text:
Obama's Shadow DNC Infuriates Democrats
While one of the toughest dudes on the planet says: gracias no hombre, I'll pass on being National Security adviser, there's a long-brewing story playing out in states across the country. And it may be coming to a boil soon.
The Great Community Organizer. Striding purposefully towards Washington D.C. from his Chicago base. That's a big part of the Obama legend amongst his adoring supporters. Unfortunately for that part of his myth, Organizing for Action - or OFA; the revamped Organizing for America - is proving to be really, really unpopular with a vital group of people.
State Democrat organizers and local party officials.
Democrat party officials at the state and local level are furious with OFA for sucking up precious funding, as well as parachuting in people, in what seems to be an astroturfing operation, meant to defend former president Obama's legacy. Especially Obamacare.
For many who are now speaking out, the rise of the reformulated group in its various incarnations over the past couple of years, has coincided with electoral catastrophe for the Democratic Party in state legislatures across the country. And now in the early months of 2017, as Democrats try to rebuild, there are parallel power structures competing over the ashes of the party's electoral defeats.
But rather than unite the party through the DNC, Obama-in-exile seems to be using the OFA as a shadow-DNC. And if, as it seems, Obama's OFA is the organizing force behind much of the protests that have been breaking out around the country, then it's all about destabilizing Trump and defending Obama's legacy. Rather than winning the next election. Of course, Obama is convinced that OFA disruption is how you win the 2018 midterms. Right? It couldn't be that he doesn't really care anymore?
The OFA is top-down. Something Obama has lustfully embraced since his grassroots work got him a ticket to the Senate, and a launching pad to the White House. It's not that Obama doesn't know how to organize from the ground up. He's actually very good at that. And he's very good at campaigning, as Mitt Romney and Hillary know all too well.
The thing is, Obama doesn't have to campaign anymore. Now he can direct his private army of top-heavy but often unseen organizers to do his bidding. Almost as much fun as writing executive orders. And Obama's interest in defending his legacy is not the same as the Democratic Party's interest in winning the next election. At the state or federal level. Let's let interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile speak on this:
I have not been briefed on the future of OFA and the president's involvement.
Ok. So Donna won't be tipping the scales in favor of Tom Perez one can safely assume? But Obama seems to think that he can stop Keith Ellison's front running campaign for DNC chair? Yes, Perez is catching up and it's a tough race, but there's a reckoning coming. Obama won't have his swaggering ego slammed back down to earth by his GOP critics. It will be state and local Democrat officials and organizers who will tell their great leader:
Enough Barack. Your time is done. We want to start winning again.Posted by Keeley at February 17, 2017 5:24 PM
Good read Keeley. I have similar analysis material on the OFA.
We have had front-row seats at the Democratic Party Demolition Derby for a few decades and it appears to me that the Left-wing Progressives have declared themselves the winner.
Losing in Wisconsin, Michigan and other blue states recently is telling. The labor voting faction of the Democrat Party has not been amused at their perceived neglect by the party in recent years. Even the traditional black and women's vote has cracks forming that may become crevices. Legal immigrants who now vote are also voicing concern.
The Democrat Party must again become the big tent it once was or suffer further erosion.
Is Obama the man to rebuild the Party? I don't think so considering he bears some responsibility for its current malaise.
Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2017 6:02 PM
There is no democrat party. The few democrats left in the senate and house are non-issues. They have no power. What a joke, watching them pull all nighters trying to block Trump's cabinet nominees. Thank you Harry Reid for changing the rules. And again, why did he do it? They protest and stand against everything that is done. Slowly, more moderate democrats like Manchin will desert and switch to the Republican Party. All the democrats have left are liberal judges and paid protesters. Liberalism is not dead, it will always raise its ugly head. But the Democratic Party is finished. They control 5 states out of 50. And those states are going down the crapper. The media has thrown everything they have at Trump for the past year and a half, results…nothing. The media didn't make Trump and they sure can't destroy home. Let's watch as Trump's cabinet leaders systematically dismantle each department by firing the Obama and Clinton appointees. Oh how the left will cry 😭. Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?Posted by: Blaine at February 17, 2017 7:49 PM
We are seeing the face of the Democratic Party in the protests taking place. Democrats attacking the police. Honestly, how many normal Americans want to riot, destroy private property, or attack the police? These people do not represent the American people. The more this happens, the more the democrats push identity politics, the more they lose.Posted by: Blaine at February 18, 2017 8:47 AM
I'm not sure about what this thread is trying to say. Obama finished his term as one of the most popular presidents in history. He came from a background as a community organizer. Why would it be bad for Democrats if he organizes? The DNC and an Obama organization are not mutually exclusive and somehow hostile. Just the opposite.
The general tenor among conservatives it that protests are somehow wrong and therefore illegitimate. There are a lot of accusations of violence and attacks by the protestors, calling for 'law and order' and crackdowns on protestors, yet documented examples of misbehavior are very rare. They have been repeated suggestions that the protestors are paid, but no proof offered. None whatsoever.
Protests and the right to assembly are fundamental constitutional rights.
Yesterday Trump came out with this:
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
1:48 PM - 17 Feb 2017
Do conservatives believe the MSM are "the enemy of the people"? Can we allow a free press to exist that is "the enemy of the people"Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2017 11:46 AM
I believe the Democrat Party has been damaged by its consistent use of federal regulatory agency rule making, and other devices, to bypass congressional oversight and intent.
One prime example has been the EPA. During the combined presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal air-quality implementation plans on states. Mr. Obama's EPA imposed 56.
"Mr. Pruitt (new director of the EPA) says he plans to end the practice known as "sue and settle." That's when a federal agency invites a lawsuit from an ideologically sympathetic group, with the intent to immediately settle. The goal is to hand the litigators a policy victory through the courts—thereby avoiding the rule-making process, transparency and public criticism. The Obama administration used lawsuits over carbon emissions as its pretext to create climate regulations.
"Regulation through litigation is simply wrong." Instead, Mr. Pruitt says, the EPA will return to a rule-making by the book. "We need to end this practice of issuing guidance, to get around the rule-making procedure. Or rushing things through, playing games on the timing."
For similar reasons, Mr. Pruitt plans to overhaul the agency's procedure for producing scientific studies and cost-benefit analyses. "The citizens just don't trust that EPA is honest with these numbers," he says. "Let's get real, objective data, not just do modeling. Let's vigorously publish and peer-review science. Let's do honest cost-benefit work. We need to restore the trust."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-pruitts-back-to-basics-agenda-for-the-epa-1487375872Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2017 4:51 PM
Currently, Pruitt is sueing the federal government 15 times. He has refused to recuse himself if nominated, so this will put him in the remarkable position of suing himself.
His appointment was rushed through when it came out his e-mails to Big Oil will be made public Tuesday.
Have fun with that.
So, RF, do you believe the major news outlets- a part of our free press- are the "enemies of the people"?Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2017 4:59 PM
phx8, the statements you write about Pruitt, implying his unsuitability for office, were asked and addressed in the article linked.
Whoever; individual, group, politician or media intentionally misleads, or lies to the public (other than falsehoods related to national security) is an "enemy of the people".
An enemy, as I am using it here, is one who causes harm.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2017 5:17 PM
Pruitt is corrupt. He works for Big Oil, not the people of his state, and not for the people of the country. He pretty much defines a crony capitalist. Like I said, have fun with those e-mails. We will all get a great chance to see just what Pruitt is all about.
So a free press is an "enemy of the American people"? I see.
Trump intentionally "misleads, or lies to the public" on a daily basis. He is doing harm. Is he an "enemy of the American people"?
It causes harm to the country. Right now, Pence is at a Munich Security Conference reassuring our allies we will keep our commitments. He and two generals are essentially telling the Europeans to ignore Trump. Senator McCain is doing the same thing. He gave a speech saying the administration is in disarray, but everything will be fine despite Trump.
There is no National Security Advisor because Trump's first choice resigned. He lied to Pence about his contacts with the Russians. The next choice declined the job. He felt his role would be strangled by Bannon and his minion, KT McFarland, the Assistant who knows very little about national security, but owes her loyalty to Bannon. The NSC as it stands is under the supervision of a political officer, Bannon. Even Petraeus withdrew from consideration.
It is incredibly inappropriate for a President to refer to the press as the enemy. That is wrong. We learned that with the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams. There were scurrilous, anonymous articles in the press- Jefferson was behind some of them- that were full of lies, yet we were better off with the free press than a repressive government.
What we learned is that a free press is critical to the functioning of our democracy, even when the press can be as horrible and full of blatant lies as Breitbart or Infowars. And Trump is maintaining a full-throated assault on the freedom of the press. He calls it 'fake news' when it is news about him that he does not like. In fact, the MSM is generally accurate and observes journalistic standards.Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2017 6:30 PM
"So a free press is an "enemy of the American people"? I see."
phx8, why ignore my qualification about causing "harm"? OH, wait, that would be inconvenient. It wouldn't fit your false and silly narrative. Or…if it's the "free press" causing harm it's OK?
Then, you proceed to accuse Trump with lying and public harm with no facts, just your desire to have it so.
Then more silly crap and everything about Obama and his shadow government is ignored. Well sure it is. You know it's true. And, you know the Democrat Party is disintegrating before your very weary teary eyes.
Finally, in his final paragraph phx8 agrees the free press causes harm, but; so what.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2017 6:48 PM
"Then more silly crap and everything about Obama and his shadow government is ignored."
Hands down the funniest sentence of my day.
The 'Democrats are disintegrating' theme runs counter to reality. Democrats aremore motivated than anything I have seen in a very long time. Remember the Tea Party showings in 2010? The Democrats are showing up in numbers twice as large, and not just at town halls; they are showing up at protests in record numbers.
Meanwhile, Trump running with only a 39% approval rating (Pew). FOX shows him at 48%. All the others show him between 36% and 42%, so the Pew number looks pretty good.
As for the press, Trump hates them because he lies on a nearly continual basis and they call him on it. The problem is Trump is so narcissistic, he cannot take criticism. He expects everyone to love him as much as he loves himself, and he is genuinely surprised when that does not turn out to be the case.
He lies about the election. He claims there were 3-5 million "illegal" votes and that is why he lost the popular vote by so much. He does this to inflate his own ego. And his lie harms the country because it creates a false narrative that there is election fraud. But there is not.
His lies about the electoral college are in the same category. He claims his win was "the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan." That is a lie, and a very intentional one. Only Bush #43 had less in the past 30 years. That harms the country too. People believe he has support that does not exist.
The 'Democrats are disintegrating' theme runs counter to reality. Democrats aremore motivated than anything I have seen in a very long time. Remember the Tea Party showings in 2010? The Democrats are showing up in numbers twice as large, and not just at town halls; they are showing up at protests in record numbers.
Phx8 the dems may be more motivated than ever but they have many problems to deal with before becoming relevant again. They only speak to the unpopular issues that in truth affect only a small portion of the population. I'm referring to LGBT rights along with equal pay for women and racial issues.
Clinton barely raised economic issues and gave up on the working class. To lose the working class to the repubs is mind boggling but they did it. I understand the Dems have moved on to the global economy and their policies reflect this but to not lie to the working class as the repubs did is just bad politics.
The protesting and town hall meeting do little when they have lost the decade elections that determine who gets to rig the political map. They have focused on presidential elections and the repubs have ruled the state and local elections, allowing them to rig the voting laws. They have stacked the courts for years. We won't see a strong resistance in our lifetimes, the conservatives and their corporate benefactors have won the hearts and minds of the masses. IF I were you I would get my Zeig Heils in order as we are entering a long period of corporatist control of government.Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2017 1:45 AM
A gloomy assessment!
It is true, the Democrats support some unpopular causes in the name of fulfilling and expanding rights. LGBT rights, equal pay for women, tolerance for diversity- these have all been low in the polls at times, but sometimes doing the right thing means paying the price. It is also worth remembering the Republicans are on the wrong side of some issues too, such as their opposition to PP, background checks for guns, and so on.
Clinton was not great at conveying her message, but keep in mind, the message was also swamped by 24/7 covereage of e-mails. It turns out there was nothing significant, but that did not matter. The Russians & Wikileaks, Director Comey's statements, and Donald Trump repeating "I love Wikileaks!" 164 times in October, even though he knew it came as a result of a cyber attack by the Russians, all those probably mattered more than her stand on issues or presentation.
You are right though, protesting is not enough. There is a risk of burning out. So the spontaneous protests that the GOP so fears need to be accompanied by organization. The party has been slow to follow the base, but they seem to be getting the idea- cooperating with a president who is so contrary to American values, who is a racist, bigot, misogynist, and xenophobe; corrupt; and has a relationship with the Russians that is either untethered from reality for unknown reasons, or the result of collusion or even treason, that cooperation will not fly.Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 9:51 AM
By all means, whenever making excuses for the failure of the Democratic Party, invoke Hitler or the Third Reich.
It was plain to see that Obama and Hillary believed they could win without the working class of Americans. Obama, from the very beginning insulted middle working class of Americans with his "guns and religion" comment. Hillary didn't even try to campaign with the white working class. Trump on the other hand actively campaigned white union workers, as well as blacks, Hispanics, and women. If Trump continues to fulfill his promises, these groups are lost to the democrats for generations. Add to this the fact that the Democratic Party and the media has learned nothing. Instead of facing facts, they continue to live in a fantasy world. Absolutely no one believes Hillary lost because of the Russians, except for the hard left, the liberal media, and Hollywood. These paid protests and riots are doing nothing to help your cause.
phx8 believes that conservatives are not able to read polls other than the lefts select few. There are also polls showing Trump with a better than 60% approval. But if phx8 wants to believe the polls that also gave Hillary a substantial lead, by all means go for it.
As of right now, the Democratic Party is toothless; and Trump is empowering the Republicans. You have 5 states out of 50, a minority in the house and senate, rules changed thanks to Reid, and some liberal judges. Trump is fast learning about the liberal judges and will take care of that problem. Trump also has the Bully pulpit, which unlike Obama, he knows how to use. Trump praises and exclaims his love for the American people. Obama had an air of arrogance that turned people off.Posted by: Blaine at February 19, 2017 10:25 AM
No credible poll shows Trump with a 60% approval rating. Show your link to this fascinating 'alternative fact.' It is probably Rasmussen, an outlier with a bad history.
You'll figure it out eventually, but news flash- Trump lied to those working people to get their votes. (
And before the election, the last polls showed HRC +3%. She won by +2%. The surprise was in the electoral college, not the polls of popular voting).
He lied about the economy. Now he does not know what to do, because he wants to take credit for the good economy even after pretending the numbers were fake or fraudulent, but he can't take radical action if it looks good, so, he is stuck. How to cut taxes for corporations and the rich without any justification whatsoever?
The only people who are going to benefit are the banksters, Big Oil, and maybe the Russians.
Which of the six Goldman Sachs appointees do you like best? Or do you prefer good old inside trading off information no one else knows, like Price at HHS? Now there's a crook for you. Or maybe ignorance is more your style, with the likes of DeVos and Carson attempting to run agencies without any knowledge about their respective departments?Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 11:08 AM
phx8, I'm not sure where to begin with you liberal talking points. Goldman Sachs supported Hillary. The Clinton's were tired in with Sachs. His appointees, love them and so does the rest of his supporters. Russians….talking points of the left; why would Russia try to help Trump win, after Hillary handed over 20% of US uranium to Russia? Your accusations about Russia are a dead horse. The leadership of FBI and every other intelligence source has found no link between Trump, Russia, or Hillary's defeat. You, yourself name the reasons why Hillary was a bad candidate and lost, and still you blame the Russians. Lastly, you immediately throw out Rasmussen polls and I'm sure you would also throw out Fox News polls, but that doesn't change the numbers. Trump has the support of a majority of the voters. Regarding Hillary's win in the numbers and loss in the electoral votes. Get over it, the president is chosen by electoral votes and not popular. Why should the choice of a US President be in the hands of a handful of populace states who have stuffed the ballot boxes with illegal voters? Get over it, Hillary lost and Trump is the president. You and your GOOFY little friends are making matters worse for the Democratic Party. Keep protesting, keep rioting, burn down businesses and burn cars; continue to physically attack conservatives; and you will continue to lose. During the 8 years of Obama, you lost the house and the senate, the presidency, and 1200 state and local seats in government. Trump willl build a Constitutional SC, the 9th circuit will be divided up, taxes will be cut, a wall will be built, people will be taken off welfare and given jobs, inner city crime will be cut, and all the whinny crybabies declaring their cities to be sanctuary cities, will capitulate.Posted by: Blaine at February 19, 2017 12:54 PM
It's becoming useless to discuss issues these days. The left is going to think what they think and the right is going to think what they think.
This is why the federal government should NOT be the final arbiter in America's civil discussions. The federal government should be the last. The federal government should receive the least amount of payroll taxes. The federal government should not be involved in the minutia of providing Social Security or health care. The federal government should never be involved in education, inner city problems, transportation (except for postal considerations).
The federal government is not qualified to determine individual lifestyles, incomes, quality of life. The federal government can provide for the GENERAL welfare, but not for individual welfare. There must be a purpose for the states when providing these functions.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 19, 2017 2:30 PM
Weary, I believe President Trump's greatest accomplishments will be the devolution of federal power back to the individual states and stolen executive power back to congress.
I am not surprised that our Liberal Pals see no threat by Obama to the national Democrat Party. Frankly, I applaud the division of the Democrat house into the Party faction versus the Obama faction.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2017 2:58 PM
Obama a threat to the Democratic Party? Maybe it was that high approval rating at the end of his term. Or running on the most successful presidencies in modern times. Turning around the economy.
Have fun figuring out how the economic figures that were so bad under Obama have suddenly become so good under Trump. Fire up the memory hole! And see if Rosetta Stone has a program on Doublespeak.
What a peculiar thing, wanting to see executive power going back to the Congress. It was not that long ago Executive Orders by Obama were tyrannical, but now that it seems to be Trump's only tool, no problem!
Oh oh. We're going to need more memory holes. And can that Rosetta Stone Doublespeak issue be sent overnight?
Washington and Hamilton perceived the federal government to be the guarantor and best protector of individual liberties.
Hope you are not too attached to Trump. The Senate Intel Committee held an unscheduled meeting Friday with FBI Director Comey. It was held after everyone else left for vacation. The subject was Russia. Friday, The Intel Committee instructed various federal agencies to preserve everything having to do with Russia.
Do you even know who Goldman Sachs is? Because there are six appointees in the Trump administration that came from that company, including Mnuchin. He became famous when he became the owner of the biggest forecloser in the crash of 2008. Yeah, Trump people will love him. No doubt.
And maybe you didn't get the word. There will be no wall. Just a fence. And no, Mexico will not pay for it. The House is choking over the idea of spending $12 -$15 billion for it, with a price tag possibly as high as $50 billion.Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 3:17 PM
phx8 writes; "Obama a threat to the Democratic Party?"
He can't or won't believe what has been written about the very title of this thread…"Obama's Shadow DNC Infuriates Democrats"
Then, he goes on at length to describe how successful Obama was.
Um…we are writing about the future of the National Party phx8, and why it is being threaten by Obama's OFA.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2017 3:54 PM
Yes they did, phx8. It's too bad their ideas have been subverted by Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson. Now Obama wants even the Democratic party's power all to himself. The left has created a monster.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 19, 2017 4:10 PM
"He can't or won't believe what has been written about the very title of this thread…"Obama's Shadow DNC Infuriates Democrats"
Well, seeing as how I am a Democrat and I am not infuriated, believing this thread would be a stretch.
I still have a hard time understanding why organizing by Obama would be considered detrimental to the DNC, rather than beneficial. That makes no sense whatsoever.
The internet term for it is 'concern trolling.'Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 5:06 PM
"Well, seeing as how I am a Democrat and I am not infuriated, believing this thread would be a stretch."
Funny thing phx8, in all the quotes I have read by top state Democrats, expressing concern, I never did see your name.
As a plain vanilla Democrat phx8, please tell us why you believe Obama needs to "organize" in addition to the Democrat National Committee organizing. Which "organizer" is superfluous?
Or, is the Democrat brand in such dire straits that the Party can't handle its traditional role?
Or, does Obama have his own personal agenda that the DNC doesn't recognize, or wish to promote?
Or….?Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2017 5:50 PM
phx8 is aware that in the Senate, the map is disastrous for Democrats in 2018, the Republicans will be defending only eight Senate seats, while Democrats will in effect be defending 25 seats.
Perhaps Obama is organizing to run for one of the contested senate seats. I think he could win a deep blue state.
Or, better yet, he could run for the powerful job of Secretary General of the United Nations.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2017 6:10 PM
The only time I've heard this conspiracy theory prior to the article was on Rush Limbaugh. It was a wild, unhinged rant about a secret Obama shadow government intent on overthrowing Donald Trump.
There is no evidence to support any of this and it does not make sense on its face.
So I did some searches to see if I could find something about local Democrats being mad at Obama, and so on. Nothing, absolutely nothing. Then I found it:
This conspiracy theory originated with Alex Jones at Infowars. That explains a lot right there.
Are any of you going to acknowledge you got hoodwinked?Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 7:06 PM
This is rubbish, and several of you wasted my time by not doing your research and by not using simple common sense to recognize an outlandish conspiracy theory before putting it out there.Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 7:17 PM
Phx8, if you want to know what Limbaugh says, and you want to know who first put forth the Obama shadow government; I would suggest you watch the Sunday Fox News Chris Wallace interview of Rush Limbaugh. Unless you're afraid to expose yourself to something other than fake news.Posted by: Blaine at February 19, 2017 10:00 PM
Ok. If you accept Limbaugh's premise in the interview that the Russians did not influence our election- that there was no hack and leak- then some conspiracy theories might work. However, the Russians did exactly that, and we have 17 agencies from the IC confirming that, along with a more detailed report issued at the end of the Obama administration.
The Senate Intel Committee just met, and they have instructed federal agencies to preserve all information about contacts with Russians.
As for the idea of a deep state, that is simply people who work for an agency even after the upper management departs. The current federal government includes employees from the Obama, Bush, and earlier presidencies. Every organization in the world depends on such people in order to continue functioning during a transition period. The paranoid idea that everybody, and I mean everybody, is out to get Trump may result in organizational purges, and that will result in the failure of organizations to fulfill their purpose. We are seeing that right now at the State Department, where Tillerson wiped out upper management.
The result is an administration in disarray. Important things don't get done. Allies get nervous, and we have to send Pence and some generals over to reassure them. Worse, political ideologues like Bannon attempt to control National Security even though they are inexperienced. No one will take the NSC job because KT McFarland is basically there to act as Bannon's spy and neuter Flynn's successor, and an incoming head will not be allowed to can her.
If you want to ignore US intelligence agencies, and take the words of Putin, Trump, and Limbaugh that the Russians did not influence our election, go ahead. Next thing you know you, will be gassing about Obama shadow governments, look around, and find you have no leg to stand on.Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 10:31 PM
phx8, With all the leaks this Administration has been subjected to since Jan. 20th do you really think if there were some concrete evidence of Russian influence someone from that Senate committee would have it blabbed all over the MSM by now? Please tell us how Russia influenced our election? Especially since Hillary won the popular vote and Trump won the electoral vote and there has been no evidence of voting machine hacking. So please tell us how they influenced the election.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 20, 2017 12:00 AM
At this point in time, the experience of the last decade behind me, I'd say that Republicans should wonder why they have to keep telling Democrats to sit down and shut up, if they've won so much they're getting tired of winning.
They should realize that Democrats aren't shutting up, aren't retreating to their safe spaces like the good little snowflakes they are, because the swing to Trump's extreme, the wake-up call of getting hit has motivated them. Additionally, the Republicans and the Trump people won ugly, real ugly, and there's a cost to that.
An underdog with teeth is a lot more sympathetic than the big dog on top of you snapping at your face. The folks who defy the press' expectations, then become more easy going about it are more impressive than those who continue an antagonism with the folks who are supposed to help keep them in check. No, you melty little snowflakes, the press isn't supposed to be Trump's friend. They are supposed to hold him accountable, not the other way around.
The Republican Party built itself back up on an ideological opposition to Obamacare, more or less, and that was fine as long as nothing changed about the status quo from there. If Obamacare really had utterly collapsed, they might have been better off. It's worked, though, relatively well. Not without its problems or its failures, but not without its successes, either.
And that is making the Republican's task of fulfilling that ideological opposition very problematic. If they don't go far enough, they displease the supporters they convinced of a government takeover, the likes of which Lenin would have been proud. But if millions of people, hundreds of thousands of patience see policies canceled, see critical treatment denied, bills pile up… the Republicans will suffer the political consequences.
The Republicans forgot that with power comes responsibility, in more than one sense of the term. Democrats were prepared for responsibility. They had a list of positive things to do when the other side was finally defeated. Republicans? They've spent the last decade gaining more and more power, but unable to use it for the lack of one branch of power or another, one chamber or another, and they spent that time not negotiating productive, positive legislation, but instead just being a roadblock to somebody else's agenda. So, few of them have all that much experience of the demands of governing, on inhibiting that mad rush to force your agenda on everybody. They got it wrong in 2004, and they're getting it wrong now.
Republicans need to stop concern trolling Democrats, especially without a single source to back their assessment.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2017 8:27 AM
phx8, the only time our allies were ever nervous was during the Obama administration. Trump has certainly given them more reason to be able to count on the US for support. Our best ally is the nation of Israel, and the Israeli people are ecstatic that the President has given his complete support for them.
Trump faces many enemies; the liberal MSM, the democrats, and the establishment. So it is no surprise the senators like McCain or Graham would call for anything that would back up the left's false claims. Trump knows the only support he has is from the people who voted for him.
There is no disputing the fact that there are leaks from Obama or Clinton supporters. When Bill Clinton and Obama entered office, the first thing they did was get rid of the Republican appointees in leadership positions of the cabinets. So why the outrage over Tillerson's purge of the state department?
But as Rich K has stated, where is your proof that Russia changed the results of the election. There is none. Only liberal talking points.Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 8:53 AM
Republicans don't have a single source to backup their assessment? It's not Republicans who have made an assessment; it's the left, and they certainly have not proved any of their claims that the Russians influenced or changed the results of an election.
The rest of Stephen D's comments are the same old leftist nonsense. Again, let me say, democrats had the presidency and the congress during Obama's first 2 years. They went against the people and passed a stimulus package, that was a payoff to the unions, and they passed Obamacare, without reading the bill and in the dark of night by a straight party line vote. The next election (2010) was the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party. Ever since then, Obama has led the Democrats in a 1200 seat loss in state and local government seats. The loss of the US senate and house and the presidency. And what is your response…to double down. Please, by all means, keep protesting, rioting, burning and disrupting. It's your constitutional right, but you know the old saying, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result ".
My opinion, you ARE crybabies. Run to your safe zones, it is your side that created them. There are 25 democrat senatorial seats up in 2 years.Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 9:18 AM
KAP & Blaine,
Here is how Russia influenced the outcome of the election:
So we know the Russians influenced the election. That is already settled. They have done it before in other countries, and they will do it again.
KAP writes: "… there has been no evidence of voting machine hacking."
Correct. No one said there was. That is a red herring thrown out by the likes of Limbaugh. They count on you not reading the report by our intelligence agency.
Blaine, if you believe the claims that the Russians did NOT influence our election, you are dismissing the conclusive findings of 17 intelligence agencies, and people who have sworn to defend the Constitution. What you are saying is highly disrespectful to people who put their life on the line to defend you.
Will the Senate Intel Committee leak about the investigation into the Trump administration's involvement? No. They will put country over party. Also, a lot of people must be wondering who is under investigation. In an extraordinary situation like this, the FISA court may let the FBI look in places they would not usually go.
The NY Manhattan branch of the FBI is not participating in the investigation. It is being conducted by Pittsburgh, SF, and one other branch. During the election, Giuliani claimed the FBI in Manhattan thought HRC was guilty. They did very little to investigate Trump. They have been cut out of the loop by Director Comey.
Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2017 10:10 AM
"But as Rich K has stated, where is your proof that Russia changed the results of the election. There is none."
Wow! We shouldn't get upset because Russia's attack on our democratic system may not have been completely successful in determining the election.
The very fact that they even tried with cyber attacks, propaganda platforms, assistance for leaks and "fake news" stories, etc. should be enough to outrage any US administration and Congress.
The fact that one of our political parties was in collusion or even ignorant dupes of the effort should be alarming.
But, what do we get from the right, nothing but deflection and no harm, no foul responses.
I find it ironic that yesteryear's rabid anti-communists are now apologists for a strong arm prodigy of the KGB.Posted by: Rich at February 20, 2017 10:28 AM
phx8 & Rich, Russia told us that Hillary was a lousy candidate and should not be president. NEWS FLASH, Russia didn't have to tell me that I already knew it and so did a lot of other people. What I would be worried about with Russia is if they were able to hack into the voting machines or somehow alter the outcome but they didn't putting out bad press to me isn't influencing anything heck the liberal media does that everyday on Trump and the right.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 20, 2017 1:18 PM
phx8, your link proves nothing. Where in it does it say the Russians changed the results of a presidential election? What it does say under the heading of "Scope and Sourcing" is:
"We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US processes or US public opinion."
And why do they offer no assessment? Because there is no proof. In fact the article goes on to speak at length about a Russian controlled TV network that has used it's influence by dealing with Wall Street protests and many other protests on both sides of the isle. The point is, the left is ignorant if they believe only Russians inject themselves into elections. Do you not realize that Obama also sought to sway election. Sorry, but that's the work we live in. The article you post as proof of a rigged election even speaks of Russian involvement in the 2012 presidential election. Can you copy and paste, from WB archives, of your condemnation of Russia's involvement in the 2012 election? Was Trump also involved in that election, or was it another republican candidate?
Your side is ignorant and really needs to get a grip on reality. There are no 17 intelligence agencies who have proof that Hillary lost an election because of Russian intervention. But I can see where you need to broadcast this untruth for the purpose of denying Trump's agendas.Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 1:45 PM
In fact, I will go on to say that Trump (in 1 month of being the president), has had more negative press than Obama did in 8 years. If your side is going spastic after 1 month, what are you going to do after 6 months, or 2 years. Trump was voted into office because the American voters believed what he said he would do. The only thing that can hurt Trump, is if he fails to do what he promised. And it's for that reason, Trump will go straight to the voters. The Democratic Party is non-relevant, but the liberal media is still operating as if the democrats were in control. It's all a ruse.Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 1:56 PM
Blaine you start out with this ditty
>blockquote>By all means, whenever making excuses for the failure of the Democratic Party, invoke Hitler or the Third Reich.
which I took as a "it's not fascism when we do it retort" to my comment. Then you finish with this
As of right now, the Democratic Party is toothless; and Trump is empowering the Republicans. You have 5 states out of 50, a minority in the house and senate, rules changed thanks to Reid, and some liberal judges. Trump is fast learning about the liberal judges and will take care of that problem. Trump also has the Bully pulpit, which unlike Obama, he knows how to use. Trump praises and exclaims his love for the American people.
And I agree that the dems are toothless. They have the popular vote when it comes to president but little else. Allowing the SCOUTUS pick to be ignored until after the election ensures a activist conservative SCOTUS for the next few decades.
So in effect we have a one party government with a power struggle going on between Trump and his followers and the Corporate overlords than control their Congressional lap dogs and the RNC. We have conservatives at the state level locking down voter suppression laws and gerrymandering, ensuring the repubs stay in power for the foreseeable future.
We also have Trump who so far, despite all his boasting, has proved to be the worst political leader in…. forever. He uses the executive order, that you would say is presidential over reach if it were Obama doing the same thing, like a dictator to go after those he considers his enemies and to reward those he considers his friends. He will allow toxic sludge in our water, he attempts to destroy data collected by the government on the climate and give more power to police agencies. He has taken access to health care away from the needy and socialized losses for Wall Street. He uses his bully pulpit to attack the first amendment rights of a free press.
I especially like your statement about Trumps love of America people and I am trying to think of a dictator that didn't use this type of message to destructive ends as time went on. Can you think of one?
SO yeah perhaps those that don't always see eye to eye with Trump should be practicing our Trump uber alles and or Mein Trump's before we get our big red "L" tattoos.
I would also suggest Blaine that you and other Trump followers keep a close eye on things as we seem closer to a one party government and we all know power corrupts. I mean what if the Conservative Repub Establishment wins the power struggle? With them being the enemy of freedom and liberty and all… Also consider reading "It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis,as the parallels with the Trump administration are…well close.
Please, by all means, keep protesting, rioting, burning and disrupting. It's your constitutional right, but you know the old saying, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result ".
We agree Blaine I too ask all those out protesting to keep it up, to keep the heat on our one party government. Keep Trump and his party accountable. Keep Congress focused on the people.
Urge all the Establishment repubs to use the oversight committee to investigate Flynn and Trump instead of Clinton…seems logical right seeing Clinton isn't in office? As for insanity isn't Trump getting rid of Dodd Frank, which would put us back into pre-economic collapse deregulation, the very definition of insanity?
I find it ironic that yesteryear's rabid anti-communists are now apologists for a strong arm prodigy of the KGB.
Rich, not only that but to call the Maverick McCain and Graham, conservatives both, the establishment is cause for wonder. McCain was their guy just 8 years ago. Reminds me of the Walt Kelly quote "We have found the enemy and he is us"Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2017 3:20 PM
Are any of you going to acknowledge you got hoodwinked?
Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2017 7:06 PM
Hell no phx8. I found many articles in my search. We are talking about state Democrat Party leaders.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2017 3:36 PM
Then it should be easy for you to post a link about state Democratic leaders who are infuriated with Obama and his shadow government.
Why did you think Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate? Was it because of her e-mails? Maybe, maybe not. But that was the relentless narrative pushed by the Russians through Wikileaks as well as by the GOP re the FBI investigation. We already know the Russians influenced the election. There is a strange narrative that since voting machines were not involved, the influence could not be quantified, therefore the influence did not exist.
The IC conclusion did not attempt to quantify the influence. That does not mean the influence did not exist.
Did Obama try to influence the election? Of course. He was the president. Normally presidents endorse their party's candidate. Obama has been the first to be both popular enough and healthy enough to campaign. Bush #41, #43, and Clinton were not popular enough to participate much. Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's.
As for the 2012 election, Trump was involved. He pushed the Birther conspiracy theory in his first presidential campaign, an idea fundamentally racist at its core. Remember, he how he sent investigators to Hawaii, and 'boy, you're not gonna believe what they're finding!'
I am not aware of Russian participation in the 2012 campaign. The Russians, however, did blame the US for interfering in their campaign at the time. Putin blamed Hillary Clinton for large scale protests.Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2017 3:57 PM
Nobody is using EOs to go after their enemies.
Toxic sludge is not going to be put in your water.
Climate data is not going to be destroyed.
Police agencies don't have any more power than they did before.
Nobody has lost access to health care.
Calling the press out for blatantly biased and untruthful press is NOT attacking the 1st Amendment rights of anybody.
Those who don't support giving you what you want, or providing for you, are not the enemy of freedom and liberty.
Posted by: kctim at February 20, 2017 4:00 PM
As far as Obama's so-called 'shadow' group:
These people and groups are nothing but the most outspoken, self entitled, special treatment seeking liberals in the Democratic Party. They have totally disenfranchised moderate common sense Democrats and are mainly battling each other for power.
phx8 writes; "The paranoid idea that everybody, and I mean everybody, is out to get Trump may result in organizational purges, and that will result in the failure of organizations to fulfill their purpose. We are seeing that right now at the State Department, where Tillerson wiped out upper management."
Paranoid? Irrational distrust? Unreasonable fear?
It Has Begun, Tillerson Fires Most of the 7th Floor
"Americans were stunned to learn of the State Department rogue Shadow Government which operated in secret from the 7th floor. They were behind the corrupt handling of the Clinton documents.
In October of last year, a NY Post story reported that the coterie of State Department officials who called themselves the "shadow government" controlled the release of the Clinton emails. Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy even offered the FBI a quid pro quo for changing the classification of the Clinton emails.
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell told the House Select Committee on Benghazi that Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to "separate" damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi."
http://www.independentsentinel.com/begun-tillerson-fires-7th-floor/Posted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2017 4:06 PM
"Then it should be easy for you to post a link about state Democratic leaders who are infuriated with Obama and his shadow government."
Sure phx8, easy as beating Libbies in elections. Here's a teaser…
"Leaked emails from a Democratic Party listserv account reveal the anger of local and state Democrat leaders at the relaunching of President Obama's activist group, Organizing for Action (OFA). Many Democrats around the country believe that the group siphons money and people from state parties, which directly led to the party losing more than 1,000 state legislative seats during the Obama years."
http://admin.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/state_dem_leaders_livid_at_obama_organizing_group_ofa.htmlPosted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2017 4:17 PM
Phx8, read your own link; it plainly states that Russian influence was being brought to bare on the 2012 presidential election. Don't you read your links before you post them, or are you just looking at the headlines?
Secondly, how many times does it have to be posted that it was Hillary's campaign that introduced the birther movement. You don't get to change history.
You make no sense, you say the IC conclusion made no attempt to prove the Russians affected the outcome of the election; and in the same breath say that doesn't mean it didn't happy. Based on what proof? You attempt to do the same thing the leftist media does…to infer, to lead, to bring to the conclusion that Russia affected the election, with no facts.
Perhaps there is on liberal in lala land that could offer proof that Russia infiltrated the electoral system and changed the vote for Trump? It's for certain that they did not infiltrate the popular vote, because we have been reminded ever since November that Hillary won the popular vote.
j2t2, in the immortal words of the left's messiah, "elections have consequences ". It appears you agree with my assessment, but then you begin to sound like sour grapes. Is it your opinion that after the whooping the democrats received, you are now saying we have no mandate to rule? That's not how it works. You admit you are loosing state, local, and federal governmental seats, and then you cry like a little baby over the loss. It seems to me that the best thing to do is go back to the playbook and try to figure out why. If your answer is more protests, riots, burning cars and businesses, physically attacking people, and the general disruption of civil society; then by all means be my guest. But do you think the American people will continue to accept this childish acts?Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 4:36 PM
Blaine, thanks for taking phx8 to the "woodshed".Posted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2017 4:40 PM
This from my Pal Stephen; "…the press isn't supposed to be Trump's friend. They are supposed to hold him accountable, not the other way around."
Hmmm…why a different standard for Trump versus Obama?
Accountability yes.
Hatred and false stories no.
The left wants us to believe that Rush Limbaugh, and a handful of other conservatives have changed the course of history by their lies. It doesn't matter that democrats have had a willing accomplice in the MSM doing their bidding for decades. On top of that, the left has told us on numerous occasions that Rush Limbaugh's following of 20 million viewers is false. So what is it; does he have a following or not? But the point is, the left thinks a handful of conservatives have handed the Republican Party control of 45 states. How can that be? Then again, the left says the Republicans are in control, let's see if they do anything. The truth is, conservative controlled states have been doing things; they are slowly cutting the left off at the knees. NYC and California, along with a couple more cesspools of the left do no and will not dictate to the rest of America how to live. The left has depended on the activists judiciary to implement its laws, but Trump will change that.Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 4:59 PM
Sorry, but I'm on a role. I want everyone to understand, I'm ecstatic about the recent events. I'm behind Trump 100%. I only hope that the establishment republicans get on the Trump train.
And I love the reaction of the democrats to everything that has happened. There are a few media lefties who are beginning to question the actions and comments of the left, but only a few. I can't seem to grasp why the left haven't questioned their losses and actions. Why would a party turn it's back on every group that once supported it, and continue to dig in? At some point, intellect has to rear its ugly head. Unless it's because they have been lying to themselves so long, they actually believe the lies. Does the left really believe Hillary lost because of Russia? It's never entered their minds that she was a flawed candidate?Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 5:11 PM
Is it your opinion that after the whooping the democrats received, you are now saying we have no mandate to rule?
Exactly Blaine! Why on earth would anyone think Trump had a mandate when he lost by over 2.5 million popular votes. He won the electoral college. That is it. But I do find it funny how you want to "rule" yet get all whiny over the allusion to 1920's Germany. Not only do you and Trump not have a mandate to lead the country you do not have an administration that is capable of leading the country into the future. At least it sure seems that way after Trumps first 30 days as president. SO far it is repression and getting even which won't solve the problems the people who voted for him expect solved. I guess the next step is payback for Putin and others that helped get him elected, once this Flynn thing is "investigated" by Repubs in Congress to no avail. Wonder how much the payoff to Putin will drive up the debt.
That's not how it works. You admit you are loosing state, local, and federal governmental seats, and then you cry like a little baby over the loss.
It isn't about admitting anything Blaine nor is it about me. I am not losing state and local elections. The dems are. Further I am not crying over the lost at all , I have been predicting a far right take over of government for years. It is necessary as we have dumbed down considerably.It is history repeating itself, your team ruined…err…umm…."ruled" the country the last time it went down the toilet into depression and then war.Yep with God on your side no less. That being said they, the Dems, didn't just lose these offices they lost them in 2000 and 2010 with the gerrymandering of districts and a bit each succeeding election. All their effort went to the unpopular issues and they have forgotten that many Americans didn't/couldn't make the switch to a global information age economy.
It seems to me that the best thing to do is go back to the playbook and try to figure out why.
Well IMHO the Dems didn't lose the conservative movement won. They ,in a nutshell,have been scheming for years on a comeback and they planned long term. They have suppressed vote and gerrymandered, they got the Koch Bros and many more for financial backing, hired the best propagandist and fooled the people (into caring more about tax breaks for billionaires than care for their own and their neighbors interests). At least those people that like the ACA but hate Obamacare and want the government out of Medicare.
If your answer is more protests, riots, burning cars and businesses, physically attacking people, and the general disruption of civil society; then by all means be my guest. But do you think the American people will continue to accept this childish acts?
Zeig Heil man, spoken like a true far right dictator. Of course the American people will accept the protest it is American kids protesting. Even conservatives will accept the protests if they are white people protesting that is. I mean who would want a White Nationalist provocateur to be out of business because no one gave him the attention he wanted. These are kids who value justice so don't start shooting them by executive order please.
Speaking of crying like a baby Blaine it seems to me you sure are crying like a baby about these protests. Your guy won but you cannot accept the criticism leveled at him? After the level of hate towards Obama! Yeah you really shouldn't be calling anyone any names my friend. I also question why you would expect these people to accept the rise of Trump laying down. Is this some conservative appeasement, some Chamberlain thing you expect all of us to do? Trump needs to prove himself as a leader of all the people,he lies way to much and it is getting tougher to believe anything he says.
I would also remind you that us Americans are a foolish bunch, easily led and fickle. Once Trump can no longer blames immigrants and Muslims he will come for the rest of us. When the people who support him now realize the millions and millions of jobs are picking crops in the fields for low wages, not high wage manufacturing jobs they will figure out they have been duped. So push your "mandate" myth all you want, it will help the dems down the road.Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2017 6:43 PM
There are more bizarre statements and CT's than I can address.
First, there is no shadow government that was working on the 7th floor for the State Department. The people fired were non-partisan career diplomats who have worked for Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
"Much of seventh-floor staff, who work for the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources and the Counselor offices, were told today that their services were no longer needed.
These staffers in particular are often the conduit between the secretary's office to the country bureaus, where the regional expertise is centered. Inside the State Department, some officials fear that this is a politically-minded purge that cuts out much-needed expertise from the policy-making, rather than simply reorganizing the bureaucracy.
There are clear signals being sent that many key foreign policy portfolios will be controlled directly by the White House, rather than through the professional diplomats.
Not a single State Department official was included in the White House meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner - who has no regional expertise or diplomatic experience - had a greater role in the meeting than the Senate-confirmed secretary of State."
And that one way the Trump administration harms the country. It makes all of us vulnerable by firing experienced people without having replacements ready. Running State from the White House will not work. It is a job for experienced diplomats, not neophyte ideologues.
Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2017 7:13 PM
j2t2 writes; "I would also remind you that us Americans are a foolish bunch, easily led and fickle."
I certainly don't agree with your jaundiced view of Americans. Why not take your "Zeig Heil" to a place that will appreciate you; a place populated by a "foolish bunch".
and this…"Once Trump can no longer blames immigrants and Muslims he will come for the rest of us."
How does this work j2t2? I have never heard President Trump say anything negative about legal immigrants. He refers to Muslim terrorists being defeated, do you wish them well?
Exactly what does "he will come for the rest of us" mean j2t2"?Posted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2017 7:18 PM
"It makes all of us vulnerable by firing experienced people…"
phx8, why in the world would President Trump want to keep people who deliberately lied to us about Benghazi, Hillary's emails, and the God-awful deals they have made at our expense?
Firing people experienced in lies, deception, and America bashing need to be gone…for good.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2017 7:25 PM
Zeig Heil man, spoken like a true far right dictator. Of course the American people will accept the protest it is American kids protesting.
Posted by: Weary Willie at February 20, 2017 8:00 PM
This is a totally irresponsible statement. This type of instigating is beneath a responsible person. It's comments like these that will push others to antagonize and instigate the shootings that were so casually raised, again in an irresponsible way. These types of comments are what makes others think they will be heros if they can get people killed.
What's wrong with you? The Russian cyber attack on the US political system and its intelligence agents' repeated contacts with Republican political operatives should be highly disturbing to any American.
Whether they had any actual effect upon the election is not the important question. What is chilling is that they brazenly attempted to do so in the first place. In addition, they were quite effective in their cyber attacks and gaining access to high level Republican political operatives. It is hardly a defense that some of Trump's team didn't know that they were dealing with Russian intelligence agents, e.g., Manafort. Isn't that what intelligence agents are supposed to do? Doesn't it strike you that some of these Trump operatives could be compromised by their naive relationships with the agents?
Posted by: Rich at February 20, 2017 8:10 PM
Rich & phx8, Where is the proof that Russia had anything to do with Trump winning the election? Other then what Russia has been doing for decades now along with China, Iran, and a host of other countries.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 20, 2017 8:46 PM
Rich K.,
Like I asked Blaine, what's is wrong with you?Posted by: Rich at February 20, 2017 9:18 PM
Think about how bizarre this is. We have people talking about Obama and shadow governments, denials of the conclusions of US intelligence agencies, and more.
Maybe I am being naïve, but I think the FBI will catch these crooks. More interesting stories in the NYT & WaPo about Trump's personal lawyer, a longtime fixer with connections to the mob, and a pro-Russian Ukrainian making an arrangement. Trump's personal lawyer delivered an envelope to General Flynn proposing the end of sanctions, setting up a compliant pro-Russian Ukrainian government, and leasing Crimea to the Russians. Flynn was fired a week later. So this is a whole new backdoor channel to Russia that has become public.
Trump used to say he knew Putin. Now he denies it. Trump has a lot of unsavory connections. People from the Trump campaign are going to end up in jail. Trump is going to get caught eventually. All it takes is one FISA judge to turn over the tax returns to the FBI, if they haven't already, and then penetrating the Bayrock shell corporations.Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2017 10:01 PM
Rich, refresh my memory, where was your outrage when Obama sought to influence the Israeli election?
"Whether they had.any actual effect on the election is not the important question ."
Sure it is you seem to be missing the entire argument from your side. The whole purpose of the argument is to imply that Russia effected the election. But if this is how you believe, then I'm sure you come to the same conclusion about the releasing of classified material. It's not important what general Flynn said to the Russian counterpart; what's important is that classified material was leaked.
In answer to phx8's diatribe I say, "elections have consequences ". Trump and the republicans can do whatever they want…they won. What hurts your side the most is the fact that Obama's legacy will vaporize.Posted by: Blaine at February 20, 2017 10:11 PM
rich, What proof is there that anything would have changed the outcome of the election, Were the voting machines hacked? Did the Russians hold a gun to anyones head? Did they tamper with the results? Did they change your vote or phx8's?Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 20, 2017 10:25 PM
I certainly don't agree with your jaundiced view of Americans. Why not take your "Zeig Heil" to a place that will appreciate you; a place populated by a "foolish bunch".
Perhaps I should have added vain and prideful to this sentence Royal so you could have seen yourself in this comment.
and this…"Once Trump can no longer blames immigrants and Muslims he will come for the rest of us." How does this work j2t2? I have never heard President Trump say anything negative about legal immigrants. He refers to Muslim terrorists being defeated, do you wish them well?
Well it seem you were included in the "foolish bunch, easily led and fickle" part of that sentence, judging by this comment. Perhaps I should have added not well read as well, or misinformed. The man wants to register Muslims in this country legally for crying out loud Royal if that doesn't rate a Zeig Heil I don't know what does
Exactly what does "he will come for the rest of us" mean j2t2"?
You ask this yet you take exception to the bunch of us being a foolish lot? Really!!Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2017 10:55 PM
Blaine and KAP,
This is truly an insane discussion. Russia undeniably executed a large scale intelligence operation against the US political system. But, not a problem according to you two and apparently the Trump administration. No wonder that the US intelligence community is leaking. They (Russia) are going to get away with that?Posted by: Rich at February 20, 2017 11:16 PM
Will Trump and his supporters rip the Obama to shreds? Go ahead. Nothing would please me more than to see the country improve.
For example:
The Obama administration reduced the federal deficit by 2/3, that is, about $1 trillion. It seems reasonable to expect a budget surplus after four years.
The federal debt stands at @ $19 trillion. A reduction would certainly be welcome.
The unemployment rate dropped to @ 4.8%. Let's keep it low!
We saw the longest streak of private sector job growth in American history. Keep the streak alive!
The Obama administration presided over one of the longest economic recoveries without a recession in American history. So no recessions! None!
Under Obama, interest rates were low and inflation was low. Keep them down!
Under Obama, the stock market more than doubled. That means Trump needs to deliver @ 30,000 DJIA in four years, and @40,000 DJIA in eight. Should be easy, right?
Housing prices recovered nicely under Obama. Keep the appreciation going!
Nationwide, health care costs went up @21%. Still, deductibles are too high and so are premiums. It would be great to improve here. Nothing would please me more. Oh, and pharmaceutical costs are way out of control. I'm looking forward to Trump improving that situation.
Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2017 11:27 PM
Btw, the 21% nationwide rise in health care costs covered the period from 2011 - 2016. Some states saw less, some more.Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2017 11:30 PM
Rich, refresh my memory, where was your outrage when Obama sought to influence the Israeli election?
Oh puleeze the false equivalence crap again. Blaine you should know better than to get your information from some right wing fake news site.
This is a totally irresponsible statement. This type of instigating is beneath a responsible person. It's comments like these that will push others to antagonize and instigate the shootings that were so casually raised, again in an irresponsible way.
So Weary I assume you read this and went out and shot someone? Now you are trying to blame it on me, how typically Trumpish of you.
These types of comments are what makes others think they will be heros if they can get people killed.
Perhaps you better worry more about keep the Trumpsters until control Weary instead of spouting nonsense.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/pro-trump-supporters-stand-in-downtown-with-semi-automatic-firearms/495372347Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2017 11:41 PM
Royal Flush-
I don't recall ever accusing the press of being fundamentally dishonest as a way of disputing a particular allegation in the media. I'm not trained to pitch a five-year-old's fit every time the media says something bad or unflattering about him. I'm not a wilting flower or a melting snowflake who needs to be insulated from the heat in the proverbial kitchen.
I mean, I have to wonder whether the Republican Party of today has the strength of character that yesteryear's had, because quite frankly, they've been running from accountability with greater and greater desperation every year. Trump needs the press to be seen as liars, because he's a pathological liar whose lawyers won't meet with him alone, for fear he'll change his story.
You guys complain about how awful you're being treated, but I can only recall what what Truman said when somebody said to give the Republicans hell. To paraphrase, his response, I'm not going to give them hell, I'm going to tell the truth, and they'll think it's hell.
And the truth is, the truth offends people on the right these days. The Truth, all too often, doesn't match the picture of themselves that they have in their ego, which is, thanks to Ayn Rand and her followers, what the people in power in the GOP go by. They all want to be the fundamentally abrasive anti-heroes, but at the same time they want to be seen as great people, statesmen and stateswomen, etc. They want everything, including the stuff they should know, by common sense, that they give up when they take a certain route. You can be controversial and provocative or universally well-liked, but not both.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 21, 2017 8:35 AM
I was under the impression that the American people wanted an improvement in their economy, wanted some kind of intervention to shorten the recession. I was under the impression they wanted jobs back.
But of course! I should listen to you, who says they want to starve, get kicked out of their houses, see the full weight and devastation of an economic collapse visited upon them, because the purpose of our economy is to teach us sadistic lessons, not provide for the well-being of our citizens!
I find it hilarious that you go back to the same old tropes of Republican rhetoric, the union-busting and everything. No, actually, I find it boring. You're just repeating what somebody else told you. Like with the Affordable Care Act. You think people actually read any bill back to front in one sitting? They negotiated all the provisions over the course of a year, I think they had time to review the content, unlike Trump and his people, who didn't even bother to pass their dashed-off executive orders past their lawyers.
I think the Trump administration will be a cavalcade of fully avoidable errors that won't be avoided because your people in the White House are once again putting policy decisions in the hands of the political equivalent of the marketing department. Oh, you'll have great slogans to spout as America loses its primacy in the world as our economy and our alliances crumble, but your people will feel quite good about Trump's decisions, even as everybody else is pulling out their hair at the stupidity.
As for losses of seats? I think Citizen United, and the corrupt Conservative backlash it's helped to fuel are largely responsible for that. You've let a few billionaires decide what your policy will be, in the Case of Betsy DeVos, Rex Tillerson, and Wilbur Ross, actually putting them directly in charge of it.
I think if we're talking the definition of insanity, I'm pointing right back at you. Bigger military? Bush and Reagan. Tax Cuts? Bush and Reagan. Bashing the Press when it doesn't play ball? Bush and Reagan, though Trump takes it to a new low. Letting the political consultants run the policy? Bush did that a decade ago. Look how it turned out for him. Heckuva job, Brownie!
Your frigging policy slate is the very DEFINITION of doubling down. Everything I've heard Republicans and Conservatives say for the last twenty years, you're committing yourself to with even more frothing-at-the-mouth dedication.
And when the inevitable happens, you'll once again rationalize it. But this time, maybe people will get the point for good: that your policies didn't work before, and they won't start working now. You've spent decades trying to vindicate yourselves on the policies that didn't work decades ago, trying to insist on getting things back the way they were. Problem is, none of you has a clear enough idea of how things actually were to realize that no sane modern person would WANT to turn back the clock, or to realize that people had the choice to keep those old policies and chose otherwise for some strange reason. Problem is, y'all can't even agree on when America stopped being great, so you're going to create a train-wreck of different, incompatible policies that will work at cross purposes.
I mean, you can't get back the gold standard and end the Federal Reserve system, and also remain a powerful economy. You can't spend money like crazy on the military, exempt that, and then turn around and cut the deficit. You can't destroy Obamacare and then pretend like you have all the time in the world to deal with all the now irate people whose coverage you just destroyed or made more expensive.
You need to realize that the fun is over. You're going to throw your ideas at the wall again, and it's not going to occur to you to remember how they stuck, if they stuck the last time. No, the insanity is yours, as you forget all your mistakes and misremember all your successes.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 21, 2017 8:58 AM
I was watching the news this morning and the were reporting that democrats claim they are suffering from PTSD because of Hillary's loss. They claim their post election disorder is the same as the military that comes home from frontline war. This is sick. We have seen this for some time are liberal universities, where they are given safe places to hide from conservative speech. These are the same universities that are supposed to be places for students to hear all sides and expand their minds, yet the students at these universities are led by their socialist professors to shout down and violently protests any views but their own. Now, why do I bring this up? Because the democrats writing on WB are these same people. They are angry 😡, they claim they have been cheated, they continue to push the lie, as phx8 and j2t2 have above, that we were in such a happy place under Obama. Hillary Clinton ran as a 3rd term of Obama. Obama himself campaigned in his own name for Hillary. He claimed that if Americans did not vote for Hillary, his legacy would be lost. Guess what, the American people didn't want any more of obama's BS leadership. And now we have to listen to the likes of ph and j2, as they cry like little babies and claim the election was stolen from Hillary. Your side offered up a washed up, dried up, corrupt, evil and foul mouthed old woman as candidate to be president of the United States. And you can't figure out why she lost? I know you're not able to comprehend this, but Hillary lost by a large majority of the electoral votes. In fact she was stomped by Trump. The constitution gives us a president by electoral votes and not popular. Trump won overwhelmingly by the votes that count. Let's try this one more time; New York and California do not have the right to chose our president over the will of the rest of America. Lastly, everything ph claimed in his pro Obama speech above is BS, it's been dealt with on numerous occasions and I will not even attempt to answer it again. If a man wants to be ignorant, then let him be ignorant.Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 9:09 AM
8+ years of screaming 'racist' at anybody who said or wrote anything non-supportive of Obama.
8+ years of attacking any press that was not favorable to Obama.
8+ years of blaming your failures on everything from the previous administration to racism.
8+ years of outright lying to the American people.
8+ years of claiming to be constantly offended at anything and everything.
8+ years of creating special rights for certain groups over others.
8+ years of intentionally being controversial, provocative and demanding to be "universally well-liked."
And you want to complain about others: Being "fundamentally dishonest?"
Pitching a "five-year-old's fit?"
Lack of "strength of character?"
How they are "running from accountability?"
Them being "liars?"
How they "complain about how awful they're being treated?"
How "the truth offends people on the right?"
How "they want everything?"
You guys have the right beat on every one of those things. By a mile.
I know you guys are just setting up 2020 and 2024, but you really should just stick with the issues.
If we know one thing about Democratics is they are persistent. We are going to be exposed to Democratics and their wailing for the entire time Republicans are in power. It's their best game, bitching and whining. It's all they have going for them because, as we've seen for the last 8 years, they have nothing the American people are interested in.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 21, 2017 9:55 AM
I read your comments Stephen. Nothing new, or original from you, so there is no response. I just wanted you to know that you are not being ignored.
Be assured Stephen that I will respond when you have something new, original or cogent that deserves an answer.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 21, 2017 3:15 PM
Thanks Royal for pointing out SD's comments. But like you, there's not much that can be said. It's the same old democrat talking points.
Stephen's catchy little comments reminds me of the old movie "The Guns of Navarone"; where the American office (Gregory Peck) says to the mouthy little British sergeant (David Niven) paraphrasing "Well sergeant, you're in the war now, up to your neck".
Every time the republicans gain more territory, Stephen reminds us how dire the situation is and reminds us "that we are in it now, up to our necks"😂😂😂
Yes we are Stephen, and we know exactly what to do. We will get no help from the crybaby democrats and we need none. But Stephen, you are going to see things that will blow you mind. The traitorous Obama and Clinton holdovers will be shown the door. SC justices will be replaced with constitutional judges. The constitution will be our rule and guide. Criminal immigrants will be sent home, and a wall will be built. ICE will be unleashed to protect our borders. The American people will be given the right to protect themselves with weapons, according to the 2nd amendment. Taxes will be cut and we will produce our own energy, and sanctuary cities will be nothing more than a bad memory. What a glorious day to be an American.Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 3:50 PM
What a glorious day to be an American.
Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 3:50 PM
I agree Blaine. I also believe religious liberty will be restored in our public schools and on our public squares. I believe the "right-to-work will be granted to everyone everywhere in the US. I believe those who choose to demonstrate peacefully will be protected and those who choose violence will be prosecuted.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 21, 2017 4:05 PM
Correction: "religious liberty (and free speech) will be restored in our public schools and on our public squares.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 21, 2017 4:07 PM
You are correct Royal. The past 8 years has been like a dark cloud or gloom over the country. We had an administration that was certainly anti Christian. But even through it all, I never lost hope. I was never angry. But I have to ask the question, have you ever met a happy liberal? I'm serious, I have never met a happy liberal; life was always doom and gloom. SD's comments are a good example, along with ph and j2; life in America was gloomy under Obama and it's gloomy under Trump. We were told we needed to vote for Hillary, because America was gloomy after 8 years of Obama. Where is their logic?Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 4:54 PM
Find a Happy Liberal, Blaine? I would rather spend my time looking for seven-leaf clovers as I would have more success.
I believe I can point to the primary reasons for such angst among our Leftie Pals.
First, we must understand that the typical Liberal/Progressive/Socialist believes that the perfect government can give us perfect lives; Perfect justice, perfect peace and perfect happiness are all attainable if we can just get government right.
Second, given proper guidance and unlimited resources government can make every person equal in every respect.
Third, prosperity and happiness can be legislated.
That's it Blaine. Feel free to add to my summary.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 21, 2017 5:27 PM
Royal, what you have explained are the building blocks of communism. Cradle to the grave government care.
I would only add that the perfect environment, pertaining to Global Warming, is an environment what humanity is non-existent. The left is angry the people exist along side nature, and of course it's people who are screwing up the world.Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 5:49 PM
The liberal looks at creation and sees a planet ravaged by humanity. I look at creation and am reminded of the 19 Psalm, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth forth his handy work".Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 5:55 PM
Right Blaine, the Glory of God is in evidence everywhere.
It hasn't been just the last 8 years. This country has been in the doldrums for half a century or more. Ever since Kennedy was killed the Democratics have been pushing for bigger and bigger government.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 21, 2017 6:45 PM
Weary, you may be correct. When JFK was shot, the democrats (who were in control) immediately began passing gun control laws. Never waste a crisis. Of course, Johnson was all in favor of expanding all government programs.Posted by: Blaine at February 21, 2017 7:04 PM
Do yourself a favor and watch the scene from Clear and Present Danger, with James Earl Jones' Admiral Greer talking to him about who and what he swore his oath to.
You want to run a witch-hunt Presidency, scouring the bureaucracy clean of people not supremely loyal to the President? Count on more leaks. They aren't sworn to a man, they're sworn to the Constitution, to the people.
Nothing about what you guys do "blows my mind," however much you're impressed with yourself about it. It's more of the same old warmed over crap that you've tried before.
You talk about the Constitution… Well, if you fail to give due process to those you prosecute and those you try to deport, I'll know where you really stand. If you bring back torture, I'll know where you really stand. If you violate the Tenth Amendment by trying to force Sanctuary cities to enforce immigration laws for you, we'll know where you really stand.
I remember the last administration. The one where supposedly it was constitutional to crush a young boy's testicles to get a confession out of his father. The one that decided that snooping on everybody's information without a warrant was justified, and put in place all those programs you blame Obama for.
I remember things. Funny how quick folks on the right forget.
I don't forget. I've seen enough of Washington and real world Government to know better than to predict utopia based on just one victory. I've lived long enough to realize that the point at which you have greatest power is the point at which that power becomes most vulnerable.
Your trouble is, you threw America under the Tea Party Bus. You decided that you were going to get power by turning access to healthcare into the world's greatest evil. But now people have that access, they'll fight to keep it, and there are political consequences to taking something that critical, that important to life and death away from people.
You piously prattle about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and forget that for many people, healthcare is a key to enjoying all three of those rights. Healthcare is a right, not merely a privilege, and sooner or later, policy will reflect that. People will not tolerate a society where people die for the lack of money. They will not tolerate college bull-session artists taking away policies critical to their survival.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2017 1:44 PM
Well, if you fail to give due process to those you prosecute and those you try to deport, I'll know where you really stand. If you bring back torture, I'll know where you really stand. If you violate the Tenth Amendment by trying to force Sanctuary cities to enforce immigration laws for you, we'll know where you really stand.
Hypothetical; no facts to back up your innuendo..
In fact everything you said is innuendo…no facts.
Healthcare is a right, not merely a privilege
Chapter and verse in the Constitution or the Bill of Right please???
In fact Stephen, you speak of the Constitution, but we all know the left does not believe in the Constitution. This is why activist judges have to be replaced.
You want to run a witch-hunt Presidency, scouring the bureaucracy clean of people not supremely loyal to the President? Count on more leaks. They aren't sworn to a man, they're sworn to the Constitution, to the people.
Sorry Stephen, but the President has the right to FIRE any government employee that violates the Constitution or his oath of office by leaking classified material. Remember Stephen, this is all about leaking classified material.
It must really hurt to see your progressive world crumbing around you..Posted by: Blaine at February 22, 2017 3:51 PM
All logical elements are hypotheticals until the facts are filled in. All I'm telling you is that I will hold you folks accountable, especially given how piously you praise your own constitutional fidelity. If you want the rest of us to look to your wisdom, watch yourself and cut short your hypocrisy, so the rest of us don't have cause to question your faith in our founding document.
In fact Stephen, you speak of the Constitution, but we all know the left does not believe in the Constitution. This is why activist judges have to be replaced.
Who do you have in your pocket? There's no we, here, Kemosabe. I sit here trying to figure out how to bring you down from that delusion of grandeur you have, that you are the only true Americans walking around. The Constitution to me is more than just a bunch of pretexts for promoting my agenda. They constitute a bargain that helps this country evolve from one age to another, that helps us create an accountable government that the citizens have access to, and which they can influence. The Constitution helps maintain the space of freedoms that lets the average citizens out there determine the course of their own destiny.
You? You can't seem to stand anybody elses freedom. You talk about activist judges needing to be replaced. Let me translate that statement for you: You want to wipe the slate clean of any judges that disagree with your views!
Luckily for both of us, we have a system where federal judges are appointed for life, keeping the overbearing twits of the big parties from alternatively sweeping their dissenters from the courts, and replacing them with their own cronies. President Reagan had his appointments, Bush 41 did, Clinton did, Bush 43 did, and Obama did of course. Sadly, so will Trump, but then those are the breaks.
As for firing leakers? First of all, not everything that's getting leaked IS classified. Additionally, though, you have to meet some pretty high standards to suppress publication of information on national security grounds, given first Amendment concerns.
I wasn't saying that Trump couldn't fire them if he found them, but… would that actually prevent further leaks? I know you have these fantasies of just sweeping through and Order 66ing tons of evil Obamunist Bureaucrats, but let me fill you in on something: there are significant legal protections for people in the civil service, and If Trump starts making war on them, he'll not only get tangled up in some rather intense legal challenges, he'll also further alienate the people who he RELIES UPON to carry out his agenda.
Also, consider just how much a career bureaucrat has to lose, if they remain in the job. Then consider how much they have to lose if they're no longer on the job. You'll find a lot of files and reports walking out the door, and the morale of those who remain.
You folks just don't know how to work with people. It's all brute force self-righteous coercion. Trouble is, the more enemies you make in our government, the more the government is designed to hinder you.
(Don't count on very good recruitment prospects to replace your people, if you remove the civil servant protections, or institute your purge. Look at how difficult it was to replace your National Security Adviser.)
Sooner or later, acting like a bunch of sociopathic jerks is going to cost you. This whole fantasy that you can play the right wing anti-hero and everybody will just melt before your personal goodness needs to be checked at the door.
The interpretation of the law shouldn't be rigged to favor one party's litmus tests. The way we avoid that is that nobody can depose a judge from their seat except if they misbehave badly enough to get booted. It also means that the changes in our legal system are smoothed out, with the philosophies of generations of jurors represented in the courts.
But you're too wrapped up in your own partisanship to see the bigger picture.
I think Stephen Daugherty finally broke.
If you violate the Tenth Amendment by trying to force Sanctuary cities to enforce immigration laws for you, we'll know where you really stand.
He prattles on about the constitution. Then he says something like that. I've listened to him talk about the supremacy clause defending every federal law that gets churned out of Washington D.C. He thinks every law is written into the constitution, but then when the federal government tries to enforce immigration laws, laws that are defined by the constitution to be the fed's jurisdiction, all of the sudden it's a violation of the 10th amendment.
This is another example of Stephen Daugherty paying lip service to the constitution to satisfy his own agenda. Yes, Stephen Daugherty, your own agenda. The constitution is a "living document" until you come onto a situation where your precious ox gets gored and all of the sudden the constitution is written in stone. Hmmph!Posted by: Weary Willie at February 22, 2017 6:26 PM
I think you're fundamentally unclear on something: being a progressive is all about dynamism. If you destroy protections for workers, then that's another item on our agenda, another protection to restore, another bit of social justice for us social justice warriors to fight for.
You think progressive politics has crumbled over the last year. While Trump's election is a setback, it's not as if we consider his election the end of the political war. In fact, he's re-ignited the fight. You see his provocative nature, and you gloat with him over the defeat of the liberals.
We see it, and we see our reasons to fight back growing with every day, every injustice. I mean, really, if you're a Social Justice Warrior, do you get less or more motivated with every social injustice done?
As a matter of fact, if you take the long view, it is the pairing of the political success of the right, and it's concurrent policy failures that have created the progressive movement of today. Back when I was just a boy in elementary school, the New Deal Protections remained fairly robust, and though the Reagan administration was chipping away at some protections, it was several years before Gingrich and Co., with moderate and Conservative Democratic Party help, were able to shift the paradigm to the right.
But as they've done that, they've destroyed themselves in a certain way. It's easier to be conservative if the status quo is you having wealth and prosperity to keep.
Without that, the motivation to be conservative becomes reduced. The Tea Party at least implicitly recognized it, but it creates a problem. the GOP can't even be conservative about itself, tearing at its own establishment.
The more old fashioned Democrats weren't all that progressive, because there was little reason to be. People were more comfortable, had more to look forward to. There was a sense that enough progress had been made, that people could relax, etc.
It's the destruction of all that, the betrayal of promises made to my generation, among other things, that created the modern resurgence of the progressive left.
In other words, your people created us by failing to match your lofty predictions with the outstanding results promised.
Trump will only make our cause more necessary. You aren't destroying the left by striking laws from the books, setting more radical policy in place. You're FEEDING IT! You're giving us a reason to win, to take things back. You're giving us a reason to unite, to clobber your side. Your policies on immigration will likely turn the vast majority of Latino's even further against you. Your contempt for African American politics will keep Obama voters in the Democratic Party column. Your contempt for the right to healthcare will turn even the more conservative elderly voters against you.
Who will be left, soon enough? After you're done heroically alienating everybody else in the electorate, who will be left?
You are stacking the deck against yourself, and you don't even realize it. You think you're sticking it to the people who deserve it, think you're telling it like it is. What you're doing is wasting the advantages you once had while you still have them, And setting up a future where others will be loath to support your agenda.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2017 6:32 PM
Weary, I look forward to Stephen's Constitutional pronouncements as they reveal how the Liberal/Socialist mind (doesn't) works. I wonder how our Liberal Pals feel about this story?
"An average of 400 "criminal illegal immigrants" are being released every 10 days by the newly elected sheriff in Arizona's most populous county, federal law enforcement sources tell Judicial Watch, many of them violent offenders. It's part of Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone's new policy to protect illegal aliens, even those who have committed serious state crimes, from deportation.
Just this month an illegal immigrant released from the Denver County Jail in Colorado was arrested for murder. The Mexican national, Ever Valles, was released into the community in December even though he was a "known gang member" with a lengthy and violent criminal history."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/02/arizona-sheriff-releasing-400-criminal-illegal-immigrants-every-10-days/Posted by: Royal Flush at February 22, 2017 6:40 PM
"It's easier to be conservative if the status quo is you having wealth and prosperity to keep."
I am sure this makes sense in Stephen's mind, but I have no idea what he is talking about.
In this same post he places blame for his unwanted financial condition on republican policies which apparently replaced something he was promised by FDR. Maybe he can explain that also.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 22, 2017 6:50 PM
As a lifelong Conservative do I owe Stephen reparations?Posted by: Royal Flush at February 22, 2017 6:51 PM
Stephen, I don't possibly have the time to deal with all your blather. But I will correct one mistake you made. I never said that progressivism was anywhere near dead. Liberalism is like a cancer that can't be cured. It's ugly head will always rise. But what I did was was that we are watching the death throws of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party owns 5 states, and that's it. Your party has been neutered. The only thing democrats have going for them is the MSM and activist judges. By the way, the judiciary is about to change. And judging from democrats on WB, you don't have the ability to understand what and where you went wrong. How can you fix something when you don't know what's wrong.
Secondly, you are a progressive and it's in your nature to not believe in the constitution. You say you do, but it's like you support of the 2nd amendment; you say you support it, but you don't. It's ludicrous to believe any liberal believes the constitution
Lastly I say, Trump was elected by an overwhelming majority or electoral votes, and he campaigned on many promises made to the voter. What he's doing is fulfilling those promises. I realize all you have left is to tell us you'll be watching. Good for you.Posted by: Blaine at February 22, 2017 7:36 PM
Blaine and Royal
Please pray for Keith Ellison to be the new head of the dimocrats. That will probably spell terror in the eyes of most dimocrats/socialists/progressives and others of the same ilk.Posted by: tom humes at February 22, 2017 9:12 PM
Honestly Tom, I don't think it will bother the left at all. Ellison is a Black Muslim out of the liberal state of Minnesota. If memory serves me correct, there have been more Somalian Muslim refugees join ISIS than from any other state. Of course there is a chance that there are a few blue dog working class or union democrats still in the party, that may bail. But I say go for it. It continues the Democratic Party direction of self destruction or imploding.Posted by: Blaine at February 23, 2017 9:29 AM
I listened to him being interview by a talking head and he simply regurgitated the same pap they've been choking on for the last 40 years. "We need equality" "We need jobs"
Yawn.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2017 9:50 AM
Royal Flush-
What do I feel about the story? I feel anecdotal evidence is what you use when you have a poorly thought-through assumption you think can draw sufficient support from one incident. Trouble is, random s*** happens. Out of any group of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, some will be criminal. But you can conclude the same about native born individuals!
You would have us believe that undocumented immigrants are dangerous on account of the few who commit crimes. Trouble is, a few native-born citizens commit crimes, too.
If undocumented immigrants are proven to be a threat to law and order on the basis of those who commit crimes, then it follows that the presence of criminals in the ranks of native born citizens must prove the same about us. If you maintain your argument about undocumented aliens, yet insist that the argument doesn't apply to the rest of us, I'd have to ask why.
The evidence I've heard of indicates that they actually commit fewer crimes than the rest of us, per capita, meaning that Republican leaders wailing about this are either cowards or liars.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 23, 2017 1:01 PM
The difference is, we don't have to put ourselves at the risk of even one crime being committed by an illegal immigrant. They are illegal and shouldn't even be here.
Secondly, the republican numbers are correct. According to BOP. gov, 33.4% of US prison inmates are Hispanic. And Hispanics make up about 17% of the US population.
So at least 1/3 of prison inmates are Hispanic, yet they only make up less than 20% of the population. The black numbers are similar.Posted by: Blaine at February 23, 2017 1:41 PM
"Please pray for Keith Ellison to be the new head of the dimocrats."
OK Tom. I will also pray that Al Franken is their presidential candidate in 2020.
Sorry Stephen that the "story" flew right over the Cuckoo Nest without stopping to be understood.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2017 2:13 PM
Blaine's racial prejudices make him assume statistics regarding Hispanics have something to do with illegal immigrants.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 24, 2017 1:53 PM
And WP's response is typical of the left, to accuse anyone who disagrees with the left of racism. Once again, thanks for not disappointing us WP.Posted by: Blaine at February 24, 2017 7:56 PM
Notice how Blaine doesn't even attempt to argue that his use of "hispanics" as a proxy for illegal immigrants isn't prefaced upon racial prejudice.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 24, 2017 8:16 PM
Notice how Warren Porter always injects racism into a discussion?Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2017 12:51 PM
Prove it. I assure you, I am judicious when it comes to identifying racist ideas on WatchBlog.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 25, 2017 1:13 PM
When it's convenient for you to do so, yes.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2017 2:07 PM
In other words, this notion that I "always inject racism" into discussions is pure poppycock.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 25, 2017 2:39 PM
Yep.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2017 6:53 PM
The left always results to accusing of racism if anyone disagrees with them.Posted by: Blaine at February 25, 2017 7:57 PM
Do you really want to play this game too? There are numerous times I've disagreed with people here without making accusations of racism.
Now, are you going to defend your racist comment or not? Does the fact that a third of prison inmates are Hispanic tell us anything about whether illegal immigrants commit more crimes per capita than native born Americans?Posted by: Warren Porter at February 25, 2017 8:58 PM
I don't have the time or patience to do the research for WP, but here is an article from Breitbart in 2015. The article links to government statistics:
Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014
by CAROLINE MAY
7 Jul 2015
Look it up WP, unless you believe the government stats or the article is also racist.
By the way, if you read the article, you will find it doesn't include star or death penalty cases.Posted by: Blaine at February 26, 2017 8:52 AM
I take this to mean that you are not disputing that your earlier use of "Hispanic" as a proxy for illegal immigrant was rooted in racial prejudice?Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 9:20 AM
Take it anyway you want WP, it's your game we're playing. Maybe you should go back to Warped Reality, since that's the direction you're headed.Posted by: Blaine at February 26, 2017 9:50 AM
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
Mexicans made up 52% of all unauthorized immigrants in 2014,Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 10:40 AM
http://immigration.procon.org/files/1-illegal-immigration-images/countries-of-origin-infographic-V4-758width.JPGPosted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 10:40 AM
Blaine's comments weren't based in racial prejudice, it was based in facts.
You, Warren Porter, did in fact inject race into this.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 10:44 AM
I should say Warren Porter injected bigotry into this.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 10:45 AM
Are you trying to say something? Perhaps a cogent paragraph would be better than spraying disconnected one sentence comments. Tell me why Blaine's comment was based upon facts rather than prejudice.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 12:03 PM
Blaine mentioned facts. You call him a racist. You ignore the facts and counter by slandering with a racist label.
I backed up the facts Blaine spoke about with links and you feign ignorance.
Facts are facts, Warren Porter. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Neither does calling someone a racist.
It's really astonishing how often Democratics will use ignorance and slander to support their positions instead of having a constructive conversation.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 12:33 PM
The left lives for creating political correctness scenarios. This is why they and the media hate Trump so much. Trump could care less about PC. The American people are sick and tired of PC allegations. Every time someone disagrees with the left, they are either nazis, fascist, or racist. Remember, WP is a liberal, and liberalism always result to the same arguments or name calling. Can you possibly understand how frustrating it is for the left to use the same old liberal play book, but failing. Once the establishment republicans understand this, they will do much better.Posted by: Blaine at February 26, 2017 1:48 PM
It is frustrating. You can't have a decent conversation with the left here on WatchBlog. Not since I've been on here has the left considered a conservative's point of view. It's an argument or nothing from them. They will never agree with a conservative. If you tell them the sky is blue they will argue with you.
Now they have Hillbilly's cut and paste list of insults they fall back on. Whenever j2t2 talks about Trump he has to list his supercalafragilisticexpeledocious and say Seig Heil, like it really means something. It doesn't. Trump's not a Nazi no matter how many times j2t2 calls him one.
The left has been relying on the racist argument for decades. They conveniently forget their party is the original racist party. Even up to the 60's they were outwardly racist. They wouldn't let black people vote, eat with white people, drink from the same water fountains, sit in chairs designated for white people. The Democratic party is a party of racists. Period. They'll never be able to live that down.
Facts are facts, Warren Porter. If you don't like it change your politics.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 2:04 PM
Would you like quotes proving Trump is a racist, bigot, misogynist, and xenophobe? Would you like examples of Trump engaging in name-calling? I can copy and paste those all day.
Before posting 'facts' you might want to investigate them first. I would suggest looking at a fact checker. For example:
Illegal immigrants are no more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group. About the only thing they can be accused of is being here illegally, so it isn't really a problem; certainly not one that should taxpayers should fund. And the question of illegal immigration certainly does not require a wall- oh wait, we are down to a fence now- oh wait, most of the Texas border is private property, so it would require invoking eminent domain to confiscate the border property- oh wait, Mexico won't pay for it, and it would cost taxpayers $12-15 billion and possibly as much as $50 billion to address a nonexistent problem-
Never mind.
Interesting factoids:
Tourism to the US is down 6% since Trump was elected.
In Oregon, a relative of mine works with small businesses. The owners complain business is down. The Hispanics have disappeared. No one knows for sure, but most likely they are afraid. Eventually it will have a real economic impact.Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 2:13 PM
Blaine mentioned facts.
Blaine cited statistics regarding the proportion of incarcerated prisoners who are Hispanic. Merely stating this fact wasn't racist. However, he did this in response to Stephen's comment:
The evidence I've heard of indicates that they actually commit fewer crimes than the rest of us, per capita, meaning that Republican leaders wailing about this are either cowards or liars.
Blaine applied his racial prejudice when he decided to use Hispanic Americans as a proxy for immigrants. The fact, which both you and Blaine have willfully ignored, is that most Hispanics living in the United States were born here. Assuming that all Hispanics are be immigrants is a racial stereotype. Applying the fallacious racist premise led Blaine to a fallacious racist conclusion.
You ignore the facts and counter by slandering with a racist label.
I backed up the facts Blaine spoke about with links and you feign ignorance.
Facts are facts, Warren Porter. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Neither does calling someone a racist.
It's really astonishing how often Democratics will use ignorance and slander to support their positions instead of having a constructive conversation.
What facts am I ignoring? If it were a fact that all Hispanics (or at least a supermajority of them) were illegal immigrants, then you would have a point. It would have been slander to call Blaine a racist because his claims would be a sound Bayesian inference. But, it's not. You can tell me most immigrants are Hispanic, but that doesn't tell me anything about whether or not most Hispanics are immigrants.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 2:28 PM
Trump lies so frequently, the local paper now runs just one article on Sunday to address them. Some of Trump's biggest lies this week:
1)"Obamacare covers very few people."
Actually, it covers more than 20 million.
2)"Take a look at what happened last night in Sweden. Sweden!"
Nothing happened in Sweden. Trump saw a hit piece on FOX news and… who knows what he thought. FOX followed this up the other day with an interview of an expert, a Swedish Defense and National Security Advisor. Except no in Sweden knew him. He left in 1994. A lot of funny stuff on the internet making fun of Trump and FOX.
3)We are "leaving our borders wide open. Anybody can come in."
Er, no. Arrests of illegal border crossers are at a 40 year low.
There is more… lies about the Keystone Pipeline, lies about a "military operation" to arrest illegal immigrants. Boy, DHS head Kelly knocked that one down fast!Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 2:36 PM
You ignore the facts and counter by slandering with a racist label.What facts am I ignoring? If it were a fact that all Hispanics (or at least a supermajority of them) were illegal immigrants, then you would have a point. It would have been slander to call Blaine a racist because his claims would be a sound Bayesian inference. But, it's not. You can tell me most immigrants are Hispanic, but that doesn't tell me anything about whether or not most Hispanics are immigrants. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 2:38 PMI backed up the facts Blaine spoke about with links and you feign ignorance.Facts are facts, Warren Porter. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Neither does calling someone a racist.It's really astonishing how often Democratics will use ignorance and slander to support their positions instead of having a constructive conversation.
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/009686.html#413795Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 2:43 PM
Let me repeat:
You can tell me most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, but that doesn't tell me anything about whether or not most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 2:54 PM
If I am shown proof that a supermajority of Hispanics living in the United States are illegal immigrants, I will gladly concede this argument and write a formal apology to you and Blaine.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 2:56 PM
"The Hispanics have disappeared."
OH, NO…Oregon with no Hispanics phx8? Hard to believe. Where could they be? Perhaps I can find a few in Texas willing to move to Oregon if you are willing to pay for the trip and guarantee a job. Let me know.
By the way phx8, the anecdotal evidence of business suffering due to shrinking Hispanic population in Oregon is very interesting. Can you provide any facts to go along with assumption?
Warren suggest "sound Bayesian inference."
Please delight us with the equation and your solution Warren.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 26, 2017 3:54 PM
You should just apologize to Blaine for calling him a racist. You could substitute your last comment in place of your insult and actually foster an intelligent conversation.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 4:28 PM
Oh, not all the Hispanics are gone. Technically wife is half, my children one quarter.
The disappearance of Hispanics at small businesses in Oregon is purely anecdotal. It may mean nothing whatsoever. It may mean those customers left, or they are afraid and hiding, or maybe they just moved. But it might also mean consumer spending by undocumented workers is about to disappear. It is not something that gets much consideration.Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 4:48 PM
Unless the employer is disappearing with them I don't think you have too much to worry about. The employer will just hire an American citizen and it will be a win/even.
If the employer disappears in will allow another entrepreneur to fill the void. That will almost certainly happen with the tax cuts and regulation relief that's on the way.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2017 4:59 PM
It's not the business owners that are disappearing, it's the consumers, the buyers. All of the sudden the Hispanics are not coming in. Sales slow, and that means inventory does not get re-ordered, which is where my relative takes the hit.
Maybe it is all just a coincidence, or people's imagination, or wanting to see something that is not really there. But tax cuts and regulation relief will not make the goods move off the shelf for most small businesses.
Btw, that is a classic precursor of a recession- a build-up in inventories. At this point it would be a real stretch to believe that is what is happening.Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 5:23 PM
Oregon is ranked 10th I believe in the Wall Street rankings link I posted in the Democrat column. Lots of good things going on in Oregon phx8.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 26, 2017 5:24 PM
Oregon is booming, especially real estate. People are moving here like crazy. So it is definitely odd to hear about a segment of the population suddenly not showing up at the same stores anymore.Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 5:31 PM
Please delight us with the equation and your solution Warren.
What part of "But it's not" did you not understand?
You could substitute your last comment in place of your insult and actually foster an intelligent conversation.
So, you don't have a rebuttal for my contention that Blaine's usage of Hispanic stats as a proxy for illegal immigrants was falsely premised?Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 5:49 PM
" People are moving here like crazy."
Hell phx8, if I ever move again, it might be to Oregon. About six years ago my wife and I decided to take an auto tour of the Northwest. Once we reached California we turned North. Oregon is just beautiful.
Being a natural resources man, the Douglas Fir and other trees caught my attention along with the wonderful wild areas, lakes, streams and rivers. The folks we met were friendly and very outgoing. We had some delicious grub as well and prices were moderate.
phx8, you live in paradise.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 26, 2017 6:01 PM
Oregon doesn't have a sales tax either. Too bad you can't pump your own gasoline.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 6:26 PM
OR is a terrific place to live. The scenery is spectacular, the air is clean, and people are ridiculously polite. My wife & I have lived in many places over the years. After living in CA & AZ, we moved here in 1997, thinking we would move again in a year or two. We are still here.
State and property taxes are high, but then, there is no sales tax. Marijuana is legal. Half the state was already using it, so legalization was kind of a non-event. Portland & Eugene are very tolerant of people of all persuasions, but that does result in problems, because a lot of homeless people move here too. No one wants to pick on the homeless- their lives are hard enough already- but panhandling, sleeping on the steps of businesses, establishing unsanitary camps, and so on make it hard to find reasonable compromises.Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 6:47 PM
I'll stick with the East Coast. The weather is far more interesting over here.
Meanwhile, in Trumpland…Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 6:50 PM
At a meeting, Sean Spicer collected the cell phones of his staff members to see if anyone was leaking stories to the press. After the meeting, someone promptly leaked to the press that Spicer was collecting cell phones.Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 7:01 PM
Too bad this isn't a TV show. Each of these hijinks are hilarious.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 7:02 PM
Alec Baldwin has been suggested to take the place of President Trump at the WH Correspondents Dinner.
I believe he is a great choice. This boozing, schmoozing, Hollywood elite who gets his kicks bullying his own kid is a generally nasty person will fit in well with the media crowd. They can tell each other lies and expect to be believed.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 26, 2017 7:09 PM
Alec Baldwin or Donald Trump, what's the difference?Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 7:33 PM
Sorry for your ignorance Warren?Posted by: Royal Flush at February 26, 2017 7:36 PM
Both are nasty brutes and neither is an honorable man.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 7:39 PM
The Trump administration is putting together a video for a Change Management seminar entitled "Don't Do This."Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2017 8:22 PM
LOL!Posted by: Warren Porter at February 26, 2017 8:29 PM
Wearie Willie,
FYI, I am still waiting for your response to Comment #413823:
You could substitute your last comment in place of your insult and actually foster an intelligent conversation.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 10:00 AMSo, you don't have a rebuttal for my contention that Blaine's usage of Hispanic stats as a proxy for illegal immigrants was falsely premised?
WP, there was a time when you were reasonable, and would never have insulted an elder; but those days are gone. You are now a full fledged liberal and have adopted the liberal play book. I made my comment and provided my facts. If you want to spin them and result to the racist name calling, then go for it. You're a big boy now. Am I a racist, no more than you; but did you call me one …yes. So rather than say anything good about Trump, you have resulted in the red and blue column to calling me a racist. I've been around for a lot of years, and I've belonged to the democrat and the Republican Party. I have voted for members of the congress and for president of both parties. I have defended members of both parties. And I can tell you what I've learned; the Democratic Party are the racists and the intolerants. The Democratic Party is the Party of slavery, of the KKK, and the party who fought against civil rights. I was there, I saw it.Posted by: Blaine at February 27, 2017 11:17 AM
If your comment was properly grounded in facts and sound reasoning, this never would have happened. I will repeat what I said before: If I am shown proof that a supermajority of Hispanics living in the United States are illegal immigrants, I will gladly concede this argument and write a formal apology to you and Blaine.
Is such proof forthcoming, or not?Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 11:24 AM
Whenever j2t2 talks about Trump he has to list his supercalafragilisticexpeledocious and say Seig Heil, like it really means something. It doesn't. Trump's not a Nazi no matter how many times j2t2 calls him one.
Keep repeating it Weary until you actually believe it yourself. Trump made a lot of promises that got a lot of us excited but so far has failed to do anything but to play the part of the banana republic dictator. I mean a textbook case of dictator.
I know you guys think conservatism is above reproach and it isn't fascism when you do it but it is time to get your heads out of your collective a**es, you Blaine, Royal and the many other Trump apologist, and use your head for something besides nodding approval for Trump as he continues towards dictatorship.
1. Tyrants Exaggerate their mandate to govern
2. Tyrants Turn the public against media outlets
3. Tyrants repeatedly lies to the public
4. Tyrants Blame immigrants and racial and religious minorities
5. Tyrants Attack motives of anyone against them
6. Tyrants Appoint family members to positions of authority
7. Tyrants Appoint Generals to civilian posts
8. Tyrants Keep private security forces
9. Tyrants Keep their finances secret
10.Tyrants profiteer from public office.
Of course Tyrants also have many of the public fooled as is the case with our conservative friends here on WB. It is time to stop the foolishness Weary and realize defending Trumps actions will only get him impeached or jailed. I don't want that, neither do you. I want him to be the president not the dictator.
I want him to succeed,just not at what he is doing now. When he consolidates the countries multinational CEO's into a group and makes them and their corporations above the law in the name of "make America great again"…. well if you don't think fascist I don't know why.
If you look at the list above I will be surprised if you do not agree that the Trump era has begun with nothing but the list above. I suppose I exaggerate a bit when I say Zeig Heil and Mein Furher because IMHO Trump is more a Mussolini than a Hitler but "make the trains run on time" doesn't get one's attention like Zeig Heil.
Number 3 please stand up. Yes Mr Repeatedly Lies to the public dictator here is a list of your 100 accomplishments in such a short period of time.
Conservatives I call on you to give Trump the same consideration you gave Obama an hold..oh never mind …Obama…. Clinton…. they made him do it.
Weary, think Nixon as you defend Trtump and lets work to save this president from the flight of shame. Or a perp walk. Those that voted for him need to be held responsible for getting the man sobered up and fit for duty. Lord knows he hasn't been the past month.
BTW is this the first week Trump hasn't flown to FLA. since taking office? Where are you guys at with this, especially since the dead Navy Seal from the botched Trump attack on terrorists might have been prevented if only Trump wasn't out partying and playing golf all the time.Posted by: j2t2 at February 27, 2017 12:53 PM
Warren Porter, I'm sorry, but you will have to refresh my memory. Where did I say that a supermajority of Hispanics living in America are illegals? The only thing I gave you was the percentage of illegals in US federal prisons, and sorry that you don't like the numbers, but they were .gov numbers, not mine.Posted by: Blaine at February 27, 2017 2:04 PM
You said:
Secondly, the republican numbers are correct. According to BOP. gov, 33.4% of US prison inmates are Hispanic. And Hispanics make up about 17% of the US population.
So at least 1/3 of prison inmates are Hispanic, yet they only make up less than 20% of the population. The black numbers are similar.
In order for these stats to demonstrate the point you were trying to make, a supermajority of Hispanics would have to be illegal immigrants.
The only thing I gave you was the percentage of illegals in US federal prisons, and sorry that you don't like the numbers, but they were .gov numbers, not mine.I have no dispute with the numbers. It is not racist to cite prison statistics and make claims about the crime rate about the people those numbers describe. But that's not what you did. You cited statistics about one group of people and used those stats to make inferences about an entirely different group. That sort of conflation is just wrong, there's no defending it. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 2:47 PM
Thanks for the link to the origin of the 10 Tyrant list j2t2. We knew it wasn't something original from your mind as there is some doubt of your ability to count to ten.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 27, 2017 3:04 PM
Sorry WR, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. I told you beforehand, I am no more racist than you, unless you are a closet racist. In that case, I just say, I'm not a racist. So I guess you can add liar to your list of accusations against me.Posted by: Blaine at February 27, 2017 4:51 PM
56% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. If this were an election it would be an overwhelming majority.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2017 7:20 PM
There are racist behaviors and racist ideas, but there are no racist people. That comment of yours was premised on a racist idea and I called you out for it. Instead of apologizing for the mistake, you doubled down on your prejudice in spite of clear and convincing evidence demonstrating the flaws in your thinking.
For some reason, you've seen this as a personal offense. Getting defensive like this is not the right approach. As I said before, it is a non sequitur to say that a person is racist. At worst, a person may hold racist thoughts and perform racist behaviors, but that is all.
I recommend taking the time to reexamine why you thought writing this comment was a good idea. There's nothing wrong with have an occasional racist thought, it happens to everyone. The problem is when that thought escapes your mental filters and influences your behavior or worldview as this one did.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 7:51 PM
56% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. If this were an election it would be an overwhelming majority.
WW, are you trying to say something? Please speak up.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 7:53 PM
"56% of illegal immigrants are Mexican."
That is an absurd statistic. First, no one knows the percentages with certainty, since illegal immigrants are by definition under the radar. It is not something people are going to advertise, or even admit to a pollster. We can make generalizations and broad estimates, but that is all they are. There might be 10 million. Maybe 11 million. Maybe more. Maybe less. Second, it is estimated @ 40% or more of illegal immigrants are simply people who overstay their visas. They come here legally, they have jobs, they stay after their work visas expire. Most of that group initially arrive by plane.Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2017 7:58 PM
First, no one knows the percentages with certainty
If you can't identify the figure you have no business calling it absurd. You and Warren Porter need to work on your people skills. If you don't know then your opinion is just that, opinion. Everyone's got an asshole too, phx8. There's no need to prove it.
What you're describing sounds like it could be much more than 56%. You're making Trump's case for him, phx8. There needs to be a hiatus on immigration just so we can get a handle on the numbers.
Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2017 8:14 PM
Why would someone who has a job let their work visa expire? Could it be they're not working any more? Could it be they quit the job because they don't need it any longer, because they're now on public assistance? Perhaps they're now established drug dealers and gang members that don't need a job any longer, because they make their living as criminals.
Before you get on your high horse and start calling me names, consider the fact you just said you don't know for certain and you specifically mentioned visa overstays.
The gentlemanly thing to do would be to agree that Trump needs to get a handle on the immigration situation and that you will work with us to construct a solution we can both anticipate succeeding. What do you say, guys?
Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2017 8:25 PM
There are a lot of different kinds of work visas, and it is unlikely a person who is working and decides to overstay would then resort to public assistance or a life of crime.
The fundamental problem here is that illegal immigration is not really a problem in the first place.Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2017 8:34 PM
You and Warren Porter need to work on your people skills. If you don't know then your opinion is just that, opinion.
I am not disputing your 56% figure. I just don't see how it is germane to what we are discussing.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 8:47 PM
phx8 said the number was absurd. Then he said it couldn't be proven either way. I said he had no business saying it was absurd if he didn't know.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2017 9:39 PM
And Warren Porter still makes no sense, I have no idea what you're trying to say.Posted by: Blaine at February 27, 2017 9:57 PM
I get it. You'd rather play dumb than admit that you let a racist idea guide your beliefs.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 10:31 PM
Let me get this straight.
Blaine said 17% of people in prison are illegal aliens.
Warren Porter disagrees, or not, but thinks it's a sign of racism to point this out.
Am I correct?Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2017 11:35 PM
Illegal Hispanics. Correction.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2017 11:36 PM
You are being purposefully obtuse. As I said before, we can make estimates, but we can not know to a decimal point or even a percentage point statistical breakdowns of illegal immigrants. However, it is absurd to believe 56% of illegal immigrants are Mexicans. If @ 40% fly into the country, and almost none of those are Mexicans, that means 96% of all illegal immigrants are either Mexicans or flew here. That means… now follow along carefully, this involves math… that means all other immigrants make up only 4%. Did you see how I did that? 40 + 56 = 96. 100 - 94 = 4. That 4% includes the poor from Central America, who almost certainly did not fly here. The numbers may slide around, but in general terms we know it is impossible for 56% of the illegal immigrants to be Mexican.
heh. 100 - 96 = 4. No one ever said math was easy.Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2017 11:50 PM
Illegal Hispanics. Correction.
Precisely my point.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 27, 2017 11:57 PM
I hate to break it to you, but a nontrivial portion of the 40% who overstay their visas are Mexican nationals (~9%). Following your back of the envelope arithmetic, that would leave 13% for poor Central Americans crossing the border illegally.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 12:07 AM
"According to MPI estimates, about 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants present in the United States in the 2009-13 period (71 percent of the total unauthorized population) were born in Mexico and other Central America countries. About 1.5 million (14 percent) were from Asia; 690,000 (6 percent) from South America; 423,000 (4 percent) from Europe, Canada, or Oceania; 342,000 (3 percent) from Africa; and 260,000 (2 percent) from the Caribbean.
The top five countries of birth for unauthorized immigrants were Mexico (56 percent), Guatemala (6 percent), El Salvador (4 percent), and Honduras and China (3 percent each)."
I was wrong. Apologies. There are caveats in the article about methodologies, but as best as anybody can tell, it does indeed look like 56% of illegal immigrants come from Mexico.
Warren Porter, even if Blaine is mistaken in this debate it was wrong for you to insult him. You could have simply stated his error and made an attempt to correct. The misplaced slander only detracts from the discussion. It doesn't help anything.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 28, 2017 7:58 AM
In all honesty, I'm not playing dumb; Warren Porter has twisted this conversation like a pretzel to fit his narrative. I have no idea what he wants me to say. I simply gave the gov facts and he calls me a racist. I have repeatedly denied being a racist or even thinking a racist thought. Yet he continues to accuse me. It's okay, the left always pulls out the race card. If we can't count on anything else, we can always count on them using the race card. From Reagan to Trump, I don't believe they had a racist bone in their bodies, but the left accused them of racism.
Ph is like a yappy little dog who keeps yapping at a persons heels. His comments are fiction, based on his inability to get over the fact that Trump won and Hillary lost.Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 8:15 AM
even if Blaine is mistaken in this debate it was wrong for you to insult him. You could have simply stated his error and made an attempt to correct. The misplaced slander only detracts from the discussion. It doesn't help anything.
Telling Blaine that his thinking was based in racial prejudice should not be taken as a personal insult. If Blaine is incapable of having an intelligent conversation about the racist origins of some of his ideas, then that's his problem, not mine.
Hopefully, you and Blaine can use this as an opportunity to learn and grow. I do not believe either of you are bad people or that you intentionally base your worldview on racist ideas. You are simply victims of your circumstance, having grown up in an era decades ago when racism was a far more common phenomenon. At this point, certain flawed heuristics have been baked in your mind such that it will take a conscious effort to liberate yourself from them.
In a different time and place, those heuristics might have served you well. Today, they are an anachronism and they prevent you from reaching the truth. I suggest you take the first step and at least admit that a flawed racist idea influenced your thinking. I repeat, admitting such should not be taken as a deficit in your character. Everyone (including me) has their biases and prejudices.
The question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to put in the effort to combat these bad ideas or are you going to surrender to them, letting flawed logic control your beliefs and worldview? In any case, lashing out at messengers like me who simply point out the truth is never an appropriate response. Telling another person he is relying on a racist idea to formulate his ideology should not be taken as slander, but rather as an invitation to learn, grow and become a better person.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 9:13 AM
You are completely ignoring the facts. It's not our fault a majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. What's happening here is you're deflecting the issue away from the facts and in it's place you are substituting a charge of racism.
Open your eyes, Warren Porter. It's not racist to point out facts.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 28, 2017 9:31 AM
It's not racist to point out facts.
Of course not. But you and Blaine weren't pointing out facts. You were pointing out fictions that your racial prejudice led you to believe were facts.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 9:53 AM
?????? No comprendo. If the goal is to create confusion, WR has succeeded.Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 10:36 AM
Still playing dumb? The premise that a supermajority of Hispanics are illegal immigrants is fiction not fact.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 10:42 AM
Where exactly is my premise that a supermajority of Hispanics are illegals? Number one, I never used the word supermajority, you have used it. Number two, I have no idea how many illegals are in the country, some say 11 million and some say 20 million. But I do know that all Hispanics that are in the country illegally are in fact illegals. Or that all illegal aliens have broken our laws.Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 10:54 AM
Where exactly is my premise that a supermajority of Hispanics are illegals?
In Comment #413647.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 11:02 AM
Perhaps WP should go back and re-read the comments and get his story straight. So far, you have accused me of being a racist, a liar, and dumb. If I did all these things, it shouldn't be hard to point it out. Of course we are talking about a person who is trying to tell me what my intentions were. Who also wrote a whole post in the blue column trying to tell us what the intent of Trump was when he failed to condemn anti Semitism to Warren Porter's likings during his first 30 days in office. Somehow, I don't think any conservative could meet WP's standards. In the meantime, there have been continued Jewish cemetery vandalism, and about 32 bomb threats in many states. How much would you like to bet this is the work of liberals?Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 11:07 AM
I said that according to gov stats, 17% of the us population is Hispanic; are you disagreeing with those numbers?
I also said that according to gov stats, 33.4 % of federal prison populations are Hispanic, are you disagreeing with those numbers.
You have not provided any numbers to the contrary, so where did I lie, or how is it racist to quote gov numbers?Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 11:16 AM
Perhaps WP should go back and re-read the comments and get his story straight. So far, you have accused me of being a racist, a liar, and dumb. If I did all these things, it shouldn't be hard to point it out. Of course we are talking about a person who is trying to tell me what my intentions were. Who also wrote a whole post in the blue column trying to tell us what the intent of Trump was when he failed to condemn anti Semitism to Warren Porter's likings during his first 30 days in office. Somehow, I don't think any conservative could meet WP's standards. In the meantime, there have been continued Jewish cemetery vandalism, and about 32 bomb threats in many states. How much would you like to bet this is the work of liberals?Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 11:18 AM
I have reprinted an earlier comment of mine for your convenience:
I have no dispute with the numbers. It is not racist to cite prison statistics and make claims about the crime rate about the people those numbers describe. But that's not what you did. You cited statistics about one group of people and used those stats to make inferences about an entirely different group. That sort of conflation is just wrong, there's no defending it.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 11:23 AM
I will add this: The only circumstance that allows one to use stats about one group to make inferences about another group is when a supermajority of the first group is contained in the second. This is why keep I saying you relied on the flawed premise that a supermajority of Hispanics are illegal immigrants.
You're deluded…..Posted by: Blaine at February 28, 2017 1:41 PM
Please explain.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 1:47 PM
Blaine, I have found that when Warren Porter is wearing his short pants he is impossible to reason with as he is in his "game mode".Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 3:29 PM
Do you think stats regarding Hispanics provide useful information regarding illegal immigrants?Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 3:59 PM
I believe our government knows, with some accuracy, how many people are residing in this country illegally. The census of 2020 will be interesting.Posted by: Royal Flush at February 28, 2017 4:28 PM
I don't think the census or govt. stats are going to give us an accurate estimate of the illegal population. They are criminals and criminals don't like to be counted.
As far as a majority being Hispanic, Warren Porter should defer to his leftist attached to his hip, phx8. He stated that the 54% figure of illegals are from Mexico. That makes them Hispanic. In an election no one would say 54% isn't a super majority. So, Warren Porter is trying to make an argument out of nothing. He's creating an opportunity to slander his debate opponents because he knows he's wrong and won't admit it.Posted by: Weary Willie at February 28, 2017 4:56 PM
Even if 100% of illegal immigrants were Hispanic, it wouldn't change my argument. Your repetition of the 54% figure is meaningless. The proportion of illegal immigrants who are Hispanic, by itself, tells us nothing about the proportion of Hispanics who are illegal immigrants. This is elementary logic.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 5:16 PM
So why do you have to call someone a racist?Posted by: Weary Willie at February 28, 2017 10:29 PM
I didn't call Blaine a racist. I stated that his conclusions were premised on a racist idea.Posted by: Warren Porter at February 28, 2017 11:33 PM
The proportion of illegal immigrants who are Hispanic, by itself, tells us nothing about the proportion of Hispanics who are illegal immigrants. This is elementary logic.
Repeat after me, Warren Porter.
The majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic.
C'mon, you can do it.
Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2017 8:23 AM
Last night Trump looked at the democrats and said, we must work together for the American people. The result was jeers and snickers from the left. Working together with democrats has always meant, do what they want. The left has this mindset that they are still in charge. They are a non governing body. Warren Porter is dead wrong. But his liberal mindset will not allow him to concede. He wrote his idiotic post in the blue column, demanding the Trump say words that met his liking, because he accused Trump of being anti Semitic. It was an ignorant post, because Trump has never been anti Semitic or a racist, just as I have never been a racist. But that doesn't matter to WP or to any on the left. It is the accusations that count. Trump came out almost immediately and condemned all racism, and WP is now happy. But see, the damage is done, Warren accused Trump of racism. Warren's actions are a microcosm of liberalism and the fake MSM, they make false accusations (with no proof) and leave it up to the person attacked to prove his innocence. There is a pattern her; the police were guilty until they proved their own innocence (Obama was part of this), George Zimmerman was guilty until he proved his own innocence (Obama was also part of this), and the list goes on.
Phx8 is like the rest of the left on WB; they link to and quote fake news outlets as fact and yet there are no facts. There has been no evidence of Trump or any of his people being tied to a Russian plot to beat Hillary, but that doesn't matter, it's not about proof, it's about insinuation and innuendo. Porter fits this category, his insinuation and innuendo is that Trump and even I are racist or anti Semitic.Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 9:03 AM
The majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic.
I've said numerous times, I do not dispute the claim that a majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. However, this fact is not relevant to evaluating the use of statistics regarding Hispanic incarceration rates as a proxy for illegal immigrant incarceration rates.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 1, 2017 9:26 AM
So, what are the numbers, Warren Porter? What is the percentage of illegal Hispanics incarcerated in American prisons? What is the percentage of illegal immigrants in American prisons?Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2017 10:21 AM
It doesn't matter what the correct numbers are. What matters is that Blaine made an inference regarding those numbers that was premised upon a racist idea.
If you really must know, take a look at the research that shows immigrants (both legal and illegal) committing fewer crimes per capita than their native born peers. But as I said before, it doesn't matter what the actual numbers are because Blaine didn't cite actual numbers. Blaine cited different numbers and made an inference from them that was premised upon a racist idea.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 1, 2017 10:49 AM
And you WP made the inference that Trump was anti Semitic simply because he didn't say what you wanted him to say, during his first 30 days in office. So it looks like you're batting a thousand.Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 11:16 AM
Blanie, If you want to address my comments in a different thrad, please do so in that thread.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 1, 2017 12:16 PM
From your link:
The research papers above mostly include all immigrants regardless of legal status. However, every problem with gathering data on immigrant criminality is multiplied for unauthorized immigrants.
This may make your link immaterial to the discussion, however;
Also from your link:
He finds that this effect on property crime rates is caused entirely by Mexican immigrants. Separating Mexicans from other immigrants, the former commit 3.5 to 5 times as many crimes as the average native. However, all other immigrants commit less than half as many crimes as natives.
Will you be calling the author at the Cato Institute a racist also?
Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2017 7:08 PM
WP, I'm finished talking to you in the other thrad.Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 7:24 PM
Thanks weary for reading WP's link, it's evident he didn't.Posted by: Blaine at March 1, 2017 7:27 PM
This may make your link immaterial to the discussion
Our discussion regards Blaine use of a racist premise in his conclusion that Illegal Immigrants commit more crimes per capita than others. The actual detail of whether or not illegal immigrants commit more crime than native citizens is not the topic of today's discussion. I stated in my original comment:
"It doesn't matter what the correct numbers are. What matters is that Blaine made an inference regarding those numbers that was premised upon a racist idea."
I indulged your curiosity and answered your query requesting my take on what the correct numbers may be. But, I am not going to shift the conversation to that topic. We can discuss this some other time (perhaps after Blaine admits to using a racist premise in his argument).
Will you be calling the author at the Cato Institute a racist also?
No. Alex Nowrasteh (whose name you would've known if you actually read the whole report) is not a racist because he is simply repeating the conclusions of Spenkuch's research. I believe you misunderstand why I concluded Blaine's conclusion was derived from a racist idea. It is not racist to look at prison statistics regarding Hispanics and to make conclusions regard the crime rate of American Hispanics. It is not racist to look at prison statistics regarding illegal immigrants and make conclusions regarding the crime rate of illegal immigrants. What is racist is looking at statistics regarding regarding incarcerated Hispanics and making inferences regarding illegal immigrants. The conflation of Hispanics and illegal immigrants is the problem, not the conclusion that they may or may not commit more crimes per capita.
it's evident he didn't.Obviously not, because I wrote: the research that shows immigrants (both legal and illegal) committing fewer crimes per capita than their native born peers. Posted by: Warren Porter at March 1, 2017 11:15 PM
I believe you misunderstand why I concluded Blaine's conclusion was derived from a racist idea.
What made you conclude Blaine is a racist?Posted by: Weary Willie at March 2, 2017 7:49 AM
I don't belive Blaine (or anybody for that matter) is racist. I do believe that he utilized a racist belief to support his conclusion. Blaine's logic from Comment #413647 can be reformulated into these syllogisms:
1. Hispanics are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate (Stated and Cited Premise)
2. Group of people who are incarcerated disproportionately must be committing a disproportionate share of crimes (Unstated and assumed Premise)
3. Therefore, Hispanics commit a disproportionate share of crime (Non-racist Conclusion)
1. Hispanics commit a disproportionate share of crime (Unstated Premise)
2. The American Hispanic population is identical, or nearly identical to the illegal immigrant population (Racist Premise)
3. Therefore, illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime (Conclusion)
Now do you see what I am talking about?Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 9:11 AM
According to BOP. gov, 33.4% of US prison inmates are Hispanic. And Hispanics make up about 17% of the US population.
Why is this racist?
So at least 1/3 of prison inmates are Hispanic, yet they only make up less than 20% of the population. The black numbers are similar.
Why is this racist?
Perhaps it's because of this you justify your slander.
They are illegal and shouldn't even be here.
Posted by: Weary Willie at March 2, 2017 9:31 AM
No, you're really reaching on this one. But thanks for all the attention.Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 9:34 AM
Are my syllogisms not an accurate retelling of Blaine's argument?
Is it not racist to premise an argument on the false idea that Hispanic = illegal immigrant?Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 10:35 AM
For your convenience, I have reprinted the syllogisms with minor editing to make things a tad more clear:
1. Hispanics are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate (Non-racist Premise: explicitly stated and cited)
2. Group of people who are incarcerated disproportionately must be committing a disproportionate share of crimes (Non-racist Premise: implied, but unstated)
3. Therefore, Hispanics commit a disproportionate share of crime (Non-racist Conclusion)
1. Hispanics commit a disproportionate share of crime (Non-racist Premise, derived from earlier syllogism)
2. The American Hispanic population is identical, or nearly identical to the illegal immigrant population (Racist Premise)
3. Therefore, illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime (Conclusion)
So you're minor editing is "disproportionate rate"; because I don't remember using that word….Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 11:46 AM
I think you're beating a dead horse on this one WP. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to make me a racist. Hispanic or black or anything else. My daughter in law is Hispanic, and my niece is Black; can you say the same for your "diverse Jewish" family?Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 11:50 AM
Correction, my daughter in law is Latino… I wouldn't want to be accused of lying again.Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 11:52 AM
"disproportionate rate" appears in both Comment #413987 and Comment #413980. My reference to "minor editing" was the addition of parenthetical notes to indicate your other premises which were not derived from racist ideas.
I don't remember using that word…It's a summary of your argument. Sometimes summaries use words not found in the original content. What matters is whether or not the summary is an accurate or not. Comment #413990 does not attempt to dispute the accuracy of my summary (the absence of the word "disproportionate" is not an argument that disputes the accuracy of the summary). Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 11:54 AM
So what it boils down to is your determination or summary of what you thought I was attempting to say… thanks for your help, but liberals don't have a very good record of determining what other people are attempting to say. Your discernment is based upon double standards and hypocrisy.Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 12:11 PM
Perhaps we can go through this one by one, starting at the end. Did I correctly identify your conclusion, "Therefore, illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime"?
Your discernment is based upon double standards and hypocrisy.Please explain. Argument by assertion is not acceptable. Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 12:25 PM
Double standards and hypocrisy: Shummer's call for Jeff Sessions to recuse himself or resign, but the opposite with Loretta Lynch and the Clinton investigation. There is a pattern of double standards on your side. You twist and turn and tie yourself into a pretzel to change the meaning of everything said; i.e. my statistics quotes. Give it up.Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 12:35 PM
Not relevant to our current discussion regarding your use of a racist premise to form your conclusion that illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime.
I repeat:
Did I correctly identify your conclusion: "Therefore, illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime"?
Yes it is relevant, because it shows a pattern of lying and deception from your side.
Secondly, no it's not correct. Give it up you dumb a**, who many times do I have to tell you I'm not a racist. This is the end of this conversation. So just keep blabbing and claim some kind of moral victory, I don't care.Posted by: Blaine at March 2, 2017 1:04 PM
To clarify, this attempt of yours to extrapolate a "pattern of double standards on your side". Is a brand of the ad hominen fallacy. Instead of addressing the content of my claims, you criticize me for being the messenger.
And before you whine about double standards: I am not guilty of the ad hominen fallacy because I am not drawing any further ideas from my conclusion that you utilized a racist premise in formulating your refutation of Stephen's claim. Whereas, you are saying: "Because Warren has double standards on issue X, he must be wrong regarding issue Y". It's a nonsensical argument.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 1:14 PM
no it's not correct
So, you don't believe illegal immigrants bring crime to the United States?Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 1:44 PM
I agree, Blaine. There's really no point. One good thing about Warren Porter's racist claims. He's used it so much it means nothing any more. He should know real racists are smiling from ear to ear now.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 2, 2017 5:51 PM
Yes, there's no point to defending racist ideas. That's why you and Blaine have refused to address any of my questions, opting for deflection, obfuscation and distraction instead.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 2, 2017 9:35 PM
No, you have to defend importing illegal votes to keep your failing party relevant.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2017 8:33 AM
That is a baseless accusation. I do not defend illegal votes.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 3, 2017 1:01 PM
Your party does. Every time your party says illegal immigrants aren't a problem you support and defend every broken law committed by them. So you just go ahead and call whoever you disagree with racists, Warren Porter. Nobody's listening.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2017 3:45 PM
Weary, the left loves to cry "l don't agree", when the liberal party does or says something stupid, and they certainly don't want to be included with the mob; but they certainly have no problem lumping all conservatives with everyone in the Republican Party.
The truth is, I have yet to see WP take a stand against the outrageous claims of the left.Posted by: Blaine at March 3, 2017 4:23 PM
If he did he wouldn't get his nickle.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2017 9:57 PM
The truth is, I have yet to see WP take a stand against the outrageous claims of the left.
Blaine, next time you decide to lie, could you perhaps do a better job of it?
Every time your party says illegal immigrants aren't a problem you support and defend every broken law committed by them.
I'd love to see the syllogism underlying this piece of "logic". The truth is that professing a belief that immigration law needs to be changed is not tantamount to endorsing "every broken law committed by them". That is just absurd.
So you just go ahead and call whoever you disagree with racistsI do not call anyone racist. I judiciously point out unambiguously racist ideas when I see them, which is not very often. I disagree with many other Watchblog conservatives without this becoming any issue.
To remind you, Blaine's summary: "The republican numbers are correct." was derived from the racist premise that a significant supermajority of Hispanics were illegal immigrants such that statistics describing their disproportionate incarceration rate must mean that illegal immigrants are committing more crime per capita than other Americans.
Racist beliefs caused Blaine to employ fallacious reasoning. Neither you nor him have amounted any sort of defense other than to malign my character by falsely claiming that my accusation came about simply as a result of our disagreement. I assure you, that is not the case. It is not racist to share crime statistics unsavory to particular groups.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 4, 2017 12:30 AM
Why does changes to immigration law always start and end with amnesty? We've tried that before, Warren Porter. Your party said they would stop illegal immigration if they got the first amnesty in the 80's. Your party lied. They had no intention of stopping illegal immigration.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 4, 2017 5:52 PM
My solution isn't amnesty. My solution is unlimited legal immigration.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 5, 2017 9:50 AM
Then Warren should have no problem deporting illegals.Posted by: Blaine at March 5, 2017 1:24 PM
If we had a system of unlimited legal immigration in place, I would have no problems deporting anyone found in the country illegally.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 5, 2017 7:16 PM
You can even buy Adderall online without cure. You don't have to go to a supportive store or hold up in a long line. From time to time you have to hear that the store is out of stock. Imperative blueprints can be offered clearly to your doorstep. So getting medications is amazingly essential now and you can beneficially get it at lower costs.Posted by: Online 30mg Adderall at May 8, 2017 1:27 PM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to email@example.com.