Mission Accomplished
Proud Melania holds baby whose parents were killed in El Paso mass murder by Trump follower who wanted to kill as many Mexicans as he could, while beaming President gives thumbs up. (Source: The Independent)
posted by JimK at 8:48 AM
251 Comments:
"Proud Melania holds baby whose parents were killed in El Paso mass murder by Trump follower who wanted to kill as many Mexicans as he could, while beaming President gives thumbs up."
weird, but it's a snapshot and easily manipulated for propaganda purposes
too bad they don't give Nobel Prizes for propaganda
JK of TTF would have a good shot!
you think Elizabeth Warren is going to go to Dayton to see the families of people murdered by her follower?
it's funny, you always hear liberals complain that Trump never goes to visit victims and never denounces hate crimes and doesn't even support common policies like background checks
now, he's done all that and the lunatic fringe is amping up next-level hostility
history, and the whole wide world, and God, are watching you
By Scott Walker - - Thursday, August 8, 2019
“The economy, stupid!”
— Clinton Strategist James Carville
In 1992, the economy was bad. James Carville’s quote on a sign in the campaign offices of Gov. Bill Clinton was a reminder to his staff. He wanted them to stay focused on the economy. It worked for the challenger as a recession was starting to sweep the nation. President George H.W. Bush’s inability to adequately react to concerns over the recession played a major part in his loss that November.
This week, economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, “Democrats are not talking about the economy, because they have nothing to say.”
In 2019, the economy is great. The U.S. labor market has added more than 6.3 million new jobs since President Donald J. Trump was elected. In fact, there continue to be more jobs open in America than there are people looking for work. Unemployment is the lowest it has been since the end of 1969. And the unemployment rate for African-Americans, Hispanics, people with disabilities and military veterans is the lowest ever recorded for each category.
At the same time, wages are up. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently published its annual revisions to personal income data showing that employee compensation rose 4.5 percent in 2017 and 5 percent in 2018. The trend continued in 2019 as compensation rose 3.4 percent during the first six months.
Indicator after indicator point to a strong economy. Which explains why Democrats do not want to talk about the economy. They want the media and — in turn — the electorate to focus on other issues.
When was the last time you heard about the president’s tax cuts? And if you did, it was probably a bad story.
The facts, however, show a huge majority of Americans received a tax cut. According to the Tax Policy Center, 82 percent of middle-class earners received a tax cut averaging around $1,050. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s comments that the tax cuts were crumbs, a thousand dollars more in take-home pay is a big deal for most families in our country.
Facts show that middle-class taxpayers were the big winners in the tax-cut plan signed by Mr. Trump. Democrats, however, did a good job of selling a false narrative. Sadly, most Americans now believe that they did not receive a reduction in their tax bill.
Despite the negative rhetoric, the individual income tax cuts that increased take-home pay and the business tax cuts that encouraged employers to provide bonuses have helped to improve the nation’s economy. Throw in affirmative efforts to undo excessive regulations — particularly in energy — and you have a recipe for strong economic growth in the years to come.
In contrast, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, recently warned that an economic crisis will soon hit the United States. Maybe she has a crystal ball and can see into the future to a day when she or one of the other radical socialists is elected president. That would most certainly be a reason for concern.
Ms. Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, and the rest of the socialists running for president continue to embrace a system that is currently failing in Venezuela. Socialism promises prosperity but more often leads to poverty. The once prosperous country is now filled with despair. Sadly, more than 9 out of every 10 Venezuelans now live in poverty.
If the 2020 presidential election is about pocketbook issues, logic suggests that Mr. Trump should win in a landslide. That explains why Democrats don’t want to talk about the economy.
Unfortunately, most media outlets are complicit with the Democrats. Not only do they forcibly avoid talking about the strong economy, they consistently get the facts wrong.
Kasie Hunt’s recent statement on MSNBC is a prime example. Ms. Hunt teased a story saying, “Still to come, Joe Biden references his relationships with two former Republican colleagues at an event in New York City. The only problem? They were both segregationists.”
The other problem? The senators were actually Democrats. If Ms. Hunt and the research staff at MSNBC had looked at just about any search engine, they would have found out that the segregationists were not Republicans.
Most members of the mass media will follow the talking points — intentional or not — of the left. And the left understands that the president’s most effective tool for reelection is the economy.
Bottom line: The American economy is doing very well and wages are up, but we cannot rely on the media or anyone else to share this message with the general public. We need to share it ourselves. There is too much at stake in the 2020 election not to share the good news of a strong economy with anyone who will listen between now and next November.
Fox News and host Tucker Carlson are losing more advertisers.
Long John Silver’s will no longer advertise on Fox News, as confirmed to Media Matters’ Angelo Carusone.
Nestlé and HelloFresh, which have advertised on Carlson’s show in the past, told The Hollywood Reporter they were no longer running ads on the show. Nestlé said it had no plans to do so in the future.
Earlier this week, Carlson claimed on his show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that there is no white supremacy problem in the United States and that it’s a “hoax” proliferated by the media.
“The whole thing is a lie,” said Carlson. “It’s actually not a real problem in America.”
The conservative commentator’s remarks came after two mass shootings in 24 hours last weekend. The gunman who killed at least 22 in El Paso, Texas, reportedly posted a white supremacist manifesto online shortly before the shooting. In light of that and Carlson’s history of repeatedly giving airtime to white nationalist conspiracy theories and talking points, #FireTuckerCarlson began trending on Twitter on Wednesday.
In an apparent coincidence, Carlson announced that he would be taking some time off from his broadcast that same night. He also told his critics to “calm down.”
Actually, your critics (former fans) doubled down and hope FOX fires your sorry white ass.
That baby has two older siblings who are also parentless now that a right winger quoting Rump's hateful view of Mexicans killed both Mom and Dad.
Get the first lady's bloody hands off that innocent child and get her to do some real work on her so-called anti-bullying campaign that never mantions the CHIEF BULLY's bullying.
The Rumps are disgusting examples of human beings.
Survivors of El Paso mass shooting said no to meeting with Donald Trump
But of course, that cute baby with 2 siblings parentless and both parents dead, could not decline.
Donald and Melania made their way to El Paso to “comfort” the survivors and first responders. Rep. Veronica Escobar says that she tried to speak with Trump ahead of the visit to talk about the impact of the racist language he uses, and that Trump refused to take the call. His staff said he was “too busy.” So Rep. Escobar refused to meet with Trump, saying, “I declined the invitation because I refuse to be an accessory to his visit. I refuse to join without a dialogue about the pain his racist and hateful words & actions have caused our community and country.”
The eight survivors who are still hospitalized must have felt the same, because they all refused to meet with Trump at the hospital. Instead, Donald and Melania walked around the hospital, where Trump cracked jokes, acting more like the stand-up comedian in chief than a president offering comfort in a time of national crisis.
In fact, the White House refused to let reporters tour the Dayton and El Paso hospitals with Trump. Officials told the White House press pool that they didn’t want the day to be about photo ops, that this was serious business, after all.
Except it was about photo ops for Donald Trump, and doesn’t appear to have been about much else. Hospital officials in El Paso told CNN’s Jim Acosta that the president had a “lack of empathy” and made staff feel uncomfortable when he kept disparaging Beto O’Rourke and bringing up the size of his crowd at an El Paso rally a few months ago. The White House team apparently also arranged for two survivors, who’d already been checked out of the hospital, to come back for that photo op. Incredibly, ghoulishly, one of those survivors was the infant son of Andre and Jordan Anchondo. Look at this man in the photo above, posing like this with a baby whose parents were murdered only days before.
Be best, Melania. This is not normal. This is indecent, grotesque, narcissistic. In a nutshell, it is classic Trump.
Tito Anchondo, whose brother and sister-in-law were killed in the attack, chose to take his orphaned nephew to meet the president and first lady. The 2-month-old boy suffered two broken fingers, but he survived the shooting after his parents shielded him.
Anchondo told The Washington Post he wanted to take the boy to meet the president and tell him about his family.
“He was just there as a human being, consoling us and giving his condolences,” Anchondo said of Trump.
Anchondo said Trump “wasn’t there to be pushing any kind of political agenda,” calling the meeting “a private conversation between human beings.”
First Lady Melania Trump tweeted photos Thursday of her and the president’s trip to Dayton and El Paso after the shootings over the weekend in both cities.
In one picture, Melania is holding the baby while Trump stands next to her showing a thumbs up. They are joined by Anchondo and his sister, Deborah Ontiveros...
Anchondo rejected that criticism, telling NPR that his family members are Republican conservatives, and his brother “was very supportive of Trump.” Instead, Anchondo said that he wanted to “have a human-to-human talk” with the president, despite none of the eight currently hospitalized victims of the shooting reportedly agreeing to meet with Trump.
"I want to see his reaction in person," Anchondo told NPR. "I want to see if he's genuine and see if my political views are right or wrong. And see if he feels maybe some kind of remorse for statements that he's made. I just want to have a human-to-human talk with him and see how he feels."
An anonymous White House official told The Washington Post that Trump was told about the baby, and Anchondo was kind to the president during their meeting.
Trump took other thumbs-up photos at the hospital during the visit, too, a White House official said, noting that other such pictures have concerned aides who have encouraged him to strike a more empathetic tone.
WASHINGTON — Alleged white supremacists were responsible for all race-based domestic terrorism incidents in 2018, according to a government document distributed earlier this year to state, local and federal law enforcement.
The document, which has not been previously reported on, becomes public as the Trump administration’s Justice Department has been unable or unwilling to provide data to Congress on white supremacist domestic terrorism.
The data in this document, titled “Domestic Terrorism in 2018,” appears to be what Congress has been asking for — and didn’t get.
The document, dated April 15, 2019, shows 25 of the 46 individuals allegedly involved in 32 different domestic terrorism incidents were identified as white supremacists. It was prepared by New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security Preparedness, one of the main arteries of information-sharing, and sent throughout the DHS fusion center network as well as federal agencies, including the FBI.
“This map reflects 32 domestic terrorist attacks, disrupted plots, threats of violence, and weapons stockpiling by individuals with a radical political or social agenda who lack direction or influence from foreign terrorist organizations in 2018,” the document says.
The map and data was circulated throughout the Department of Justice and around the country in April just as members of the Senate pushed the DOJ to provide them with precise information about the number of white supremacists involved in domestic terrorism. While the document shows this information clearly had been compiled, some of the senators say the Justice Department would not give them the figures.
The DOJ did not respond to Yahoo News’ questions about why this data was not sent to Congress.
“I’m troubled by the lack of transparency, given that we haven’t received this critical information after several requests to the FBI and DOJ. They cannot and should not remain silent in the face of such a dangerous threat,” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., wrote in an email, after being told about the data.
Booker is part of a group of senators on the Judiciary Committee who have raised concerns about how the Justice Department categorizes domestic terror incidents and expressed concerns that white supremacist violence is being downplayed...
“For the past decade, the FBI used 11 different categories for domestic terrorism, including a separate category for white supremacist incidents. The Administration is now using a classification system with only four categories, including ‘racially-motivated violent extremism,’” the letter said. “This new category inappropriately combines incidents involving white supremacists and so-called ‘Black identity extremists,’ a fabricated term based on a faulty assessment of a small number of isolated incidents.”
In the letter, the senators said they were “deeply concerned that this reclassification downplays the significance of the white supremacist threat.” They also indicated that they asked the FBI and DOJ officials involved in the briefing for information about white supremacist terrorism and were not provided with it...
In response to questions from Yahoo News, an FBI spokesperson declined to comment on whether the information was given to the senators, but insisted the FBI was regularly working with relevant congressional committees...
The document groups the 46 individuals allegedly involved in domestic terror incidents last year into three categories: “race-based extremists,” “anti-government extremists,” and “single-issue extremists.” But the map also includes more detailed data within these categories and all 25 of the individuals classified as “race-based extremists” are identified as “white supremacists.”...
I had a dream last night that Trump said "poor kids are just as smart as white kids"
the Dems and media went wild about what a white supremacist he was
his approval ratings plunged
the House began a new investigation
but I woke up and it was just a dream
the shooter in Texas agrees with Al Gore and TTF and Thanos that there are too many people for the planet to sustain
Al Gore and TTF want to kill unborn babies and encourage homosexuality to bring population decline
Thanos wants to wipe out one-third of humanity
the Texas shooter says he wants to kill as many people as possible
Al Gore, TTF, Thanos, and the Texas shooter are all villains
This weekend’s mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, has re-opened the festering debates over gun control and immigration, and racism. But the manifesto authored by the shooter also reveals another horrific idea edging its way toward the mainstream from the primordial sludge of racist message boards.
Patrick Crusius, the 21-year-old suspect police took into custody after the shooting, uploaded a four-page white nationalist document to the message board 8chan, outlining his motives. Included among its racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric are ideas central to the mainstream environmental movement. “Our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources,” it reads.
Where Crusius’ advocates a violent solution. The manifesto suggests Americans overconsumption will never stop, so the only option is “get rid of enough people” to make the American lifestyle “more sustainable.” Horrific, disgusting, and absurd, this so-called ecofascist ideology uses alarmist environmental concerns to justify racist policies and mass murder.
This isn’t the first time right-wing or fascist figures have pulled from environmentalism to further their cause. Some thinkers within Hitler’s National Socialist party espoused the idea that “only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger.” Racists throughout U.S. history have often misappropriated population control tied to resource protection, an idea popularized in the 18th century by Thomas Malthus. His idea that food production couldn’t keep up with exponential population growth has been debunked since, well... here we are with 7 billion humans on Earth and enough food for everyone (if it were distributed equitably, that is). Much of the discourse around overpopulation centers on developing countries and stereotypes rather than the reality that rich countries—and their richest citizens in particular—are the biggest resource consumers on Earth.
The El Paso shooter manifesto itself echoes that of the gunman who killed 51 in Christchurch, New Zealand, earlier this year. Brenton Tarrant, the accused shooter in that massacre, identified as an ecofascist and defined it as “ethnic autonomy for all peoples with a focus on preservation of nature and the natural order.” The El Paso manifesto is in the same vein.
There are growing signs the right-wing populists are leaning into climate change and other environmental crises as a way to drum up support for their policies of exclusion and hate.
"Team Mitch" is back on Twitter.
The social media giant, which had locked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign account Wednesday after it posted a video of a profanity-filled protest outside his home in Kentucky, made the announcement Friday.
"Going forward, the video will be visible on the service” the social media's communications account said.
The McConnell campaign posted a jubilant response to the Twitter announcement.
“Victory,” the account tweeted. “Thank you to EVERYONE for helping #FreeMitch.”
"Al Gore, TTF, Thanos, and the Texas shooter are all villains"
Right... because promoting the use of condoms is JUST LIKE mowing down innocent people with an assault rifle.
... an egg is cracked into a hot frying pan... "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"
A Republican state lawmaker from Nebraska is gaining attention for calling out the GOP for “enabling white supremacy in our country” after a mass murderer with racist motivations killed 20 people and injured several others in El Paso, Texas.
State Sen. John McCollister of Omaha accused President Trump of stoking “racist fears in his base,” in a Twitter thread demanding Republicans speak out against white nationalism and condemn President Trump.
Senator McCollister
@SenMcCollister
The Republican Party is enabling white supremacy in our country. As a lifelong Republican, it pains me to say this, but it’s the truth.
I of course am not suggesting that all Republicans are white supremacists nor am I saying that the average Republican is even racist.
208K
8:49 PM - Aug 4, 2019
Senator McCollister
@SenMcCollister
Aug 4, 2019
Replying to @SenMcCollister
What I am saying though is that the Republican Party is COMPLICIT to obvious racist and immoral activity inside our party.
Senator McCollister
@SenMcCollister
We have a Republican president who continually stokes racist fears in his base. He calls certain countries “sh*tholes,” tells women of color to “go back” to where they came from and lies more than he tells the truth.
54.9K
8:49 PM - Aug 4, 2019
Senator McCollister
@SenMcCollister
Aug 4, 2019
Replying to @SenMcCollister
We have Republican senators and representatives who look the other way and say nothing for fear that it will negatively affect their elections.
No more.
When the history books are written, I refuse to be someone who said nothing.
Senator McCollister
@SenMcCollister
The time is now for us Republicans to be honest with what is happening inside our party. We are better than this and I implore my Republican colleagues to stand up and do the right thing.
52.6K
8:49 PM - Aug 4, 2019
In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, McCollister elaborated on his Twitter thread, attacking Nebraska’s GOP congressional delegation for neglecting to voice a full condemnation of the president.
“I’d like to see some moral outrage from some of our Republican officeholders,” McCollister said. “The silence is deafening.”
"but I woke up and it was just a dream"
Welcome to Rumplandia.
The Atlantic: Trump’s El Paso Photo Is Obscene
Joe Scarborough tweeted this week, “Any business that donates to Trump is complicit and endorses the white supremacy he espoused in Charlottesville . . . ” He is not alone. The Trump-hating media has spent the past few days humming “Charlottesville” as a mantra that somehow is supposed to prove President Trump is a racist.
Lest the smear become a fact, it is important to go back and clear up any misunderstanding. The event itself in August 2017 involved varied participants, not just neo-Nazis. President Trump’s response to it unfolded over three distinct statements, the last of which was a press conference. All of the statements were critical of white supremacy and none “espoused” it.
Here’s what really happened.
Charlottesville, Virginia erected a statue to Confederate General Robert E. Lee in 1924 and surrounded it with a public space called “Lee Park.” Nearly a full century later, the city council voted to remove the statue and rename the site “Emancipation Park.”
In response, Jason Kessler—a former Obama voter and veteran of the Occupy Wall Street movement—organized a “Unite the Right Rally.” Assorted white nationalists and neo-Nazis promised to join him in protest. That caused the Left’s own nothing-better-to-do violent agitators, Antifa, to announce plans to mount a counterdemonstration.
The event would also attract people who planned to march peacefully, either for or against the removal of the statue. It was not exclusively for Nazis and Antifa.
On the night of the rally, the extremists clashed. This was noted in contemporary news accounts. Sheryl Stolberg of the New York Times tweeted (and later deleted): “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”
Somewhere in the melee, a young man with a history of mental illness drove his car into a crowd and killed one of the protesters.
In the aftermath, President Trump made a statement: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country.”
All hell broke loose. The media objected that the president did not single out the political motivations of the killer, choosing instead to condemn “many sides.”
Only two months before, though, James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer during the presidential primaries, opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice in Northern Virginia. Four people were shot, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Sanders immediately condemned the shooting, saying, “I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society, and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values.”
It is difficult to discern a substantial difference between Sanders’ condemnation of “violence of any kind” and Trump’s condemnation of “violence on many sides.” They essentially mean the same thing. When a sociopath with a peripheral involvement in politics commits a violent act, it is unfair to attribute political blame.
Trump had also addressed the Hodgkinson shooting, saying, “We may have our differences . . . We are strongest when we are unified and when we work for the common good.” The New York Times favorably noted that, “Mr. Trump steered clear of the possible political motivations of the gunman,” and instead issued a “dignified” call for unity.
That time it was OK for the president not to assign political responsibility. It was even dignified. Wonder why?
Trump followed his initial statement on Charlottesville two days later with a harsh criticism of Nazism, explaining that he was not certain of the political affiliation of the driver at first. That was not quick enough for the rabid Trump-hating media.
It was called a “belated” criticism, the suggestion being that Trump at first did not want to offend Nazis and only mentioned it when forced to do so by circumstance. A wild press conference followed where the questioners attempted to associate the president with something they called the “alt-right.” He angrily asked them to “define alt-right.”
Trump pointed out that white nationalists were not the only ones in attendance at the event. Antifa was also there, as were “very fine people” who were only marching for or against the removal of the statue. The media twisted the words “very fine people” to mean he was complimenting white supremacists, even though there is no honest way to read his statement as though that were his meaning.
The coverage of Charlottesville was a concerted effort to portray Trump as sympathetic to Nazis by unfairly parsing his statements to suggest a connection. More, the dominant media had been in desperate search for a hook to use in order to claim that this white supremacist movement is what got Trump elected.
Having spent little time in rural Ohio, they imagine a bunch of shotgun wielding racists, whom Trump attracted to his cause by appealing to their deplorable-ness. These are ridiculous and unfounded charges that effectively libel half of America.
When “Charlottesville” is cited by fake newshounds like Joe Scarborough as conclusive evidence that Trump espouses white supremacy, there is no truth to it. It is shameful appropriation of America’s history of racism to serve the media’s resistance to Trump.
When is Trump going to apologize to Obama for birtherism?
When are right-wing conspiracy theorists going to apologize for PizzaGate?
When are conservatives going to apologize to the LGBT community for keeping them out of jobs, military service, and marriages?
When is Trump going to apologize to the American tax payer for sending millions of dollars to his pockets via his golf courses?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/07/10/trumps-golf-trips-could-cost-taxpayers-over-340-million/#448c535b28aa
Trump’s Golf Trips Could Cost Taxpayers Over $340 Million By Chuck Jones
When he was campaigning President Trump frequently bashed President Obama for playing golf and said that he would be too busy to play. Per a HuffPost article he said, “I love golf, but if I were in the White House, I don’t think I’d ever see Turnberry again. I don’t think I’d ever see Doral again,” he told a rally audience in February 2016, referring to his course near the Miami airport. “I don’t ever think I’d see anything. I just want to stay in the White House and work my ass off.”
It took less than two weeks before he broke that promise vs. Obama not playing his first round until he had been in office for about three months and Obama didn’t visit a course outside of the DC area until August 2009, seven months after his inauguration. One reason Trump has been able to play so much golf is that he inherited an economy that was in very good shape vs. Obama taking office in the teeth of the Great Recession.
As can be seen in the chart below from trumpgolfcount.com, Trump has played at least 88 rounds of golf since he became President, has likely played 139 and has visited golf courses over 193 days. These compare to Obama’s 76 outings over the same timeframe.
Trump's golf outings
Trump’s golf trips have almost exclusively been to his properties. Below is a breakdown of Trump’s visits.
Trump golf outings over 2 and a half years
1 of 193 outings were to the President’s Cup
2 of 193 outings were in Japan
3 of 193 outings were at Trump’s Ireland course
190 of 193 outings were to Trump’s golf properties
20 flights to Bedminster, New Jersey, to visit Trump’s course
24 flights to Mar-a-Lago
At his current pace Trump will visit his golf properties about 310 times and if he is re-elected it would 620.
Trump’s trips to his golf courses are very expensive and much more than Obama’s since Trump’s have been more frequent and usually requires Air Force One and all the accompanying security arraignments.
From a combination of an analysis from the HuffPost, the GAO or General Accounting Office, Politico and the Washington Post using costs from both Obama and Trump golf trips the estimated cost of Trump’s visits so far come to a range of $105 to $108 million. When you extrapolate the $105 million estimate to eight years, assuming Trump is re-elected, the total cost is over $340 million.
The GAO report estimated that just four of Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago cost:
$13.6 million
Do not “capture all of the total expenditures by the government”
Do not “include certain classified cost information”
$60,000 in expenses paid to Mar-a-Lago (there have been 24 so far)
Were not able to identify meals and incidental expenses, if any, that may have been incurred at the Mar-a-Lago club
To put $340 million into perspective it is:
106 times Trump’s $400,000 salary over 8 years (which he is donating back to the government)
Almost twice the $190 million annual cost for the Peace Corps
$25 million more than the $315 million annual cost for the General Accounting Office
1.7 times the $194 million that corporations paid in taxes for 2018
Equals 45% of the $94 million saved by corporations in 2018 due to his tax bill
About 10 times the approximately $35 million cost of the Mueller investigation
But in reality Mueller’s team brought in more than it spent due to acquiring enough of Manafort’s assets to more than pay the full cost
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s recent tweet in which he tried to put the recent spate of mass shootings in perspective.
“In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings,” he tweeted. “On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun. Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”
That last line was prophetic. The emotions of those reading the tweet soon triumphed over the data that he had presented. Soon Tyson apologized, saying his tweet was “true but insensitive.”
That reality went against the current effort by the various contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination to gin up as much alarm as possible over those incidents.
Perhaps the worst example came from Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from the district that includes El Paso, where one of the mass shootings occurred.
Just after the shootings, O’Rourke appeared before reporters to deliver a tirade in which he compared some of Trump’s statements to those of Adolf Hitler.
“The only modern Western Democracy I can think of that has said anything close to this is the Third Reich, Nazi Germany,” he said.
O’Rourke also said of Trump, “You know the s*** he’s been saying. He’s been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don’t know, like, members of the press, what the f***?”
The Hill Magazine reported that “The response was widely praised by liberals in the media.” But as a member of the media, I would have preferred to hear O’Rourke offer his ideas for reducing the number of such shootings.
Many of these shootings are linked to young males who indulge in violent fantasies online, things like, “As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two … I had killed nearly 38 people by the time of my twenty-third birthday.”
That passage is from a teenage O’Rourke when he was a member of a hacker group called “The Cult of the Dead Cow.” It is similar to the rantings of the young man responsible for the Dayton shootings.
There are two sides to this argument. Liberals have traditionally pinned the blame for America’s many mass shootings on the easy availability of guns. Conservatives put the blame on the individuals who do the shootings.
And then there is the role of the media. They spend far too much time publicizing what these killers take to be their achievements.
When I was driving around listening to the car radio the other day, I noticed that those recent shootings crowded out the other news, whether I turned on Rush Limbaugh or National Public Radio.
This debate is as fruitless as the national debate about the Electoral College. People love to pontificate about the need to do away with it. But that would require a constitutional amendment, one that the small states would never ratify.
Similarly, my liberal friends often talk of repealing the Second Amendment. As long as we have it, we’ll never have the sort of gun control you see in the countries of Europe. But again, the rural states would never approve of removing it from the constitution.
That leaves some changes that can be made on edges of the current system of regulation, such as expanded background checks. But there is a fundamental disagreement on this issue that won’t be going away anytime soon.
Those who support expanded gun control tend to support laws that criminalize the mere possession of certain types of guns, magazines, etc.
But those who support gun rights believe that to be a classic case of punishing the innocent to get at the guilty.
No matter who wins in November 2020, that won’t change. Both sides will continue to fire up their supporters by exploiting the issue.
In the meantime, let's offer Tyson gratitude for pointing out this is just one of many issues that our politicians need to address.
If only he could figure out a way to get those politicians talking about those issues, we should nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said
“In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings,” he tweeted. “On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun. Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”
well, that truth doesn't blend well with TTF-type alarmism
but Johns Hopkins, in 2106, found an even larger number: 251,454 annually
TTF response:
"In all likelihood, however, that's just not true."
unless you can explain why, I doubt anyone would take your word over Johns Hopkins
let us know when you can explain what you're talking about
He and other researchers and physicians have long argued that the Hopkins review lacks any formal methodology and relies on wildly varying definitions of medical error that too often conflate these mistakes with adverse events in general.
"Adverse events happen even in the absence of medical errors," Gorski explained in an article for Science-Based Medicine.
Besides, looking outside the US, there's evidence to suggest the number is indeed much lower.
A 2013 report in the United Kingdom, for example, found that while five percent of deaths in hospitals were deemed to be more than 50 percent preventable, more than half of these occurred in older and sicker patients who weren't likely to live longer than a year.
"Many adverse events are not preventable and do not imply medical errors or substandard medical care. Moreover, determining whether a given medical error directly caused or contributed to a given death in the hospital is far from straightforward in most cases."
In other words, these estimates are too high, at least in part, because they pin far too many fatalities upon medical errors - a diagnosis that even experts find hard to agree on.
"Most of those errors are what is called 'failure to rescue' or not recognising a problem, rather than active error, it's delay in diagnosis, or delay in treatment," explains trauma surgeon Mark Hoofnagle on Twitter. "Decisions that, in retrospect delayed appropriate care - which isn't medicine killing, but failing to save."
Besides, looking outside the US, there's evidence to suggest the number is indeed much lower.
A 2013 report in the United Kingdom, for example, found that while five percent of deaths in hospitals were deemed to be more than 50 percent preventable, more than half of these occurred in older and sicker patients who weren't likely to live longer than a year.
A recent and more rigorous study came up with a far more conservative number than either the IOM study or the Hopkins research.
Rather than simply looking at 'medical errors', authors of this study examined all adverse events and their link to patient mortality, whether a mistake or not.
Using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) between 1990 and 2016, instead of simply using insurance claims, the new study settles on a number 50 to nearly 80-fold smaller than the Hopkins review.
Across the entire study period, the authors found 123,603 deaths in which adverse events were determined to be the underlying cause of death. And after controlling for population growth and ageing over those 26 years, they found that those rates had actually fallen by over 20 percent.
Of all the deaths related to adverse events, the study found 8.5 percent could be attributed to misadventure, or medical errors such as accidental laceration or incorrect dosage, and 14 percent could be attributed to adverse events associated with medical management.
This isn't to say that mistakes made by medical professionals are not a problem, or that they shouldn't be fixed. Merely that grossly exaggerating this number to the point of a crisis, where a huge number of people who are hospitalised could die from a medical mistake, is demonstrably false and dangerous.
"They see these numbers bandied about and, not having delved deeply into the issue, accept them," Gorski told ScienceAlert.
"To find more realistic numbers takes work and knowledge of the literature and methodology used in these studies, something possessed by a limited number of people."
Neil deGrasse Tyson has since apologised for what he called a "true but unhelpful" tweet.
In April 2016, my then 14-year-old daughter became convinced that she was my son. In my attempt to help her, her public school undermined me every step of the way.
Throughout my daughter’s childhood, there were no signs that she wanted to be a boy. She loved stuffed animals, Pocahontas and wearing colorful bathing suits. I can’t recall a single interest that seemed unusually masculine, or any evidence that she was uncomfortable as a girl.
The only difficulty she had was forming and maintaining friendships. We later learned why: She was on the autism spectrum. She was very functional and did well in school, helped by her Individualized Education Program (IEP), a common practice for public school students who need special education.
At her high school, my daughter was approached by a girl who had recently come out at school as transgender. Shortly after meeting her, my daughter declared that she, too, was a boy trapped in a girl’s body and picked out a new masculine name.
She first came out as transgender to her school, and when she announced that she was a boy, the faculty and staff — who had full knowledge of her mental health challenges — affirmed her. Without telling me or my wife, they referred to her by her new name. They treated my daughter as if she were a boy, using male pronouns and giving her access to a gender neutral restroom.
When her mother and I first found out, our feelings of helplessness and astonishment made it difficult to get through each day. But I feel my daughter is a victim more than anything else.
In an IEP meeting just after she told us about being a boy, I told the school that our wishes are to call her by her legal name at all times. The social worker present at the meeting stated that we have that right to make that request, so I assumed school staff would follow our directive. I followed up that meeting with an email, but later learned that my request was ignored and school staff continued to refer to her by the male name.
We met with the school district’s assistant superintendent, who told us the hands of school personnel are tied and that they had to follow the law. But there was no law, only the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleagues” letter of May 2016 that said schools need to officially affirm transgender students. Just three months later, in August 2016, a federal judge in Texas blocked the guidelines from being enforced. And in February 2017, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama-era guidelines, leaving it to the states to set their own policies.
I also learned that the ACLU has sent threatening letters to schools stating that it is against the law to disclose a student’s gender identity, even to their parents. But this letter appears to misunderstand federal law. The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requires that schools allow parents to “inspect and review” their child’s education records as long as the child is under 18.
My daughter told me that the school social worker was advising her about halfway houses because he thought we did not support her. The social worker confirmed this when I scheduled a meeting with him to discuss it. This felt like a horrifying attempt to encourage our daughter to run away from home.
We had our daughter evaluated by a psychologist approved by the school district. He told us that it was very clear that our daughter’s sudden transgender identity was driven by her underlying mental health conditions, but would only share his thoughts off the record because he feared the potential backlash he would receive. In the report he submitted to us and the school, he did not include these concerns that he would only share in person.
"well, that truth doesn't blend well with TTF-type alarmism"
Why don't you tell us yet again how gay marriages are going to destroy America, and how including gender identity in the non-discrimination laws is going to make men dress up like women to rape them in public restrooms.
In my attempts over the past several years to get help for my daughter, what I have learned has shocked me.
The National Education Association has partnered with the Human Rights Campaign and other groups to produce materials advocating automatic affirmation of identities, name changes and pronouns, regardless of parents’ concerns. In 18 states and the District of Columbia, including in my home state of Illinois, there are “conversion therapy” bans, which prevent therapists from questioning a child’s gender identity. No wonder my daughter’s therapist would only speak to me off the record.
Some agencies, like the New Jersey Department of Education, warn school districts to “be mindful of disputes” between children and their parents over gender identity. The department's “Transgender Student Guidance” document refers educators to the state’s "Child Abuse, Neglect, and Missing Children" webpage, suggesting that school staff might be encouraged to report parents if they disagree with their child transitioning.
When parents are willing to go along with their child’s transitioning, the process can move at a frightening pace. Doctors with the Endocrine Society rewrote the guidelines for treating young patients who say they are transgender in order to give hormone treatments to children younger than 16 years old. Even more concerning, surgeries such as mastectomies and orchiectomies (the removal of testicles) are performed on teenagers.
Through all this, I’ve learned that I’m not alone. Many parents just like my wife and me are often afraid to speak out because we are told we are transphobic bigots, simply because we do not believe our children were born into the wrong bodies.
When our daughter returned to high school to finish her senior year, I contacted the principal to let him know I expected her legal name to be used at graduation. Once again, the school refused to honor my request.
Now, thanks in large part to my daughter’s school, my daughter is more convinced than ever that she is a boy, and that testosterone may be necessary for her to become her authentic self.
She turned 18 in late June and life-altering, dangerous testosterone injections are just one “informed consent form” away. She can turn to any one of Illinois’s 17 Planned Parenthood clinics for cheap and easy access. No extensive mental health assessment will be required, and there will be nothing I can do to stop her.
"Why don't you tell us yet again how gay marriages are going to destroy America, and how including gender identity in the non-discrimination laws is going to make men dress up like women to rape them in public restrooms."
that would be difficult
you can only do aomething "again", if you'd already done it
I never said either of those things
"In April 2016, my then 14-year-old daughter became convinced that she was my son. In my attempt to help her, her public school undermined me every step of the way."
This opinion piece, that conveniently hits all of the right-wing's anti-trans talking points, and feeds into their alarmist propaganda, was written by:
Jay Keck lives in a suburb outside of Chicago, and his child, with whom he discussed this column, attended school in Hinsdale District #86. He is a member of the Kelsey Coalition, which promotes policies to protect young people from what the organization considers the medical and psychological harms of transgender medicine. He is also the Chicago leader of ParentsofROGDKids, a support group for parents who have children suddenly identifying as transgender.
The Kelsy Coalition is a well funded right wing group that has its own "Gender Harm Litigation Project."
This is a well-funded, poorly-disguised, right-wing attempt to undermine the lives and legal gains trans people have made over the last few years. It seems that since painting trans people with the "sexual predator in your bathroom" scare tactic didn't work, they're trying something a little less frantic.
"ParentsofROGDKids" - the ROGD stands for Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria - and is term right-wingers have made up to try and sound more clinical and scientific - since appealing to people's bathroom fears didn't get them what they wanted.
“Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD) also seems science-ish on the surface. After all, it’s a four-word technical-sounding term — seriously, who but scientists would have come up with such an esoteric-sounding name?! And I can easily imagine how laypeople who may have come across this term in The Globe and Mail, National Post, or National Review (all of which have recently published ROGD op-eds) might mistake this for an authentic medical condition or diagnosis, even though it is not rooted in actual science.
So for those unfamiliar with this term and curious as to what it’s all about, I have put together this handy primer.
Who invented the term Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria?
Zinnia Jones from Gender Analysis has written two excellent articles chronicling the origins of the phrase “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.” Basically, it originated in July 2016 on three blogs (4thwavenow.com, Transgendertrend.com, and YouthTransCriticalProfessionals.org) that have a history of promoting anti-transgender propaganda. The term was intended to explain some parents’ observations that 1) their children came out as transgender seemingly suddenly, often during puberty, and 2) their children also had trans-identified peers and interacted with trans-themed social media. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for reluctant parents to presume that their child has adopted a trans (or LGBTQ+ more generally) identity as a result of undue influence from other children and/or outside sources — hence the recurring accusations about transgender agendas, peer pressure, and trans identities supposedly being “trendy.” ROGD takes this presumption one step further: It asserts that any gender dysphoria these adolescents experience represents an entirely new phenomenon that is wholly distinct from the gender dysphoria that transgender people have historically experienced (e.g., as described in the DSM-5, the WPATH Standards of Care, and many decades of past research).
While ROGD is scientifically specious, the concept serves a very clear practical purpose. It provides reluctant parents with an excuse to disbelieve and disaffirm their child’s gender identity, under the presumption that it is merely a by-product of ROGD. It also provides a rationale for restricting their child’s interactions with transgender peers and access to trans-related information, as such things are the imagined cause of the condition.
In addition to these parental motivations, ROGD provides political cover for those who wish to rollback trans rights and healthcare. For instance, anti-trans groups can cite ROGD as a rationale for excluding trans kids and censoring trans-related media and resources (under the presumption that these things are causing ROGD in other children), and limiting or eliminating the ability to transition (under the presumption that some kids who seek this out are merely ROGD, and/or because ROGD is a brand new medical condition that will require years of further study). And if anyone objects to such measures, these ROGD proponents can conveniently claim that they are not anti-trans — after all, they acknowledge the existence of transgender people and gender dysphoria! (in some cases, at least) — it’s just that they are acting primarily out of concern for “ROGD kids.”
Is this really a new phenomenon?
No, it is not. Within trans health circles, it’s been well established that trans people may become gender dysphoric and/or come out about being transgender at any age. For instance, in the current WPATH Standards of Care (published in 2011), the section entitled “Phenomenology in Adolescents” explicitly states:
Yet many adolescents and adults presenting with gender dysphoria do not report a history of childhood gender-nonconforming behaviors (Docter, 1988; Landén, Wålinder, & Lundström, 1998). Therefore, it may come as a surprise to others (parents, other family members, friends, and community members) when a youth’s gender dysphoria first becomes evident in adolescence.
And as Zinnia Jones points out, the DSM-5 diagnosis for Gender Dysphoria (published in 2013) contains similar language:
Late-onset gender dysphoria occurs around puberty or much later in life. Some of these individuals report having had a desire to be of the other gender in childhood that was not expressed verbally to others. Others do not recall any signs of childhood gender dysphoria. For adolescent males with late-onset gender dysphoria, parents often report surprise because they did not see signs of gender dysphoria during childhood.
There is nothing inherently erroneous or illegitimate about a “rapid” onset of gender dysphoria — some trans people experience an epiphany during which all the clues and puzzle pieces suddenly come together, and they finally realize that they are transgender. (This is what happened to me when I was eleven, as I describe in Chapter 5 of Whipping Girl and Chapter 13 of Outspoken.) But the above passages — both of which describe parents experiencing “surprise” — illustrate that the word “rapid” in ROGD doesn’t necessarily refer to the speed of gender dysphoria onset, especially in the many cases where the child keeps their experiences to themselves for a time before sharing them with parents. Rather, what’s “rapid” about ROGD is parents’ sudden awareness and assessment of their child’s gender dysphoria (which, from the child’s standpoint, may be longstanding and thoughtfully considered).
As ROGD has garnered increasing mainstream attention, many adult trans folks have taken to sharing their “ROGD stories” on social media — for instance, pointing out how they came out as trans during adolescence, much to their parent’s surprise, and how their parents insisted that they weren’t “really trans” and/or attempted to suppress their gender explorations. In other words, this is not a new type of gender dysphoria, but rather a new name for a recurring parental dynamic.
But isn’t there a research study on ROGD?
To date, only one research study on ROGD has been published — it is authored by Lisa Littman and appeared in PLOS One a few days ago. There are numerous problems with this study, as Zinnia Jones and Brynn Tannehill detailed in their critiques of an earlier rendition of this same study back when it appeared as a non-peer-reviewed poster in the Journal of Adolescent Health. For starters, this was not a study of the children themselves, but rather their parents, who were instructed to fill out a “90-question survey . . . about their adolescent and young adult children.” What’s even more troubling is how this sample set of parents was selected: “Recruitment information with a link to the survey was placed on three websites where parents and professionals had been observed to describe rapid onset of gender dysphoria (4thwavenow, transgender trend, and youthtranscriticalprofessionals).”
In other words, this supposed study of ROGD is entirely based on the opinions of parents who frequent the very same three blogs that invented and vociferously promote the concept of ROGD. Frankly, this is the most blatant example of begging the question that I have ever seen in a research paper. The fact that Littman didn’t even bother to post a link to the survey on any of the many other online groups for parents of trans kids (i.e., ones that do not push an ROGD agenda, and who thus might have very different assessments of their adolescent trans children) strongly suggests that she purposefully structured her study to confirm the former parents’ assumptions, rather than objectively assess the state of their children.
All of this would explain why Littman published her article in PLOS One, rather than a more respectable journal. PLOS One’s publishing philosophy is quite different from other research journals in that, as an online open-access journal, they focus on quantity over quality. While they review the more technical aspects of each paper they publish (a fairly low bar to clear for an article analyzing an online survey), they are generally hands off with regards to “subjective concerns” — such as which experiments the authors choose to carry out, and their interpretation of the results. Another journal would likely press Littman to use a more representative sample, provide concrete evidence that ROGD is distinct from regular old gender dysphoria, and more thoroughly explore other possible explanations for the results, as any spurious or unreasonable claims made by Littman would reflect poorly on the journal itself. PLOS One, on the other hand, is not concerned with such matters, as they believe that the importance and relevance of an article should be determined by the scientific community post-publication (via debates and citations). Within scientific circles, researchers are well aware of this, and will take any claims made in a PLOS One article with a grain of salt, if not multiple grains (note: I have subsequently elaborated on this point here). Unfortunately, the lay public (not being aware of this) will likely take this study as “proof” that ROGD is a scientifically validated concept. Even though it isn’t.
So how would a researcher prove that a novel form of gender dysphoria exists?
I am so glad that you asked this question! Because this is the gargantuan elephant in the room, isn’t it? I mean, it’s not like you can just urinate into a cup, send it off to some lab, and await the results to find out what kind of gender dysphoria you have. There are no tests for gender dysphoria! It is entirely experiential — meaning that the only way to know whether someone is experiencing gender dysphoria is if they tell you they are experiencing it. (I discuss this, and its ramifications, at considerable length in this essay.)
Over the course of the twentieth century, there were countless attempts to classify transgender people based upon a variety of factors (e.g., gender non-conformity during childhood, adult gender expression, sexual orientation, age of onset and severity of gender dysphoria) in the hopes of finding indicators of a “true” trans identity and garnering insight into what causes gender diversity. However, every categorization scheme researchers invented was confounded by overlap between groups and countless exceptions to the rule. One of the last such taxonomies to be taken seriously was Ray Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory (circa 1989). Blanchard claimed that there were two distinct causes of gender dysphoria in trans women: an early onset version (which he seemed to conflate with effeminate male homosexuality) and a late onset version experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and asexual trans women (which he claimed was driven by paraphilia). While Blanchard made many bold claims about the supposed causations and distinctions between these groups, numerous follow up studies (summarized here) failed to support the notion that trans women fall into two fundamentally distinct classes, each with a unique cause.
While there remain a few outliers and holdovers who still embrace these outdated categories and theories of etiology, the field as a whole has moved on. It is now widely accepted that trans people are simply a part of natural variation, that there are many different transgender trajectories and potential identities, and that trans people may vary from one another in almost every possible way (including in their gender expression and age of onset, as explicitly acknowledged in the DSM-5 and WPATH Standards of Care passages that I cited earlier). ROGD proponents act as though they’ve discovered something new — whoa, there seems to be a brand new second type of gender dysphoria! — when in reality, they are merely retreading over old abandoned theories. Indeed, the very phrase “rapid onset” seems to intentionally harken back to a time when “early onset” and “late onset” trans people were viewed by some researchers as unrelated species. And rather fittingly, Blanchard and his fellow die-hard-autogynephilia-supporter J. Michael Bailey have subsequently embraced ROGD as a logical extension of their antiquated pet theory.
Anyway, to return to the initial question: What would it take to prove that ROGD is a novel condition that is entirely distinct from regular old gender dysphoria? A preponderance of evidence — that’s what. Rather than offering mere speculation and hypotheses, show me that there is some specific reproducible cause of gender dysphoria in “ROGD kids” that is largely or completely absent from kids who experience regular old gender dysphoria. Or show me that kids who are deemed ROGD exhibit an entirely different spectrum of outcomes than other transgender children. And while you’re at it, why don’t you begin by explaining how you can even distinguish between “ROGD kids” and the children described in the aforementioned DSM-5 and WPATH Standards of Care passages — you know, the ones who did not exhibit early childhood gender non-conformity, yet experienced gender dysphoria as adolescents, even though this was years before ROGD was supposedly even a thing. Because seriously, all of the ROGD anecdotes that I’ve come across do not seem unique or unusual in any way. They basically sound like regular old gender dysphoria stories, with the same old surprised and disbelieving parents.
Until convincing evidence materializes to the contrary, we should adhere to the principal of Occam’s razor and presume that these children are experiencing regular old gender dysphoria. This is not to say that all trans-identified children are exactly the same. Individuals will no doubt experience their genders somewhat differently, have different needs and desires, face different obstacles, and so forth. We should meet each individual child where they are in the present, give them space to explore their genders, and refrain from coercing them into relinquishing their identities and isolating them from their peers (which is what some ROGD proponents are currently advocating).
"This isn't to say that mistakes made by medical professionals are not a problem, or that they shouldn't be fixed. Merely that grossly exaggerating this number to the point of a crisis, where a huge number of people who are hospitalised could die from a medical mistake, is demonstrably false and dangerous."
thanks for the elaboration
sounds like you're right that the 500 number is, at least, over-simplified or disingenous
still, it also sounds like, anyway you look at it, more people die from medical errors every 48 hours than were shot in El Paso and Dayton by a mass shooter
this isn't to say that mass shootings are not a problem, or that they shouldn't be fixed
merely that grossly exaggerating this number to the point of a crisis, where a huge number of people are victims of mass shootings compare to other causes of death, is demonstrably false and dangerous
deaths by gun violence has been in decline for years despite well-publicized incidents
America, a land where gun ownership is a constitutional right, is a very safe place
"you can only do aomething "again", if you'd already done it
I never said either of those things"
Oh, I see, it must have been the OTHER conservative troll saying all those nasty things about gay and trans people.
"This opinion piece, that conveniently hits all of the right-wing's anti-trans talking points, and feeds into their alarmist propaganda,"
opinion piece?
he describes actual factual incidents
are you saying he lied about any of them?
"Oh, I see, it must have been the OTHER conservative saying all those nasty things about gay and trans people."
I don't remember anyone here saying them
can you cite some examples?
as a reminder, here's what you claimed was said:
1. gay marriages are going to destroy America
2. gender identity in the non-discrimination laws is going to make men dress up like women to rape them in public restrooms
show us where anyone posted either of those two assertions here
"this isn't to say that mass shootings are not a problem, or that they shouldn't be fixed"
The difference is that by and large, no one is standing in the way of curing the flu, trying to minimize medical accidents, and even the resistance to more safety features in cars that save people in accidents has reduced significantly since people have gotten used to the price of airbags in their cars.
The problem with guns is that a large portion of the population is standing in the way of fixing the gun problems, and spending millions of dollars on our politicians to do so.
There are other countries out there with lots of guns that don't have the problems we do with mass shootings. It is unconscionable not to seriously consider the methodologies of those other countries to reduce the number of victims having their life and all their freedoms taken away to preserve the "freedoms" of those with a gun fetish.
"show us where anyone posted either of those two assertions here"
People who've read this blog for a few years know what conservatives have said here, and their sentiments. If there was an easy way to search the blog for those phrases, I'd be happy to put them up.
But I have better things to do with my time, like work. And I'm not going to waste my time playing semantic games with you because there's I chance I didn't quote you precisely, word for word, EXACTLY what you wrote.
The sentiment is accurate, and these are common talking points used by right wingers for years - and they're not even the worst things they've said.
"The difference is that by and large, no one is standing in the way of curing the flu, trying to minimize medical accidents, and even the resistance to more safety features in cars that save people in accidents has reduced significantly since people have gotten used to the price of airbags in their cars."
if one would suggest doing any of those things by violating someone's rights, many would stand in the way
"The problem with guns is that a large portion of the population is standing in the way of fixing the gun problems, and spending millions of dollars on our politicians to do so."
they are just standing in the way of "fixing the gun problems" in the way you want
by blaming the inocent
most of those people are fine with providing enhanced security and allowing people to defend themselves or keeping guns away from lunatics
they just don't agree that you "fix the gun problems" by taking them away from law-abiding citizens
"There are other countries out there with lots of guns that don't have the problems we do with mass shootings. It is unconscionable not to seriously consider the methodologies of those other countries to reduce the number of victims having their life and all their freedoms taken away to preserve the "freedoms" of those with a gun fetish."
we're all open to "the methodologies of those other countries"
fetishes, however, are the right of a free people
TTFers should know that better than anyone
"People who've read this blog for a few years know what conservatives have said here,"
well, if they think anyone has said either of those things, they don't know what they are talking about
no one has said either
it's common for TTFers to accuse pro-family commenters of saying those two things, but no one here has said them
"But I have better things to do with my time, like work."
well, I sympathize
but until you can back up your assertions, no one should take them seriously
why don't you just stick to what you can back up?
"And I'm not going to waste my time playing semantic games with you because there's I chance I didn't quote you precisely, word for word, EXACTLY what you wrote."
oh, it's no semantic game
I never said anything closet to those things, and I don't remember anyone else doing so either
"The sentiment is accurate, and these are common talking points used by right wingers for years - and they're not even the worst things they've said."
ah, now you've gone to the next level
it's not that I said them, or that anyone here said them, it's that some right-wing person somewhere else said them
should I attribute all the progressive views of the El Paso and Dayton shooters to you?
The late Saul Alinsky, the legendary left-wing community organizer, must be looking up from wherever he is and smiling. The direction lately taken by the Democratic Party shows they’ve bought into his tactics, hook, line and sinker.
In his most famous book, “Rules for Radicals,” he opens with the following observation: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Sounds pretty much like the economic plank for the Democrats’ platform as enunciated by the leading contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, recently said he wouldn’t stop until “the poor got richer and the rich got poorer.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax. And just about everyone in the field, from former Vice President Joe Biden on down have promised to repeal the Trump tax cuts as part of a class-based appeal to envy.
That’s straight out of Alinsky’s handbook. If it were just an idea, it wouldn’t be so bothersome. There’s almost nothing so dangerous it can’t ever be talked about. But the Democrats these days are more about talking — they’re about translating their ideas into action in ways that can be intimidating.
Joaquin Castro, brother of Obama-era Housing Secretary and 2020 presidential candidate Julian Castro, decided just the other day it wasn’t enough to rail against Donald Trump and his policies since — based on the latest polls anyway — taking Mr. Trump on hasn’t been enough to push his brother anywhere near the front of the pack of people who want to be president in his place.
Just the other day Rep. Castro chose to post online the names and occupations of 44 of his constituents who, exercising their right to be politically active as guaranteed by the First Amendment, this year donated the maximum amount allowed by law to the Trump re-election committee. Rep. Castro also tweeted them out to more than 27,000 followers of his congressional campaign account.
The information is publicly available, by law, and is considered a good government measure that’s supposed to keep politicians honest by letting the voters know from where their campaign contributions come. But even good government reforms can be abused. In this case, Rep. Castro’s protestations to the contrary, it seems obvious the end goal is intimidation.
If you need further proof, look at what’s happening to Equinox and Soul Cycle, the two luxury fitness brands owned by The Related Cos, a privately held firm chaired by billionaire Stephen Ross. As soon as news brook that Mr. Ross, who’s been a generous giver to Republican candidates and causes in the past, would be hosting a luncheon fundraiser Friday at his Long Island home for Mr. Trump, the calls for boycotts on social media began in earnest.
Mr. Ross, both exercise firms say, is merely a passive investor. They’re distancing themselves from the event because they don’t want to lose clients and customers. That’s sensible but, like the Trump donors in Rep. Castro’s congressional district, they’ve been singled out for abuse because the folks who don’t like Mr. Trump need to cast the net as far and wide as possible.
As Alinsky said, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” Using the tactics of intimidation and boycotts the Democrats are trying to force people into the resistance by threatening their economic security. Most Americans are made of sterner stuff and won’t be easily bullied. The Democrats are right that when it comes to down to it, corporate America has as much backbone on political matters as a tower of Jell-O.
Tactics like these, which are gaining in popularity and will probably explode if the H.R. 1 free speech suppression bill ever makes it through Congress and is signed into law by some future Democratic occupant of the Oval office, are dangerous. Americans need more speech, not less. The country was founded on the idea that robust social and political discourse is a noble thing, guaranteed by inalienable rights coming to us from our common Creator. No individual or group has the right to try and muzzle that — or to force people to defend their own views if they would prefer not to.
We can hope the residents of the San Antonio-area singled out by Rep. Castro are not subjected to harassment, vandalism and violence. Considering the way things are in America today, there’s no guarantee of that. Antifa is looking for targets wherever they can be found. No one should be beaten or have their business wrecked because they made a campaign contribution.
"should I attribute all the progressive views of the El Paso and Dayton shooters to you?"
"the shooter in Texas agrees with Al Gore and TTF and Thanos that there are too many people for the planet to sustain"
Too late - looks like you already did.
Oh brother!
More Moonie crap following other right wing shit.
Nobody reads the troll's garbage.
Who remembers RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD.com?
JimK reported in Jan. 2005, "The President of the Recall Group apologized to the school board for threats that were made by their members."
How about Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum?
JimK reported in March "On March 19th, the Recall Group, now calling themselves Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, held a "town hall" meeting. One gay dad who attended the meeting was quoted in a national magazine saying, "It just felt like you were a Jew in Germany in the 1930s." The theme of the meeting was "fear and hate of the homosexual agenda." The CRC leadership tried to distance themseves from their own speakers afterwards."
Listen to their speakers: http://www.teachthefacts.org/CRCHateFest/CRChome.html
Oh and here's what ttftroll's side said at a school board meeting in 2007 about Montgomery County's very own little old anti-discrimination bill 23-07:
‘‘Heil Hitler!” Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, shouted immediately after the vote from his third-row seat in the council chamber ‘‘Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature.”
"Oh brother!
More Moonie crap following other right wing shit.
Nobody reads the troll's garbage."
you are so sad
regardless of who says something, the truth of it lies in facts not your preconception of their identity
ironically, that is hard for "Teach the Facts" devotees to grasp that
"Who remembers RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD.com?
How about Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum?"
is this a lame attempt to find someone who made the two statements you earlier cited?
I, myself, had nothing to do with either of those groups
one of the pro-family contributors here, Theresa, was involved in these groups
but she was unfailingly gracious to you bunch of lunatics
"Oh and here's what ttftroll's side said at a school board meeting in 2007 about Montgomery County's very own little old anti-discrimination bill 23-07:
‘‘Heil Hitler!” Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, shouted immediately after the vote from his third-row seat in the council chamber ‘‘Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature.”"
I remember JK making something out of this incident but considering I only heard it here, I didn't pay much attention
my guess is that this guy was sarcastically implying that the liberals who control our county are a bunch of fascists and not promoting fascism himself
btw, TTFers have accused every GOP candidate of fascism
according to them, Bush and McCain supporters were bloodthirsty and violent men
now, of course, they are held up by TTFers as models we all should follow
TTFers: they always have the moral courage necessary to be hypocrites
back to the statements that the TTFer falsely claimed were made here:
1. "gay marriages are going to destroy America"
no one here ever said that, or anything like it
I did explain why "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and not a benefit to any society
but civilizations are never destroyed by oxymorons
they are just a little more moronic
2. "gender identity in the non-discrimination laws is going to make men dress up like women to rape them in public restrooms"
no, no one here said that
I did explain that some people's opposition was based on the possibility that could happen but I never said I believed that
further, I also said women have a right to exclude men from their restrooms if the presence of men make the women uncomfortable and that the women don't owe anyone an explanation or justification for their discomfort
promotion of allowing men in women's rest rooms is one of many TTF positions that is anti-woman
btw, there is absolutely no evidence that requiring men to use the rest room assigned to their birth gender will endanger them
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-biden-is-wrong-there-is-no-compelling-evidence-that-assault-weapon-bans-work/
Universal Studios has canceled the release of its violent new R-rated massacre movie, “The Hunt,” for now, but the fact it even was made shows we’ve reached a dangerous new point in our political culture.
You have to wonder what twisted minds would dream up this liberal fantasy of jet-setting elites hunting down conservatives like vermin.
“They’re not human beings,” the Hillary Swank character says at one point, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“The Hunt,” originally titled “Red State vs. Blue State,” is a sign of where irrational Trump hatred has taken us.
It’s what the left is doing in real life. They’re dehumanizing their opponents and trying to incite violence against them.
The president’s detractors have tried for almost three years to break him. Russia didn’t work, Stormy didn’t work. Impeachment won’t work.
They’ve smeared his wife, his kids. They call him a fat slob, a psychopath and a Russian agent.
They’ve used the most violent rhetoric imaginable, from Madonna thinking about blowing up the White House to Kathy Griffin posing with a severed fake Trump head to Robert De Niro wanting to punch Trump in the face.
But nothing works. The more they abuse him, the more he relishes baiting them. He is impervious to their attacks, and his approval ratings haven’t budged.
So they have gone berserk. First, they projected their own murderous thoughts onto Trump, blaming him for the recent El Paso and Dayton massacres.
And in the next breath, they issued death threats against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“Just stab the motherf–ker in the heart,” said one charming protester on the lawn outside his house last weekend.
For Trump haters, the means justify the ends, and everyone knows that removing the president from public life is the only end worth pursuing, no matter how foul the means.
The real coarsening of American life comes not from a president who tweets low barbs at his enemies 24/7, it comes from his opponents, who have broken every rule of truth and fair play in politics and journalism.
So unscrupulous are they in their blinkered hunt for Trump’s scalp that they don’t care if the lies they tell endanger people and deepen the divisions in the country, even while they lament the coarsening of the political debate.
Now, having failed in their pursuit of Trump, they’re coming after anyone who supports him. It’s demonization by association.
When Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro published a hit list of 44 Trump donors on Twitter last week, he knew exactly what he was doing.
With the approval of his brother, 2020 Democratic candidate Julián Castro, he knew that the outcome would be a Twitter mob intimidating and abusing those innocent people, bombarding them with hateful phone calls, boycotting their businesses and potentially committing violence against them.
In a country where guns are plentiful and emotions are high, why would you risk that unless you regarded your political opponents as vermin?
This is the new normal for Democrats: If you disagree with their agenda, you are a deplorable, a bigot, a racist, a white supremacist — and any retaliation is acceptable.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s true. Truth is whatever version of reality best suits your purpose.
Almost 63 million Americans voted for Trump, in part because they reject the leftist project to remake their history and their culture.
It is not rational or healthy to imagine you can intimidate them into not voting for him in 2020. But that is all the Democrats have.
Much has been made of the return of great power competition. In truth, it never went away, although the great game was so one-sided for a time that almost everyone in the West tuned out, assuming the match was over in perpetuity. It was too boring to contemplate and so attention drifted to other concerns and second- and third-order problems. China’s attention did not deviate, and once again it is a great power.
Like cholesterol, great powers can be good, in that they accept the present international order, or bad, in that they do not. China does not, and seeks to overturn the contemporary order the West created. This is the source of what is already the great conflict of 21st century.
China is not a status quo great power. A partial review of the evidence is its territorial expansion in the South China Sea, the pressure against India along their common border, the use of ‘debt trap diplomacy’ to exploit less developed states, support for the suppression of protesters in Hong Kong, who call attention to the PRC’s violation of the 1984 agreement with the UK and the gross human rights abuses against its Muslim minority in Xinjiang. All of which rightfully receive attention.
But as important as these developments are, there is a greater concern. This is the intellectual framework that China is creating under the guise of ‘a community with a shared future for mankind,’ most recently expressed in the July 2019 defense white paper. Precisely what the Chinese Communist party (CCP) means by this concept is deliberately vague and nebulous. But it is clear enough from the more tangible comments defining peace, stability, and prosperity in China with the collective good of the world, as is the equation of a strong Chinese military as a force for world peace, stability and the building of a shared future for mankind.
This shared future is certain to be dystopian. Any community that the CCP creates will be totalitarian and oppressive by its nature. Any shared future that it seeks to create will be one in which the rest of the world adapts to serve the interests of Beijing. The future will be shared only because China’s power is great enough to trap states into it either by seduction or coercion. It will be like Foxconn on a global scale. Beijing’s conception of global governance is a firm hierarchy with it on top. This shared future will be less free, less diverse, and far more oppressive than the present one.
This phrase should not be dismissed as boilerplate. It matters because China is providing insight into the type of world it seeks to create in place of the liberal international order. In their struggle for power, the Bolsheviks promised ‘Peace, Land, and Bread,’ to win supporters, who lugubriously received civil war, the horrors of collectivization, and famine instead.
China’s ambition is just as revolutionary as Lenin’s. Despite the claims to the contrary, China is not a status quo great power. It is truly a revolutionary great power that seeks fundamental and permanent changes to the contemporary order in international politics. The words it chooses are designed to legitimize its position of dominance. However, Beijing’s effort to provide a palliative phrase to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the world cannot mask its form of neo-imperialism. The effort is likely to fail as more states question its ambition and encounter the truth about its behavior.
Washington needs to counter Beijing in the realm of public diplomacy and global opinion. The US may remind the world of the benefits of a world order based on equanimity and by delineating the reality of Beijing’s ideology and the empirical evidence of its actions with its public diplomacy rhetoric. If we want egalitarianism to remain the dominant ideal in international politics, rather than ceding leadership back to authoritarianism, we need to say so more frequently, forcefully, and with greater acuity.
When asked Sunday about his 2006 prediction that we would reach the point of no return in 10 years if we didn’t cut human greenhouse gas emissions, climate alarmist in chief Al Gore implied that his forecast was exactly right.
“Some changes unfortunately have already been locked in place,” he told ABC’s Jonathan Karl.
So what has Gore been predicting for the planet? In his horror movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” he claimed:
1. Sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet.
He didn’t provide a timeline, which was shrewd on his part. But even if he had said 20 inches, over 20 years, he’d still have been wrong. Sea level has been growing for about 10,000 years, and, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, continues to rise about one-eighth of an inch per year.
2. Storms are going to grow stronger.
There’s no evidence they are stronger nor more frequent.
3. Mt. Kilimanjaro was losing its snow cap due to global warming.
By April 2018, the mountain glaciers were taking their greatest snowfall in years. Two months later, Kilimanjaro was “covered by snow” for “an unusually long stint. But it’s possible that all the snow and ice will be gone soon. Kilimanjaro is a stratovolcano, with a dormant cone that could erupt.
4. polar bears’ “habitat is melting” and “they are literally being forced off the planet.”
there are four times as many polar bears as there were in the 1960s. Even if not, they’ve not been forced off the planet.
5. a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013
fact-checker Snopes, which leans so hard left that it often falls over and has to pick itself up, said, concludes that “Gore definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research.”
Unwilling to fully call out one its own, Snopes added that “Arctic sea ice is, without question, on a declining trend.” A fact check shows that to be true. A deeper fact check, though, shows that while Arctic sea ice has been falling, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing.
a British judge who found that “An Inconvenient Truth” contained “nine key scientific errors” and “ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination,”
Gore has been making declarative statements about global warming for about as long as he’s been in the public eye. He has yet to prove a single claim, though. But how can he? The few examples above show that despite his insistence to the contrary, his predictions have failed.
Even if all turned out to be more accurate than a local three-day forecast, there’s no way to say with 100% certainty that the extreme conditions were caused by human activity. Our climate is a complex system, there are too many other variables, and the science itself has limits, unlike Gore’s capacity to inflate the narrative.
In the aftermath of the murder of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, then a candidate for president, went forward with a planned rally at 17th and Broadway in the heart of Indianapolis’ African-American community. The country had witnessed more than 100 race riots that left at least 83 dead and 1,800 injured the previous summer, and Kennedy knew that news of King’s assassination could result in similar violence. Instead, he called for “an effort to understand with compassion and love.”
Kennedy’s speech is rightfully hailed as one of the great moments of American political rhetoric. His plea was tragically not successful: More than 40 were killed and 2,500 injured in the riots that followed. The Democratic Convention in Chicago was a long clash between police and demonstrators. The Weathermen began their “days of rage” in 1969. The Kent State shootings shocked the nation a year later. Meanwhile, thousands of Americans died in Vietnam: 11,363 in 1967, 16,899 in 1968, 11,780 in 1969 and 6,173 in 1970.
Nevertheless, Kennedy’s speech was a heartfelt, deeply moving appeal for healing and love among fellow citizens. Kennedy, who himself was killed two months later, saw all that had occurred, all that loomed and tried to stop it. Read his speech from that night in Indianapolis. Better yet, listen to it.
Then ask if you heard anything approaching that this past week from any corner of the Democratic Party. Kennedy was running for president as a Democrat but he was very much running against President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War. Still, he did not use the tragedy of King’s murder to score points. He did not demonize his opponents in the field, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy, or his presumptive opponent in the fall, Richard Nixon. He didn’t just speak to Democrats or some small slice of Democrats whom he considered “his base.” Kennedy spoke to all Americans, especially the deeply traumatized black community, and urged peace and love and healing.
The aftermath of the El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, mass murders, both rooted in the malaise and bigotry of our online age on both the fringe left and right, did not summon forth a Kennedy. Every single Democrat missed his or her opportunity to step up, as RFK did, and instead stepped in it.
Indeed, almost all of the Democrats chose in this week following a weekend of horrors to pivot their main message of the campaign trail from “Trump and Russia” to “Trump and racism.” At least five of the Democratic candidates went so far as to brand President Donald Trump as a white supremacist.
This is repulsive rhetoric — the sort of speech intended to marginalize and exile. It is “basket of deplorable” on steroids, and it says to every Trump supporter: “You, too, are a white supremacist.”
Hugh Hewitt discussed the actual number of “white supremacists” with Hillary Clinton on his radio show in November 2017.
“Of the 62.9 million people who voted for President Trump, do you have a number in your mind that you think are actually white nationalist racists of that 62.9 million, a real number?” I asked. “I don’t think there are 100,000 in any given state. I don’t think there are a half million in the United States. Do you disagree with me? Do you think there are more than a half million, you know, honest-to-God white nationalists running around the United States?”
“Probably not, no,” Clinton responded. “But I think there are people who are unfortunately kind of reverting back to rather virulent attitudes about race in part because I think that it’s become ‘politically acceptable,’ no longer politically correct to try to overcome our own feelings that often block us from seeing each other as fellow human beings. So no, the hardcore people, I agree with you, I don’t think that is a very large number.” Clinton was right.
Trump is not a racist, much less a white supremacist. The rhetoric of the Democratic candidates is incendiary and dangerous, and also politically self-destructive. It is so absurd as to be laughable but for its repetition.
But they do not wish to argue, debate and persuade. They wish to smear and exclude, and they have exploited this shock and fear to do so. They should turn back. They should follow the example of Bobby Kennedy, as should Trump. We could all listen to Kennedy’s plaintive words of 51 years ago to good effect.
"Trump is not a racist, much less a white supremacist. The rhetoric of the Democratic candidates is incendiary and dangerous, and also politically self-destructive."
If you don't think Rump is a racist, then you are absolutely clueless as to what a racist is or does, or you can't recognize it as racist because you fall into the white nationalist or supremacist category yourself. I don't know which is the case for any individual person.
Rump isn't being called a racist out of the blue - it is his "incendiary and dangerous" rhetoric about minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. Even some republicans are leaving the republican party for its overtly racist agenda - some of their "why I left the republican party" stories have been posted up here over the past several months.
As for "political correctness," Rump got elected on "not being politically correct and telling it like it is." His base still loves him for it. Now that Democrats are telling it like it is about Rump, suddenly being politically incorrect is "incendiary and dangerous."
You can't have it both ways. But that's never stopped republicons from double standards before.
"But they do not wish to argue, debate and persuade. They wish to smear and exclude, and they have exploited this shock and fear to do so."
You've just described the conservative agenda against the LGBT community for the past 50 years. Own it.
"If you don't think Rump is a racist, then you are absolutely clueless as to what a racist is or does, or you can't recognize it as racist because you fall into the white nationalist or supremacist category yourself. I don't know which is the case for any individual person."
gee, I should have checked with you before I said anything
racism exists everywhere and virtually everyone, of any race, has some degree of it
I think Dems are saying Trump is exceptionally racist and more racist than, say, Joe Biden
give us some examples of when Trump has been more racist than the average person of any race
"Rump isn't being called a racist out of the blue"
that's true
it's a carefully calculated strategy by Dems
all their other strategies have failed so this is their last gasp
"it is his "incendiary and dangerous" rhetoric about minorities, immigrants, and Muslims"
either false, exaggerated, or out-of-context
for example, he has never espoused white supremacy, as Joe Scarborough recently said
it's simply a lie
"Even some republicans are leaving the republican party for its overtly racist agenda - some of their "why I left the republican party" stories have been posted up here over the past several months."
completely political
and completely miscalculated at that
"As for "political correctness," Rump got elected on "not being politically correct and telling it like it is." His base still loves him for it. Now that Democrats are telling it like it is about Rump, suddenly being politically incorrect is "incendiary and dangerous.""
oh yeah, they are FINALLY telling it like it is
oh, wait a minute..
they've been saying this since they lost the election
they've just switched focus because the Russian hoax and the pussy grabber accusations have yielded no political benefit
"You've just described the conservative agenda against the LGBT community for the past 50 years. Own it."
for most of the last fifty years, most of society, Dems and GOP were in agreement on the LGBT community
you remember Obama who opposed gay marriage when elected?
Bill Clinton who devised Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
while we're at it. most racist policies have been led by Dems
KKK, Jim Crow, blocking the doors of schools, opposition to busing, mandatory sentencing, anti-school choice
all attempts to ameliorate the effects of racism have been opposed by Dems
"But they do not wish to argue, debate and persuade. They wish to smear and exclude, and they have exploited this shock and fear to do so."
You've just described the conservative agenda against the LGBT community for the past 50 years. Own it.
"for most of the last fifty years, most of society, Dems and GOP were in agreement on the LGBT community"
And yet that somehow doesn't make all the fear mongering and smearing of innocent gay people with the pedophile brush by the republicon party ok. Go figure.
"you remember Obama who opposed gay marriage when elected?"
And yet he somehow learned more and evolved on the issue. It seems some people are capable of growth and learning.
"Bill Clinton who devised Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"
You COMPLETELY ignore the fact that republicons didn't want gays allowed to serve at all - and they still want to see them excluded. They've already managed to get the Rumpster to exclude trans people. Gay people are next if they get their way. I wouldn't be surprised if they took it to Mitch's Supreme Court.
Everyone knows Don't Ask Don't Tell, as bad as it was, was still better than what conservatives were pushing for - kicking them all out.
You argue as if no one remembers history. Is it just your short attention span or inability to put more than a single thought in a sentence?
"You argue as if no one remembers history"
no, I do remember it
you're the one who doesn't remember that the conservative agenda on LGBT issues was the same as the Dem one for most of the last 50 years
how could you forget that?
A former Texas judge and longtime Republican announced this week she has left the Republican Party, denouncing President Donald Trump's "ideology" of "racism" on the heels of Trump's racist attacks on four Democratic congresswomen of color.
"President Trump is the worst president in the history of this country," Elsa Alcala wrote in a Monday Facebook post, saying also that she will vote in the Democratic primary next year for the first time in more than 20 years.
Alcala wrote, "At his core, his ideology is racism. To me, nothing positive about him could absolve him of his rotten core." She added it has taken her "years to say this publicly."
Alcala told CNN Wednesday she officially switched her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.
"I needed to get the R off of my name so I had to say this publicly," Alcala wrote in the post, saying she cannot support the Republican Party in Texas or nationally because of the party's support of Trump. She wrote any of the "viable" Democratic candidates "are superior to the status quo."
"Please don't lecture me about abortion because today Trump's actions are resulting in the deaths of live humans in other ways," Alcala also wrote. "There is no moral high ground by Republicans on abortion or the value of life."
"And don't tell me to go back where I came from. My relatives have been in this Texas area since it was before the USA and I was born in the USA. My English is probably better than yours," she said.
Alcala's post came hours after Trump doubled down on racist tweets he posted on Sunday attacking the four progressive Democratic lawmakers. In the tweets, he implied the congresswomen -- all of whom are Americans and are women of color -- weren't American and suggested they "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."
In her post, Alcala wrote she has spent 29 years in government service and appreciated the support she received from past Republican administrations, which she said were not "Trump-like (they wanted an inclusive party)."
Alcala served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for seven years after then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, appointed her to the court in 2011, according to her biography on the website of Texas Defender Service, a non-profit where she used to work.
She previously served for nine years on the First Court of Appeals, according to the website, and as a trial judge with the 338th District Court, a position to which she was initially appointed by then-Gov. George W. Bush.
"she was initially appointed by then-Gov. George W. Bush"
yeah, you used to say he was racist too
Joe Biden’s string of gaffes is raising questions among Democrats about his ability to beat President Trump in 2020.
Biden made headlines three times in the last week by misspeaking.
Over the weekend he mistakenly said he had met as vice president with students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.
“Those kids in Parkland came to see me when I was vice president,” he told reporters in Iowa.
The Parkland school was attacked by a mass shooter and many of the students were turned into gun control activists in an incident in 2018 — more than a year after Biden’s vice presidency ended.
That blunder followed another two days earlier when Biden, 76, told an audience of Asian and Hispanic voters that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”
Earlier that day, Biden also declared in a speech at the Iowa State Fair, “We choose truth over facts.”
The rash of gaffes are poking holes in Biden's argument that he is the most electable candidate in the very crowded Democratic primary field.
Biden is currently the Democratic front-runner. He has leaned into the argument that he is the candidate best poised to defeat Trump, and supporters have questioned whether some of his liberal rivals would be weaker in a general election battle.
The gaffes threaten Biden’s position at a time when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has been on the rise and he faces a difficult contest in the Iowa caucuses.
“The individual gaffes are a proxy for his political endurance, which some feel is waning, particularly as Warren is creeping up in the polls,” said Democratic strategist Basil Smikle, the former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party.
While Biden has always been known for verbal slip-ups, the recent mistakes are also coming at a time when he is facing questions about his age.
They also have given openings to President Trump, who last week said his potential rival wasn’t playing with a “full deck.”
How could you forget that the most vitriolic and dehumanizing rhetoric about LGBT people consistently came from the conservative religious right?
It may have all looked the same to you, but it wasn't to the victims.
"The Parkland school was attacked by a mass shooter and many of the students were turned into gun control activists in an incident in 2018 — more than a year after Biden’s vice presidency ended."
So now they're gun control activists. Good to know. Right wingers have been telling us they were "crisis actors." Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
"‘‘Heil Hitler!” Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, shouted immediately after the vote from his third-row seat in the council chamber ‘‘Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature.”"
I remember JK making something out of this incident but considering I only heard it here, I didn't pay much attention"
That was Jimk quoting the Gazette newspaper. (The Gazette, 11/14/2007, p.A25)
Even the awashingtoncatholic.blogspot.com quoted it.
Sorry LYIN' FOX NEWS and your Moonie rag didn't carry the MoCoGOP Nazi quote for you.
"further, I also said women have a right to exclude men from their restrooms if the presence of men make the women uncomfortable and that the women don't owe anyone an explanation or justification for their discomfort
promotion of allowing men in women's rest rooms is one of many TTF positions that is anti-woman"
Not only do you want trans women to be forced to use mens' rooms, you want trans men to be forced to use ladies' rooms.
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a19967321/transgender-man-before-after/
https://triathlonmagazine.ca/news/transitions-transgender-athletes/
https://mashable.com/2016/03/14/transgender-mens-health-star/
http://debonairafrik.com/9-trans-men-and-women-who-slay-the-world-of-modelling/
Shearer Drug, Clinton County, KY
Hardin County Discount PHA, Hardin County IL
Arnzen's Kamiah Drug, Lewis County, ID
Booneville Discount Drugs, Owsley County, KY
C & R Clinc PHCY, Morton County, KS
Glenn's Apothecary, Crittenden County, KY
Smith County Drug Center Inc., Smith County TN
Strosnider, Mingo County WV
Main Street Pharmacy, Comanche County KS
Howard's Drugs, Lake County, OR
R&K KPharmacy Inc., Polk County, TN
Safeway, Inc., Mineral County, NV
Boyds Family Pharmacy, Emery County, UT
MK Stores, Inc., Luce County, MI
Clinic Pharmacy, Harmon County OK
Look at all those red states!
America’s farmers have apparently been demoted by the Trump administration from “great patriots” to “whiners,” according to a tone-deaf joke by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. Farmers, struggling with plunging income and bankruptcies amid President Donald Trump’s trade war, were stunned.
Perdue made the joke while getting heat last week from Minnesota farmers complaining about, among other things, the latest blow to their businesses from the trade war. China has canceled all purchases of U.S. farm products in retaliation for Trump’s decision to impose 10% tariffs on $300 billion in Chinese imports.
At a Farmfest listening session with farmers in Minnesota, Perdue hit back at the complaints with his joke: “What do you call two farmers in a basement? A whine cellar.”
As he pounded the table in mirth, some of the thousands of farmers at the event laughed nervously — which was followed by boos.
Net farm income in America has plunged by nearly half over the last five years from $123.4 billion in 2013 to $63 billion last year. It plummeted by 16% last year alone, Time reports. Farmers have filed a record number of bankruptcies since the start of Trump’s trade war with China.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who attended Farmfest, was taken aback by Perdue’s characterization of farmers as whiners.
“I’m sitting down with farmers across my district and I know for a fact that they are not whining. They’re stressed and they’re scared. Family farmers are experiencing the real consequences of an escalating trade war and rapidly disappearing markets.”
Trump has arranged for $28 billion in subsidies to farmers to cushion the blow, but farmers and agriculture policy experts say it’s not enough to make up for lost revenue, according to The New York Times. They also worry that the pricey subsidies paid by taxpayers will undercut public support for the farmers, Wertish said, with some already characterizing the program as welfare.
Farmers fear that even if a deal is finally reached with China, markets for American farm products will be lost forever as farmers in countries like Brazil scoop up new contracts with China, according to CNBC.
Wertish criticized Trump’s “go-it-alone” approach in his battle against a powerful nation in a trade war that he boasted at the start of his presidency would be “easy to win.”
When struggling farmers don’t have enough future trade to secure a bank loan, the “banks don’t say, ’You’re a patriot, you don’t have to pay your bills,’” said Wertish.
WASHINGTON—The U.S. budget gap widened further in July as federal spending outpaced revenue collection, bringing the deficit to $867 billion so far this fiscal year, a 27% increase from the same period a year earlier.
The Treasury Department said Monday federal receipts rose 3% from October through July, totaling $2.9 trillion, while outlays climbed 8%, to $3.7 trillion. A senior Treasury official said federal revenue collection has picked up significantly since April compared with a year earlier, when lower tax rates implemented under the 2017 tax overhaul weighed on receipts.
At the same time, rising enrollment in Medicare and higher interest rates have led to higher government costs on benefits and interest payments, pushing the deficit even higher despite robust economic growth that usually shrinks budget shortfalls.
Part of the increase in the deficit so far this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, can be attributed to calendar quirks, which made the gap appear slightly larger. If not for a shift in the timing of certain payments, the deficit would have been 20% higher during the first 10 months of the fiscal year, the Treasury said.
Higher deficits have forced the government to ramp up borrowing since early 2018, due in part to slumping revenue following the tax cut and a 2018 budget deal that lifted domestic and military spending for two years.
Over the 12 months that ended in July, the deficit totaled $961.8 billion, or 4.5% as a share of gross domestic product. Revenues over the previous 12 months rose 2.4%, while federal spending was up 6.3%.
The Treasury said last month it expects to borrow more than $1 trillion this calendar year for the second year in a row, as the annual budget gap is on track to exceed $1 trillion for fiscal year 2019, which ends Sept. 30.
A recently enacted budget deal, which President Trump signed earlier this month, will maintain the current government spending trajectory and add further to federal deficits over the next two years.
Who remembers this?
Tea Party Express pushes for balanced-budget amendment
In 2016, Dems lost the White House for a few reasons:
1. The Dem nominee was corrupt
2. Dems did not address the concerns of blue collar workers
3. Dems were on the wrong side of the moral issue of our time: abortion
3. and the Dems opposed the Constitution
looks like they haven't learned a thing
Every Democrat in the Senate is backing a constitutional amendment that aims to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision in which the Supreme Court lifted legal restrictions on what corporations and unions are allowed to say about politics at election time. That would be troubling enough, since Citizens United, which involved a film that was banned from TV because it was too critical of Hillary Clinton, simply recognized that Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights when they organize themselves in a disfavored way. But the so-called Democracy for All Amendment goes
much further than nullifying one Supreme Court decision. It would radically rewrite the constitutional treatment of political speech, allowing Congress and state legislatures to impose any restrictions on election-related spending they consider reasonable.
"To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo.
In Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on campaign contributions, which it said were justified by the desire to prevent "corruption and the appearance of corruption." But the Court overturned FECA's limits on spending by candidates and on independent spending by individuals and groups. Those limits, the Court said, "place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate."
The rationale for that conclusion is not, as critics often claim, that "money is speech." The point, rather, is that people must spend money to communicate with large numbers of their fellow citizens. Limits on spending therefore restrict their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights. If the government banned computers and smartphones, that would clearly violate the First Amendment—not because computers and smartphones are speech but because they are necessary to participate in online debate.
The Democracy for All Amendment would ditch this understanding of the First Amendment and instead rely on legislators' self-restraint in deciding which limits on spending are "reasonable." Courts reviewing the resulting rules would have precious little guidance in deciding when they went too far.
Section 2 of the amendment adds that legislators "may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections." In other words, a complete ban on election-related speech by citizens organized as corporations, including a wide range of nonprofit interest groups across the political spectrum, would be presumptively reasonable, regardless of timing. By contrast, the ban overturned by Citizens United applied only to messages that mentioned a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
The implication, perhaps, is that a complete ban on election-related spending by individuals or by groups not organized as corporations would not be constitutional. But how close legislators could get to that policy without violating the First Amendment is anybody's guess.
"Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.), a lead co-sponsor of the amendment. Chris Coons, the other Democratic senator from Delaware, likewise promises that the amendment will "give all Americans an equal voice in our elections."
Carper and Coons are not saying that every American should get an equal vote. They are saying that every American should have an equal influence on the political debate, which is impossible but would seem to require, at the very least, that no one be allowed to spend more on election-related speech than the poorest American can afford. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that such equalization of speech is inconsistent with the First Amendment. As now-Justice Elena Kagan noted in a 1996 law review article, it is well-established that "the government may not restrict the speech of some to enhance the speech of others."
The third section of the amendment contradicts the other two sections by stating that "nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press." The amendment's backers seem to think they are constitutionalizing the "media exemption" from limits like the ones overturned in Citizens United. Under that exception, news outlets such as The New York Times and CNN were free to talk about political candidates close to an election, even though they were organized as corporations.
As scholars such as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh have shown, however, the "freedom of the press" protected by the First Amendment does not refer to a particular profession. The clause was meant to protect anyone who uses a technology of mass communication—the printing press at the time and, by extension, TV, radio, and the internet today. On its face, then, Section 3 of the Democracy for All Amendment invalidates the rest of it.
Even if it didn't, what would stop interest groups from using their own media outlets (such as the ill-fated NRA-TV or The Daily Signal, published by the Heritage Foundation) as channels for their political speech, thereby qualifying for constitutional protection even under the Democrats' sharply circumscribed, industry-specific freedom of the press? Presumably, legislators and judges would have to start drawing distinctions between "real" and "fake" media outlets, a judgment for which the Constitution provides no guidance.
Carper describes this license for censorship as "a straightforward constitutional amendment that will restore the health and integrity of our campaign finance system." That's true only if "health and integrity" require muting some voices so that others may be heard. But that goal is plainly at odds with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
While the amendment has zero chance of actually being adopted, the fact that the entire Senate Democratic Caucus thinks it's a fine idea speaks volumes about the party's disregard for those freedoms.
"looks like they haven't learned a thing"
Looks like the conservative hasn't learned how to count to 4.
What a great endorsement for homeschooling.
I hope some corporation isn't paying you to propagate their propaganda. They should get at least 1/4 of their money back.
The constitution never guaranteed rich corporations more "free speech" than poor citizens.
BTW, PBS has an educational show called "Sesame Street." I know, I know, PBS is that bastion of liberalism that should be ignored at all costs. But they have a character on there called "The Count." He's a blue Dracula-inspired character that - get this - COUNTS!!
He could help you out.
"1. The Dem nominee was corrupt"
Meanwhile, Trump couldn't even spell "Emoluments Clause," much less follow it.
STEPHEN ROHDE MAY 13, 2019
The obstruction of justice documented in Mueller’s report has gotten more attention, but Trump’s profiting from his office is an open-and-shut impeachment count.
On April 30, a federal district judge rejected Trump’s motion to throw out the lawsuit filed by approximately 201 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives alleging that Trump has flagrantly violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The case was largely overlooked as national attention has focused on Trump’s obstruction of justice and his efforts to block further congressional scrutiny of his abuses of power.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in a comprehensive 48-page opinion, ruled that the narrow definition of “emoluments” advanced by Trump’s lawyers “disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years.”
This was not the first time a federal judge has allowed such a case to go forward against Trump. Last July, in an equally comprehensive 52-page decision, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte denied Trump’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland. Both these lawsuits in essence challenge Trump’s outrageous declaration that “I have a no-conflict situation because I’m president,” a haunting echo of Richard Nixon’s infamous and doomed claim that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
In gratitude to Benjamin Franklin for his service as American minister to France from 1776 to 1785, King Louis XVI gave him a snuffbox festooned with 408 diamonds. Two years later when the Founders wrote the new Constitution, they rejected absolute monarchy but feared that public officials could be corrupted by foreign gifts. They adopted the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8). The Domestic Emoluments Clause further provides that the president shall receive compensation for his services but prohibits the president from receiving “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7).
For the first time since the Constitution was ratified, both federal courts agreed with the plaintiffs that “emoluments” means “any profit, gain, or advantage” and rejected the president’s more narrow definition of “emoluments” to mean only a payment made as compensation for official services. Judge Messitte found Trump’s arguments “unpersuasive,” and “misplaced,” reflecting a “cramped interpretation” of the Constitution, which ignored the “large accumulation of historical evidence” and would lead to an “essentially absurd result.”
Judge Messitte, in one of his most pointed comments, observed that “[w]here, for example, a President maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is it that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any and all of his dealings with foreign or domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property.”
Both judges noted that the plain language broadly encompassed “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever,” without exception. Looking at what “emoluments” meant to ordinary citizens during the nation’s founding, based on historical scholarship, they each found that every English dictionary definition of “emolument” from 1604 to 1806 included plaintiffs’ broad definition, while only 8 percent of those dictionaries also included the president’s definition. The courts both found that the plaintiffs’ definition reflected the Framers’ intention to address their “profound concern” over “possible foreign influence” with “broad anti-corruption provisions.”
Having determined the legal definition of emoluments, both judges found that the plaintiffs’ factual allegations, if proven, met that standard. For example, the attorneys general specifically allege that “foreign governments or their instrumentalities have patronized the Trump International Hotel, spending government funds to stay at the Hotel, eat at its restaurants, and sponsor events in the Hotel's event spaces.” In particular, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia spent $270,000 at the hotel between October 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017, and the Embassy of Kuwait moved its National Day celebration from another hotel to the Trump International Hotel on February 22, 2017, a month after Trump was inaugurated.
Trump’s appeal of Judge Messitte’s ruling was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals last March but a decision has yet to be issued. At the oral argument, one of the judges questioned whether the president could be sued in a civil action for violating the emoluments clause and that instead the remedy rests with Congress. Ironically, the remedy the Constitution grants Congress is impeachment. Indeed, Edmund Randolph at the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788 remarked that the emoluments clause protected the country against the danger of “the President receiving Emoluments from foreign powers” and asserted that a president who violates the clause “may be impeached.”
"Looks like the conservative hasn't learned how to count to 4"
don't know about anyone else but I certainly think this is a powerful case for eliminating freedom of speech
"What a great endorsement for homeschooling"
I actually attended public schools
"I hope some corporation isn't paying you to propagate their propaganda. They should get at least 1/4 of their money back."
really?
why?
"The constitution never guaranteed rich corporations more "free speech" than poor citizens"
it actually guarantees everyone free speech, regardless of their capacity to reach people
people don't lose it when they form into groups, like corporations or unions
resentment and envy are not grounds for eliminating free speech
there is a term for a land where people are limited to only speaking in ways that are available to the poorest citizens:
dictatorship
"The obstruction of justice documented in Mueller’s report has gotten more attention,"
if you call laughter and mockery attention
"but Trump’s profiting from his office is an open-and-shut impeachment count"
really?
why hasn't he been impeached then?
"On April 30, a federal district judge rejected Trump’s motion to throw out the lawsuit filed by approximately 201 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives alleging that Trump has flagrantly violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The case was largely overlooked as national attention has focused on Trump’s obstruction of justice and his efforts to block further congressional scrutiny of his abuses of power.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in a comprehensive 48-page opinion, ruled that the narrow definition of “emoluments” advanced by Trump’s lawyers “disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years.”"
Sullivan has displayed open hostility to Trump, he should recuse himself
he's wrong and, his superiors, the Supreme Court, will make that clear
"the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8)"
if you are talking about the hotel his kids run, Congress, as a whole, hasn't raised any objection to it remaining in business and serving all comers
that sounds like "consent"
"Judge Messitte, in one of his most pointed comments, observed that “[w]here, for example, a President maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is it that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any and all of his dealings with foreign or domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property.”"
doesn't matter
Congress hasn't said it doesn't consent
and Trump hasn't hidden anything
"Trump’s appeal of Judge Messitte’s ruling was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals last March but a decision has yet to be issued. At the oral argument, one of the judges questioned whether the president could be sued in a civil action for violating the emoluments clause and that instead the remedy rests with Congress. Ironically, the remedy the Constitution grants Congress is impeachment."
Congress would have to make clear it doesn't consent before a violation could be inferred
and, though this has been discussed widely, Congress has not taken any action to express that it doesn't consent
hence, Trump can assume Congress consents
if the Dems want to stop Trump, they'll have to get a resolution on non-consent through Congress
then, if Trump chooses to ignore Congress, there would be grounds for impeachment
news flash: Congress consents
"don't know about anyone else but I certainly think this is a powerful case for eliminating freedom of speech"
It wasn't about freedom of speech. It was about your "Dems are desperate desperados" post - the one where you counted
1..2..3..3.
"really?
why?"
It's a math joke - you didn't make it to four.
"resentment and envy are not grounds for eliminating free speech"
No one said they were. Your projection isn't grounds for overwhelming the voices of poor people with the economic power of rich people. They already have their own voices, and control much of the media. They already have plenty of power. They don't need more. Rich people having the same rights as poor people isn't infringing on their rights of free speech, no matter how many times you like to contort logic to make it fit your agenda.
"there is a term for a land where people are limited to only speaking in ways that are available to the poorest citizens:
dictatorship"
In dictatorships, the poor people don't have a say at all - that's essentially the definition of a dictatorship. It's the dictator that's rich, controls most of the wealth (often with his close friends), the levers of power, and controls who gets to keep his office.
But I know you're big fan of the right-wing's "originalist" theory of the Constitution, so it is no surprise that you're not a big fan of poor people having an equal footing with the rich people. After all, when the nation first started, it was only white male landowners that got to vote. Not blacks, who were often slaves, or women, who often were not allowed to own property. This of course, made them poor - by definition. I guess the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments are not among your favorites. For a while, this country made strides in improving equity and living up to "all men are created equal." Somehow, the Republicans have twisted this into rich people deserve even more "equal."
"why hasn't he been impeached then?"
It's still working its way through the courts.
Be patient.
"It wasn't about freedom of speech. It was about your "Dems are desperate desperados" post - the one where you counted
1..2..3..3."
uh, the "Dems are desperate desperados" post was about freedom of speech
"It's a math joke - you didn't make it to four."
oh, it's a joke?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
""resentment and envy are not grounds for eliminating free speech"
No one said they were. Your projection isn't grounds for overwhelming the voices of poor people with the economic power of rich people."
under your logic, we should shut down all newspapers
why should Jeff Bezos be able to overwhelm my voice just because he has the money to buy a newspaper?
of course, saying that any speech that takes economic resources to project should be banned unless everyone has those economic resources would guarantee that no one could ever have the power to change the government - that's essentially the definition of a dictatorship
truth is there are wealthy people will all kinds of views
the wealthiest people (Bezos, Buffet, Gates) right now happen to be Dems
no point of view lacks an economic champion
"They already have their own voices, and control much of the media. They already have plenty of power. They don't need more."
no one is suggesting they be given more
you are suggesting that government actively reduce their ability to voice their views
"Rich people having the same rights as poor people isn't infringing on their rights of free speech, no matter how many times you like to contort logic to make it fit your agenda."
Rich people have the same rights as poor people because Citizens United has stopped the government from regulating their free speech
under your contorted logic, no viewpoint would have adequate resources to organize a change in government - that's essentially the definition of a dictatorship
"In dictatorships, the poor people don't have a say at all - that's essentially the definition of a dictatorship. It's the dictator that's rich, controls most of the wealth (often with his close friends), the levers of power, and controls who gets to keep his office."
you assume that all the rich have the same viewpoint and are friends with the dictator
that's an ignorant defiance of reality
here in America, where Citizens United is the law of the land, there are multiple wealthy people trying to overthrow the dictator at the ballot box
poor people are free to join up with any of them
all people have more power if they can band together with others (in corporations, unions, et al) to resist the status quo
the Dems want to eliminate that ability for groups to organize by making groups of people unable to pool their resources
"But I know you're big fan of the right-wing's "originalist" theory of the Constitution,"
originalism is not a theory of the Constitution
it's actual belief in the Constitution
"when the nation first started, it was only white male landowners that got to vote. Not blacks, who were often slaves, or women, who often were not allowed to own property. This of course, made them poor - by definition. I guess the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments are not among your favorites. For a while, this country made strides in improving equity and living up to "all men are created equal." Somehow, the Republicans have twisted this into rich people deserve even more "equal."
there has never been more equality is America than there is now
you assume that more money means more political power
but if it did, Jeb Bush would be President now
""why hasn't he been impeached then?"
It's still working its way through the courts.
Be patient."
impeachment doesn't happen in the courts, you fool
it's a political process that takes place in the legislature
right now, the legislature is fully aware that impeaching the President would be detrimental to their political position because their constituents, rich and poor alike, oppose impeachment
Chris Cuomo’s affection for political violence and intimidation is again revealed in a video of the basement-rated CNN anchor being heckled as “Fredo” in a public place.
Cuomo not only melts down over being tweaked and overreacts like a thin-skinned, entitled man-baby, but what’s especially fascinating and troubling is how he sees the taunt as a political attack.
After he’s called “Fredo,” Cuomo squares off against the guy, who seems to want to calm things down.
“I thought that’s who you were,” the man says.
And it is here that Cuomo makes it political.
“No,” Cuomo says. “Punk-ass bitches from the right call me Fredo.”
And then Cuomo gets violent. “I’ll fucking ruin your shit,” he promises. “I’ll fucking throw you down these stairs like a fucking punk.”
“Don’t call me Fredo,” Cuomo says as he leans into the man practically nose-to-nose. “Take a fucking swing. Take a fucking swing.”
At this point, Cuomo invades the man’s space forcing him to back up. “Come on, boy, you want to call me names, I’ll wreck your shit; I’ll fucking wreck your shit.”
Not only is Cuomo’s behavior childish and an unbelievable overreaction, it is hypocritical. His own network, the fake news outlet CNN, has ambushed people with a camera — including a grandmother in Florida guilty of nothing more than being a Trump supporter.
What’s more, Cuomo has no problem when his political enemies, such Donald Trump Jr., are called “Fredo” on his own CNN show. Here he is on Don Jr:
"He's an entitled, rich, spoiled little brat whose only call to fame is being his daddy's son. Daddy kept Fredo back home...Who cares what he says. I don't want to talk about that entitled little brat."
So, on one hand, Cuomo declared being tweaked as “Fredo” as no different than calling a black person a “nigger,” but on the other hand he allows a name he equates to the N-word to be used against his political enemies.
He even promotes this moment on social media.
But, overall, forget about the hypocrisy because what we have here is Cuomo once again embracing and encouraging political violence, just as he frequently does on his low-rated CNN show.
While decent people agree that violence has no place anywhere in our society, much less in political debate, Cuomo disagrees. He’s a huge champion and supporter of the left-wing terrorist organization Antifa, and a booster of the violence they commit against Cuomo’s political enemies on the right.
In August of last year, Cuomo said of Antifa’s terrorism:
"Two wrongs and what is right. The bigots are wrong to hit. Antifa or whomever — anarchists or malcontents or the misguided — they are also wrong to hit. But fighting hate is right. And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right."
Here’s Cuomo again in November excusing and encouraging Antifa’s violence.
“it’s not a both sides situation.”
Cuomo, obviously, is taking a cue from CNN’s puppetmaster Jeff Zucker, who has shifted the axis of his network to encourage violence against President Trump and his supporters,
But the “Fredo” video is a glimpse into Cuomo’s rage, his hatred of the political right, a provincial and sheltered silver spoon of a man who brings everything back to politics — even a childish taunt — and who believes violence and the threat of violence is an acceptable response.
At least Cuomo is not our President.
Googling for "2016 trump campaign threats of violence" yields 50,200,000 hits such as:
Aug 10, 2016, Trump's long dalliance with violent rhetoric - POLITICO
2017 The Meta-violence of Trumpism - OpenEdition Journals
Feb 23, 2016 Watch Donald Trump's History of Violence - Foreign Policy
Aug 9, 2016 Trump 'Second Amendment' Comment Seen as Veiled Threat Against Clinton
Sept 16, 2016 Donald Trump Again Alludes to Violence Against Hillary Clinton
Mar 14, 2016 Trump's History of Encouraging Violence - Video - NYTimes.com
Mar 16, 2016 Donald Trump just threatened more violence. Only this time, its directed at the GOP
The market’s most closely watched part of the yield curve inverted today, and if its record over the last half-decade is any indicator, the U.S. could be headed for a recession soon.
Shortly after 6 a.m. ET on Wednesday, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond dipped below the yield on the 2-year U.S. Treasury as the 10-year fell 1 basis point below the 2-year. The yield curve inversion has a strong track record of predicting a recession; each of the last seven recessions (dating back to 1969) were preceded by the 10-year falling below the 2-year.
The last time the yield curve inverted was in December 2005, about two years before the financial crisis sent the economy into recession.
Concerns over a global slowdown, in addition to uncertainties from the U.S.-China trade war, have weighed heavily on longer-term U.S. Treasury yields. Since the new year, the return on the longer-term 30-year Treasury has fallen from a high of 3.12% in March to 2.08% on August 14.
Bond yields across the board have come down over that same time period, as investors move funds from more aggressive yielding securities into risk-off assets like gold and U.S. Treasuries.
Yields came down precipitously in August amid a mix of global concerns: President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on China, an Argentinian election renewed worry over its debt crisis, and protests escalated in Hong Kong.
Morgan Stanley wrote August 12 that unless economic data tor U.S. equity earnings turn around, “the bear is alive and kicking.” Their note adds that investors should be careful about equity markets, recommending staples and utilities stocks amid recession risks.
“Growth stocks look more vulnerable than defensives,” Morgan Stanley wrote.
In an August 13 note, Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned that equity investors should not expect the stock market to turn sour immediately, as the S&P 500 has a tendency to experience a “last gasp rally” to a new peak after dipping.
BAML points out that it can take eight and 24 months for a recession to hit after the 2-year and 10-year curve inverts. They warned that an inverting yield curve means equities are on “borrowed time.”
"At least Cuomo is not our President"
his father and brother tried to be
voters rejected the family of thugs
"Googling for "2016 trump campaign threats of violence" yields 50,200,000 hits"
just shows how often Dems push their lies
"cuomo violence" gets 28,000,000 hits
but "Trump peace" gets 172,000,000
so, by your reasoning, Trump is a man of peace
"The last time the yield curve inverted was in December 2005, about two years before the financial crisis sent the economy into recession."
more bad news for Dems
recession probably won't hit until after election
Democrats are headed for a worst scenario: Nominating an uncompetitive far-left candidate. Doing so would amplify their 2016 debacle, when Hillary Clinton helped Donald Trump Trump win. So far, it looks like Democrats could do 2016 one better — for Trump, not themselves.
According to latest average of national polling on the Democrat contenders, the results differ almost imperceptibly from its average just prior to the first Democrat debates. The top eight have not changed positions and former Vice President Joe Biden still leads Bernie Sanders by roughly 2-to-1. Changes to individual candidate totals are also relatively minor: Biden and Sanders have dropped by roughly 1 percent each, while Warren has gained almost 3 percent.
Yet, within these small changes, big repercussions loom for the Democrats.
Consensus holds that Biden had a bad first debate, but a better second one. Still he is going backward. More importantly, the establishment Democrats he represents are too. Prior to the first debate, the establishment (represented by Biden, Bullock, Delaney and Hickenlooper) collectively had 33.2 percent support; it is now at 32.2 percent. That means other establishment Democrats did not capture Biden’s lost support.
It was not only establishment Democrats who fell, “undecideds” did too. Prior to the first debate, the averages did not account for 11.8 percent of Democrats; now that figure is 10.6 percent.
While the establishment and undecideds shrank, the left of the Democrats’ field — everyone but “the establishment four” — have gained. Prior to the first debate, the left already held a collective 55 percent of support. Now, they hold 57.2 percent.
These trends point to several conclusions.
Effectively, there is no establishment candidate but Biden, and his support is not growing. Were there a viable Democrat establishment, it would be logical any supporters he lost would go to another candidate: They are not. Biden’s loss is also the establishment’s loss.
Nor are other Democrats seeking to compete in this space — despite this side of the field being uncrowded. Instead of candidates on the left looking to come here and pick up Biden’s supporters, they are staying on the left — and the establishment’s supporters are coming to them. The undecideds are too.
If two debates have not changed the leftward dynamic of the Democrat contest — but instead, reinforced it — it begs the question: What will?
Despite saying that beating Trump was the top priority, and that Biden was best positioned to capture the moderates needed to do so, Democrats clearly want a nominee from their left.
As candidates on the left drop out, as they surely will, there is no reason to believe that their supporters will go to Biden — much less any of the other establishment nonentities. Biden is the only establishment alternative and he is weakening, not gaining.
Nor are undecideds likely to look in Biden’s direction, because they have not thus far. Their early ennui makes perfect sense. Biden is entirely “known;” he is the most known candidate in the field. Yet, even with a confusing crowd on the left and no other competition in the establishment, Biden is not gaining them. There is a stronger argument that the left’s crowd is the reason for undecideds’ indecision than for a lack of information on Biden.
Democrats may need an establishment candidate to maximize their chances of beating Trump, but they clearly do not want one. One look at 2016 shows how hard they are making things for themselves.
According to 2016 exit polling, Clinton won 52 percent of moderates, yet still lost. Clinton was the quintessential establishment Democrat. How then is a Democrat from the left likely to attract even as much center support as Clinton did? Arguably, Democrats will need to attract more — perhaps significantly more as Trump does even better with conservatives this time.
The Coalition of Common Sense is pleased to announce that the Democrats officially now have no chance to win the 2020 presidential election.
Details will be released shortly.
Subject: Rename Fifth Avenue in front of Trump Tower: "President Barack H. Obama Avenue"
The City of Los Angeles recently honored former President Barack Obama by renaming a stretch of the 134 Freeway near Downtown L.A. in his honor.
We request the New York City Mayor and City Council do the same by renaming a block of Fifth Avenue after the former president whose many accomplishments include: saving our nation from the Great Recession; serving two completely scandal-free terms in office; and taking out Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind September 11th, which killed over 3,000 New Yorkers.
That‘s why I signed a petition to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council, which says:
"We request the stretch of Fifth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets be renamed "President Barack H. Obama Avenue." Any addresses on that stretch of Fifth Avenue should be changed accordingly."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/rename-fifth-avenue-in?source=s.em.cp&r_hash=KU266Ysw
Biden said that undocumented immigrants need to “get in line” and that the country has been right to “cherry-pick” high-skilled immigrants, notably those with advanced degrees.
That language triggered widespread criticism from immigrant rights activists.
Latino leaders had a closed-door meeting in San Diego before the UnidosUS conference last week.
“It is unacceptable for a candidate vying to be the Democratic nominee for POTUS to use language like that used by VP Biden when talking about immigration during the second debate,” said Mayra Macías, executive director of Latino Victory.
Activists view the “get in line” language as a dodge invoked by immigration hard-liners. They argue that it's used to obscure that there really is no practical “line” for many hopeful migrants from Latin America to stand in if they don’t have an employer or family member sponsoring their immigration. And Biden’s line about advanced degrees, they say, deemphasizes family reunification and has a racial component as well.
When Biden uttered the words “get in line,” Macías said, “my phone started blowing up” with messages and calls from other activists about his rhetoric.
Biden has been viewed with suspicion by immigration activists. They point to what they call his lack of outreach to Latino communities in the past and his time as vice president under Barack Obama, who was tagged by liberal-leaning activists as the “deporter in chief” because of his administration’s border enforcement policies.
Activists interrupted Biden’s remarks during last month’s debate in Detroit. And in early July, six demonstrators were arrested during a sit-in at Biden’s Philadelphia campaign headquarters.
The tension between Biden’s campaign and the activist community has roots in his overall campaign strategy. He's running as a centrist in a primary in which most of the other top-tier candidates are tilting left. And many liberal activists aren't enthused about an old, white moderate leading the ticket.
The importance of the Hispanic vote will come to bear Feb. 22, when Nevada, where about 15 percent of the Democratic voters are Hispanic, holds the third nominating contest in the nation. Ten days later, California and Texas voters will cast ballots on Super Tuesday, after which 70 percent of the Latino vote will have weighed in. Hispanic voters also will be crucial in swing states Florida and Nevada in November.
Jose Parra, who once advised former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Latino issues, said he wondered how Biden could have made the “get in line” comment if he truly had been involved in the bipartisan immigration reform effort in 2013. Parra also noted that Biden, during the debates, refused to discuss where he differed with Obama on deportations.
We request the New York City Mayor and City Council do the same by renaming a block of Fifth Avenue after the former president whose many accomplishments include: saving our nation from the Great Recession; serving two completely scandal-free terms in office; and taking out Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind September 11th, which killed over 3,000 New Yorkers.
That‘s why I created a petition to send to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council, which says:
"We request the stretch of Fifth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets be renamed "President Barack H. Obama Avenue." Any addresses on that stretch of Fifth Avenue should be changed accordingly."
yours truly,
Michele Obama
"but "Trump peace" gets 172,000,000
so, by your reasoning, Trump is a man of peace"
Not with titles like this:
Gulf-Israel Ties Might Not Survive Trump's Peace Plan - Foreign Policy
Trump's Peace Plan is Immoral, Impractical - and Could Blow Up the Middle East - Politico
Israel's security a priority in Trump peace plan -- Haaretz
Netanyahu will fall in September, expert predict -- unless Trump releases peace plan!
Trump Adviser: On Mideast Peace Plan, 'We Are Aiming for the Home Run' -- NPR
Trump undecided on when to release Middle East peace plan - Jerusalem Post
Exactly Like Its Predecessors, Trumps Peace Plan Has Been Designed to Fail -- CommomDreams
Trump Peace Effort Traps Jordan Between U.S. and Palestinians - WSJ
Move On
got changed to
Michelle Obama
Fake news, the right wing's MO.
"impeachment doesn't happen in the courts, you fool"
No one said it was, you fool.
You apparently didn't read or couldn't understand the sentence:
"Trump’s appeal of Judge Messitte’s ruling was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals last March but a decision has yet to be issued."
Trump's case is still working it's way through the court system.
THEN there is the possibility of impeachment.
Be patient.
"Cuomo not only melts down over being tweaked and overreacts like a thin-skinned, entitled man-baby, but what’s especially fascinating and troubling is how he sees the taunt as a political attack."
Hmmm, this sounds suspiciously like our tweet-raging president.
The speech was technically an official White House event on energy and manufacturing, but instead resembled one of Trump’s campaign rallies, complete with attacks on rivals and critics and more than a few outlandish claims.
At one point, as he has done some 75 times before according to the Toronto Star, Trump took credit for signing the Veterans Choice health care program into law.
It was actually signed by President Barack Obama in 2014.
At another point, he suggested the main U.S. export to Japan is wheat.
“They send us thousands and thousands, millions, of cars,” Trump said. “We send them wheat. Wheat! That’s not a good deal.”
But the website of the U.S. Trade Representative ― part of the Executive Office of the President ― notes that wheat is just $698 million of $120.4 billion in U.S. exports to Japan. (That's 0.5797% of our exports to Japan, for the mathematically challenged.)
Trump even seemed to think the afternoon event was taking place in the morning:
@ddale8
Trump says, looking back at the media in the room, "That's a lot of people back there for like an 11 o'clock speech." It is 2:40 PM.
Rump is going off the rails on crazy train.
He may not believe in all science, but he "believes in genes" and his own superior intellect.
RiotWomenn
@riotwomennn
Watch clips: Trump bragging about his superior genetics & german blood...
Sieg Heil!
What is he smocking?
He needs more covfefe!
And hamberders!
"Trump's case is still working it's way through the court system.
THEN there is the possibility of impeachment."
if the court rules against him, he'll follow the ruling, after it has gone to the Supreme Court
legal challenges and disputes aren't grounds for impeachment, you imbecile
Trump has a history of obeying court rulings, unlike Obama
"legal challenges and disputes aren't grounds for impeachment, you imbecile"
Nobody said it was, moron with no attention span. The case the Cheeto Benito is appealing deals with his infringements of the Emoluments Clause. Those can be the grounds for impeachment.
This is like having to explain everything to a two year old.
Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, two former Trump foreign policy aides who both agreed in late 2017 to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, appear to have found some new allies: QAnon conspiracy theorists.
Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, briefly served as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser before he was forced to resign after news reports that he’d misled officials about his private conversations with Russia’s ambassador. He and Papadopoulos are listed as speakers at the upcoming “Digital Soldiers Conference,” a one-day event scheduled for September 14 in Atlanta that promises to ready “[p]atriotic social media warriors” for a coming “digital civil war” against “censorship and suppression.”
Other featured speakers include Bill Mitchell, an online broadcaster and conspiracy theorist; singer and Trump backer Joy Villa; and a “mystery guest.” The event is being organized by Rich Granville, the CEO of Yippy, Inc, who has a Twitter feed littered with references to QAnon, a conspiracy theory centered around the notion that Trump is secretly taking down an international ring of pedophiles that includes high-ranking Democrats. QAnon supporters believe that an anonymous person known as Q is dropping online clues about this supposed clandestine operation. The web page for Granville’s conference prominently features an American flag festooned with a Q.
In an interview, Granville denied that the Q on the flag is a deliberate QAnon reference. He said the stars refer to Flynn’s prior status as a three-star general. “It does look like Q, but there is no reference to QAnon anywhere on that site,” Granville said. He acknowledged that he personally espouses QAnon views. “Do I think it’s good for America? Absolutely,” he said. “Do I think it’s a conspiracy theory? I doubt that.”
“I am with anybody who is with the United States of America, any digital solider, any patriot, any average American who is doing their part to support the president of the United States,” Granville said.
The site for the event says that a “majority of proceeds” from it—registration prices range from $49 to $2,500 for an “Ultra VIP” pass—will go to Flynn’s defense fund. “General Mike Flynn is a true American hero fighting the deep state who put everything on the line for God and Country,” the site says. Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, signed off on the event, according to Granville.
Michael Flynn was the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States.
Now he's getting paid by Q Anon conspiracy theorists.
Racist Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said generations of people would not be here without rape and incest while making the case for anti-abortion legislation without exceptions for victims of those crimes.
Speaking to members at the Westside Conservative Club on Wednesday, King argued that humanity would not have the population it does today if not for rape and incest, the Des Moines Register reported.
Today’s comments by @RepSteveKingIA are appalling and bizarre. As I’ve said before, it’s time for him to go. The people of Iowa’s 4th congressional district deserve better.
1:37 PM - 14 Aug 2019
The Trump administration moved Wednesday to expand faith protections for federal contractors, the latest front in the ongoing battle where LGBTQ groups fight employers who are seeking to operate in accordance with their religious principles.
The proposed rule by the Labor Department Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs would make clear that “religious organizations may make employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs without fear of sanction by the federal government.”
Vowing to fight the proposed rule was a host of LGBT and lunatic fringe groups.
The proposed rule, which is open for comment in the Federal Register until Sept. 16, would cover both non-profit and for-profit entities doing business with the federal government. About one in four U.S. employees works for a company involved in federal contracting.
Pro-family groups cheered the proposed rulemaking for clarifying that religious employers may participate in federal-contract work “without being forced to violate their conscience rights,” said Mary Beth Waddell, senior legislative director of the Family Research Council.
“Family Research Council applauds the Department for taking steps to ensure that religious employers are free to operate according to their religious beliefs without fear of government punishment,” she said.
Harper Jean Tobin, policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the department “telegraphed” its intent with an August 2018 guidance on religious freedom in federal contracting, but that the proposed rule “expands on that and seeks to make it permanent.”
“To date, we’re not aware of firings that are attributable to this,” Ms. Tobin said. “Those cases are before the Supreme Court.”
The proposed rule cited as a reason for the update recent insightful Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including the 2017 Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling overturning state sanctions against Colorado baker Jack Phillips refusing to create a cake for a same-sex union.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Mr. Phillips, said that religious freedoms “don’t disappear when a university, charity, or international nongovernmental organization enters into a contract with the federal government.”
“For example, eliminating faith-based nonprofits means that fewer foster children will find a forever home, fewer impoverished citizens will benefit from shelter and job training, and fewer people will receive compassionate assistance,” said ADF senior counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “It also leaves overtaxed communities without the vital services they provide.”
In its proposed rule, the agency said that some religious organizations reported being “reluctant to participate as federal contractors because of uncertainty regarding the scope of the religious exemption.”
Under President George W. Bush, an exemption was added allowing religious entities to favor those of their own faith in hiring.
Lunatic fringe gay advocates accused President Trump of breaking his promise to leave Obama executive orders intact, which the White House denied.
“In no way does today’s announcement by the Department of Labor undermine the President’s promise and commitment to the LGBTQ community,” said the White House in a statement. “The proposed rule will continue to responsibly protect religious freedom and members of the LGBTQ community from discrimination.”
Included under the proposed rule were not just churches but employers that are “organized for a religious purpose, hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose.”
That would apparently encompass companies like Hobby Lobby — or even Masterpiece Cakeshop — whose owners operate in line with their faith, meaning virtually any entity could claim a faith exemption.
Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, noted that the department was “bending over backwards to give federal contractors claiming a religious right the benefit of the doubt at all turns.”
“If they say they’re religious, they are. If they say their belief is sincerely held, it is,” she said. “And if they say they’re firing someone on the basis of religion, they’re allow it.”
Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said that some religious groups ended their government contracts during the Obama administration for fear of incurring “severe liability under federal law.”
That including religious-based organizations involved with the military; universities conducting federal research, and social-service groups working with the homeless and fighting human trafficking.
“This allows religious organizations to continue serving the needy without compromising their sincere religious beliefs — which is a win for religious freedom,” Mr. Goodrich tweeted. “But even more, it’s a win for vulnerable populations receiving vital services from religious groups.”
By Associated Press and Tim Fitzsimons
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The federal government agreed Wednesday to allow federally funded foster care agencies in South Carolina to deny services to same-sex or non-Christian couples.
The waiver issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will allow Greenville’s Miracle Hill Ministries to continue as a state-supported foster care agency.
As part of the waiver’s requirements, any family that Miracle Hill does not allow to take care of foster children must be referred to other agencies or the state Department of Social Services.
Gay rights groups and non-Christian religious groups opposed the waiver, saying it would cut down on the number of people willing to be foster parents and allows public money to take away rights.
“Let’s call this decision what it is: state-sanctioned and government-funded discrimination,” said Christina Wilson Remlin, lead lawyer of Children’s Rights. The group has successfully sued South Carolina over its foster care system for placing too many children in institutions, taking children too far away from their biological families and denying treatment for the medical needs of foster children.
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of civil rights group Anti-Defamation League, said the group has been “fighting this prospective exemption for many months” and expressed shock that the government was granting a waiver for a federally funded adoption agency to discriminate against non-Christians.
“Allowing a taxpayer funded agency to discriminate against Jews and other minorities is outrageous and sets a dangerous precedent for our nation. This is clearly unlawful and will not hold up in court,” he said. “No child should be denied a loving foster or adoptive home simply because a prospective parent is Jewish or Muslim, gay or lesbian.”
Gee, who could have guessed that pandering to Christian Dominionists would lead to legalized discrimination against other religious groups?
I mean, it's not like Christians have had a beef with other religions... oh, wait a minute, never mind - history.
How long will it take Christians to go from religious discrimination to religious persecution? My guess is that for Muslims at least, not very long.
"COLUMBIA, S.C. — The federal government agreed Wednesday to allow federally funded foster care agencies in South Carolina to deny services to same-sex or non-Christian couples."
not exactly true, read on
"The waiver issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will allow Greenville’s Miracle Hill Ministries to continue as a state-supported foster care agency.
As part of the waiver’s requirements, any family that Miracle Hill does not allow to take care of foster children must be referred to other agencies or the state Department of Social Services."
so, in other words, this Christian group has agreed to refer non-Christians who apply to their group to other agencies who help non-Christians
how is that denial of service?
hard to see the problem
"Gay rights groups and non-Christian religious groups opposed the waiver, saying it would cut down on the number of people willing to be foster parents"
preposterous non sequitur
are you saying that if a couple is referred to another agency, they would be unwilling to be foster parents?
that the only place people would be willing to serve as foster parents is a Christian ministry?
if that's true, what does that say?
"and allows public money to take away rights."
what right would that be?
The booming voice of Vice President Joe Biden reverberated throughout the cavernous manufacturing facility as assembled workers took in his message of economic populism.
“Romney made sure the guys on top got to play by a separate set of rules,” Biden said. “He ran up massive debts, and the middle class lost. And folks, he thinks that experience is going to help our economy?”
It was May of 2012, and the Obama reelection campaign had sent the veep to Youngstown, Ohio, to contrast the economics of the administration with those of Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Obama stood for manufacturing and the middle class, Biden promised the Rust Belt voters. Romney, the campaign argued, represented predatory capitalism and the corporate banking class that made up the ranks of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that the GOP nominee had helped get off the ground.
The press called it “the Bain Capital Offensive.” And it worked: Obama and Biden won another four years leading the country. But now Bain Capital could complicate Biden’s attempt to return to the White House. He has accepted campaign contributions in 2019 from the same corporate executives he decried seven years ago.
Records publicly available through the Federal Election Commission show that Biden has taken $14,000 in contributions from Bain executives.
Joshua Bekenstein, who helped found the company, donated $2,800 -- the maximum allowed by law. So did Jonathan Lavine (co-managing partner) and Jonathan Desimone (managing director of Bain Capital Credit -- who left the firm in June)), as well as Sally Dornaus (chief financial officer of Bain Capital Credit) and Michael Treisman (general counsel of Bain Capital Credit)
he specter of white supremacy haunts America. Let us empower the government to crush it.
Just yesterday, “the deplorables” were to be deplored because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic,” clingers to “God and guns,” and Russian dupes to boot. Today, the agility and unanimity with which our politicians and media—heck, the ruling class—have shifted to indicting roughly 72 percent of the population as white supremacists, likely violent, would fill with envy their homologues in China, Cuba, North Korea, and other tyrannical places. By comparison, Joseph Goebbels had sloppy message discipline. Not even the Soviets in their salad days were so “on message!”
One may suppose that our ruling class merely intends to energize its constituencies and cower the opposition in the 2020 elections. But this is no game. Their proposals would impose pre-punishment for pre-crimes on persons accused or “suspected” of being a “white supremacist.” By whom? On the basis of what?
In practice, a “white supremacist” is anyone whom anyone in power dislikes enough to so label him. Who would accept being outlawed at will? Our ruling class plays with matches in a house drenched in gasoline.
Here is the latest. The Wall Street Journal on Saturday featured an essay by one Clint Watts, formerly of the FBI and West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center. Watts makes those proposals using the word “white” 16 times in 18 paragraphs. The sociopolitical ideas rife among white people are the main matrix of terrorism in America, Watts contends. Racial profiling, anyone?
Bemoaning the fact that U.S. law now restricts surveillance of, never mind restrictions on, U.S. persons to those who have committed or may be about to commit crimes, Watts proposes legislation that would permit designating persons associated with what the government may identify as “white supremacist ideology” as subject to surveillance to “preemptively assess whether these white supremacists are taking a radical turn toward violence.”
Watts also proposes “red flag” laws, that would allow the government to take away weapons from someone so designated. Loss of weapons would be the least of burdens imposed on anyone so “red-flagged.” Career, reputation, possibly family, would be gone because someone in the notoriously impartial FBI so decided, perhaps with the agreement of the highly scrupulous FISA court, subsequent to ex parte, secret proceedings.
This has become ruling-class conventional wisdom. Desire to wage war on ordinary Americans—to disadvantage them and even to kill them—had long been bubbling in the ruling class’s basements. The countless, nearly identical pronouncements from on high in recent days can be taken as an announcement that the ruling class has raised them into its forceful mainstream.
In January 2012, the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with the University of Maryland, published a study titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1979-2008.” It classified persons who it judged to be “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right wing terrorists.” So-called studies published by Clint Watts’ West Point center use the same typology. Skeptical of the government? You’re a potential terrorist.
In July 2012, Colonel Kevin Benson of the U.S. Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber of the University of Kansas, published an article in the Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” Benson and Weber argued that the U.S. Army should prepare itself for contingencies such as “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing a small town. They contend, moreover, that Army’s “Operating Concept, 2016-2028” obliges “the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.”
None of this is law, or even official policy. It simply reflects the evolving identities and predilections of persons in power.
Today, our ruling class has come to define itself in terms of the will to humiliate “the deplorables,” as it subdues their disrespect. It is confident that the Republican Party won’t help the deplorables, and that President Trump will get out of the way quietly once he’s made some noise. And deplorables have this quaint habit of obeying laws—the fools!
All true. But the logic of the ruling class’s campaign against white supremacy cannot end in the deplorables’ peaceful submission because that campaign itself has no natural end. Some of the class’s components are sure to push for ever-stricter measures. More surely, an inherently abusive campaign of racial profiling itself guarantees deadly friction. One of these days, some misdirected SWAT team will shoot it out with innocent people, with casualties on both sides, or some person unjustly ruined will take his tormentors to the grave with him. One police force will fight another. The paths to civil war are many. A generation of domestic peace is increasingly difficult to imagine
Improvised pre-electoral wordsmithing has produced an all-time award-winning marathon champion in miscues, malapropisms, and fabrications in Joe Biden. The gaffes are too numerous to mention, but the latest ones, that “poor kids are as smart as white kids” and that he received as vice president the victim families of the Parkland school shooting in Florida (which occurred more than a year after he retired as vice president), raise a serious question about whether, as the president remarked, he’s “lost his fastball.”
Everyone makes verbal slips sometimes. But the complete invention of an incident that your entire audience would know immediately to be false, from just three years ago, does raise questions about the former vice president’s capacities.
The significance of this is important, as the majority of Democrats, who don’t buy into the Green Terror, open borders, doubled top income-tax increases, entirely socialized medicine, trillions of dollars of reparations for Native and African Americans, and even legalized infanticide, have placed their bets on Mr. Biden and are unlikely to change now to Michael Bennet, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, and Andrew Wang, the other somewhat moderate candidates.
Everyone else is either completely unfeasible, such as New York’s incompetent mayor, Bill de Blasio, or an outright socialist. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the leaders of this supposedly “progressive” group, and Mrs. Warren seems to be pulling ahead with her campaign theme that if you don’t show your far-left colors now, you are a coward reciting “Republican talking points.”
It is a pedestrian reenactment of such previous campaigns as Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo (Democrat 1924), Dwight D. Eisenhower and Robert A. Taft (Republican 1952), Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater (Republican 1964), and George McGovern and Edmund Muskie (Democrat 1972).
Mrs. Warren appears to be opening up a growing lead on Mr. Sanders, and if Mr. Biden can’t appear more alert, he could bobble the nomination to Mrs. Warren, everyone’s nightmare of a humorless kindergarten teacher, compounded by her false claim to being an American Indian and her bright red socialism.
Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), the conservative talk-show host and prominent “tea party” figure, on Wednesday called President Donald Trump an “unfit conman” and a “racial arsonist” and urged a primary challenge for the Republican nomination next year.
Walsh also apologized both for his own heated rhetoric over the years and for helping to elect Trump in 2016.
Writing in The New York Times, Walsh said:
“In Mr. Trump, I see the worst and ugliest iteration of views I expressed for the better part of a decade. To be sure, I’ve had my share of controversy. On more than one occasion, I questioned Mr. Obama’s truthfulness about his religion. At times, I expressed hate for my political opponents. We now see where this can lead. There’s no place in our politics for personal attacks like that, and I regret making them.”...
It's too soon to say when Donald Trump's presidency will end, but it's not too soon to say how it will end. It will end in disgrace. And when it does, Trump's defenders will turn on him.
Some already have. On Sunday, Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's former communications director, said that Republicans should "replace the top of the ticket in 2020."
Former White House aide and Apprentice contestant Omarosa Manigault never had a bad word to say about Trump when she worked for him. Trump said he hired her "because she said GREAT things about me." But after she left the White House, she said Trump was "mentally impaired" and accused him of saying the N-word.
Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, said he was "mesmerized" by Trump when he worked for him. It wasn't until after Cohen quit working for Trump and was sentenced to prison — as a result, in part, of lying for Trump — that he ceased to be mesmerized and instead became disgusted. In congressional testimony, he called Trump a "racist," a "cheat," and a "conman."
Trump's sycophants are as loyal as he is — which is to say, not at all. In The Art of the Deal, Trump counted Roy Cohn as a friend, calling him "a truly loyal guy." After Cohn contracted AIDS, Trump "dropped him like a hot potato," according to Susan Bell, Cohn's longtime secretary. That's the kind of friend Trump is — the kind you don't want.
The people who are loyal to Trump are loyal not because they like him as a person but because they have something to gain from him. In an interview with The New York Times, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) admitted that he embraced Trump "to try to be relevant." So far, his plan has worked superbly — Graham has a recurring slot on Hannity. Once Trump is gone, however, Graham will no longer need the man he once dismissed as "the world's biggest jackass." He will find someone else to latch onto, and he will forget about Trump just as he forgot about John McCain.
Trump's cult of personality is a cult of power-worshippers. "It is the place and power we bow to, not the man," William Hazlitt wrote in his 1823 essay "On the Spirit of Monarchy." When Trump is deprived of his place and power, people will stop bowing to him.
Trump's post-presidency will be sadder and more pathetic than his presidency. His presidential library will be neither presidential nor a library. His memoir, if someone writes one for him, will be dreadful — ghostwritten, poorly written, replete with falsehoods and errors, and bereft of insights and useful information. His presidential papers will contain such statements as "Horseface"; "trade wars are good, and easy to win"; "a very stable genius"; and "your favorite President, me!" No mainstream public figure will want to be associated with his legacy.
In February, 157 scholars ranked Trump as the third-worst president in U.S. history. And it's not just the eggheads who disapprove of him. According to Gallup, 54 percent of Americans disapprove of his presidency. Trump has averaged the lowest approval rating of any president in history. Unlike his predecessors, Trump doesn't need a war or a recession to be unpopular — he just needs himself. And unlike his predecessors, Trump won't improve his public standing as a private citizen...
I wouldn't argue with anything in the previous post by "Everyone will eventually turn on Trump. Even Steve Doocy"
what's truly remarkable, however, is that Dems are rushing headlong into a second straight defeat to such a person
America needs elections with two reasonable alternatives
socialists who don't support the Constitution and oppose the sanctity of life are not acceptable
The Trump administration Wednesday unveiled a proposed rule that would greatly expand the exemption that allows religious entities to ignore anti-discrimination laws by broadening the definition to include federal contractors that declare themselves to be religious.
The Department of Labor said the rule is proposed in order to provide “the broadest protection of religious exercise” for companies that compete for federal contracts.
LGBTQ advocates whined about the proposed rule and said that it would permit companies to decline to hire lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people, in addition to individuals who do not practice their religion.
“Given the conservative religious affiliations of many large institutional employers that seek federal contracts, we know the most vulnerable workers will be LGBTQ people,” Jennifer C. Pizer, Lambda Legal’s director of law and policy, said. “For more than half a century, the federal purse has been a transformative driver of equal workplace opportunity in this country. And once again, appallingly, this administration is betraying our nation’s core commitment to liberty and justice for all — in service of an extreme, discriminatory religious agenda.”
The proposal says it is intended to “clarify the scope and applications of the religious exemption contained in section 204(c) of Executive Order 11246,” which banned federal contractors from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” when it was signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.
The proposal notes that a variety of Supreme Court decisions, like Hobby Lobby, have expanded the legal understanding of which companies count as religious. That religious exemption as written in 1965 was designed to ensure that churches could decline to hire people outside their faith, and religious schools could choose to hire members of their own faith, for example, without running afoul of the ban on private employment discrimination.
“these decisions have reminded the federal government of its duty to protect religious exercise — and not to impede it,” the proposal says.
The proposal claims that religious companies “previously provided feedback to OFCCP that they were reluctant to participate as federal contractors because of uncertainty regarding the scope of the religious exemption.”
The proposal is expansively written and makes clear that the “religious exemption covers not just churches but employers that are organized for a religious purpose, hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose,” and also makes clear that “employers can condition employment on acceptance of or adherence to religious tenets without sanction by the federal government, provided that they do not discriminate based on other protected bases.”
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. When Xi Jinping effectively crowned himself emperor at the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress in 2017, consolidating his power by ending a practice of term limits, China was supposed to be ready for its next stage of his meteoric rise.
In a triumphal speech, Xi heralded a “new era” of Chinese power and predicted the nation would become a “mighty force” under his control. But as the summer of 2019 drags on, Xi and the government he leads look increasingly weak and lost.
China’s economy is in the doldrums, put there in part by President Trump’s decision to change U.S. tactics dramatically in long-running trade disputes. Last month, the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics reported the slowest economic growth since 1992. China’s manufacturing index has indicated contraction for all but two months so far this year.
In July, imports fell 5.6% compared to a year before, partly due to less demand for inputs to manufacturing that increasingly is moving out of China. (In the first quarter of this year, foreign investors pumped $10.8 billion into neighboring Vietnam, an increase of 86.2 percent.) China has also nationalized three banks since May with more bailouts expected as its overextended financial system faces extreme risk.
A fair assessment of the U.S.-China trade war shows Washington winning the dispute, although not everyone agrees. In his weekly New York Times column titled “China Tries to Teach Trump Economics,” progressive economist Paul Krugman argued that the president, “…vastly overrates his ability to inflict damage on China while underrating the damage China can do in return.”
In fact, Trump has proven that the opposite is true in imposing tariffs—for a simple reason. Last year, America imported $540 billion in goods from China and exported only $120 billion worth. As the far bigger customer in this relationship, the United States has the power. Even if Beijing stopped all $120 billion in U.S. imports, that amounts to only about half of one percent of U.S. GDP. The impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers has also been negligible. As the former CEO of Toys R Us recently explained, tariffs are “a fraction of a percent…on the average annual consumer basket.”
Oddly Xi has conducted himself as though a trade deal would be a favor to Washington. In the lead-up to the G20 summit in Osaka in June, Xi was noncommittal as to whether he would deign to meet with Trump. When he did, his government quickly reneged on promises he made to buy more U.S. food.
Clearly Xi wants to stall past next year’s presidential election, hoping to outlast Trump. This itself is disingenuous for a country that is mythologized for long-term strategy and deep analysis of its adversaries: economic and historical factors favor Trump for reelection, and, regardless, the story of the decade is Washington’s bipartisan sea change in sentiment toward China.
And then there is Hong Kong. Beijing has gradually been eroding the relative autonomy it promised in repossessing the territory from Britain in 1997, as well as its agreement to allow free elections with universal suffrage. Given its congenital unwillingness to leave well enough alone, Beijing attempted to have its puppets in the territory allow extradition to the Mainland—effectively importing its political repression into a city that has long been effectively part of the West.
The result has been stunning. Massive demonstrations have continued throughout summer, most recently closing the airport. This in a city that supposedly cared singularly about money and where it was long said that only a tiny minority would do more than lament the erosion of freedom. Evidently not.
Worst of all for Beijing, while students and the young are the most active protesters, they are joined by Hong Kong residents from all walks of life—civil servants, bankers, flight attendants, teachers, and the like. The real crisis that events in Hong Kong pose is the question of whether Mainlanders are also poised to challenge the government.
Xi likely believes he can blow past demonstrations in Hong Kong as Beijing did amid smaller protests in 2014. But that doesn’t seem to be the case: average Hong Kong residents have decided that they must defend freedom now.
Xi is unlikely to resort to a Tiananmen Square-style massacre with the People’s Liberation Army in a repeat of 1989. More probable is an invasion of Hong Kong with civilian or paramilitary police, some of whom are training next door in Shenzhen. But even this step would bring foreign condemnation, likely end free nations’ treatment of Hong Kong as a separate trade and customs entity from the Mainland, and curtail what is left of foreign investment in China. Put simply, Xi has painted himself into a corner.
The greatness Xi forecast in his 2017 ascension to paramount leader thus remains elusive. His tenure is marked by internal political turmoil that will be costly and difficult to control. China’s trade scheme is at risk, as is the broader economy, and with it, the rationale for having one-party communist rule in China. It’s a cruel summer.
"what's truly remarkable, however, is that Dems are rushing headlong into a second straight defeat to such a person
America needs elections with two reasonable alternatives"
I love your over-confidence.
When are republicans going to come up with a reasonable alternative to Trump, the most divisive and ignorant president in US history?
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 42, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +12
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 43, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +10
Congressional Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 28, Disapprove 62 Disapprove +34
Congressional Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 13, Disapprove 70 Disapprove +57
Direction of Country Economist/YouGov Right Direction 34, Wrong Track 58
Wrong Track +24
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 31, Wrong Track 60
Wrong Track +29
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 37, Wrong Track 63
Wrong Track +26
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Politico/Morning Consult Democrats 43, Republicans 37 Democrats +6
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Economist/YouGov Democrats 48, Republicans 38 Democrats +10
"I love your over-confidence"
it's not mine
right now, everyone is just a personality
this time next year, we'll be discussing the economy and whether we want to move in the direction of Venezuela
Dems don't have a chance
"When are republicans going to come up with a reasonable alternative to Trump, the most divisive and ignorant president in US history?"
well, it would nice to have a President that is likable
but his policies are reasonable and America is flourishing
the only Dem choice that is reasonable is Biden and it's looking more and more likely he will blow the election with stupid statements
Why don't you tell us again about Romney and McCain's "inevitable" wins, while you ignore how Rump pushes the US in the direction of white nationalism.
for prohibiting US elected officials from entering Israel.
Not another US dime for Israel!
"the only Dem choice that is reasonable is Biden and it's looking more and more likely he will blow the election with stupid statements"
The trickle of stupid statements from Biden is nothing compared to the tsunami of stupid statements, rage tweets, and pathological lying from the Rumpster.
Not worried.
A Fox News poll released on Wednesday indicated that support for President Donald Trump among voters has declined, with an approval rating that dropped to 43% from 46% in July.
More respondents said Trump is “tearing the country apart” than did in previous years; 59% thought he is divisive while 31% said he is “drawing the country together.”
Trump’s reaction to the recent mass shootings is an issue for survey respondents; 52% disapproved. Following the deaths of 22 victims in El Paso, Texas, and 9 in Dayton, Ohio, Trump has called for stronger background checks. Background check measures were supported by the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans who were polled.
According to the poll, a proposal to ban assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons in the country would be favored by 86% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans. Democrats and Republicans also both showed strong favor toward police removing guns from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.
Other factors for gun violence pointed to by poll respondents were split across party lines. More Republicans believed bad parenting was partly to blame, while Democrats said white nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment were factors.
Ten percent of respondents listed Trump’s rhetoric as a main cause for mass shootings occurring more frequently in the United States than in other countries, making it the third most common response after lack of gun laws and mental health-related issues.
Disapproval of the National Rifle Association has also been climbing, with a current unfavorability rating of 47%, up from 45% in March 2018.
Yeah, Hillary wasn't worried on election night 2016
she had it all wrapped up
meanwhile, TTF thinks Trump is a neo-Nazi but the land who would know such a thing considers him a hero
Israel on Thursday announced that it would deny Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib entry to the country during an upcoming overseas trip, citing the lawmakers' past comments critical of the territory.
The decision was announced moments after President Trump tweeted that it would show "great weakness" for Israel to allow the two congresswomen into the country, calling them a “disgrace.”
The president has been an outspoken critic of both Omar and Tlaib, who last year became the first two Muslim women elected to Congress.
Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said the country would not “allow those who deny our right to exist in this world to enter,” The Times of Israel reported, citing a broadcast interview. Hotovely called it a “very justified decision.”
The congresswomen have backed the boycott-Israel movement. Both have been accused by other members of Congress of using anti-Semitic language.
“They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning. “Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!”
The congresswomen’s visit was scheduled to take place between August 18-22, and they were due to visit the historic site in Jerusalem known as the Temple Mount to Jewish people and as the Haram al-Sharif to Muslims.
The president has repeatedly lashed out at Omar, accusing her of hating Israel and the Jewish people. After tweeting last month that she and three other progressive congresswomen should “go back” to their countries, a rally crowd in North Carolina chanted “send her back” about Omar.
The congresswomen has come under fire since taking office in January for using anti-Semitic tropes. She drew criticism when she suggested lawmakers support Israel because of money from lobbyists, and was rebuked again when she claimed those who back the territory harbor “dual loyalty.”
Tlaib, who is Palestinian-American, has supported the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement targeting Israel.
Lady Liberty's new look
"Ten percent of respondents listed Trump’s rhetoric as a main cause for mass shootings"
WOW!
10% agree with TTF and Beto O'Rourke
too bad it takes more than that to win an election
Windsor Mann
✔
@WindsorMann
An evangelical told me that God put Trump in the White House “for a reason.”
Maybe the reason is to teach us a lesson: Don’t ever do this again.
9:39 PM - Aug 14, 2019
BERLIN — To the untrained eye, Skipper and Ping look like a typical king penguin couple.
Standing side by side at the Berlin Zoo with their flippers touching, they take turns carefully nestling an egg between their feet in the hope that it will eventually hatch the chick they have both long sought.
Except these two 10-year-olds are both male — and the latest in a long succession of same-sex penguins that have coupled up to adopt an egg.
At zoos in London, Australia and New York, male and female penguins have for years entered same-sex relationships to incubate eggs into chicks, delighting zookeepers and some visitors while stirring anger and revulsion in others.
Berlin has become the latest city to host a pair of “gay” penguins after Skipper and Ping showed an attraction to each other and a desire to become parents. Both unsuccessfully tried to hatch a stone for some time. Then zookeepers allowed them to adopt an abandoned egg.
“They look beautiful together,” said Youssef Rashed, a 23-year-old originally from Syria who was watching them from a visitor platform on Tuesday. Rashed, who is gay, came to Germany four years ago and found a haven.
“I feel the same way they feel,” he said, gazing at Skipper and Ping.
Germany has one of the world’s highest acceptance rates for homosexuality, and it legalized same-sex marriage and granted full adoption rights in 2017. The German far right, however, has been accused of stirring homophobia in recent years.
German nursery-school teacher Hannelore Bauer said she first heard about the same-sex penguin couple on TV.
“An animal follows its instincts and its feelings — just like humans, too,” Bauer said.
TTFers have always loved stories about animals engaged in homosexuality
to them, it validates homogaiety as normal and natural
some species also cannibalize their own
do you guys advocate that as well?
It's always interesting to see the natural behavior of other species. It allows us to observe how life on this planet existed for millenia without the coercive influences of religion, unnecessary war, economic inequality, and political agendas.
BTW, isn't it time for you to start telling us how the democratic candidate is going to raise gas prices to $10 a gallon, and start taking away all our guns? Or am I getting ahead of the republican propaganda schedule here?
"some species also cannibalize their own
do you guys advocate that as well?"
You're here day after day troll, so tell us how many comments and posts you find here supporting cannibalization.
< CRICKETS COMMENCE CHIRPING >
WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper dropped his bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination less than six months after trying to position himself as a centrist among a crowded field seeking to challenge Republican President Donald Trump.
"Today, I’m ending my campaign for President. But I will never stop believing that America can only move forward when we work together," Hickenlooper said in a statement, adding that he would give "serious thought" to running for the U.S. Senate.
GOP Senator Cory Gardner won his 2014 statewide election in Colorado 48.21 to 46.26%
Democratic Governor Hickenlooper won his 2014 statewide election in Colorado 49.30 to 45.95%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Colorado_elections
Run for the Colorado Senate seat John, and help the Democrats put Moscow Mitch out to pasture in the minority. Then he can retire like all those GOP House members are.
One factor is Hillary's defeat in 2016, is that voters perceived she lacked the health and stamina to endure the rigors and stresses of the presidency. Joe Biden is deja vu all over again.
Allies to Joe Biden have been floating the idea of altering the former vice president's schedule in an effort to reduce the gaffes he has made in recent days.
The allies, growing increasingly nervous about Biden's verbal flubs, have said it's an approach that campaign officials are considering on the heels of the former vice president’s stumbles.
Biden has a tendency to make the blunders late in the day, his allies say, particularly after a long swing on the road, like he had last week in Iowa. They say something needs to be done to give the candidate more down time as the campaign intensifies in the fall.
"He needs to pace himself," said one ally who has talked to members of the campaign team and others in the broader Biden World about how to move forward.
Unfortunately, Biden has already been criticized for not doing as many events as his Democratic rivals.
Biden’s age — he’ll be 77 in November — has been seen by some as a liability ever since he launched his campaign earlier this year. While he has been billed by those around him as the most electable Democrat to take on President Trump next year, some wonder if he has the zeal to compete.
“A lot of people are nervous that he’s lost some of his mojo,” said one major Democratic donor. “They’re getting nervous about him going toe to toe with Trump. But the problem is, there doesn’t seem to be an alternative.”
Biden's biggest opponent appears to be the shockingly socialist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). A New Economist–YouGov weekly tracking poll published on Tuesday showed Biden at 21 percent, leading Warren by just 1 point. She has been narrowing the gap in other polls, too.
What a choice for Dems: the bumbling Biden vs the Marxist Pocahantas!!
President Trump has repeatedly promised “America will never be a socialist country.” Since Franklin Roosevelt began expanding government in the 1930s, the United States has increasingly adopted big-state policies associated with socialism.
We may not be at the stage Bernie Sanders would advocate, but more millennials appear to favor a system under which they have never lived. Free stuff is appealing until one realizes its costs.
In an attempt to reach Generation Z — those in their teens and 20s — a new organization is starting this month to combat socialism’s appeal.
It’s called Young Americans Against Socialism (yaas.org), according to its site, a nonpartisan nonprofit “dedicated to exposing socialism’s failures to young Americans by creating viral educational videos for social media.” Its founder, Morgan Zegers, worries that “more than half of young people believe socialism should be implemented in America.” The reason, she says, is because many of them know little about it. Her campaign will be largely on social media where she notes young people spend hours every day.
“Yaas is taking the Left’s tactics of injecting emotion into everything,” she says, “and throwing it right back in their faces.” One Yaas video includes statements by two men. One, Raydel Armas, says he escaped Cuba by “windsurfing for 10 hours.” The other, Daniel Di Martino, a Venezuelan, challenges Mr. Sanders’ promotion of socialism.
Mr. Sanders is shown in a video from the ‘70s in which he calls food lines in some countries “a good thing,” presumably referring to non-socialist countries. “The rich,” he claims, “get the food and the poor starve to death.” Daniel Di Martino responds, “It wasn’t that I was rich; it was because politicians like him destroyed my country.”
Mr. Armas suggests young people who wear Che Guevara T-shirts are ignorant of history and of the number of people Guevara killed during and after the Cuban revolution. Surveys back him up.
In a 2017 opinion column for The New York Post, Karol Markowicz cited a 2014 report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress that showed “an abysmal 18 percent of American high school kids were proficient in U.S. history. When colleges such as Stanford decline to require Western Civilization classes or high schools propose changing their curriculum so that history is taught only from 1877 onward … it’s merely a blip in our news cycle.”
Ms. Markowicz also noted a 2012 story in Perspectives on History magazine by University of North Carolina professor Bruce VanSledright, who found that “88 percent of elementary school teachers considered teaching history a low priority.”
While the reasons are varied, she says, “VanSledright found that teachers didn’t focus on history because students aren’t tested on it at the state level. Why teach something you can’t test?”
When history is taught, especially at many liberal universities, there is often a bias against America because of slavery and the “invasion” of white Europeans who killed and displaced Native Americans. Ms. Markowicz concluded, “We talk often about how fractured our country has become. That our division increases while school kids are taught less and less about our shared history should come as no surprise.”
In her video, Ms. Zegers says, “Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system.” Even China, though still officially Communist and socialist, has had to adopt more of the principles characteristic of capitalism to lift large numbers of people from poverty.
Socialism has long needed pushback in America from those opposed to it. President Trump has begun pointing out how harmful it is elsewhere. Ms. Zegers hopes to target young Americans with testimonies from people who have lived under the reality of socialism
Israel’s interior minister said Friday he has received and granted a request by Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib to enter the Israeli-occupied West Bank on humanitarian grounds.
On Thursday, Israel had announced it is barring Tlaib from entry. Israel’s decision came after President Donald Trump said in a tweet it would show “weakness” to allow in Muslim members of Congress who have been sharply critical of him and of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians.
On Friday, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri announced that Tlaib had requested and been granted permission to enter the West Bank to see relatives, including her 90-year-old grandmother.
Deri’s office published Tlaib’s written request, on congressional stationary.
In her letter, Tlaib said this would likely be the last chance to see her grandmother and that she would respect any restrictions and “not promote boycotts” during her visit.
Deri’s office said he “decided to allow her entry to Israel and hopes she will stand by her commitment and that the visit will be for humanitarian needs only.”
Tlaib’s pledge to conduct the visit in line with restrictions imposed by Israel angered Palestinians.
Tlaib is a supporter of “boycott, divestment and sanctions,” or BDS, a Palestinian-led global movement.
The U.S. president was relying on Israel to retaliate against Tlaib. She is part of the “squad” of liberal newcomers whom Trump has labeled the face of the Democratic Party as he runs for re-election.
In Israel, Netanyahu said Thursday that his country remains “open to critics and criticism,” except for those who advocate boycotts against it.
Let us not let the left-wing media talk us into a recession. Make no mistake: they are eager to do so.
For months the liberal press has echoed Democrats’ hand-wringing on the campaign trail, repeating Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s unwarranted warnings about debt levels for instance, or former Vice President Joe Biden’s alarms about how President Trump’s trade confrontation with China is hurting consumers.
After all, it’s hard to call for a revolution if the people are happy.
Less enthusiastically reported have been record lows in unemployment and accelerating wage increases – news that might buoy consumer sentiment, and, not unimportantly, Trump’s reelection prospects.
That’s why Democrats and their media enablers were beyond giddy to see markets nosedive. This was it, pundits proclaimed: Trump’s trade war has brought us to the brink of a downturn.
The very next day, the Commerce Department reported that U.S. retail sales surged 0.7 percent in July, up from a 0.3 percent gain in June, beating expectations.
Walmart just reported that its “U.S. comp sales increased on a two-year stacked basis by 7.3%, which is the strongest growth in more than 10 years.”
Also, the Labor Department reported that productivity rose 2.3 percent in the second quarter, down from 3.5 percent in the first quarter, but a solid gain nonetheless, and one that bodes well for future wage hikes.
The U.S. consumer continues to defy prognosticators; despite Democrats campaigning on the miseries of the middle class, by gosh the middle class insists on streaming into Walmart and pumping up the economy.
To be sure, the outlook is less rosy than it was several months ago. U.S. manufacturing has weakened, falling 0.4 percent in July, and the rest of the world is struggling. Still, our domestic economy is in good shape; the market reaction appears overblown.
Here’s how to make sense of the recent market plunge:
Because interest rates in much of the world have turned negative, the U.S. is attracting floods of money from investors worldwide seeking returns. That influx has driven bond prices higher and our rates down, and briefly caused what is called an “inversion,” in which the rate on a 10-year or 30-year bond is lower than the rate on a 2-year instrument. That is unusual, since investors normally demand higher rates in return for committing their money for a longer period of time, but it is not unprecedented.
A sustained inversion has sometimes indicated a future recession after a period of several months, but not always. Economists differ on the meaning of interest rate patterns today. An astonishing $15 trillion in bonds around the globe are yielding negative interest rates currently; that fact has muddied normal calculations. A further complication is that the Federal Reserve is managing an unusually large $3.8 trillion portfolio of bonds and other debt instruments. Their purchases and sales can meaningfully skew bond prices and interest rates.
Bottom line: it’s too early to say the inversion guarantees a recession.
Stocks are up substantially this year. Even after the recent sell-off, the Dow is ahead 9 percent and the S&P is up 13 percent so far this year. Many investors are responding to the recent ups and downs by harvesting some gains.
Ultimately, the stock market will trade higher or lower with corporate earnings, which depend on overall economic activity.
Here’s what you need to know about the state of the economy:
American consumers, responsible for two-thirds of the economy, remain upbeat, and they are spending. If that sector remains strong, we will continue to grow.
The economic slowdown making headlines is in Europe and China.
A slowdown elsewhere in the world hurts the U.S., without a doubt. But exports make up only about 12 percent of U.S. GDP; moderate weakness should not lead us into recession.
Meanwhile, some elements that bolster optimism, and that should keep panic at bay, include:
The National Federation of Independent Businesses reported that in July, its Small Business Optimism Index bounced up 1.4 points to 104.7. Maybe more reassuring, the group’s “Uncertainty Index” dropped, reversing a surge in June. Also, the group reported that “Small business owners’ plans to create new jobs and make capital outlays advanced and earnings trends improved, supported by a solid improvement in sales trends. Plans to order new inventories posted a solid gain.”
Consumer sentiment has also remained robust. That’s because jobs are plentiful and wages are rising. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly compensation was up an annualized 4.8 percent in the second quarter after a hefty (revised) 9.2 percent gain in the first three months of the year.
Inflation is still very low.
Overall, the U.S. economy is sound. Markets may remain choppy, as investors wait to see whether the inversion of rates persists. Possible catalysts for higher stock prices would include a signal that the U.S. Federal Reserve will cut interest rates to keep us in sync with the rest of the world, or a breakthrough in the trade talks between China and the U.S.
Though the latter appears unlikely today, President Trump will push for some resolution. He knows the economy, and his reelection prospects, may depend on it. He’s just ornery enough to deny Democrats their recession.
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Mounting signs of global economic distress this week have alarmed President Trump, who is worried that a downturn could imperil his reelection, even as administration officials acknowledge that they have not planned for a possible recession.
Trump is banking on a strong economy to win a second term in 2020, and in recent weeks he has impulsively lashed out at the Federal Reserve, pressured Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to label China a “currency manipulator,” and unexpectedly delayed tariffs on Chinese imports out of fear they could depress holiday retail sales.
Yet despite gyrations in the U.S. stock market and economic slowdowns in other countries, officials in the White House, at the Treasury Department and throughout the administration are planning no new steps to attempt to stave off a recession. Rather, Trump’s economic advisers have been delivering the president upbeat assessments in which they argue that the domestic economy is stronger than many forecasters are making it out to be.
In turn, Trump has sought to use his Twitter pulpit to drown out negative indicators. On Thursday, he promoted the U.S. economy as “the Biggest, Strongest and Most Powerful Economy in the World,” and, citing growth in the retail sector, predicted that it would only get stronger. He also accused the news media of “doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election.”
[Yes pointing out facts can be bad for Rump's re-election.]
Privately, however, the president has sounded anxious and apprehensive. From his golf club in New Jersey, where he is vacationing this week, Trump has called a number of business leaders and financial executives to sound them out — and they have provided him a decidedly mixed analysis, according to two people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the conversations were confidential.
Trump has a somewhat conspiratorial view, telling some confidants that he distrusts statistics he sees reported in the news media and that he suspects many economists and other forecasters are presenting biased data to thwart his reelection, according to one Republican close to the administration who was briefed on some of the conversations.
“He’s rattled,” this Republican said. “He thinks that all the people that do this economic forecasting are a bunch of establishment weenies — elites who don’t know anything about the real economy and they’re against Trump.”
Trump has relentlessly bludgeoned Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell over interest rates and has told aides and allies that he would be a scapegoat if the economy goes south.
The stock market has slumped in recent weeks because of a number of factors. The U.S.-China trade war has become increasingly acrimonious and is affecting both economies. Germany and the United Kingdom appear to be nearing a recession. Argentina’s stock market has crashed. Meanwhile, a key predictor of future recessions in the bond market — an inverted “yield curve” — was triggered this week, which spooked investors even more.
White House officials said the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain very strong, citing low unemployment, high productivity, low inflation and strong retail sales. They said the recent turbulence may be connected to problems in other countries, and that there is no reason to recalibrate the administration’s approach, which has relied on low taxes, deregulation and low energy costs. [And YUGE deficits]...
"Yes pointing out facts can be bad for Rump's re-election"
especially, when the facts are carefully selected to create a negative impression
here's the facts you rarely hear:
"low unemployment, high productivity, low inflation and strong retail sales"
those are the facts
the "facts" the media prints are speculation
the US has often shrugged off global recession and the stock market isn't infallible
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat and the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, said Friday that she had decided not to visit her grandmother in the West Bank after Israel granted her permission, describing the conditions placed on her visit as "oppressive."
"I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in — fighting against racism, oppression & injustice," Tlaib tweeted Friday.
Israel earlier announced it had granted the permission.
"Interior Minister Aryeh Deri decided on Friday to approve the entry of US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for a humanitarian visit of her 90-year-old grandmother," the interior ministry said in a statement Friday.
"here's the facts you rarely hear:
"low unemployment, high productivity, low inflation and strong retail sales""
Bullshit.
Rump repeats those "facts" every day while patting himself on the back for them.
"those are the facts
the "facts" the media prints are speculation""
Bullshit.
It is not speculation that inversion of the yield curve often leads to recession.
It is a fact!
"All the recessions in the US since 1970 (up through 2018) have been preceded by an inverted yield curve (10-year vs 3-month). Over the same time frame, every occurrence of an inverted yield curve has been followed by recession as declared by the NBER business cycle dating committee.[11] The yield curve became inverted in the first half of 2019, for the first time since 2007.[12][13][14]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_curve#Relationship_to_the_business_cycle
Ed Smart, the father of kidnapping survivor Elizabeth Smart, came out as gay in a letter for family and friends posted to Facebook and said he and his wife are separating, local media in Utah reported.
Smart confirmed to the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune that he wrote the letter but declined to comment further. The Tribune reported that the post published Thursday has since been deleted.
Elizabeth Smart told the newspapers that she was "deeply saddened" by her parents' separation, but didn't comment on her father's sexuality.
In 2002, then 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City and held captive for nine months. Smart was repeatedly raped and drugged by her captors Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. She has since become an advocate for kidnapping and sexual assault survivors.
In his letter, Ed Smart, 64, acknowledged it was "one of the hardest letters I have ever written."
"I have recently acknowledged to myself and my family that I am gay," the letter states, per the Deseret News.
"The decision to be honest and truthful about my orientation comes with its own set of challenges, but at the same time it is a huge relief," he continued. "Living with the pain and guilt I have for so many years, not willing to accept the truth about my orientation has at times brought me to the point where I questioned whether life was still worth living."
Smart also called his wife, Lois, "loyal" and said she is an "extraordinary mother."
"I deeply regret the excruciating pain this has caused her. Hurting her was never my intent. While our marriage will end, my love for Lois and everyone in my family is eternal," the newspaper reported he wrote.
According to the Deseret News and the Tribune, court records show Lois Smart filed for divorce July 5.
In her statement to the newspaper, Elizabeth Smart said she still loves and admires her parents.
"Their decisions are very personal. As such, I will not pass judgment and rather am focusing on loving and supporting them and the other members of my family," she said.
Ed Smart said his announcement came along with a change in beliefs. While he doesn't "find solace any longer" within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Smart said his faith is still strong.
The church recently changed its teaching on same-sex couples, saying that gay marriage will no longer be considered a sin worthy of expulsion and that LGBTQ parents can have their children baptized.
The reversal came in April 2019, four years after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said those in same-sex relationships were “apostates’’ who must be banished from the religion...
"Bullshit.
It is not speculation that inversion of the yield curve often leads to recession.
It is a fact!
"All the recessions in the US since 1970 (up through 2018) have been preceded by an inverted yield curve (10-year vs 3-month). Over the same time frame, every occurrence of an inverted yield curve has been followed by recession as declared by the NBER business cycle dating committee.[11] The yield curve became inverted in the first half of 2019, for the first time since 2007.[12][13][14]"
funny, you say "often"
your source says "every occurrence"
that not news, it's an attempt to guess the future, based on some fallacious correlation
the truth is, the inversion must persist for some time to cause a problem
Dems, so desperate for any glimmer of hope, are hoping hyping the threat will cause a recession
pathetic, and unpatriotic
consumers are ignoring them
here's an example of news:
The Dow lost 800 points or 3% on Wednesday after the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note briefly broke below the 2-year rate and amateur economists in the media said the inversion of this key part of the yield curve has been a reliable indicator of economic recessions. That part of the curve is no longer inverted Friday and stocks started to move higher as the curve steepened with the rise in yields.
“Yield curve inversions do not point to imminent doom for U.S. stocks,” Brian Belski, BMO Capital Markets’ chief investment strategist, said in a note. “Historically, it takes a while for big losses to occur once the yield curve inverts.”
Meanwhile, with the Chinese economy collapsing, Beijing begged the U.S. to meet halfway in order to secure an agreement.
Maryland school officials are developing curriculum standards for history classes to include lessons about the fight for civil rights for the LGBT community and Americans with disabilities.
If the changes are approved, Maryland would join at least four other states that have taken steps to require public schools to teach lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history, which advocates say has long been absent from textbooks and classroom lessons.
Last month, dozens of state lawmakers signed a letter calling on Maryland school officials to craft new curriculum standards addressing the rights of LGBT and disabled communities. The letter specifically mentioned the 50th anniversary in June of the Stonewall riots in Manhattan, and the other states that have recently passed similar standards through legislation.
“These are important stories for our teachers to tell, not only for those students who are themselves LGBT or who have a disability, but so all of our students have a basic understanding of the challenges faced by significant segments of American society,” Del. Eric G. Luedtke (D-Montgomery) wrote in the letter to State Superintendent of Schools Karen B. Salmon.
In response, the Maryland State Department of Education on Friday said it had already been in the process of developing such changes to the curriculum. Officials plan to present the standards to the State Board of Education for approval during the upcoming school year, a spokesman with the agency said. The spokesman could not confirm any other details about the nature of the curriculum changes.
“It was a quick and easy win,” said Luedtke, who is a former history teacher. “I believe that the history we teach in schools should reflect the history of all Americans. For decades now, we have been going through a process where we correct that our history curriculum leaves out certain groups.”
In recent months, Illinois, Colorado and New Jersey have all passed legislation mandating that LGBT history be taught as part of school curriculum. California became the first state where LGBT curriculum became law — in 2011...
"passed legislation mandating that LGBT history be taught"
that would be fine
but "lessons about the fight for civil rights for the LGBT community" is propagandistic advocacy that has no right using public school funds
"but "lessons about the fight for civil rights for the LGBT community" is propagandistic advocacy that has no right using public school funds"
You are entitled to your opinion but the legislation has been passed.
Good luck changing it like you tried with the MoCo sex education curriculum.
You didn't change that either.
You will always lose because tolerance, acceptance, and understanding win in true blue Maryland!
"You are entitled to your opinion but the legislation has been passed."
am I entitled to my opinion?
incidents of harrassment against anyone who dares to disagree with the gay agenda are rising
"You will always lose because tolerance, acceptance, and understanding win in true blue Maryland!"
lying to kids about history will have the same effect that the previous lying to them about the science of sexuality had:
deleterious
it's amazing how fast the country recovers from recessions when a Republican is President
just Thursday, the mainstream media was talking about the recession non-stop
then, suddenly on Friday, the recession's over
retail sales are strong; consumer sentiment is healthy; unemployment is at record lows, especially among minorities, blue collar workers, women, teens; average wages are up; productivity is up; inflation barely exists; interest rates are low; the stock market is way up for the year
still, you have to feel bad about how horribly things are going in China
but, on the bright side, maybe some tough times will help them overcome their unfortunate totalitarian tendencies
Friday, Aug 16th
General Election: Trump vs. Biden.......FOX News........Biden 50, Trump 38......Biden +12
General Election: Trump vs. Warren......FOX News........Warren 46, Trump 39.....Warren +7
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders.....FOX News........Sanders 48, Trump 39....Sanders +9
General Election: Trump vs. Harris......FOX News........Harris 45, Trump 39.....Harris +6
President Trump Job Approval.......Rasmussen Reports....Approve 46, Disapprove 52....Disapprove +6
Anthony Scaramucci thinks he knows when Donald Trump will decide not to run for president again.
And, according to “The Mooch,” it’s only seven months away.
“He’s gonna drop out of the race because it’s gonna become very clear. Okay, it’ll be March of 2020. He’ll likely drop out by March of 2020. It’s gonna become very clear that it’s impossible for him to win,” the former (short-lived) White House communications director said in an interview with Vanity Fair published Friday.
“And is this the kind of guy that’s gonna want to be that humiliated and lose as a sitting president?” asked Scaramucci, who in recent weeks has turned on and feuded with his former boss, likening him to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
“He’s got the self-worth in terms of his self-esteem of a small pigeon. It’s a very small pigeon. Okay,” Scaramucci continued about Trump. “And so you think this guy’s gonna look at those poll numbers and say — he’s not gonna be able to handle that humiliation.”
Scaramucci, who on Friday claimed Twitter temporarily locked him out of his account after he called Trump “the fattest president” in response to his fat-shaming of a supporter at a rally, also turned to HBO’s epic fantasy drama “Game of Thrones” to help him explain why he believes Trump should face a Republican primary challenger.
“You know, this is like ‘Game of Thrones.’ We need an Arya Stark, okay? We gotta take this guy out because this is like the Night King,” he said. “The minute the Night King is vaporized, all the zombies are gonna fall by the wayside, right? We had the Wicked Witch of the West, but he is the Wicked Witch of the West Wing. We gotta get some water thrown on him. He’ll start melting.”
And why is the Mooch doing this?
"I love my country. You may not agree with my political views, you may not like my demeanor or personality, but you can’t say I don’t love my country. And so the point is, you want to attack me, no problem. I want to show my fellow Republicans those are paper bullets coming out of that gun. They are not as piercing as you think, because if you change your attitude and you reflect back, you don’t absorb that and you reflect it back, you’ll demolish this guy. He’s a paper tiger, Bill. He can be completely dismantled and defeated. And unfortunately, this isn’t about a personal thing.
This is an observational objective thing: the guy’s nuts. We’ve gotta defeat him. Everybody in the Republican Party knows it. They don’t want to lose their mantle of power and their mantle of leadership, so let’s primary the guy. And by the way, let’s find somebody younger, charismatic, understands the issues, can reach into the population and say, “Yeah, I got it.” But come on, this guy is gonna take us off the rails."
Full interview:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/anthony-scaramucci-interview-trump
"Friday, Aug 16th
General Election: Trump vs. Biden.......FOX News........Biden 50, Trump 38......Biden +12
General Election: Trump vs. Warren......FOX News........Warren 46, Trump 39.....Warren +7
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders.....FOX News........Sanders 48, Trump 39....Sanders +9
General Election: Trump vs. Harris......FOX News........Harris 45, Trump 39.....Harris +6
President Trump Job Approval.......Rasmussen Reports....Approve 46, Disapprove 52....Disapprove +6"
gee, how much were Jeb Bush & Hillary beating Trump by in summer 2016
Americans barely know those people and wait until they start seeing more of doddering Biden...LOL!!!
truth is the pollsters say Dems will win by a landslide every election until there's about a week to go
then, miraculously, everything changes....
"Anthony Scaramucci thinks he knows when Donald Trump will decide not to run for president again."
so sad how anyone who says what the liberals want to hear gets exalted by the media
Remember Stormy's lawyer?...LOL!!!
how about Michael Cohen's testimony?...ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In southeast Alaska, the normally lush forests are falling prey to spruce bark beetles and hemlock sawflys, which are taking advantage of a lack of rainfall and higher than average temperatures. The dry weather has also forced cuts in hydropower production, forcing a switch to more expensive and polluting diesel power generation.
In Anchorage, this summer has been the hottest and smokiest the city has ever recorded, with plumes from distant wildfires obscuring the skies and aggravating health problems. July was the state’s warmest month on record, in keeping with that of the globe.
In western Alaska, there has been a multispecies mass mortality event, with washed-up seals, walrus and birds, possibly due, in part, to a total lack of sea ice, and record warm ocean waters, according to Rick Thoman of the International Arctic Research Center.
On a call with reporters Thursday, Thoman said there have also been “dead non-spawned salmon in some places in significant numbers,” coinciding with high river temperatures of 70 degrees or greater. The wildlife deaths are hitting close to home for many Alaskans, a state in which commercial fishing and hunting are a source of livelihood for many, and where indigenous communities practice subsistence hunting...
The balmy weather sounds nice in theory, but for Alaskans watching their landscape melt and burn, it’s anything but. Nearly 2.5 million acres have burned in more than 600 wildfires this year in Alaska. This is not yet a record for the season, but according to Thoman, the 1991-2010 median-to-date is 681,000 acres.
The fires aren’t confined to Alaska. Wildfires have been flaring all across the Arctic. In Greenland, wildfires continue to burn, while at least 13 million acres have already gone up in flames in Siberia. The cloud of smoke billowing from Siberia alone could cover the entire European Union, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
While the fires are raging, the ice is vanishing. Eastern Siberian sea ice is running at its second lowest coverage for the date on record. Across the entire Arctic, 2019 is also in second place for the lowest sea ice extent on record — running just behind the record-shattering 2012 melt season. Adjacent to Alaska, the Chukchi Sea is likely to become ice-free by September. According to Thoman, there was no sea ice within 125 miles of the Alaska coastline as of Thursday, and the now-exposed ocean waters are gaining large amounts of heat energy from the sun that will be slow to dissipate in the fall and winter...
And at the same time, National Geographic reports West Antarctica is melting—and it’s our fault
But no worries, America is great again now!
All hail Rump!
"truth is the pollsters say Dems will win by a landslide every election until there's about a week to go
then, miraculously, everything changes...."
You conveniently forgot 2008 & 2012.
"so sad how anyone who says what the liberals want to hear gets exalted by the media"
The right does the exact same thing. Remember Milo?
Funny thing though, I don't remember nearly so many Republicans saying such bad things about the Bushes or Reagan when they were up for reelection.
And I don't remember so many republicans leaving the party because of their president back then either. If elected republican officials are leaving the party because of the 800-pound orangutan in the room, just how many voters are going to stick with him?
Keep counting your chickens...
Its not really fair that this guy will get the electric chair for killing Mexicans while Sam Houston got a city named after him.
What a hateful and ignorant thing to say.
The white supremacist shooter was a lousy shot and killed non-Mexicans too.
How many US Army veterans did Sam Houston kill?
How many 15 year olds who just finished their first year of high school did Sam Houston shoot down in cold blood?
Does David Johnson sound like a Mexican to you?
How about Angie Sliva-Englisbee or Alexander Gerhard Hoffman or Jordan Jamrowski?
Workers at a massive new Shell plant in Pennsylvania had to attend a speech by President Donald Trump there earlier this week to be paid — and were ordered not to protest, reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Attendance was not mandatory for thousands of union workers at Royal Dutch Shell’s petrochemical plant north of Pittsburgh, but they had to forfeit pay for the day if they skipped, according to attendance and comportment information obtained by the newspaper.
“Your attendance is not mandatory,” one manager told workers, summarizing a memo that Shell sent to union leaders, the Post-Gazette reported, but only those who showed up at 7 a.m., scanned their ID cards and prepared to stand for hours through lunch would be paid.
“No scan, no pay,” workers were warned.
In addition, workers who decided not to listen to the president’s speech reportedly would not be paid overtime rates routinely built in for extra time during the week.
The newspaper said that they were also told: “No yelling, shouting, protesting or anything viewed as resistance will be tolerated at the event. An underlying theme of the event is to promote good will from the unions. Your building trades leaders and jobs stewards have agreed to this.”
Trump took full credit for the plant in his speech, even though it was initially approved in June 2016, during the Obama administration, CNN reported.
“It was the Trump administration that made it possible,“ Trump told workers. “No one else. Without us, you would never have been able to do this.”
August 16, 2019
Mr. President,
Back in February 2017, when you first alleged a voter-fraud scheme of astonishing scale in New Hampshire in 2016, I publicly called upon you to provide your evidence to the American people and the appropriate law-enforcement authorities so that your very serious claims could be investigated. I followed up in March 2017 with a letter to you repeating my request.
You have not, so far, provided any proof of these allegations.
Last night, you repeated your claim: “New Hampshire should’ve been won last time,” you told reporters before your rally, “except we had a lot of people come in at the last moment, which was a rather strange situation, thousands and thousands of people, coming in from locations unknown. But I knew where their location was.” During your rally, you told the crowd that New Hampshire was “taken away from us.”
What I wrote to you in March 2017 is just as true now: Our democracy depends on the American people’s faith in our elections. Your voter-fraud allegations run the risk of undermining that faith. Just as seriously, baseless allegations of fraud have been used to rationalize indefensible laws that deter certain U.S. citizens from exercising their right to vote. Words matter, and facts matter.
The American people count on me, as the Chair of their Federal Election Commission, to protect the integrity of our elections. So I ask you, once again, to provide any evidence you may have to the American people and the appropriate law-enforcement authorities to substantiate your claims. The American people are ill-served when our leaders put forward unfounded allegations of voter fraud.
To put it in terms a former casino operator should understand: There comes a time when you need to lay your cards on the table or fold.
Sincerely,
Ellen L. Weintraub
Chair, Federal Elections Commission
Ellen, our taxes are funding your salary
shut up and get back to work
Our taxes pay Rump's salary too.
He should stop playing so much golf and try doing some honest work like admitting he lost the popular vote by millions but he is incapable of accepting the truth.
"2016 US Presidential Popular vote
Trump 62,984,828
Clinton 65,853,514"
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
"In June 2017, the federal magistrate judge found that Kobach had made "patently misleading representations" to the court in the course of the document dispute. Kobach was fined $1,000 for "deceptive conduct and lack of candor" and ordered to submit to questioning under oath by the ACLU about the documents and about a draft amendment to the National Voter Registration Act "which would have added a line to the federal voter law that said states could request any information from voters they deem necessary."[27][26][28]"
"In an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law looked at 42 jurisdictions, focusing on ones with large population of noncitizens. Of 23.5 million votes surveyed, election officials referred an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation, or about 0.0001% of votes cast. Douglas Keith, the counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the analysis, said, "President Trump has said repeatedly that millions of people voted illegally in 2016, but our interviews with local election administrators made clear that rampant noncitizen voting simply did not occur. Any claims to the contrary make their job harder and distract from progress toward needed improvements like automatic voter registration."[34]"
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity#Voter_irregularities_in_the_United_States
March 2019 Quinnipiac Poll
"Voters say 65 - 30 percent that Trump is not honest, his worst grade ever on that character trait."
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2603
May 2019 NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll
"Sixty percent of Americans say Trump has not been honest and truthful"
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-05-06/poll-trump-job-approval-holds-steady
July 2019 Gallup: Trump Seen Marginally as Decisive Leader, but Not Honest
"Honesty, which has largely been considered a challenge for Trump since his 2016 campaign, continues to be among his weakest personal characteristics. Currently, 34% of Americans say the president is honest and trustworthy -- essentially tied with his lowest reading for this question, 33%, in 2016 and 2017."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/260495/trump-seen-marginally-decisive-leader-not-honest.aspx
"Our taxes pay Rump's salary too.
He should stop playing so much golf and try doing some honest work"
If you're talking about President Donald Trump, you can say all kinds of things about him but he probably works more than most Presidents have
the results are certainly there
juggling a number of balls, he still manages to preside over and sustain an economy that hums with low unemployment among the working class and minorities, rising wages and productivity without a hint of inflation
plus he's ventured into a number of necessary things that former cowardly Presidents wouldn't risk, like addressing and confronting the Chinese threat to civilization
as for golf, those who never engage in recreation are the most worthless members of our society
"like admitting he lost the popular vote by millions but he is incapable of accepting the truth."
he didn't lose the popular vote
we didn't have one
it's difficult to say who'd have won if we had
if we had a popular vote, it would have changed the strategy of the candidates but, more importantly, it would have affected citizens' choices about whether to vote
in California, for example, where 10% of Americans live, there is a system that results in most races having no GOP candidate in the general election
millions who would have voted for Trump had no reason to wait in line to cast a ballot
"Honesty, which has largely been considered a challenge for Trump since his 2016 campaign, continues to be among his weakest personal characteristics. Currently, 34% of Americans say the president is honest and trustworthy -- essentially tied with his lowest reading for this question, 33%, in 2016 and 2017."
the media works hard to create this impression
all politicians are dishonest but Trump is probably more honest than most
most of his "lies" are in the self-promotion area, typical of those in the real estate business
in policy areas, he is generally unafraid to tell people what they don't want to hear
in the 2016 election, Hillary had a lower honesty rating than Trump
Rumpeets are all liars especially the asshole pretending to be Merrick Garland above.
Keep dreaming Rump works hard on those golf courses.
What he is doing is spending our tax dollars to play golf and pad his personal profits at his own golf courses/goat farms.
We can all imagine what you'd say if Obama tried that shit.
In "two years and 91 days that President Trump has been in office (we can’t believe it either!). We’ve spent these last two years tracking his golfing habits, and comparing them to the frequency of previous Presidents. But let’s be honest, most of you only care about one thing: Does Trump play more golf that Obama did while he was President? And whose golf habits cost the U.S. tax payer more?
The answer is yes. Trump has played 2.6 times more golf than Obama in his first 2 years and 91 days and has cost the tax payer an estimated $74 million more than Obama."
https://presidentialgolftracker.com/trump-vs-obama-golf-games/
What Rump does MORE than any other president is lie through his teeth.
"Keep dreaming Rump works hard on those golf courses"
how ironic that someone who is indignant about Trump's lies would tell one!
I never said he "works hard on those golf courses"
I said he works hard
what he does in free time is his business
Obama did plenty of loafing, regardless of how much golf he played
in his first two years, as unemployment climbed to 10%, he did nothing about it
Today, Clinton turns 73, having exceeded Psalm 90’s allotted three-score years and 10, and having survived impeachment, open-heart surgery, and more than enough personal and political scrapes to exhaust nine lives, much less one. But what should have been these golden years are turning out to be leaden.
Clinton is pariah in the modern Democratic Party—the one he did so much to reshape and rebuild. His signature policies are the butt of attacks by the current crop of Democratic contenders, and a conspiracy theory is going around that Clinton may have had something to do with the jailhouse death of Jeffrey Epstein, the serial sex trafficker whose was his close friend.
Clinton’s checkered past with women—his acknowledged infidelity and serious allegations of predation — left him sidelined as a surrogate in last year’s midterms, too toxic to raise money or stump for candidates in the #MeToo era. He is no longer the party’s reigning “Secretary of Explaining Stuff,” as Barack Obama once dubbed him. He won’t have a prime-time speaking slot at next summer’s Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee—if he appears at all.
Harry Truman, George H. W. Bush, and even Herbert Hoover left office in disfavor, only to see their reputations revive (to one degree or another) in retirement. Jimmy Carter, whose defeat after one term nearly 40 years ago made him variously persona non grata or a pain in the neck to his fellow Democrats, has aged into an admired elder statesman, revered around the world for his good works, still teaching Sunday school at 94.
Clinton’s trajectory has been different. He left office in January 2001 with a 65 percent approval rating, the highest of any of his predecessors in a half century. That changed with his sharp-elbowed and racist campaigning on behalf of his wife in her run against Obama in 2008, and revelations about the sometimes sloppy conduct of his post-presidential personal and financial life (including many flights on Epstein’s private plane wih the girls) dimmed his luster further. His personality has transmuted into an unbecoming crankiness and sense of grievance.
By the end of Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign—in which Donald Trump went so far as to bring three women who’d accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct to a debate—the bloom was well off the rose. The following year’s revelations about sexual allegations against powerful men from Harvey Weinstein to Matt Lauer cast Clinton’s history with Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and, above all, Monica Lewinsky in a stark new light.
“You enacted sensible gun control legislation that banned assault weapons … a ban that the Republican-led Congress would later allow to expire.” Clinton’s longtime fan Barbra Streisand put it in a birthday letter circulated by the Clinton Foundation last week.
In this summer’s Democratic debates, the omnibus crime bill that contained the assault-weapons ban was not praised as a daring defiance of the political power of the National Rifle Association—and one that might well have helped to deter the recent wave of mass shootings—but derided as the law that led to mass incarcerations. Something that was seen at the time as one of Clinton’s riskiest and most courageous moves is now regarded as retrograde.
In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton said: “I believed that if we were on the right side of history, the direction I had taken into the new millennium would eventually prevail.”
That he was on the “right side of history” is now believed by few. He had a hand, through his serious lapses in judgment, in opening the door to a new media and societal environment in which salacious personal behavior became casually and commonly accepted. No one—not even his most ardent supporters—could really argue that he conducted his life or his presidency on a morally upright plane.
Today, as he marks a birthday, Clinton’s name means something different than it did 20 years ago, particularly among Democrats. Nearly all the two dozen 2020 candidates vying for the party’s nomination would likely hesitate to accept his open endorsement. Eleven months from now, Clinton may find himself at home on the couch, watching the national convention, asking aloud a question, the answer to which he already knows.
House Republicans have been circulating a memo internally that instructs members of Congress to blame violence initiated by white supremacists, like the recent El Paso mass shooting, as something that is the fault of “the left,” according to The Tampa Bay Times.
A spokesperson for Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) said the memo was “provided by the House Republican Conference,” is currently chaired by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY). Bilirakis included talking points from the memo in a newsletter he emailed to constituents last week.
The memo provides Republican members a series of questions they are likely to face from constituents and gives them the language to respond.
One question on the document is, “Do you believe white nationalism is driving more mass shootings recently?” Republicans are instructed to respond, “White nationalism and racism are pure evil and cannot be tolerated in any form. We also can’t excuse violence from the left such as the El Paso shooter, the recent Colorado shooters, the Congressional baseball shooter, Congresswoman Giffords’ shooter and Antifa.”
The El Paso shooter’s manifesto contained references to anti-immigrant sentiment, echoing the message that has for years been promoted by Trump and the right.
In fact, many of the Republicans who received this memo ran for office in 2018 on explicitly anti-immigrant campaign messages.
After the shooting, Republicans have sought to blame everything but the factors that directly contributed to the event.
Instead of addressing guns and anti-immigrant/white supremacist sentiment, they blamed video games, mental health, “screens,” social media, and the lack of school prayer, among other excuses.
Other questions in the memo reference concerns about Republican inaction on the gun show loophole and the availability of high-capacity magazines.
“The answers are boilerplate Republican arguments against tougher gun restrictions,” the Tampa Bay Times noted.
The boilerplate language reflects the influence of the NRA, who has urged Republicans to hold steady and not enact gun safety legislation. The troubled organization’s message is decidedly out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, who support a host of gun safety measures.
GOPers -- the party of LIARS
there are no lies there
white nationalism is not on the rise
there is no evidence gun control reduces the level of gun violence
we had no extensive history of mass shootings until Congress passed a law making schools in America gun-free zones
since then, video games, social media, lack of response to mental illness, and increased hostility against school prayer have distinguished the era of mass shootings
also, the media has alerted mass shooters to place where guns are absent
the safest places in America: places where everyone has a gun
That's right!!
And don't forget pigs fly and Elvis is in the house!
good strategy. When facts fail, try mockery. Won't win any elections but will impress your fellow looneys!
"the safest places in America: places where everyone has a gun"
Absolutely. Nowhere safer in America than Chicago.
Your logic is infallible.
You must be a very stable genius.
"there is no evidence gun control reduces the level of gun violence"
Except in Canada, England, Germany, New Zealand...
"white nationalism is not on the rise"
That's what all the White Nationalists say.
Trump stumbles onto a new justification for losing the popular vote: It’s Google’s fault
LMAO
What a dork!
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened.
The Putin hoax had nothing to do with it!
FEC Chairwoman Weintraub said if such fraud did exist, “we really need to be taking action.”
But the FEC chairwoman said the White House has not been responsive to her requests.
She said that she has never been given information regarding evidence of voter fraud, adding that local officials haven't received any either, and are offended by the claims.
“These are serious allegations ... but if there is no proof then these things really shouldn’t be said,” Weintraub said.
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to comment.
Weintraub’s letter was sent to Trump after he told New Hampshire voters at a rally last week that it wasn't their "fault" that he had lost the state in 2016, claiming that the state had been "taken" from his campaign.
Trump has long alleged that he would have won the national popular vote against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 if not for millions of illegal votes, without providing any evidence for his accusations.
His claims spurred a short-lived voter fraud commission headed by Vice President Pence and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) that disbanded without producing evidence of wide-spread fraud.
"Absolutely. Nowhere safer in America than Chicago.
Your logic is infallible.
You must be a very stable genius."
actually, not everyone has a gun in Chicago
since it has the strictest gun control laws in the nation, only crooks have guns
kinda like Dems want for the entire country
"That's what all the White Nationalists say."
actually, most white nationalists, which constitutes a tiny fringe group, think their cause is on the rise
the media has convinced them of it
that's why this fringe feels emboldened
they, and the media, are mistaken
"FEC Chairwoman Weintraub said if such fraud did exist, “we really need to be taking action.”
But the FEC chairwoman said the White House has not been responsive to her requests."
no one cares
give up
"since it has the strictest gun control laws in the nation, only crooks have guns"
Do you have any data to back up that assertion?
I'll wait.
There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over.
Those numbers come from the latest edition of the global Small Arms Survey, a project of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.
The report, which draws on official data, survey data and other measures for 230 countries, finds that global firearm ownership is heavily concentrated in the United States. In 2017, for instance, Americans made up 4 percent of the world's population but owned about 46 percent of the entire global stock of 857 million civilian firearms.
With an estimated 120.5 guns for every 100 residents, the firearm ownership rate in the United States is twice that of the next-highest nation, Yemen, with just 52.8 guns per 100 residents. In raw number terms, the closest country to the United States is India, with 71.1 million firearms in circulation. These numbers do not include firearms owned by law enforcement agencies or militaries.
On gun ownership, the United States stands out among the world's wealthiest nations, with an ownership rate more than three times higher than the rate in the next-highest country, Canada. The gun ownership rate in the United States is more than six times higher than the average among similar wealthy nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The Obama years were a boom time for America's gun manufacturers, which doubled their annual output between 2009 and 2013, fueled in part by fears of a federal crackdown on gun ownership that never materialized. “In the United States alone civilians acquired at least 122 million new or imported firearms during the period 2006–17,” the Small Arms Survey found.
If global gun ownership is concentrated in American hands, American gun ownership is concentrated even more narrowly in the country's gun-owning households. As of 2017, Gallup found that 42 percent of American households reported owning guns. With an estimated 118 million households in the United States, per the U.S. Census, that would mean that the country's 393 million guns are distributed among 50 million households. The implication is that the average gun-owning household owns nearly eight guns.
“Gun laws don’t work.”
I see this statement over and over every time gun control debates start up (which is often, considering the fact that the United States has a mass shooting almost every day, on average).
Before I make the case that gun laws do appear to work, let’s get Chicago out of the way, since that’s always the first thing anti-gun-legislation folks bring up.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders summed up the Chicago argument perfectly the day after the mass shooting in Las Vegas: “I think if you look to Chicago, where you had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year, they have the strictest gun laws in the country. That certainly hasn’t helped there.”
First of all, Chicago doesn’t have the strictest gun laws in the nation. It did until 2010, when the firearms ban was lifted by the Supreme Court. In 2012, its concealed carry ban was lifted. If we’re comparing big cities, New York and Los Angeles have stricter gun laws than Chicago (and notably lower gun violence rates).
Second of all, 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes sounds outrageous, and indeed, every victim of any kind of violence is a tragedy. However, Chicago is not even in the top 10 cities for gun violence rates. The numbers sound daunting, but per capita, the gun violence rate there is a third of what it is in the actual gun violence capital of the U.S.: New Orleans (where gun legislation is practically nonexistent).
Third, I’ve lived in the Chicago area. You drive south out of the city, blink a few times, and you’re in Indiana, a state with very few gun regulations. Gun control measures in a city that borders a state with lax gun laws will naturally be rather ineffective. It’s not like there are checkpoints as you drive across the border.
People say that comparing other countries to the U.S. doesn’t work due to differing cultures and constitutions. Thankfully, we have internal sovereignty within states right here in the U.S., so we have 50 examples of how gun legislation covering broad geographic areas plays out in our own country.
It’s not even fuzzy. The data from our 50 states point to a clear correlation between strict gun legislation and lower gun violence rates.
Gun Law Ranking ...... Gun Death Ranking
1. California ........ 43
2. Connecticut ....... 46
3. New Jersey ........ 45
4. Massachusetts ..... 50
5. Maryland .......... 27
5. New York (tied) ... 48
7. Hawaii ............ 49
8. Illinois .......... 39
9. Rhode Island ...... 47
10. Washington ....... 37
Gun law ranking: 1 = strictest legislation, 50 = least strict
Gun death ranking: 1 = highest rate of gun deaths, 50 = lowest
Of the states with the tightest gun regulations, 7 out of 10 are in the bottom 10 for gun death rates, and 9 of them are in the bottom 20.
And here are the 10 states with the least restrictive gun laws:
Gun Law Ranking ...... Gun Death Ranking
41. Vermont .......... 38
42. Kentucky ......... 13
43. Louisiana ........ 2
44. Alaska ........... 1
45. Wyoming .......... 4
46. Idaho ............ 15
47. Arizona .......... 18
48. Kansas ........... 31
49. Missouri ......... 9
50. Mississippi ...... 5
Of the states with the least restrictive gun laws, 4 out of 10 are in the top 10 for highest gun deaths, and 8 of them are in the top 20.
There are always outliers like Maryland, Vermont, and Kansas, of course, but overall the numbers are pretty straightforward.
But the numbers are not what I found most interesting about these statistics. It’s the states themselves that I found surprising.
Most of us tend to think of big cities when we think of gun violence: gangs, higher violent crime in general, etc. But look at the numbers for the states with our biggest cities:
New York — home to America’s largest city? Third lowest gun death rate in the country.
California — home not only to Los Angeles, but also San Francisco, San Diego, other urban areas? Seventh lowest.
Massachusetts has Boston. New Jersey is basically one big urban sprawl. It’s not like these are simply safer, small town states.
Even Illinois, with Chicago’s “horrible” gun violence, barely misses the lowest 10 for gun death rates overall. Could Illinois’ gun laws have anything to do with that?
Now, the statistical folks out there will remind us that correlation does not equal causation, and they’d be right. But in all seriousness, how do you explain these numbers?
Could it be that gun legislation actually does work when applied across a wide geographical area? If you can come up with a better explanation, please share it.
So how about those mass shootings? “No laws can prevent mass shootings,” people say. “Criminals will still get guns illegally.” Maybe. Maybe not. Naturally, with the number of guns in America, we can’t prevent every gun death.
But mass shootings are really only one piece of our country’s gun violence puzzle. No other developed nation even comes close to our rate of deaths by firearm. Not. Even. Close. That means there’s either something wrong with us as a people, or there’s something wrong with the way we handle guns.
I don’t believe Americans are any more evil or are more inherently prone to wanting to kill others or themselves than people in other nations. The only things we clearly differ on are the obscene number of guns in our country and the comparatively minuscule amount of regulation on those guns.
Other countries manage to have freedom-loving democracies and still have reasonable gun control measures. There’s no reason we can’t follow suit.
Really, it comes down to a simple question: If states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower gun death rates, isn’t it worth implementing similar laws federally? Aren’t 33,000 lives per year worth trying something that appears to be working?
"he still manages to preside over and sustain an economy that hums "
And yet White House officials eyeing payroll tax cut in effort to reverse weakening economy
Well of course the economy is weakening thanks to Rump's bonespurred economy policies.
Here’s what new tariffs will cost the average American household $1,000.00 per year.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd asked Kudlow to assess Wall Street fears about the economy. “I don’t see a recession,” answered Kudlow. “And let me add just one theme, Chuck. … Let’s not be afraid of optimism.” He cited strong “consumer numbers,” low oil prices and low interest rates and predicted “the economy’s going to be very good in 2019.”
That may sound good. But given that we’re well into 2019, Kudlow’s silence about 2020 is concerning. Furthermore, Kudlow’s confidence has some eerie echoes with the last downturn, as Todd pointed out:
"But, you know, you actually said that in 2007 right before the second-worst downturn in American history. This is what you wrote. “There’s no recession coming.” This is in December of ’07. “The pessimistas were wrong. It’s not going to happen. The Bush boom is alive and well. It’s finishing up its sixth consecutive year with more to come.”:
Here’s the problem: Kudlow and others failed to see a recession coming because they refused to believe housing and other markets could really collapse. Others learned from that mistake; it seems Kudlow hasn’t.
As for Navarro, he was asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to explain a presidential contradiction: If tariffs don’t really hurt U.S. consumers, as Trump likes to claim, then why did he delay tariffs until Dec. 15 out of concern for hurting consumers? “I was there in the Oval Office when a group of business people came in and made the following very persuasive argument,” Navarro replied. “They had already bought everything that was going to be on our shelves, but they’d done it in dollar contracts, which means they weren’t able to shift the burden back to the Chinese.”
Assuming that those business leaders are telling the truth, it’s good that the Trump administration would finally recognize reality. Then again, why didn’t someone at the White House make any effort to find this out beforehand? Why go through the whole charade of these tariffs if they weren’t even going to hit China in the first place?
Whether another recession is coming is an open question: Strong consumer spending and low unemployment may continue to keep things afloat. But all Navarro’s and Kudlow’s answers offered was more evidence that, if the economy does go south, this administration is acting without thinking. Kudlow is wrong: No one is “afraid of optimism.” We’re afraid of the team in the White House.
"Well of course the economy is weakening thanks to Rump's bonespurred economy policies.
Here’s what new tariffs will cost the average American household $1,000.00 per year."
the tariffs weren't not designed to encourage economic growth
they weren't designed to inflict enough damage on a hostile regime that they adjust their policies
such moves often require some American sacrifice
when we boycott Russian or Iranian oil, for example, it raises energy prices
or when we pushed the Nazis out of Europe, there was rationing and deficit spending that raised interest rates
in the words of JFK, we will pay any price and bear any burden to secure the blessings of liberty for the citizens of the world
a Chinese dominated world would be the end of liberty and civilization as we know it
it's worth the cost to stop it
especially, since the cost is so slight
"Whether another recession is coming is an open question:"
glad everyone recognizes that now
last Thursday, the fake news media was declaring that some inverted bond yield curve meant recession was inevitable
"Strong consumer spending and low unemployment may continue to keep things afloat"
that, and low regulation, and low interest rates, and low taxes
the effect of the trade war may slow growth
but slower growth is not the definition of a recession
if it were, Barack Obama would be the king of recessions
"such moves often require some American sacrifice"
Do tell.
When did Rump prepare us for such sacrifice?
Provide a link to a clip of Rump saying he expects Americans to sacrifice to pay the extra tariff price on imported goods.
< CRICKETS RECOMMENCE CHIRPING >
Rump said Americans wouldn't pay the tariffs, "hostile regimes" would pay them.
Rump also claimed Mexico would pay for the wall so why did he have to ask Congress for the money for the wall out of our tax dollars?
Because he's a liar, that's why.
Tariffs on Mexican Imports Would Hit More Than Avocados in Grocery Stores
Donald Trump Resurrects Lie That China Is Paying His Tariffs
Trump trade adviser claims tariffs aren't hurting anyone in the U.S.
Navarro apparently hasn't purchased any avocados lately.
US shoppers are paying the tariff on avocados right now.
The Pussy Grabber has delayed tariffs on China "for Xmas."
Why?
Because once Rump's 2019 tariffs on Chinese goods go into effect, US consumers will be paying those tariff prices too.
Two members of the proto-fascist, white nationalist, Trump-supporting group known as the Proud Boys were convicted of assault Monday in a Manhattan courtroom. The convictions stem from an Oct. 12 incident, in which members of the Proud Boys attacked purported members of the anti-fascist resistance group Antifa, who were protesting a speech that Proud Boy founder Gavin McInnes delivered to an audience of New York City Republicans.
John Kinsman, 39, and Maxwell Hare, 27, were convicted of multiple offenses, including attempted gang assault and attempted assault. During their trial, their lawyers contended that they had acted in self-defense, as they were allegedly made to fear for their safety by the people who were protesting a simple convening of like-minded individuals.
"(Defense Attorney Jack) Goldberg attempted to cast the Proud Boys as simply an organization with traditional conservative values.
“Is a tenet of the Proud Boys minimal government? Is a tenet of the Proud Boys maximum freedom? Is there anything wrong with those beliefs?” he said to the jury earlier in the trial."
The prosecution demolished this defense.
"Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass emphasized that Mr. Kinsman and Mr. Maxwell’s actions went far beyond what could be considered self-defense.
“What these defendants did was beyond overkill,” Mr. Steinglass said in court Wednesday. “Words alone, unaccompanied by physical threats or acts does not make a person the original aggressor.”
During closing arguments, prosecutors showed surveillance tape that captured Mr. Kinsman body slamming an Antifa member, and repeatedly kicking him against a gate while wearing work boots. Prosecutors said those boots operated as a weapon. Video footage that was shown to the jury also captured Mr. Hare, who Mr. Steinglass said started the brawl, punching another Antifa member multiple times before being pulled away by another Proud Boy."
Kinsman was also caught bragging on video after he committed the assaults, a factor which likely did not weigh in his favor.
The October incident received significant attention on social media, and ultimately, 10 alleged members of the Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group faced charges — most of whom pleaded out rather than face trial.
Donald Trump has expressed his implicit support for the Proud Boys and other Nazi-like thug organizations by threatening to officially label those who protest against them as “terrorists.”
"Trump’s disinterest in criticizing the Proud Boys is part of a longer trend in which he’s remained completely silent or, at most, has been mildly critical of the threat posed by white nationalist and white supremacist organizations, many of whom view his presidency as a boon for their cause and whose language echoes that of the president."
Hillary Clinton✔
@HillaryClinton
The debunked study you’re referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that’s about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163478770587721729 …
Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump
Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought! @JudicialWatch
3:27 PM - Aug 19, 2019
Rump really shouldn't try to use science for support.
Rump's superior intellect can't handle statistical analysis.
"Traditional methods for statistical analysis – from sampling data to interpreting results – have been used by scientists for thousands of years. But today’s data volumes make statistics ever more valuable and powerful. Affordable storage, powerful computers and advanced algorithms have all led to an increased use of computational statistics."
A research sample of 21 undecided voters out of 128.8 million US voters in the 2016 presidential election is too small to even hint at anything.
Federal officials have arrested a man in Washington state on suspicion of plotting a mass shooting targeting Hispanic people in Florida, court documents filed Monday revealed.
Maryland resident Eric Lin, 35, wanted to kill as many Hispanic people as he could in Miami and elsewhere, an FBI agent said in a sworn affidavit filed Monday with the Southern District of Florida.
Lin made his threats in a long series of Facebook messages to an unnamed individual that were provided to law enforcement. The missives were packed with racial and ethnic slurs, praise for Adolf Hitler, threats of sexual violence, genocide and cannibalism.
Lin joins a growing number of men arrested for allegedly plotting mass shootings across the country after the early August massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, where back-to-back shootings left more than 30 dead.
Disturbing excerpts of the messages show that Lin allegedly threatened to rape and murder the unnamed individual along with the person’s family before targeting “all Hispanics” and other ethnic groups. He heaped praise on the Trump administration for supporting what he called a “race war.”
“I Thank God everyday President Donald John Trump is President,” Lin allegedly wrote.
The person who received the messages over a span of about three months said Lin frequented the restaurant where they worked. In one message, Lin allegedly sent a composite image of his face and that of Hitler. The messages totaled about 150 pages when downloaded and printed.
Another man, Thomas Matthew McVicker, 38, was also arrested last week for allegedly plotting to open fire in an unspecified Memphis church before killing himself. McVicker’s mother claims her son is on medication for schizophrenia, an FBI agent said in a sworn affidavit filed on Friday with the Southern District of Alabama.
Agents were tipped off by a friend of McVicker’s in Alabama, who said the suspect had been talking about “shooting a church up” and slitting a pastor’s throat with a knife.
Three other men were arrested across the country over the weekend for making similar threats of mass violence.
Brandon Wagshol, 22, was arrested in Connecticut after expressing interest in stockpiling weapons; Tristan Scott Wix, 25, was arrested in Florida after telling his girlfriend “a good 100 kills would be nice”; and James Patrick Reardon, 20, was arrested in Ohio after threatening a Jewish community center.
Another man, 19-year-old Farhan Sheikh, was charged with threatening to kill people inside a Chicago abortion clinic in an Aug. 23 attack.
"When did Rump prepare us for such sacrifice?
Provide a link to a clip of Rump saying he expects Americans to sacrifice to pay the extra tariff price on imported goods.
< CRICKETS RECOMMENCE CHIRPING >"
well, there isn't much sacrifice
certainly not enough to warrant the President making a speech about
as I said, things like boycotts, actions which liberals have advocated and Dem presidents have enacted always have an economic cost to American consumers
I don't recall any of them "preparing us for this sacrifice"
you guys are getting really desperate
"Rump said Americans wouldn't pay the tariffs, "hostile regimes" would pay them."
as anyone knows who is even half-educated, China is being hurt much more than us
indeed, there are signs of panic over there
we are winning the trade war, despite the Dem traitors who put the interests of America last
"Rump also claimed Mexico would pay for the wall so why did he have to ask Congress for the money for the wall out of our tax dollars?
Because he's a liar, that's why."
is that a lie?
if so, the Obama lie that you could keep your doctor was more consequential to the average American
or the multiple lies Hillary told about how she endangered our national security by keeping her government emails on her private server
"Tariffs on Mexican Imports Would Hit More Than Avocados in Grocery Stores"
if you're threatening liberals' avocado toast, you're in for some Dem wrath
"US shoppers are paying the tariff on avocados right now."
try sweet potato toast
all the hipsters are doing it
the Chinese plan is to treat the whole world like it is treating Hong Kong
and the advances in AI and facial recognition software and satellites and quantum technology make that scary
"The Pussy Grabber has delayed tariffs on China "for Xmas."
Why?
Because once Rump's 2019 tariffs on Chinese goods go into effect, US consumers will be paying those tariff prices too."
he has delayed the tariffs several times for strategic reasons
his tactics are working
if Hillary had been elected, the Chinese agenda would be advancing
Trump has brought it to a halt and given them other things to worry about
"Anonymous "white nationalism is not on the rise" said..."
that's true
it's not
it's a fantasy that Dems are having
"Federal officials have arrested a man in Washington state on suspicion of plotting a mass shooting targeting Hispanic people in Florida, court documents filed Monday revealed.
Maryland resident Eric Lin, 35, wanted to kill as many Hispanic people as he could in Miami and elsewhere, an FBI agent said in a sworn affidavit filed Monday with the Southern District of Florida.
Lin made his threats in a long series of Facebook messages to an unnamed individual that were provided to law enforcement. The missives were packed with racial and ethnic slurs, praise for Adolf Hitler, threats of sexual violence, genocide and cannibalism."
Lin joins a growing number of men arrested for allegedly plotting mass shootings across the country after the early August massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, where back-to-back shootings left more than 30 dead."
well, the Dayton guy, casually tossed in here was a liberal Dem
the El Paso guy also had several liberal talking points in his rantings
we will also have mental illness
there is no indication these guys were part of any organized movement
"He heaped praise on the Trump administration for supporting what he called a “race war.”"
except the Trump administration isn't supporting race war
this guy apparently has fallen for the liberal media's lies
"Another man, Thomas Matthew McVicker, 38, was also arrested last week for allegedly plotting to open fire in an unspecified Memphis church before killing himself. McVicker’s mother claims her son is on medication for schizophrenia, an FBI agent said in a sworn affidavit filed on Friday with the Southern District of Alabama.
Agents were tipped off by a friend of McVicker’s in Alabama, who said the suspect had been talking about “shooting a church up” and slitting a pastor’s throat with a knife."
that doesn't sound like a white nationalist
it sounds like someone who is anti-Christian
maybe he has read some of the TTF comments about how Christianity is the cause of all the world's problems
"Three other men were arrested across the country over the weekend for making similar threats of mass violence."
I do know Fredo Cuomo has been threatening violence against anyone who doesn't address him properly
liberals have introduced the idea that way to counter words they don't like is with physical violence
hence, we have protesters screaming death threats outside Mitch McConnell's house, comedians joking about killing Trump and saying teen tourists who wear MAGA hats have "punchable" faces, and a Hollywood movie about liberals hunting conservatives with rifles
"Brandon Wagshol, 22, was arrested in Connecticut after expressing interest in stockpiling weapons; Tristan Scott Wix, 25, was arrested in Florida after telling his girlfriend “a good 100 kills would be nice”;"
did he express any white nationalist sentiment, or are you just trying to conflate for propaganda purposes?
"Another man, 19-year-old Farhan Sheikh, was charged with threatening to kill people inside a Chicago abortion clinic in an Aug. 23 attack."
the name sounds Arab rather than neo-Nazi
is opposing the murder of the unborn considered white nationalism by liberals now?
is white nationalism just a new term for you to throw around and dilute of all meaning?
liberal progressives are on the way to a huge defeat in November 2020
did you know that Trump's net negative rating in polls is less now than when he was elected?
did you know that Reagan and Obama had the same approval rating as Trump in this point in their presidencies, and they were both re-elected?
did you know that there is only one President whose election changed the party in the White House and wasn't re-elected?
that was Jimmy Carter who presided over an economic disaster and acquiesced in Iranian kidnapping of our citizens
all other one-term Presidents were simply running the third term of their predecessors
the economy is humming and there is little to indicate there will be any retreat
elections are not endorsements, they are choices
America will likely choose to continue in November 2020
after all, we know about all there is to know about Trump
there is much to learn about the various miscreants seeking the Dem nomination
6 NRA Board Members Have Now Jumped From Sinking Ship
The notorious gun group is being crushed by its own financial mismanagement and legal woes.
Republican Group Urges GOP Senators To Stand Up To Mitch McConnell In Damning New Ads
The Senate majority leader is facing new pressure to act on stalled election security bills.
Trump postpones Denmark trip after prime minister declines to sell him Greenland
Danes furious over postponement of Trump’s visit, call his behavior ‘insulting’
GOP Primary takes shape
"Joe Walsh, a pugnacious former congressman, is preparing a Republican primary challenge to President Trump that he previewed as a daily “bar fight” with the incumbent over his morality and competency.
Mark Sanford, a former South Carolina governor and congressman, said he is inching closer to a bid of his own by sounding out activists in New Hampshire and other early-voting states about an insurgency focused on the ballooning deficit.
Jeff Flake, a former Arizona senator and Trump antagonist, said he has taken a flurry of recruitment calls in recent days from GOP donors rattled by signs of an economic slowdown and hungry for an alternative to Trump.
And former Ohio governor John Kasich will head to New Hampshire next month to “take a look at things” after experiencing “an increase” in overtures this summer, an adviser said."
Gaffe-prone Joe Biden – despite his current healthy lead in the polls – is, at 76 years of age, sure to have his ability to function as president questioned harshly by the younger Democratic candidates. His rivals may not have attacked him yet on age, but they’re stalking their prey, waiting for an opportune moment to strike.
Frankly, it is near to impossible to imagine that Barack Obama’s vice president can escape age concerns for the next 14-and-a-half months of grueling campaigning, through the snows of New Hampshire, a 14-state Super Tuesday less than a month later, and nearly a dozen televised debates between now and next spring, when the nominee will likely become clear.
Should he manage to pull it off, even voters who dislike President Donald Trump are likely to prefer the 74-year-old devil whose presidency they know to the slightly older devil whose presidency might have to be run by those around him — appointees certain to be significantly to Biden’s left. And even a softening Trump economy is going to look and feel pretty good to voters in November of next year.
Should Biden not get the nomination — a more likely outcome — it will be Trump vs. some species or other of out-and-out socialist, scampering to the center as soon as the nomination is tied up, yet trying to keep energized a Democratic grassroots so radicalized it now considers Obamacare too tame.
That makes things look win-win for Trump right now, despite current polls that suggest he will lose, but that don’t reflect the effects on the electorate of what the general election campaign strategy of either nominee will be.
The unelectability of Democrats gone too far left is, of course, a familiar phenomenon. There was George McGovern and his three A’s — acid, amnesty and abortion — who, after a convention so contentious he couldn’t give his acceptance speech until nearly 3 a.m., managed to win but one state.
After a presidency that included 21.5% interest rates, nearly 8% unemployment, inflation exceeding 13%, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iran hostage crisis and his disastrous Desert One rescue attempt, President Jimmy Carter lost re-election in a landslide in 1980, winning only six states.
After promising to raise taxes, his vice president, Fritz Mondale, lost every state but his home state of Minnesota four years later.
And in 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, who years earlier broke a no-tax-increase campaign promise, couldn’t fight off Henry Kissinger’s charge that he had a “visceral, negative” regard for the U.S. military. He carried only 10 states.
It took a Southern governor who portrayed himself as a moderate, with a Southern senator touted as a conservative as his running mate, to bring a Democrat back into the White House. But even Bill Clinton and Al Gore might not have won in 1992 had independent Ross Perot not garnered nearly 19% of the vote.
Today, of course, the country’s demographics have moved decidedly left. The largest state, California, and the heavily populated urban-dominated Northeast are now close to impossible for a Republican presidential nominee to win. GOP landslides, once routine, today appear beyond the wildest hopes.
What gives Trump a massive leg up, however, is that while key segments of the electorate have moved left, the most consequential Democratic politicians have moved much further left.
Leave aside the fact that the Democrats who are the most colorful and enjoy the greatest attention from the press are open socialists: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Bronx and her three fellow “Squad” members, from Boston, Detroit and Minneapolis, who have the ability to disrupt and embarrass Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Of more consequence is that the candidate who now seems most likely to defeat Biden for the nomination has appropriated independent socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposed policies.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would abolish private health insurance, have the federal government give illegal aliens health care, not let the owners of public companies control their own firms, and commit to restricting the United States’ ability to use nuclear weapons during an era when more countries than ever possess weapons of mass destruction, and the nuclear threat from both China and Russia is growing significantly.
Even if you subtract Warren’s support of AOC’s Green New Deal, the extreme low-end estimated cost of which is more than $50 trillion over 10 years, she’d still easily be the furthest-left Democratic nominee ever.
The two-party system shows no signs of ending any time soon, and in American politics the pendulum always swings back to the other party eventually. The next “Bill Clinton,” however — a Democrat sometime in the future who finds a way to convince voters that he or she is a non-extremist “new kind of Democrat” deserving of the White House — can be expected to make Barack Obama look like a conservative by comparison.
What was the embittered left — Democratic presidential candidates and their media allies — supposed to do when their hopes of Russia-Trump collusion crashed on the boulevard of broken dreams?
Pivot.
They had invested so much in their fantasy that President Donald Trump was a treasonous agent of Russian boss Vladimir Putin. But when special counsel Robert Mueller’s report came out, and there was no collusion, no crime charged, their fantasy collapsed.
And so, after a brief spasm of despair, the left pivoted to their default position: race.
Race. Race. Race. Race. Race.
With Americans working and with money in their pockets again, with the 2020 election approaching, Democrats are reaching for the race card the way a sick man reaches for the waters of Lourdes. Desperately. Their allies in media followed suit, with Trump called everything from a white supremacist, to a Nazi, and on and on.
Meanwhile, the New York Times embarks on an ambitious new series, the 1619 Project — marking the 400th anniversary of the first slave ships to our shores.
The newspaper said it hopes “to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”
NYT editor Dean Baquet, a former colleague of mine at the Chicago Tribune, a thoughtful man now with his newsroom in turmoil, expressed the pivot in a different way.
In terms of Mueller.
In a transcript of a newsroom meeting with his liberal staff that made its way to Slate, Baquet said this:
“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet said. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy s---, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”
So the Times pivoted.
The story of slavery in America is compelling and worthy of such attention. But reducing the whole of America to the sin of slavery and racism that America has tried so hard to reject — by shedding blood in the Civil War, by passing the Civil Rights Act, by twice electing Barack Obama to the White House — is absurd. But revealing.
What happened to just reporting the news, without fear or favor? The New York Times is a for-profit institution and must cater to the whims of their readers or they’ll cease to exist as a business. Their readers are upper-class white liberals … the Times felt like it had to be part of the resistance to succeed with their readers. That strategy succeeded. But they’re caught in this cycle. They’re no longer the paper of record.
The short-term benefits of defining America by race may help Democrats and soothe subscribers at the New York Times.
But what it does long term, to journalism, to the republic, doesn’t concern the left, just as it doesn’t concern Trump.
He’s not introspective. An introspective man couldn’t, wouldn’t have said some of the things he’s said. He’s a purely transactional politician, as cynical as his opponents.
In the short term, Democrats and their media allies are using race and charges of “white supremacy” to herd those 60 million or so Trump voters back into Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables.
But once you brand 60 million people as “white supremacists,” and “Nazis,” what can you do with them? If Democrats win in 2020, will Trump voters be welcomed back into some brave new Trumpless America?
Will the left open its arms and call them brothers and sisters on the condition they agree to kneel like penitent sinners and burn their MAGA hats in ceremonies of public redemption?
No. It doesn’t work like that.
Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg’s overwhelmingly white crowd at event on Chicago’s South Side reinforces his struggles to draw support from black voters.
Recently, presidential candidates Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren reminded their faithful that Michael Brown, a black man of Ferguson, Mo., was “murdered” by a white cop. Ferguson erupted in riots after Brown’s death.
Warren and Harris are both lawyers. They know that the Obama Justice Department tried mightily, but did not, could not find that Brown had been murdered.
But they incite anyway. Because they want to win.
The American political media, relentless in ferreting out even a whiff of suspected racism among conservatives, largely gave them a pass.
According to PolitiFact, a liberal standard of truth, their use of “murder” was problematic, but not a lie.
PolitiFact said “the significance of Harris’ and Warren’s use of the word (murder) is open to some dispute, we won’t be rating their tweets on the Truth-O-Meter.”
Of course not.
Watching our politics, as some Americans have their individuality stripped away by identity politics, as others are kicked to the margins of society, as I mourn journalism as I remember it, I’m reminded of something.
Ernest Hemingway’s explanation of how a man went bankrupt:
Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly.
Anthony Scaramucci said he’s forming a political action committee to run ads against his former boss, President Donald Trump.
And the ex-White House communications director ― who infamously lasted just 10 days in the role in 2017 ― claims he can eat into the president’s support by more than enough to cost him the 2020 presidential election.
“It’s going to be The Committee to Dismantle Trump, but I’ll come up with a much cleverer thing than that,” he said of his PAC on the “Hacks on Tap” podcast. “I’m going to throw my own dough in there, ask others to put their dough in there and we’re going to explain to people what he’s doing.”
He claims he can reach a small but not insignificant portion of Trump’s supporters.
“At the end of the day, you know, I can grab ahold of 5, 6, 8 percent of the people that know he’s nuts and possibly move them,” he said.
Scaramucci said he hasn’t formed the PAC yet but is in the process of doing so.
Once a Trump insider and defender of the White House even after leaving it, Scaramucci over the summer has become one of its biggest critics, comparing the administration he was once part of to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
He called his past support a “mistake” and vowed to be “part of the solution” by working against Trump’s reelection in 2020.
"Anthony Scaramucci said he’s forming a political action committee to run ads against his former boss, President Donald Trump."
that oughta scare the hell out of 'em
maybe Scary Moochie can join up with some other political superstars like Michael Avenatti and Fredo Cuomo
and Michael Cohen ..... ROFL, LOLOLOLOLOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
you remember Anthony
he was White House Communications Director for about a week and was fired for making obscene and strongly derogatory statements about several members of the Trump administration
that's the kinda of experience you can take to the bank
maybe Robert Mueller can come outta retirement and interrogate him
don't worry, we'll give Mueller something to control the swaying and drooling
btw, has Anthony explained what his objections to Trump is?
maybe Trump made some obscene and strongly derogatory statements about him
ROFL, LOLOLOLOLOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Behind the scenes, some major events were set in motion last autumn that could soon change the tenor in Washington as it relates to the debunked Russia collusion narrative that distracted America for nearly three years.
It was in September 2018 that President Trump told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe.
About the same time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under then-Chairman Devin Nunes , voted unanimously to send 53 nonpublic transcripts of witnesses in its Russia review to the director of national intelligence for declassification. The transcripts were officially delivered in November.
Now, nearly a year later, neither release has happened.
To put that into perspective, it took just a couple of months in 2004 to declassify the final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks after a presidential commission finished its work, which contained some of the nation’s most secretive intelligence revelations.
But the long wait for transparency may soon end.
The foot-dragging inside the intelligence community (IC) that occurred under now-departed DNI Dan Coats and his deputy, Sue Gordon, could halt abruptly if Trump appoints a new IC sheriff.
Likewise, the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president. That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away.
Nunes, who helped to unravel the Russia collusion farce, has identified five buckets of information he’d like to see released. One of those buckets, the FBI's interview reports on Bruce Ohr’s cooperation, was released last week — not through a Trump declassification order but, rather, through litigation brought by Judicial Watch, and with heavy redactions.
Interviews with four dozen U.S. officials over the last several months, actually identifies a much larger collection of documents — about a dozen all together — that, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.
Here are the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:
1.) Christopher Steele’s confidential human source reports at the FBI. These documents, known in bureau parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.
2.) The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA.
3.) The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources. We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. There may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government’s Russia probe.
"maybe Scary Moochie can join up with some other political superstars like Michael Avenatti and Fredo Cuomo"
Or William Weld
Or Joe Walsh
Or Mark Sanford
Or Jeff Flake
Or Jstin Amash
Or Howard Shultz
Or John McAfee
Or John Kasich
Or Q Anon
4.) The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. It will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele’s dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren’t shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there will be major repercussions.
5.) Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes’s five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos has said he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.
6.) The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren’t initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.
7.) The Steele spreadsheet. The FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. It showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. Given Steele’s own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI’s final analysis of his credibility. A document reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele’s information as only “minimally corroborated” and the bureau’s confidence in him as “medium.”
8.) The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton’s opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump, had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media. If he told that to the FBI and it wasn’t disclosed to the FISA court, there will be serious repercussions.
9.) The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe had started and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump’s orbit.
10.) Records of allies’ assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas — possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy — were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence. These documents will help explain Attorney General William Barr’s recent comments that “the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.”
"But the long wait for transparency may soon end.
The foot-dragging inside the intelligence community (IC) that occurred under now-departed DNI Dan Coats and his deputy, Sue Gordon, could halt abruptly if Trump appoints a new IC sheriff."
Rump could have replaced those people two years ago, and uncovered the so called "dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats." After all, he fired Comey. But it's not in Rump's interested to uncover this big nothing-burger. It's more useful to him to pretend there's a vast conspiracy of Democrats out to get him. Nothing riles up the Republican base more than a big conspiracy of Democrats out to thwart Republicans.
But like Rump's failed commission to uncover millions of illegal votes for Hillary, this will peter out into a whimper of nothingness, only to be replaced with another conspiracy theory.
Several prominent American Jewish organizations and leaders have decried President Donald Trump’s suggestion this week that Jews who vote for Democrats show “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”
The president first made the remarks Tuesday and on Wednesday reiterated that he believes Democrat-leaning Jews were being “disloyal” to Jewish people and to Israel.
Jewish leaders quickly pointed out that accusing Jews of disloyalty is itself a common anti-Semitic trope.
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said Wednesday that charges of disloyalty long have been used to marginalize or attack Jewish people. He called the president’s comments anti-Semitic.
According to the ADL, statements about a dual loyalty for Jewish people suggest that their “true allegiance is to their coreligionists around the world or to a secret and immoral Jewish agenda.”
In Europe, Jews were accused for centuries of not being sufficiently loyal to the nations in which they lived, Greenblatt said. These charges were used to justify their persecution or marginalization.
Anti-Semites have also peddled conspiracy theories about Jews’ links to social and political movements, such as Marxism or Communism, according to the ADL.
During the 1930s, the Nazis painted German Jews as inherently disloyal to Germany ― using this stereotype and other racist arguments to justify the persecution of Jewish people that led to the Holocaust.
More recently, the stereotype has morphed into assertions by some that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the various countries in which they reside, the ADL said.
“The observation that Israel is important to many American Jews becomes anti-Semitic when it is used to impugn Jewish loyalty or trustworthiness,” an ADL article about the stereotype states.
Trump made his initial remarks on the matter while speaking to reporters in the White House’s Oval Office on Tuesday about Israel barring the entry of Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) because of their criticism of its policies towards Palestinians. Trump railed against Democrats for “defending these two people over the state of Israel.”
On Wednesday, the president insisted to reporters that his statements about Democrat-leaning Jews were not anti-Semitic.
He also quoted a conservative radio host, Wayne Allyn Root, who claimed in a Tuesday night Newsmax broadcast that Trump was the “greatest President for Jews” and that Israelis love him like he is the “King of Israel” and the “second coming of God.” Trump had earlier retweeted Root’s claim.
Jews do not believe in a second coming. Although Root refers to himself as Jewish, he also converted to evangelical Christianity ― which spurred some Jewish leaders to push back on his attempts to speak for American Jews.
"Or William Weld"
a pro-choice RINO has no chance to win the nomination
"Or Joe Walsh"
I always liked his James Gang stuff
"Or Mark Sanford"
no time, he has to take his girlfriends on the Appalachian Trail every weekend
"Or Jeff Flake"
oh yeah, I remember the guy who was losing in polls for re-election and pretended his quitting because he didn't like Trump
"Or Jstin Amash"
I don't think Jstin is a name
"Or Howard Shultz"
I know nutheeng!
"Or John McAfee"
who?
"Or John Kasich"
oh yeah, he ran against Trump last time
maybe he'll agree to be further humiliated
once more, for old times' sake !!
The labor market seemed to defy gravity last year, generating more than 200,000 jobs a month despite a historically low unemployment rate that made it harder for employers to find workers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Turns out job growth wasn’t as robust as it appeared.
The Labor Department revised down total job gains from April 2018 to March 2019 by 501,000, the agency said Wednesday, the largest downward revision in a decade.
The agency’s annual benchmark revision is based on state unemployment insurance records that reflect actual payrolls while its earlier estimates are derived from surveys. The preliminary figure could be revised further early next year.
The large change means job growth averaged 170,000 a month during the 12-month period, down from the 210,000 initially estimated, according to JPMorgan Chase.
Employment in several industries was revised down especially sharply. Payrolls dropped 175,000 in leisure and hospitality, and 146,000 in retail – two bellwether service sectors that depend heavily on consumer spending, the economy’s main engine.
Employment also fell by 163,000 in professional and business services and 69,000 in education and health services.
Some industries saw their job figures revised up modestly, with a gain of 33,000 in information – including movies, broadcasting, publishing, telecommunications and some technology services – and 20,000 in financial activities.
The revised payroll data is more in line with what economists had expected at the start of 2018 in light of the roughly 4% unemployment rate that signaled fewer available workers, and an aging population.
"The mystery was how the economy is continuing to get 200,000 jobs a month," says economist James Marple of TD economics. "It's less of a mystery now."
The new figures also could have political implications. President Trump regularly touted last year's blockbuster job figures, which many economists traced to the federal tax cuts and spending increases he spearheaded. The economy did grow 2.9% last year, matching its best performance since the 2007-09 recession. But growth has slowed this year and the jobs revisions indicate the economy may have had less momentum than believed heading into 2019.
"It's a moderate economy," says Joe Naroff, chief economist of Naroff Economic Advisors. "It's not a strong economy."
Post a Comment
<< Home