban.  Which Reagan/Bush I supported in Afghanistan against Russia.  And before that the Iranian revolution in direct response to US CIA installation of puppet Shah of Iran.  And Israel taking over Palestine and so forth and on and on.  There is NO independent event or entity that started this - it is an ongoing reactionary evolution from the deep dark mists of time.

Major gun legislation follows major blood letting over the last 80 years. The 1934 firearms act was a response to organized crime and attendant lawlessness. The 1968 GCA came about due to the Kennedy assasinations, and the Brady act followed the attempted assassination of President Reagan. Some violent act may yet galvanize the nation and bring another round of gun legislation. It's nearly inevitable. I'm wondering how "law abiding gun owners" will react when the public opinion shifts and the law shifts with it.

We’ve whipped the dead horse of “assault” weapons violence endlessly.  I believe Dback is the one that refers to it as beating the skeleton into fertilizer or something close to that.

One thing we’ve not done is expose the complete fallacy that an uber powerful Democrat like Hilarity or Obama can repeal the 2nd Amendment.  I don’t see certain classes of weapons being legislated out in our lifetime.  If that was going to happen it would have happened from ’08 to ’10 when Obama had the muscle in the House and Senate.  The Supremes cannot repeal 2A, so that’s complete fear-mongering that Hilarity would select a justice just to up-end 2A.  “Read my lips, not gonna happen!” (Dana Carvey finger wag).

That party already exists for reasonable people.  They are fielding Johnson and Weld as pretty reasonable candidates.  If people will look beyond the tired old saw that the Libertarian Party are a bunch of dope-smoking anarchists, there’s a place for moderates, liberals, and conservatives.

True.  None of them can repeal it - without a major imbalance like we have not had in a long time.  I have said that it ain't gonna happen anytime soon just because of where Congress and Judicial precedence are right now.  That's why I am not too worried about it...and said so.  Must remain vigilant.  Would like nothing better than for the NRA-ILA to become obsolete no longer needed and let them concentrate totally on their main goals - hunter/shooting training and firearm safety programs.



I am more than just a little curious - wondering why no one has brought up Hillary's "veiled threat" against Obama from 2008 here??  There is a missed opportunity for our die-hard Republicans to come back at the left in response to the frenzy on Trump's 2nd Amendment threat....

538 forecast today (polls only)

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)

Chance of winning:

Hillary Clinton
87.5%

Donald Trump
12.5%

Oklahoma's one of the few states that stays bright red no matter how you mess with the election forecast.  Trump would need to ride into Oklahoma and publically execute every Sooner Football player and their mothers to hurt his chances here.

Heir, I think you have hit upon something that you and I see eye to eye on. Specifically the issue of mental health with relationship to gun violence, and the distortion of the numbers of gun deaths in the US. I am not currently a gun owner, but I have no problem with gun owners, it's their right to own them and I would be willing to say that 99% are not the issue here. I don't think anyone is coming to get peoples guns except for the criminals that steal them for the purpose of committing another crime.

You mention mental health, and that is, and has been an issue in a vast majority of gun deaths going back to the the 1960's, and a lot of that has to do with the closing of mental hospitals and institutions starting in the 60's and then accelerating through to the 80's. Let me be clear on one thing about this, and that is the way patients were treated in these facilities was absolutely horrible, no one deserves the treatment and lack of that they received. For years it was just medicate them and store them, and if they cause problems ignore them and just tie them to their bed.

The thing that gets lost on St. Ronnie is that he and Gov. Brown Sr. and Gov. Moonbeam (Brown Jr.) were instrumental in closing mental facilities in California back in the 60's and 70's, and when there was a rise in crime, the comment from the leaders in California was appalling.


http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/)


http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all)

 

Organized crime and attendant lawlessness - direct, foreseeable, predictable result of alcohol prohibition.  And the 'massacres' that spurred it were some high visibility gangland murders numbering a few dozen at the outside - even the St. Valentines day massacred only involved 1 outside 'civilian' who wasn't a gang member. 

Just exactly like the government has positioned us today.  Prohibition of substances that many people use and failed attempts to stop it by putting people in prison.  I have posted Chicago's shooting rate - over 2,600 by this month!  Growth of organized crime was one of the  factors influencing the repeal of alcohol prohibition.  Why hasn't growth of organized crime gotten rid of marijuana prohibition?   If one is into conspiracy stuff, ya might thing someone is making money on it who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  And has their hands on a control lever that keeps the situation as it is.  Who has their hands on the DEA drug classification lever?  And keeping these drugs criminalized??



And all these acts that "galvanize"....  One or two or 20 or 50 something shootings.  Affluent white people mostly.  White kids.  Mostly.   Can the contrast be any more stark than the shooting results of just Chicago a little over half way through this  year?   2,600 +.  Poor.  Black. Latino.  Not even talking Detroit, DC, L.A., New Orleans.  When are we gonna admit to the root cause, and then actually do something about it?



I can here the deniers now, "No, that's not how it is....!!"   Yeah, that's exactly how it is.



 

Yay!!!!   Hooray for us!!    Common ground is good!!   (There may be hope for you after all....Lol...)


Mental health has always been just one more thing we fail miserably at and I don't see much chance of it getting better anytime soon.  I have literally had it expressed in my office that mental health problems mean they "just weren't strong enough..."      Well, duh!!!   Kinda the definition of the problem - something wrong to start with.  Or can be induced as in PTSD that is afflicting so many of our kids now!  The comment was from a Marine who has never actually been in combat about two guys we were talking about who have seen WAY TOO MUCH combat, and are deeply adversely affected by it.  One Marine, one Special Forces (my nephew).

And many more types of problems that we just don't wanna "see"....


Reagan did essentially the same thing when AIDS started showing up in a big way - he literally delayed research on drugs/treatment for years.  And we all know why that was.   I had 3 good friends who died from that pernicious disease - not that long before effective treatments did come online.  If that delay had not been imposed, there is probably a reasonable chance they would still be around.   The world IS a reduced place because they are no longer here.


  

heiron, you freak me out sometimes when you talk about 2A. I feel as if I have passed into an alternate universe.

That being said it is quit refreshing to be "with you" instead of against you. You are just so dang prepared for discussions.

And I agree with the concern over the 2nd. Obviously it is incredibly unlikely anything significant happens in the current environment. But that doesn't mean that it never could. There is a reason the 1st and 2nd amendments are right up front. It's because they are both critically important to the freedoms that the rest detail. It would be refreshing to have candidates who are fervent protectors of these two in particular, as they are pretty well received by virtually the entire population. Who is against free speech?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d7/a6/f4/d7a6f4bd52d6343ad571fe6d254d8c85.jpg)

In regards to Trump (the thread subject), I have basically stopped paying attention. The reports of what says are too unbelievable for me to consider that he is really trying to win. I know in a lot of cases something is probably being taken out of context (not all the time, just anything from CNN). But at this point it doesn't matter. He is (was) good buddies with the Clinton's (enough to get invited to wedding I believe). I've just concluded that he must be a plant. Two birds with one stone. On that note, it is easy to cast stones at the "people" supporting Trump. But I would tread lightly. They are not all brain dead morons (all thought some are). Many I would guess are just trying to defend the alternative to Clinton. Fair or not, he is the only person that has even a remote shot at beating Clinton.

Kinda like a 'Twilight Zone' episode...??  If so, then my work is done!

I am sure I will have more to say about your post after I 'digest' it for a while, but I want you to know that I am thrilled to know that I get a reaction!  In your case, freaking out may not be exactly the optimum...but hey, maybe that can change.  The most important part is to get people THIMKING!   Instead of just blindly, blandly, sitting there with their heads in that vast intellectual brownfield where the sun don't shine!!   Get their information from various places instead of just one of these - Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, RTV, BBC - get it from ALL of them!  I mentioned one of the guys I worked with was astounded I listen to Fox - I also told him that I probably listen to them more than he does!  No commercial media does balanced!  PBS/NPR are as close as one can get, and even they let there internal inclinations show through.  Look - or actually listen - to who is News Director on KWGS now, though...John Durkee!  Imagine that...18 years of Faux News and now he is on NPR!!    You won't find that kind of liberal acceptance of alternate belief systems on Faux News.  Or any Murdochian/Koch/Cheney enterprise.

I think he is also a very good news journalist...just my opinion...




Anyone - everyone - catch it?

And while I was in the zone, thinking about KWGS, I went to their site to maybe stream a little NPR, and found this;


http://publicradiotulsa.org/listen-live


I have a version of that radio.  It is brown leather and GE brand, but it is the same in all other respects.  The guy version of it.  Kinda neat.

Donald is being revealed as having huge Russian ties.

First off, his campaign manager has been revealed in an Ukrainian anti-corruption probe to have received $11.7 million in off the books funds from former Ukrainian president and Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=0




Trump has all his own Russian problems and that's likely why he will never release his tax returns, they are going to show he owes hundreds of millions if not billions to Russian oligarchs linked to and dependent on Putin.

http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-explaining/ (http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-explaining/)


and


and worst of all:

Ever wondered where you stand on the political scales??   Take the test....while seeing where some of these clowns were in 2012.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Interesting.  I'm a little left of center libertarian.

I am almost right in the middle of Left / Libertarian:  Economic Left/Right: -5.5, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69.

Just to the right of Gandhi myself.

That said, so much in that poll seemed irrelevant to me in terms of someone’s political make up.

On the results page, they showed Stalin and Hitler very close.  It has occurred to me in the past that as one goes further left or right, one ends up at the same place on the far side of rational - a control economy where the govt entity decides what the economy is to do and kills all political life in the country.  This chart reflects what happened with both of those two. - same end result.






Not sure I get why they showed Kinky Friedman on that chart - doesn't seem to be right wing at all - he isn't that kind of political....   (Lol...wait for it...!)

But better than Merle Haggard, I guess...   BUT if you follow this link - don't!!  Fair warning - it's hard core politically incorrect....no, not incorrect, it's just politically wrong!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__tAHR5ErM



Ok, ok,...in the interest of trying to make up for that, I offer this very nice rendition of a classic....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_DKWlrA24k

This is great:

'

Donald Trump said that. DONALD TRUMP SAID THAT.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37086578

Bigotry:

"He's a Mexican..." - Trump explaining why a Federal Judge is unable to do his job.

2 - the number of times the US Government has sued companies controlled by The Donald for not renting to black people (his dad was so bad at this he made it into a Woody Guthrie song).

$200,000 - the fine levied against Trump casinos for bending to the racist whims of Trump's friends & hiding black employees when Trump and Ivana showed up

"I have a great relationship with the blacks"

David Duke. KKK. Neo Nazis.

“I don’t know where he was born,” - no one has ever seen Trump's "long form" birth certificate...

"I'd ban all Muslims."

"Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, probably some of them are OK."

"Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!"

“they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.” - referring to members of the Mashantucket Pequot Nation who he thought was stealing his casino business

“They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.” - defending his supporters who beat up a man they thought was Mexican

“You’re not going to support me, because I don’t want your money,” he said. “You want to control your own politician.” - in a speech to "the Jews"

"Look at my African American over there" - Trump when he saw a black guy at his rally

For fun, support for Trump and racist internet searches correlate very well: (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html?action=click&module=TrendingGrid&region=TrendingTop&pgtype=collection&_r=0)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcUQKLOWwAA6UHe.jpg)


Hatred:

Mexicans. Blacks. Muslims. Democrats. Republicans. Handicap people. Women. Babies. The media. China. etc. etc. etc.


The Constitution:

1st Amendment  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/)- wants to make it easier to sue people for saying things you don't like. It is a very good possibility that Trump has sued more people for saying things he doesn't like than anyone else. In particular, he wants to limit freedom of the press so if they do things he doesn't like he can win money.

He also wants to ban people from entering the country based on religion, allow the government to search members of a particular group without a warrant, shut down ""the mosques," etc.

2nd Amendment - he was in favor of gun control before he was against it. But he's for The 2nd Amendment now.

4th Amendmen (http://www.dontcomply.com/trump-carson-ignore-4th-amendment-want-human-databases-for-all-americans/)t - he is favor of a national database of Muslims. When asked if he would go against the Constitution and allow warrantless searches he said "we’re going to have to do things that we never did before, and some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule and certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

5th Amendment - not a big fan of due process or the prohibition on government taking, particularly when he can use eminent domain to have the government take your property for his profit.

6th Amendment - not a huge fan of the rights of the accused. During the debacle that was the New York 5 (5 men accused of rape, thrown under the bus and later exonerated and paid $40mil for getting railroaded) he ran full page ads trying to taint the jury pool before trial. Even after DNA evidence cleared the men, he still says they are guilty and should be back in jail.

8th Amendment - he is favor of torture and beating people on the streets. Both in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

9th Amendment - he has repeatedly said "that isn't a right. You can't show it to me in the Constitution" when speaking about immigration, about abortion, about privacy, etc. The 9th Amendment specifically says it doesn't have to be written out in the Constitution to be a guaranteed right.

14th Amendment - he wants to abandon birthright citizenship...

16th Amendment - he has stated previously that he wants to kill the 16th Amendment (income tax)

18th Amendment - I assume he's against this one.


Doin' fine there Donald.



(I wrote this last night, I may have been drinking, and stopped doing citations at a certain point... clicked post today. Good job me for waiting until sober me could review before posting!)

Shockingly middle of the road. In Oklahoma, I feel like a flaming liberal.

That said, I suck at these tests. For example: When you ask me if quick decision making is an advantage of a one party state, the answer is "agree." It absolutely IS an advantage of a one party state, does that mean I agree with it? NO. I suspect my response in that regard alters the result.

(https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif)

That's a great post - keep on drinking!


Sadly, since he has never read the Constitution, just like so many of his followers when they say, "It's not in the Constitution..."    Well, it doesn't have to be.  The Supreme Law of the Land, as DEFINED by the Constitution, is composed of that document PLUS the laws passed by Congress, mostly incarnate as the CFR, and Treaties ratified by the Senate.   (CF, I know you know this - this is for those with the low, sloping brow syndrome who don't/can't read...)

That lack of understanding by the unwashed RWRE masses is what gave Bush/Cheney/Rove the support they needed to break not just our laws, but international law, and - again, by definition - commit war crimes.  Could crimes against humanity be far behind??   Not only did we tolerate it as a nation, but embraced it...cheered it on...and let it again come to life again in the manifestation of Trump.  Who once again advances the idea of torture and war crimes as just 'business as usual', that we should be committing.

And so many of us really do have the total lack of awareness to seriously ask the question, "Why do they hate us...?"   The 'plaintive bleat' answer is because they are jealous, which of course is a fallacy.  We just keep on keeping on....

Lots of ambiguity.


I just went with what I "agree", not what I think really happens without regard for consequences.  So, I ended up with more libertarian than I would probably want in the real world.  Except for myself, of course!   Nobody can tell me how to live my life better than I can!

Please don't take this as support for The Donald, but on a couple of those.

14th - the constitution does not require birthright citizenship. So that is something that is up for debate, particularly since the court has never made a ruling on so called "anchor babies".

16th - There are sane people that are for "flat tax/fair tax" or whatever. I favor more of a consumption tax and would be perfectly fine with no income tax. Some states do it, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

18th - Do you have a citation on that one that he would be against it? ;D  You must have been the most drunk at this point.


The political compass questions were strange in some cases. Very leading questions, as in I don't know how they would use some of them to draw a conclusion since not affirming non-binary questions doesn't really mean anything in some cases. But none the less my chart is below. I'm sure it's a huge shock to you all.  ::)

(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=2.38&soc=-2.82)

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."


Not sure what you mean by "does not require birthright citizenship".  Anyone born here just IS a citizen.  No requirement in any way.



We aren't very far apart after all on that chart... Good!  There is hope for you after all!!  Lol....

if you include "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it makes a difference. 

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Obviously that is not how the law is being applied, which also doesn't make it right.

Would it really take much to change the policy that we currently follow? Assuming it could stand up to constitutional review, which I think it would. I'm sure there would be lawsuit after lawsuit, which would be interesting because I assume they would have to be filed by non-citizens to have standing. Is that even possible? for non-citizen to have standing?

No, I have no citation that he is against the 18th Amendment. And holy crap, The Donald doesn't and never has drank alcohol (and wants to "go after" alcohol companies the same way we went after cigarette companies). Crap on a cracker. Maybe I gave him too much credit. http://conservativeamerica-online.com/3-donald-trump-does-not-drink-alcohol/
- - -


Re birthright citizenship - we have always had birthright citizenship. The concept is so old it has a Latin name,  jus soli (so it must be true!). The notion that immigrants should be excluded because of history is pure fiction. If they want to change the way it has always been done, stand up and say so. But they hide behind a false notion of tradition.

In 1607 the first baby born to settlers was automatically a citizen of Great Britain and of the Colony of Virginia. When Britain took over Spanish areas or French areas, people born there were British. That held until 1776, when we declared all citizens independent from Britain and citizens of a new nation. As early as 1830 the Supreme Court said "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

After a time, each State declared which free persons born in their territories were citizens (see Dred Scott v. Sanford, an amazing and painful case). The Federal government affirmed the position through the civil war that anyone born in the US was a prima fascia citizen, and the burden was on the States to prove why that "natural born right" was to be taken away. Obviously, slave holding states tried very hard to take that right away from free black people born in their territory (prior to the civil war).

That changed with the 14th Amendment, which preempted the power of the States and declared all persons born in the US to be citizens of the United States. The assumption was that certain groups of people wouldn't be deemed undesirable by certain factions who control certain states (black people at that time) and would therefore be excluded from citizenship. To prevent this, the Fed forced States to adopt as citizens anyone born within their territory and afforded the children the rights of a citizen (incidentally, a similar concept put the Cherokees in a tight spite visa vis the Freedmen).

The law you discuss was passed 2 years before adoption of the amendment. It illustrates that Congress clearly knew how to delineate children born to citizens and those subject to a foreign power and had robust debate in that regard, yet in drafting the 14th Amendment they made no such distinction. Ergo, they intentionally did not exclude children born to foreign citizens. They easily could have, immigration was as, if not more prevalent then than it is now.

And all of this is just background noise, because the issues has been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States 130 years ago. California tried to exclude citizenship to those pesky Chinese that kept coming over (we kept advertising for them to come over to provide cheap labor... then whined about it). The Court ruled that children born in the US to parents who are the citizens of another nation are granted US Citizenship by virtue of their birth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark).  The Court specifically dismissed the argument you raised about "subject to foreign powers," which was relied upon by the dissent. If you are here... you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so the point was moot. Additional cases in the 1980s further buttress the 130 year old rule (requiring public education for children of illegal immigrants, as they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US).

I linked the Wikipedia page to the case above. Really good discussion of this case and contemporary arguments therein. I'd also recommend you read Dred Scott, so much history in that case - particularly when we know what was going on in the broader aspect at the time and what the ultimate result was.

So yeah, we could change the policy. After 130 years of jurisprudence and millions of people who have been citizens for generations, we could do it. But we would almost certainly need a Constitutional Amendment to do it. When Congress has been presented mere legislation on the issue, it has died before seeing the light of debate.

Wong Kim Ark was here legally.

You even quote

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

This does not include those here illegally.

I know the link below is authored by "right wingers" but it quotes authors of the legislation. They clearly meant this to apply to those here legally, which I am not arguing against. What is at question is the "anchor baby" policy that we are following.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

And even IF it were to come up as a Constitutional amendment (or a repeal as the case may be, which usually happens with an amendment repealing a previous amendment, i.e. prohibition), it would still require being passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress (Senate and House), then it must be ratified by 38 of the 50 states (three quarters if your math stinks like mine).

It's not easy to do.

Could it not be executive action. If said executive believes he/she is acting with in the bounds of the constitution (which a case could be made). I figure only lawsuits would stop him, and again, who would bring the suit?

Senator Jacob Howard, who worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting the 13th Amendment, also served on the committee that drafted the 14th spells out the intent:


So you have the author stating what they meant. What's left to interpret.

Elk v. Wilkins

Professor Edward Erler testifying:

Importantly he points out how that vague language of the 14th was later defined in the legislation he mentioned.

This is not some white noise that has no basis in reality. It is real. You are on the opposite end of the spectrum of the author of the legislation for pete sake.

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2752710.1471341882!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_320/august-16-2016-rudy-pathetic-politicizing-9-11.jpg)

And the rest of the story...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/16/rudy-giuliani-911-remarks/

The sad part is that NPR seems to have been "fooled" as well.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/16/490200895/rudy-giuliani-claims-no-terror-attacks-in-u-s-pre-obama

This does not help when trying to maintain that Gubment check.

Several things:

First, those advocating the elimination of birthright citizenship are not all limiting their calls to children born to unauthorized persons. While some certainly are and have been for many generations, others are not nearly as specific. Trump being among those that are not specific.

Second, as I pointed out, the Wiki article does a great job of laying out the entirety of the debate. A debate which settled on universal birthright citizenship by the close of the 19th Century. The author of the legislation specifically stated that it should apply to diplomats accredited by foreign governments, but didn't discuss the children "illegal immigrants" (certainly in part because that wasn't really a thing at the time). However, the concept evolved greatly,  to the point that the children of diplomats are likely eligible for US citizenship. (http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats) His quote has certainly led to questions, but scholars disagree if his sentiment extended to other mere visitors to the US, as opposed to those who sought to make this their home.

Third, what's left to interpret is the actual implementation of the law. The courts quickly gravitated to a one-size fits all birth-right citizenship model and the legislature never really made a move to change it. After the constitutional interpretation has stood for a period of time, it takes an amendment to change it. In this instance, the interpretation has stood for a very long time.


The spectrum on citizenship goes from the the most liberal "citizenship by stepping foot in the country" to the most conservative "no citizenship unless we say so." Birthright citizenship is definitely to the left of center. Arguing over the form of birthright citizenship is merely arguing over how far left of center one is, not opposite ends of the spectrum.

Also, I haven't argued a position. I've merely pointed out how long the law has stood in the US and the historical context for the same. Recall, I even cited to cases and sources that contradict and dissent from the longstanding interpretation. While I feel that universal birthright citizenship has many advantages and am, in fact, in favor of retaining the policy (particularly given the likely need for a constitutional amendment); I can also see the ambiguity and the issues that it causes.

For me, its an interesting history and enjoyable debate, not a passion or deeply held belief.

- - -

Regarding the executive order solution - Court have ruled that executives can basically change the law by neglecting to enforce a law (recent examples: Obama ignoring pot operations in Colorado, California, Oregon, etc.). But changing birthright citizenship is contrary to Supreme Court precedent. It isn't a failure to act, it would be ordering the US Government to deny what has been considered a Constitutional right to someone who is a US Citizen under the status quo.

And yes, for the record, I think the executive power to just not enforce certain laws is dubious. While I appreciate the outcome in the marijuana example, the ability to abuse that power is terrifying.

- - -

NOT --- imagine trying to have this level of discussion with the Donald. If you can't imagine the President engaging in intelligent discussion of important issues... that person probably shouldn't have the job.  ;D

I'm with you Cannon. The way the language is left open to interpretation will always lead to discussions/disagreements such as this. And when there is little to no exact judicial precedent it makes it all the more "entertaining". I honestly don't know what Trump's position is other than I heard him mention it in passing once. I have been pretty adamant that there can't be open borders with the welfare state as it exists today, therefore birthright citizenship for Illegal aliens has got to be eliminated, as I am fairly certain we will not be eliminating many welfare programs.

The actually welfare spent on illegal aliens is something like $20 Billion (~100bil for all immigrant families). Compared to $1 Trillion on US Citizens (and that's counting medicaid as welfare, but not SS or Medicare). But we are actually fairly low on the "welfare" state spending in spite of what you may hear on talk radio. Similar in Welfare/GDP to Israel or Slovakia, not the socialist paradise we may be led to believe and at 19% we are below the global average of 22%. In the broadest sense, Social security and medicare make up the bulk of our welfare spending, then medicaid ($488B, not counted as welfare in most countries), "food stamps" (291B), Housing (40B), unemployment (36B) and the rest is basically trivial in the Federal Budget (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html).

Definitely waste. Definitely abuse. Definitely perverse incentives. Also definitely more complex than "cut 'em off" as many of the programs are subsidies for industry (be it Pharmaceuticals, farmers, or minimum wage employers). I strongly believe in social welfare programs of many types, but I also believe they need to be watched very closely and likely cut back. But not in a knee jerk manner, smart cuts with smart incentives. There are things we can do to save money and make both sides equally unhappy (see Colorado's birth control shift, which resulted in fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer abortions, and therefore a lower budget for medicaid...).

Most pertinently, it isn't really an illegal immigration issue, in that they make up ~2% of the cost.

Another worthwhile discussion Trump is incapable of having.

/sorry for the thread drift. I suck.

Yep, it is right wingers who are trying to muddy the water.  The "intent" of some of the authors were to have it that way - no foreign allegiance of parents - but, in spite of their fondest desires and hopes, that is NOT what was ratified.  And any part of the legislation in conflict with the amendment was rendered obsolete and superceded.

And apparently the Supreme Court agrees, at least for the last 100+ years.  

Nothing says one born here of alien parents HAS to accept it when they reach age of majority or sometime after, but they are citizens until that point.  Goes to the concept of dual citizenship.


If what those right wingers was suddenly transformed into being they way they want it, that would open a very interesting can of worms related to Native Americans...they could then likely go to the world court and start proceedings against the US for some serious crimes against humanity that have been inflicted upon them, even as recently as when I was young - in the 50's and 60's.  Not to mention the breaking of every international law that was ever negotiated with the US since it became the US!   I have no delusions that the US would let international courts rule against us, but it would certainly bring up a whole lot of 'stuff'.   The very most recent transgression of treaty law is the Dakota Access pipeline getting into the news in the last week or so.  By the Supreme Law of the Land, the company would be in violation of the rights of a sovereign nation - against international laws that we ratified and agreed to.  

And now it seems Trump has taken on a charity case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-roger-ailes.html?_r=2

Although the campaign won't confirm that he is.

Revisionist history, apologist time on the RWRE trail...again.  He said what he said.  Nobody was fooled by it.  Maybe he meant to say it another way, but where has he come out and tried to 'walk it back', explain, and make it right?  Yeah, we all now he is going for the histrionic moment...maybe he should just stay on teleprompter...

Kinda like the intent versus reality of the 14th amendment.  It's alzheimer's time in the Giuliani family.

HUGE wrongness here!!   You are falling into the trap of listening to and letting the RWRE LIE MACHINE control the dialog!!!

Social Security and Medicare are NOT welfare in any way, shape, or form!!  They are totally and exclusively funded by money paid by workers in this country directly from their paychecks!   No general fund moneys - go to pay any of the benefits!

IN FACT, the OASDI has assets of almost $3 trillion sitting in Treasury instruments that is helping bail out the massive debt accumulation that runaway, rampant RWRE negligence has created for this country!  That's bigger than the debt that China supposedly is owed !!

And while people have been saying it will start paying out more than it takes in - it was supposed to have happened a couple years ago - it hasn't happened yet.  And the problem of reduced funding for the trust fund is something that could be easily cured by one small, simple step that would put the program on absolutely solid footing for EVER!!  But the obstructionist Congress (RWRE teabaggers in case anyone has forgotten exactly who they are!) have fought against that every step of the way, as they have so many programs and ideas and actions that would benefit the 99%!


There is NOTHING even close to welfare about those programs!!

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

Medicare is 15% of the federal budget after offsetting receipts are taken into account. Only 37% is financed by payroll taxes (again a ponzi scheme I know, expected depletion 2028 per Medicare Trustees). 42% comes straight from the general fund. What else would you call it?

I would be interested to know how the % of illegals receiving benefits and amounts are tabulated. As we have been discussing, the anchor baby phenomenon means that newly minted legal citizens could hypothetically be receiving benefits too, through no thought of their own. How the parents of these children are tabulated would be what I was interested in particularly. And while it may not be a huge portion (2% I think you said) it still has created this perverse incentive to come to this country. When we need productive citizens, we are incentivising non-productive immigrants.

That expected depletion rate of the medicare trust I mentioned up there, was actually shortened recently due in part to lower payroll tax receipts. In other words, less people working. Perverse incentives.

Let's not get started on Social Security (24% of Federal Budget). If only it paid out according to what it paid in then it wouldn't be a welfare program. But it doesn't.

What was ratified was quit vague, and the Supreme Court has hardly made any definitive statements. Certainly no precedent has been set for doing what I am proposing. Congress, per the constitution, at minimum has the authority to regulate immigration as they see fit. I don't see how any supreme court could stop this type of change. No amendment needed in my opinion. The intent of the law was clearly to benefit slaves who had already been here through no action of their own. How that has been perverted into granting citizenship rights to people that don't even follow the rules to get here willingly is beyond me. Unless you can show me the case where the Supremes ruled that illegals are American citizens this is a debate to be had. Also, the Indian thing is nothing. They have specifically (worded) been granted citizenship as of 1923 (I think that's the right year). Again, I'm pretty confident a constitutional amendment is not necessary as the constitution already addresses immigration be delegating that authority to congress. Now, whether anything will actually happen is an entirely separate discussion. A political half reality discussion.

But by your logic, authors intent be damned, and Supremes are interpreted by yourself. The case is closed. The RWRE boogie men are out to drum up support because they hate non-white.

I guess Trump is doubling down on the freakshow.

He hires Steve Bannon (CEO of Breitbart!) to run his campaign.

This should really be entertaining now.

Breitbart has been "campaigning" for months already. What's the difference?

I didn't count SS or Medicare as welfare. I did state that in the "broadest sense" they make up the most of our welfare spending. While SS correlates to earnings, it isn't an actual retirement plan and steps are taken to level the payout by reduce the return on the higher end of contributions. Medicare has nearly no correlation between the tax collected and the future cost of services. Ergo - I was acknowledging that in the broadest sense, these programs could be considered a form of social welfare. (Devils advocate: I pay into the general fund, the general fund pays for food stamps. So if I go broke and get food stamps its not welfare because I paid for it by previously working?)

Trump wouldn't understand this debate.

Also, Trump can't run a campaign with the same people in high level positions for more than 3 months at a time. But he will do great running a country. Yuge. The best.

Seriously? 

It's about perception.  What if Clinton had hired the CEO of Daily Kos or some other liberal leaning rag?  You conservatives would be apoplectic about it.

Hell, he's already hired Ailes as a consultant.  What's next?  Hannity?

I find it funny actually.  He keeps saying he's going to moderate.  He does a rally where he talks via prompter and sounds about as interesting as paint drying.  He knows this.  It's why he goes off the reservation so often.

Wow.  That is amazing....


But I bet you are "all about" the massively failed 401k program rammed down the throat of the American people as "replacement" for defined benefit pension programs...the one that let corporations do their little sleight of hand to raid all the pensions for the trillions of dollars sitting there just waiting for the C-suite to use more effectively. 

CF covered it well if you read it.

Not my interpretation - the Supremes.  Cases are never 'closed' - if the Court says they will take it.

"...the Indian thing is nothing..."   True - in the context of white America.  They were nothing except a bounty and they remain only an obstacle today as being so graphically illustrated just in the last week or two in the Dakotas.  Amazing how so many people feel that they are doing the remaining native people of this country such a huge "favor" by "granting" them citizenship.  Shows the mindset.  And yeah, it IS the training and philosophy of the RWRE that maintains these attitudes and propagates them down through the ages.   And it only took until 1923 until the white world decided to grant that Native Americans were human beings and weren't to be counted as "0" persons in the census??  Wow, what a progressive idea!!  Those darn liberals that let that happen - what were they thinking??

Well, at least they quit offering bounties on every scalp...I guess they should be grateful for that boon!

Hannity has had a bromance with Trump for a LONG time!!

True.   When it works that way for corporate America so well, why should it not work for the people that actually do the work and make that corporate welfare all possible?


and True.

According to Breitbart staffers, Breitbart has been a paid media operation for Trump for a long time now.

Think about it, Hier: What is the mechanism of a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme?  You put money in which others benefit from now, and you do so with the hope there will be others paying in to cover you when it’s your turn to cash out.

Kindly explain how this vastly differs.

If it were a private company offering it, it is not a ponzi scheme. Like purchasing an annuity. But that's not exactly what is going on here. Both programs are tied to income, which a traditional annuity is not. Those would be priced based on the market alone.

Pensions are fine too, because it is a form of compensation, which aI have yet to work anywhere that offered a Pension. And a 401k is not a replacement. It's another tool. You don't have to use it. It's up to the individual to take care of themselves.

Fallin Named Trump Farm Advisor

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/fallin-named-trump-farm-advisor (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/fallin-named-trump-farm-advisor)


I'm going to guess she's Bobby Trippe on this committee.

More like an annuity.

Pensions are good, when you don't let the company raid the treasury.  It worked will for 30 years before getting gutted by the Bought-Out Congress' of the 70's and especially the 80's.   401k was sold as the replacement for a pension - and would even take over for Social Security.  And failed.

Sam Brownback and Mary Fallin on the same committee. What kind of damage could that combo do?

No, the problem with pensions is when they were conceived, it was assumed someone had a post-retirement life-span of 10-15 years.  People started retiring when they were fully vested at 50-55 years old then lived off it another 25-30 years making half or three quarters what they were used to making and then their widow got the pension for another 5-10 years.  Probably the biggest issue for those offering pensions was not requiring a much longer period to be fully vested in a pension.

(Note, I’m playing rather loose and fast with numbers here, but using them to make a simple point you cannot pay an ever-larger pool of retirees do to nothing for longer periods of time and expect to stay flush or competitive in your market if you are, say, an automaker).

It’s really not vastly different as to why Greece is broke: you are paying too many people to not produce anything.

401K and IRA’s are not a failure to people who make savings a priority, over time, they have done quite well for those who have taken advantage of employer matching and have seen their funds rise with the stock market.  My last two career stops have had a 401K or matching IRA contribution as well as profit sharing in lieu of a pension, I can’t complain.  They can’t touch those funds, only I can.  I also like the portability of it.  Losing a pension is never a consideration if I decide to fly the middle finger at my company.  Granted there are other reasons to keep doing what I do, but not having that to keep me tied down is a bonus if I decide to shift gears and do something else.

Yeah...those aren't the kind of pensions regular people got....the typical ones real people got were vested for maximum benefit in that time frame, payable upon reaching regular retirement age.  Early retirement accompanied by reduced benefit.  And all those benefits were calculated in and when funded properly, worked well.  But then they found they could pay Congress to pass laws that let them raid what was supposed to be a separate entity - the biggest method used was to let them use the pension fund money to "invest" in company stock.  How many bankruptcy experts are gaming that system....??  Like Donald Trump is bragging about doing!!  Repeatedly.

Vesting is required for pensions to occur at 5 years.  The company can vest earlier if they choose.  I have a small vesting in a company where I worked that was bought out and the pension stopped and frozen at that point.  I was there a little over 2 years at the time.  It is NOT a full benefit pension, but proportional to your time in grade compared to maximum benefit timeframe.  I will get a 2 year equivalent pension.  401k is also required to vest in 5 years.  Vesting just means you don't lose the whole thing when you leave, like happened early on - many decades ago!

Vastly different from Greece.

Congress, Military and some governmental entities are the only ones that get the gravy train you are describing - and can let some one "double dip", just go get another gubbmint job and vest there, too.


And by any measure, for the vast majority of Americans, 401k's are a massive failure.  They are way behind any possible 'catch-up' to be ready for retirement.  And the "plaintive bleat" for this topic is, "well, if they would just save enough..."   About people who cannot afford any kind of savings whatsoever.  And the average value in a 401k now is about $102,000.   With a "guidance" for that same person - meaning where they should be - is about $300,000.  This is based on average age of an American, which is around 35 right now.

It's a horrendous mess.  And the bottom 49% of the people in this country - or more - can't even afford to participate at all.

"Mr. 9/11" 's wetnurse explained it thusly:

Giuliani clearly didn't "forget" about 9/11 after just having spoken about it at length; he just didn't feel the event warranted inclusion in what he described as an increasing number of attacks linked to Islamic fundamentalists that have occurred in recent years (i.e., during the Obama administration).


In other words, "sarcasm."

The point about Greece and pensions was completely lost on you apparently.  You also want to blame politicians for companies raiding pensions.  You seem to think raiding pensions was meant to benefit a few Wall Streeters and corporate execs you have consistently cast aspersions on.

You simply cannot pay out half or more of your total payroll costs in pensions and expect to be afloat or competitive forever.  It might have worked when US companies didn’t face so much competition from global manufacturers with far lower legacy costs.

While I get that penthouse salaries and bonuses seem to defy logic to those on the production floor, that still has nothing to do with why pensions were breaking American companies like General Motors.  I don’t recall exact numbers, but when GM hit the skids in ’08 or so, that had nothing sudden to do with the mortgage melt-down roughly 1/2 or 2/3 of their employee costs were legacy patroll costs they were having to pony up the money for.  They were paying too much in support of a workforce that had long since quit making cars for them.

A guy who used to work for us moved here from Michigan with his new wife in 2003.  He was about 52 or 53, his wife was a couple years younger, she was the widow of a GM employee (they referred to GM as “Generous Motors” due to all the legacy benefits she had).  She didn’t work once they moved here, she got a check from GM.  When he retired the tail end of 2011, she was diagnosed with a fairly rare form of breast cancer.  They moved to southern Texas as she fought the cancer through a few surgeries and short-lived remissions at MD Anderson.  She died about this time last year.  GM picked up the tab for her medical expenses through that expensive battle for four years.  That was easily $1m plus spent on medical for someone who never even worked for GM, plus writing her a paycheck every month even though she never worked an assembly line for them.

This isn’t isolated.  We pay for too many people to not produce a damn thing.  Same issue Greece and other countries have.  People got dependent on a company or government to feed them from cradle to the grave instead of using the discipline to save and set their own course.

Keeping it on topic, I’ll state the obvious: Trump sucks.

Perhaps I can bridge this pension gap.

We do pay too many people to not-produce anything. Politicians did change the rules to allow pensions to fail. But not by encouraging raiding...

The accounting rules were changed to enable companies to under-fund their pension liabilities, particularly governments, but pretending inflation, rate of return, or future growth would level it out. So they cut way back on funding their pensions.  Then they ignored the problem until it became a crisis.  Had they been forced to properly fund their pensions the entire time the cost would have been evident, not something to deal with in the future. But, as long as it's a problem for next quarters earnings report...

Now the reaction has been to setup a two tier system. One group of workers was in before the crisis hit, and they have the "generous motors" deal (that holds true at Deere, GM, American Airlines, etc.). The other group wasn't in, and they have the "new American deal," where they get paid $12-15 an hour with drastically cut back benefits and without a defined pension plan.  At Deere, it wasn't uncommon for two guys working the same station on the to see one making $12-15 and the other making $30. As the older men aged out, the cost of labor dropped --- but the low wages for the young guys are paying for the generous pensions for the older ones... because the company didn't have to fund the pensions previously.

The companies made promises that were too expensive to keep. The politicians changed the rules so they could pass the buck a year, or two, or a generation. At least, that's how I put it together. 

No, I actually do get it.  Congress was - and is - bought and paid for.  They allowed companies to raid pension plans in exactly the fashion I mentioned - taking it back "into the fold" of corporate oversight instead of being held at arms length to be professionally invested in a responsible manner - at that point letting companies "invest" the money in company stock valued at ridiculous multipliers based on "estimates" of what the stock would be worth in a distant future.  Since the "future value" of that money was obscenely manipulated, they could then take out all the "overage" that they said didn't need to be there because the stock was gonna do so good over time.  

THAT was the ponzi scheme in pensions!  I guess I thought you and erfalf had better business backgrounds that understood that - I guess it just goes back - as it always does - to not knowing the history.  Congress made it literally a case of rape and pillage of pensions in this country.  And in concert with companies, said the 401k would be a really good thing.

"While I get that penthouse salaries and bonuses seem to defy logic to those on the production floor, that still has nothing to do with why pensions were breaking American companies like General Motors."

The only reason it defies logic is because so many people - not just the production floor, obviously - don't understand the program and what was implemented over that time.  Also, during that same time frame - the last 40 years - the median (half make more, half make less) income in this country has gone down by 40%.  Add that to the raids on pension plans, plus gains in productivity over those same 40 years, it is easy to see how the C-suite has gained, not just 500 or 600% increases, but 500 and 600 TIMES the salaries they made at that time.  What is that...about 50,000%...60,000%...increases....

And there it is!!  As is trotted out whenever anyone has something less than complementary to say about C-suite malfeasance!  The plaintive bleat of upper management to blame the workers for all the woes of the company!    GM was the poster child for that.  EVERY single problem they had was due to their mis-management!  People always fall back on blaming some retired worker, or his wife, when the only reason those plans were in place were due to negotiations AGREED to and APPROVED by management.  NOBODY MADE them sign an agreement - EVER!!  It was always voluntary.  Unions were NOT to blame...never were.  If it were such a bad deal, the company only had to get up from the table and leave.  (That's where strikes came from...)   And management obviously felt it was fiducially (sp?) responsible to agree to labor contracts based on their calculations of where the stock value would be sometime in the near future...!

And never in the history of any company that I have looked into (GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel) with those kind of labor agreements did the workers get a better deal than the C-suite!  The C-suite ALWAYS got preferential treatment and better benefit plans.  Always!   But they are worth it, of course.... obviously, or they wouldn't make 50,000% more than the unwashed masses on the production floor!!

Nothing like Greece.

You allow/advance a very "kid glove" interpretation - "accounting rules were changed" - to describe what is rape and pillage.  I would be surprised if more than 2 or 3 out of 10 regulars here have a defined pension plan in their work history.  What is not experienced is generally not well understood nor ever missed - anyone who doesn't have one should search out some older friends or family who do and spend some time talking about it.  

Pensions were in place as part of the "total compensation" package for an employee - in lieu of higher immediate cash hourly wage.  It wasn't some kind of "gimme" for the employee - it was part of their pay - it was earned income.  Placed at arms length in the hands of profession money managers who were required by law to have a fiduciary responsibility to care for those plans.  As opposed to a 401k which requires every single person to be their own professional money manager!  Which is another reason why the 401k plan has been, and will continue to be, such a retirement catastrophe for the vast majority of workers in this country!  Few of us have been trained as professional money managers.

Pensions were their retirement plan, since SS was never intended to be more than a very basic amount to provide a basement level of income.  And what happened over time was the companies got the accounting rules changed so they could change the game.  Re-valuing the plans so they could underfund and take money back - which was done extensively - once the plans were no longer held at arms length, nor required to perform in a fiscally responsible manner  (Congress again).



That 40% drop in real wages over the last 40 years.

Going into the 50,000% increase in real pay for the C-suite.

What he just said, in caps.

I had one at the oil company I worked at after college. Do not underestimate or gloss over what determined cpa's did during that time. I got caught in one of the scheduled expansion/contractions known as centralization/decentralization at the time. LIFO if you are into inventory management. They lied to the employees being let go. I remember being told that I could no longer be a member of their credit union which gave favorable perks to employees. We believed them and withdrew savings and had to refinance cars elsewhere. Later, I received a small check from my pension plan which indeed had been touted as part of the compensation package that I always assumed was used to shelter company income. Its purpose was described to me as an effort to keep employees from jumping to their oil company competitors which was common.

I think you need to go re-read my post after calming down a bit. I wasnt speaking to the ability to bankrupt out of pensions or to give priorities to investors... I was speaking to the accounting rules that govern how companies (and governments) were required to keep track of how well funded their pension liabilities were. By being able to short the funds now, they could make their short-term books look better by under-funding them. When the bill started to come due the companies whined about the cost as if it was a massive surprise, which, in my opinion, was used as an excuse to screw new workers to pay the old.

I never said anything contrary to the notion that a pension was part of total compensation, or that it isn't a sweat deal. I'm not an idiot and have a background in accounting, financing, and working as a controller. As well as working for two different union shops and growing up in a union town. The company promised to pay $20 an hour, health insurance, and a pension. That was the deal, backing out of it is chicken crap. Raiding pension funds is crap. Favoring investors who are trying to profit over employees who have already worked for promised future benefit is crap. I'm on board with all that.

But I disagree with you on the 401K. While a defined benefits pension plan is a better deal for employees, we have the same problem with 401Ks we had with the pension... its a future benefit you are supposed to fund now. Just like the companies didn't want to fund their future liability when they could enjoy the money now, workers don't want to either. So most of us spend the money we have, and then some. 33% of Americans have saved ZERO for retirement. Same problem, new source.

As to professional money managers... there are options that make it simple. Betterment. Vangaurd. Low fees, broad index funds.  And more complex wasn't always better - big pension funds too frequently made big mistakes with other peoples money. But I understand your point.

Where does Trump come into this? He just went on Hannity touting his idea to use more profiling to stop terrorism which is odd considering that many of his supporters, spokesmen and staff would be detained for their remarks. Then announced his new leadership which is Breitbart for Gawd's sake? What have republican's wrought?

They've lost the executive race. And they've endangered their congressional dominance. All they can be sure of is the state governors and representatives in the Big 12. I can't believe I'm saying this, but republicans who respect their country need to show some integrity like Cruz, Kasich and others who simply won't bend over for the extremists in their party.

Every candidate in Oklahoma should be polled and reported on their support for this incompetent....group of extremists and their views. We deserve to know.

I am calm!  I am always calm...like a cucumber!!  Calm is my middle name...don't you see that from my posts??

My first paragraph;
I wasn't arguing/disagreeing with you - I was just saying I thought you cut them way too much slack...
And that Congress allowed them to do that.


From "total compensation" on was expansion on the thoughts to date.

Vanguard is always a good choice.  Always the best choice...  The only place I deal with given a choice (have had 401k that didn't have a Vanguard choice for some ignorant reason).  But then I have never done anything with Betterment yet, either.


And the last part about the 40% drop on pay - the two tier system is a big part of that!  I probably should have split that into another reply...
I think we were actually agreeing to agree....   ( I think I was agreeing more....lol!)

Mary Failin'

I bet Sally Kern!

Inhofe
Langford
Cole

Cole thinks Trump is good because of Pence.  Pence is the guy who says there is no medical evidence that smoking kills people.  Sound like another ignorant denier in this state lineup?

So in regards to the whole pension/401k argument, I think I have it now.

Laws changed (written by big corporate interests) that allow pension funds to be raided before they are due. This hurts the common man (even though there are pension insurance programs that keep the vast majority of people whole) in a roundabout way because now companies are less inclined to offer pensions. 401ks set up for the common man allow individuals to raid their own pensions early, but this is not a problem, because it wasn't caused by a greedy corporation. Does that pretty much sum it up?

You do realize that the pension insurance fund is upside down by at least hundreds of billions if not trillions....  Guess who is gonna get to pay that?  Either us, through taxes, or inflating the currency even more. 

Was doing some light reading and ran across a 'forward' from a book.  It's about a family who have a family home in England that goes back 800 years.  And is applicable today with people like Trump.  Paris Hilton.  The Kardashians....




 This extract from Bernard Falk's fascinating book "The Berkeleys of Berkeley Square", published by Hutchinson & co. London 1944, should place the following in its proper perspective.

For the majority of present day mankind, delight in the magnificence of chivalry is an acquired taste. Hence the achievement of the Lords of Berkeley, floodlit though it may be by the martial splendour of the Feudal ages, makes a strictly limited appeal to the imagination. At bottom there is little to distinguish them from their fellow Barons. They never seem to approach, much less touch, greatness. As we summon their unloved ghosts from the dim past, and reclothe them with flesh and blood, seeking the while to recapture the passions that were the mainsprings of their actions, the feeling of thrilled expectancy wholly eludes us. For so far from being the elect of the race, they are a commonplace people raised above the heads of their fellow-men purely by accident of birth; and privileged, not because of any outstanding merits of their own, but entirely owing to the unequal distribution of rights, to promote their sectional power and swell and consolidate their most unhallowed gains. The absence of the slightest evidence of a social conscience offends us, though scarcely so much as their dreary sense of values, the three things to count with them being, nobility of rank, keys of power and tangible wealth.

When companies were forced to put pension obligations on the books is when this really took a turn for the worse. Insert executive pension plans, executive deferred-compensation plans into the employee pension plan and you have an even larger obligation. Cutting pensions reduced obligations and generated income.

401ks really are to little to late for the common man. By that I mean the common man saves to little and starts to late in life to do so. He also raids his 401k for different things such as a house purchase, medical bill payments and other items allowed by law.

Retirement Heist by Ellen Schultz details this.

That's some damn fine writing.

Trump. Paris Hilton. The Kardashians. Hillary Clinton...

Origins - very different.  The first came from a life of entitlement from the git-go.  They "earned" their money the old-fashioned way....they inherited it.

Thought you might like it.  The source is an engineer who also digs into his history - not the author of that....interesting.  He is no longer in the inheritance path, apparently.

But she is not in the position she is in, if it wasn't for others "earning" it. If her husband isn't President, she is no where near sniffing a nomination.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Who would have ever thought Bernie would get as far as he did?   I literally could not believe it of this country!

I'm not sure what a sucessful Bernie run would have said about America.

Except for maybe Americans like free stuff and smoking weed.

What??? You aren’t stoned and living in your mother’s basement still like the rest of us on TNF?

Bernie was more likable and much more honest about his intentions than Hilarity, that’s for certain.

What basement?  Our house is on a slab.
  ;D

Tool shed or garage in your case, Red.   ;)

I am truly VERY curious now - what is it you think Trump's success says about America??

You can never misunderestimate the stupidity of the .American people?

Ain't dat da trufe!!

Well, that is a good one.

If someone a little more palatable than Hillary were running against him, I would say it says a lot of not good things. That being said, I'm still not sure that would be completely accurate given the circumstances. Plus he is a celebrity which in my opinion carries some sort of leeway. People are really REALLY fed up with how they perceive the federal government is working against them. There are a host of reasons (not just border enforcement related). I think, IF Trump were to win, his voter base would consist of 33% just plain stupid, 33% just won't vote for Hillary, and the rest will just vote for whomever has an R next to their name. Even more depressing is I think the breakdown for a Hillary win would look quit similar.

The sad thing is I think Trump has far more in common with the Democrat platform than people are making it out to be. Particularly his economic policies which are extremely protectionist in nature. Far from a free market guy. If he didn't have an R next to his name I would have no idea he was a Republican. They followed up two pretty moderate politicians (McCain/Romney) with a guy that is even more left leaning in his policies. Trump even supported a wealth tax I believe. Hell, Hillary won't even openly say she is for that (whether she believes it or not I don't know, but she rails on the rich enough it stands to reason she might favor it). He's a democrat's wet dream on economics. So maybe everyone is stupid.

I agree with you all, his demeanor is not the type you would want. But when you give only two choices this is what will be bound to happen from time to time. There have been jerk presidents in the past. We survived. We will survive either of these candidates, most likely in spite of these two candidates.

Me personally, I am in the "can't vote Hillary" camp. The problem is, that's nearly in a dead heat with the "never Trump" camp. All in my head mind you. Since there really isn't much salvagable about this election, I'm with some of you in doing what little I can (1 vote) to embolden 3rd party candidates. This is what is truly needed in the end.

One thing is for certain, this election has brought out the worst in many organizations and media outlets. This forum IMO is a prime example of it all.

There are a number of people who "can't vote Hillary."  But Trump still has a lot of political support. It is important to look at where that support primary comes from. Broadly speaking, his baseline supporter is a native born straight (Trump was excited his #s bumped to 17% among gays) older  (only age category he wins is 65+ and a nearly straight-line descent to 60/30 for 18-29 year olds) white (35+% Clinton lead for many minority categories, Trump biggest advantage is +24 for white males) protestant (Trump is -11 Catholic, - 16 not religious, - 30 Jewish, - 36 Muslim) male (trump +6 Male, +24 white male), who is uneducated (non-college Trump 57, Clinton 36. Clinton leads post grad 60/30) and makes below the median salary (significant drop over 50k).  Poll  (http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/)after poll  (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/who_are_trumps_supporters.html)after poll  (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/11/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-disaffected-voters)finds the same basic thing. That doesn't mean that all, or even a majority, of his supporters fit that description. But if you had to peg a single demographic profile of a Trump supporter, that'd be it.

Essentially, the group that feels like they used to run this country and are missing out or losing control. White people are losing ground to several "minority" groups. Women keep gaining ground in broad categories of equality (though Trump is not far behind in the overall female vote). Those pesky gays keeping gaining rights keeping the straights down. Protestants are losing the numbers game to Hispanic Catholics and non-religious people. The perception is that a lack of education makes it harder and harder to get a good job. Income inequality is an obvious one. And, of course, old people always think the younger generation sucks.

Add all those together and the person is bound to feel threatened and want a strong man to stand up and keep them at the top.

Then you have the "team players" who will vote team "R" no matter what. As stated you have the Hillary haters (for a wide variety of reasons). Some single issue voters (build that wall, they took our jobs, cut my taxes, etc.). And some cult of the personality (He's rich. He speaks his mind. he's on TV a lot. I like his hair.).

Add it together and what do you get? Apparently, about 41% of the American population.

It shows a lot of immaturity and lack of insight to think that any of the third party candidates aren't subject to the same analyses with the same conclusions, that being, that none of them are "pure" in their politics. They all resemble each other. They can't get elected to more than a governor position unless they find some elements of mainstream politics to embrace. Thus, Johnson and Bernie rose to their levels because of personality, local brand awareness and competencies that don't transfer well to the national scene. Romney too in some respects.

My vision of the future would allow multiple parties who represent lots of viewpoints, voted by the people, who then have to form alliances with each other in order to be elected. Then, they could choose a leader from amongst their tribe who could be removed quickly with a vote of "no confidence" and replaced after another election. Wait....isn't' that already being done? :)

It would dissipate the power cartels who are using their money to force candidates down our throats and believe the most outrageous bs.

note: sorry, used the wrong word and misspelled it to boot! ALLIANCES is better.