The Republican Party of the USA

[callmebetty]

Sorry to  so obsessed with this topic. But why does Paul Ryan have such a hard on about getting rid of Medicare and Social Security ? I assume he has grandparents or parents who benefit from these type of services? I don't think he's a cyborg hatched from a company . He does have family and friends who have older ones benefitting and themselves one day benefit from them, correct ? Or are those people wealthy too so they don't need any of those things? I'm  really curious what in your life screws you up that you think Medicare and social security are evil? 

[Hanahope]

Its all part of the mantra that if they can cut the money the government pays on the services (administration and such), by foisting them off to the private sector, then that's less money the government needs and therefore more available in tax cuts to the wealthy.  

Of course, if the administration of those services isn't being paid for by taxes, then the private sector is going to (a) cut the distribution amounts and (b) charge the administration fees to the users.  Of course, it won't hurt rich people very much, they can afford it.  Who it hurts is poor people who will get less services and have to pay more for what they get.  The Republicans try to hide that info, claiming that the private sector can administer the services "more efficiently"  (i.e. cheaper, because they will overwork and underpay the fewer staff doing so, plus provide less services in the first place).

[callmebetty]

15 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Its all part of the mantra that if they can cut the money the government pays on the services (administration and such), by foisting them off to the private sector, then that's less money the government needs and therefore more available in tax cuts to the wealthy.  

Of course, if the administration of those services isn't being paid for by taxes, then the private sector is going to (a) cut the distribution amounts and (b) charge the administration fees to the users.  Of course, it won't hurt rich people very much, they can afford it.  Who it hurts is poor people who will get less services and have to pay more for what they get.  The Republicans try to hide that info, claiming that the private sector can administer the services "more efficiently"  (i.e. cheaper, because they will overwork and underpay the fewer staff doing so, plus provide less services in the first place).

So then wouldn't we as taxpayers have more in our paychecks because we wouldn't have social security taxes taken out? I mean if they want to privatize it then they don't need our money anymore. That's seems the logical conclusion . 

[Hanahope]

42 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

So then wouldn't we as taxpayers have more in our paychecks because we wouldn't have social security taxes taken out? I mean if they want to privatize it then they don't need our money anymore. That's seems the logical conclusion . 

It depends on if they are just privatizing the administration of the social security system, or eliminating the whole thing.  If its just the administration, then the contributions would still come out of the paychecks, but a private company would handle collection and distribution.  The problem, of course, is that the federal government doesn't really "invest" our money, it simply takes it and redistributes it to those that collect it.  That's why we currently have a surplus, which the fed gov depends on to fund other things.  if a private company is handling it all, then that surplus should then be placed into investments, like a 401k, and the federal gov won't have that anymore, but we'll have to pay for that administration.

If they want to eliminate social security completely, then yes, we'd get all that money back and would be on our own to invest in IRAs or whatever.  And we're back to the way things were before the great depression.  Better hope we never have another one.

[Menrva]

I made this a while back, before the election. I think this should be the official portrait of Hair Gropenfuhrer.

 

[AntiBeeSpray]

10 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Its all part of the mantra that if they can cut the money the government pays on the services (administration and such), by foisting them off to the private sector, then that's less money the government needs and therefore more available in tax cuts to the wealthy.  

Of course, if the administration of those services isn't being paid for by taxes, then the private sector is going to (a) cut the distribution amounts and (b) charge the administration fees to the users.  Of course, it won't hurt rich people very much, they can afford it.  Who it hurts is poor people who will get less services and have to pay more for what they get.  The Republicans try to hide that info, claiming that the private sector can administer the services "more efficiently"  (i.e. cheaper, because they will overwork and underpay the fewer staff doing so, plus provide less services in the first place).

Yep and they've been obsessed with that for years now. They've wanted to cut the programs since their inception.

[shok]

16 hours ago, callmebetty said:

Sorry to  so obsessed with this topic. But why does Paul Ryan have such a hard on about getting rid of Medicare and Social Security ? I assume he has grandparents or parents who benefit from these type of services? I don't think he's a cyborg hatched from a company . He does have family and friends who have older ones benefitting and themselves one day benefit from them, correct ? Or are those people wealthy too so they don't need any of those things? I'm  really curious what in your life screws you up that you think Medicare and social security are evil? 

This came up during the Romney campaign in 2012. Not only does Paul Ryan have family members benefiting from Social Security, he HIMSELF did. Even though he comes from a fairly wealthy family, his father died when he was a teenager so he received SS survivor benefits and has said himself that he used those benefits to pay his way through college. He admitted that he wouldn't be where he is today if it wasn't for receiving that money. There's just no limit to the hypocrisy of Republicans.

[callmebetty]

3 hours ago, shok said:

This came up during the Romney campaign in 2012. Not only does Paul Ryan have family members benefiting from Social Security, he HIMSELF did. Even though he comes from a fairly wealthy family, his father died when he was a teenager so he received SS survivor benefits and has said himself that he used those benefits to pay his way through college. He admitted that he wouldn't be where he is today if it wasn't for receiving that money. There's just no limit to the hypocrisy of Republicans.

A hypocrite and fucking asshole . Fuck him.

[Duke Silver]

Introducing the ‘alt-left’: The GOP’s response to its alt-right problem

Quote

 

There remains plenty of disagreement about what exactly “alt-right” means, but it's a loaded political term carrying connotations of white nationalism and even racism. And thusly, Democrats are gleefully attaching the term to the Trump administration and the Trump-led Republican Party.

The GOP's response: I know you are but what am I. Yep, apparently they're going to start calling what they view as more extreme Democrats the “alt-left.”

 

The GOP is utterly shameless.......and that is why they are so tough to beat.  Nothing is beyond them as far as messaging goes.  Sincerely, sometimes you have to lean back & appreciate the simplicity of what they do, and they do it much, much better than Dems.  Anywho...as I've said elsewhere, unless the Dems are fine with getting their asses kicked all over the place, they need to take off the gloves, toughen-up & go after these scumbags even where it looks bleak--especially at the state & local level where real governance happens.

[tenativelyyours]

There is also a side to the whole privatizing that I think gets overlooked.  It has happened in the charter school area already.  Huge financial gain.  If you privatize a public benefit you open the door to profiteering that was largely untapped.  Because there will always be not just revenue but also public funds to be tapped.  Its not like we are immediately going to stop educating our children.  Or trying to take care of our veterans.  Or push all our elderly onto ice floes (and not just because there won't be any ice floes due to Climate Change).  But an aspect of the privatizing is that it cuts the "public costs" dramatically and pretends towards fiscal conservationism.  and most importantly, privatizing lowers standards, lowers accountability and of course lets the grifters bend and break every rule that suddenly gets weaker or even just gets shoved aside as it no longer is part of a government branch. 

It lets them raise costs for the ones the services are most needed.  It lets them cull those who can't pay out of the system entirely.  And all the while it is a new market they can exploit and pillage and plunder and often in a hugely hypocritical manner, it is the public funding that still exists that they are after; taking it and pocketing it all the while they are the same people who scream about high taxes and big government.  People have gotten wealthy off the charter school system.  Heck even before that, in many states, the right kind of legal criminal was able to get the system to work in their favor and their wallets favor in regards to who provided meals for the local public schools or even the busing.  I'm not a Jamie Oliver fan but he was one of the few people in the media/entertainment arena to draw national attention if only for seconds, to the corruption that keeps horrible food in place in school systems.  Because of corruption and greed.

The problem is that once the genie is out of the bottle it is incredibly hard to put back in.  In the charter schools we see funds misappropriated and outright fraud taking place.  But a false outrage is what plays the stage.  With charter school advocates screaming that it is distorted to point to these "exceptions"* as a sweeping condemnation.  And yet the point that often gets missed is that when compared to the public school system it is rank with fraud simply because the public school system has a checks and balance system that prevents most of the egregious looting that some have been able to use the charter school system for to their personal financial gain.

That is what privatizing means for anything in the end.  Benefit.  I do think there is some underlying racist tones to their views on society as well.  Some I think that the holders of such views might even be outraged (really, not just for public consumption) at the idea they are racist for wanting to shut things down.  But it does have a sense that poor people are poor by choice or character flaw.  That poor people are more dangerous and criminal and simply undesirable and instead of seeing that poverty is an impetus towards such stereotypes that might exist and instead simply tie to the original: that poor is a choice.  So therefore you decide to be poor,  which means you are less socially by choice -- it makes a nice remove for people who claim to be human and have a conscience; removing public services is a "favor" because you are pushing them out of the nest.  Bullshit of course but that is the justification.   Even the so called social justice aspect that people like Paul Ryan pretend to be delivering, at the heart it is punishment that lets them gain financially at the same time.  Over and over again self-proclaimed Conservatives wish to impose on everyone else.  It is not just holding beliefs for yourself.  You have to impose those beliefs on everyone else.  You think being gay is wrong, then people should not allowed to be gay.  Or enjoy the same rights as everyone else.  You don't think abortion should be legal.  Make illegal.  You don't think society should take care of segments in need because deep down you feel that is a choice and that people choose to be poor or disadvantaged?  Take away anything you perceive as a safety net to force them to cope on their own.

And all the while use the system to further enrich yourself and your class because that is what gives you the luxury to look down on everyone else.  And determine how those people live.  The hypocrisy is strong in these people to a ridiculous degree.  They lack compassion and empathy.  They lack the christian values of caring and valuing your fellow man no matter who they are despite wrapping their agendas in all kinds of false judgemental piety.  Using the government to cast stones as fast as they can.  And they see wealth as a moral judgement and even an odd competitive means to get ahead.  Republicans since Reagan have sold and sold hard the idea that they are the party of prosperity.  Not just in terms of making the nation wealthy but by being part of that party you have the means to join the financial elite.  But that is also a key component to the whole ideology.  You can only be this so called elite if the majority are left on the outside. 

People with access to good education are jealous and don't want to share.  People with healthcare and insurance back in 2009 were more worried about how it would affect them and take away from their privilege of simply having access as opposed to stopping and thinking that thousands die each year from a lack that would have little impact on their continued service.  If at all.  People with the right to marry still are horrified that gay people are allowed to marry.  Because somehow their strong moral and right marriage weakens and is threatened by two people of the same sex filing their taxes together and signing their Christmas letter with a hyphenated same last name that is actually legal. 

And that, in its sick way is another form of profit.  Because it lets people like this value their stuff even more.  It raises their own worth.  Because they not only have something that others don't but at the heart of it all, they are the ones making the rules as to who gets to have it in the first place.  So it is greed pure and simple.  And not just full wallet greed but a sort of sick and sad Scrooge McDuck approach to what should be the defining aspects of a human society.  Lifting all up.  Not pushing most others down to raise a small portion up to heights unattainable and unapproachable by the rest.  Republicans have tapped into that for years but have had to pretend to being good and decent and caring people only wanting the best for society as a whole.  he

And the Rancid Yam capitalized on this.  Not only tapping into the anger for some that somehow they did not get their fair share.  And that was someone else's fault.  But getting their fair share means depriving others of things.   A weird hypocrisy since it builds on the idea that segment of society has had the good life taken away from them, but also that for the nation to be "great again" a much larger segment of society has to suffer.  To be deprived. 

In the short term it means the haves to get keep having.  And likely in the low term as well, because change is hard for Americans even when the problem of not changing stares us right in the face. 

 

And perhaps have even more as they control a wider swath of the having process.  Things currently provided by the State suddenly fall more or completely into the hands of the people that already for the most part have their share and have basically said they have no intention of sharing.   And they'll quote the Bible as they explain why that is good for all of us.  And line their pockets and bolster their false pious claims of morality. 

 

*I actually think the charter system itself is flawed simply because it allows the level of fraud to exist.  Whether it is one school or a thousand in which any fraud is actually taking place, the problem is that just one is too many in the area of simply providing an education for our youth.  Instead using a system that lets you cheat them, rob the system and then claim you are doing it to protect your so called moral values and societal standards.

[Chaos Theory]

The thing that Republicans do much much better then Democrats and you have to stand back and kind of admire it a little is circle their wagons around whoever and whatever leader they happen to spew out no matter how bad even they find him.  Many of the Republicans initially found Trump exceptionally problematic but when he won the Republican ticket almost all of them backed him.  Democrats can't say the same.  There is something to be said for that kind of party politics which the Democratic Party just isn't capable of.  It's why they won so dramatically. Democrats are all infighting even now.  Republicans put it aside so the Party wins out.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/804671373708840960

[ChimmyChai]

Privatization isn't about efficiency, it's about private profit and reducing services.  Private companies have a profit overhead to cover that the government doesn't.  In most areas that difference is too big for just "efficiencies" to bridge.  The only way to cover that gap is to provide less.

I will use the privatization of schools as an example.  In public schools today, the schools are required to provide free lunches to students in poverty and to provide special services to learning-disabled children.  Free lunches are an expense on the schools.  Extra teachers and aides and special accomodations are an extra expense on the schools.

Charter and private schools are not required to provide free lunches.  They are not required to take all students as public schools are.  They do not have those expenses.  So if the state pays a public school $1000 per student and a charter school $1000 per student then the charter school will have much more of a profit because they don't provide all of the services that the public school does.  For those trying to convince the American public that privatization is a good thing they will say that instead of paying $1000 per student, they will pay the charters $900 per student, saving the taxpayers $100.  They don't mention that the expenses at the public school are $1000 and the expenses at the charter are $700 per student so the charter is still making a huge profit.  

Meanwhile, as the charter schools cherry-pick the "cheap" kids from the public schools (those students without learning disabilities for example), that leaves the public schools with a greater percent of "expensive" kids.  Now the public school's expense is $1100 per student.  The lawmakers complain about the public school's budget and point to the charter's $900 cost and change the laws to move more kids to charter (for example, by providing busing services to the charters or just establishing new charter schools).  Charter schools are still cherry-picking so once again the public school is left with the more expensive students and the cost goes up again.  

It is a death spiral that is meant to destroy public education while making the owners of charters and private schools rich.  No one's taxes are going to go down.  They never do.

[Bean421]

9 minutes ago, ChimmyChai said:

Charter and private schools are not required to provide free lunches.  They are not required to take all students as public schools are.  They do not have those expenses.  So if the state pays a public school $1000 per student and a charter school $1000 per student then the charter school will have much more of a profit because they don't provide all of the services that the public school does.  For those trying to convince the American public that privatization is a good thing they will say that instead of paying $1000 per student, they will pay the charters $900 per student, saving the taxpayers $100.  They don't mention that the expenses at the public school are $1000 and the expenses at the charter are $700 per student so the charter is still making a huge profit.  

Meanwhile, as the charter schools cherry-pick the "cheap" kids from the public schools (those students without learning disabilities for example), that leaves the public schools with a greater percent of "expensive" kids.  Now the public school's expense is $1100 per student.  The lawmakers complain about the public school's budget and point to the charter's $900 cost and change the laws to move more kids to charter (for example, by providing busing services to the charters or just establishing new charter schools).  Charter schools are still cherry-picking so once again the public school is left with the more expensive students and the cost goes up again.  

It is a death spiral that is meant to destroy public education while making the owners of charters and private schools rich.  No one's taxes are going to go down.  They never do.

I just called McCain and Flake regarding this very thing. Little Bean has some delays and as I've "shopped" around for kindergartens I've been told by four that they can't accommodate him and he'd be better off in a public school. That's not an issue for us, but the fact that for all the screaming about parents deciding where children are educated that is simply not the case.  If you take public funds you should be held to the same standards and provide the proper services for all students. 

Another piece is that is often touted is this will help children in low-income families. How?  Many of these "excelling schools" aren't located in poorer neighborhoods and don't have before and after school care on site. Just another way to continue segregating schools and leaving our most vulnerable children in a decaying system.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

The GOP's response: I know you are but what am I. Yep, apparently they're going to start calling what they view as more extreme Democrats the “alt-left.”

I saw a particularly awful person on my Facebook feed using that term yesterday and thought yup, that's exactly what they're doing.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

Anywho...as I've said elsewhere, unless the Dems are fine with getting their asses kicked all over the place, they need to take off the gloves, toughen-up & go after these scumbags even where it looks bleak--especially at the state & local level where real governance happens.

Also Dems are hampered by actually trying to talk about real things. It's like this week Trevor Noah had an interview with Tomi Lahren, 

That woman who does all the nasty Facebook rants? And everyone praised how TN spoke with her, exposing a lot of her hypocrisy. But I wasn’t sure what the point of it was, since it’s not like she heard or cared about what he was saying. When she went on a canned rant about how the flag and the national anthem were too important to kneel during, he challenged the idea while also obviously respecting the feelings that some people have for the flag. By contrast, when he asked her about her claims that “BLM was the new KKK” she obviously had no feeling whatsoever for the history of the KKK and the experience of oppression. Even though she was talking to somebody who grew up under Apartheid.

If you’re not actually trying to solve a problem, you can just say anything.

Iow, that lack of empathy helps you “win” arguments when “winning” just means keeping anything from going anywhere.

[callmebetty]

3 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I saw a particularly awful person on my Facebook feed using that term yesterday and thought yup, that's exactly what they're doing.

 

Also Dems are hampered by actually trying to talk about real things. It's like this week Trevor Noah had an interview with Tomi Lahren, 

That woman who does all the nasty Facebook rants? And everyone praised how TN spoke with her, exposing a lot of her hypocrisy. But I wasn’t sure what the point of it was, since it’s not like she heard or cared about what he was saying. When she went on a canned rant about how the flag and the national anthem were too important to kneel during, he challenged the idea while also obviously respecting the feelings that some people have for the flag. By contrast, when he asked her about her claims that “BLM was the new KKK” she obviously had no feeling whatsoever for the history of the KKK and the experience of oppression. Even though she was talking to somebody who grew up under Apartheid.

If you’re not actually trying to solve a problem, you can just say anything.

Iow, that lack of empathy helps you “win” arguments when “winning” just means keeping anything from going anywhere.

I posted the video of the Trevor Noah interview over in the Politics in the Media thread . 

I liked how Trevor kept on her to answer what she thinks the correct way of protesting is. She never did answer kept pivoting ,  but finally got out of her she's never had to protest because she's never been a victim. Fuck you bitch.

[sistermagpie]

19 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

I liked how Trevor kept on her to answer what she thinks the correct way of protesting is. She never did answer kept pivoting ,  but finally got out of her she's never had to protest because she's never been a victim. Fuck you bitch.

I also laughed at her claim that she supported BLM until they took “Hands up, don’t shoot!” as a rallying cry and there were riots. I wanted him to say, “Oh, so you’re actually a supporter of BLM’s goals to end police brutality and discrimination? You just don’t think the riots are good? Because that’s what most supporters of BLM agree with.”

Come on, Tomi, we all know you don’t think they should have a right to protest at all. As you basically admitted on that question about the “right” way to protest.

[izabella]

On 12/1/2016 at 11:03 AM, callmebetty said:

Sorry to  so obsessed with this topic. But why does Paul Ryan have such a hard on about getting rid of Medicare and Social Security ? I assume he has grandparents or parents who benefit from these type of services? I don't think he's a cyborg hatched from a company . He does have family and friends who have older ones benefitting and themselves one day benefit from them, correct ? Or are those people wealthy too so they don't need any of those things? I'm  really curious what in your life screws you up that you think Medicare and social security are evil? 

Greed and power.  Ryan is a player and wants to make his mark and be President when he grows up.  And the best way to do that is to serve corporate interests - insurance companies, investors, Wall St.  Privatizing Medicare and SS would be a huge boon to those interests - private citizens won't have the enormous bargaining power of the government keeping the lid on premiums and forcing them to provide some level of coverage, so these companies can charge whatever, raise premiums as they see fit according to their profit margins, drop people because they use too much medical care (anyone ever had a car insurance company drop them or raise rates after accidents?  yeah, welcome to the new world order in health care), stop serving markets where there are poor sick people, etc.  Plus, they would get all that government money (vouchers) to invest so they can make more money for themselves and for Wall St. investors.

That's how Ryan is planning his political career - serving corporate interests.  And he's going to have a great shot at it because the only people who care to think about this stuff are the ones who will profit most, and they have the most money to lobby for it, advertise for it, and pull the wool over everyone's eyes so they chant "Lock Her Up!" while supporting policies that will destroy their health care options now and for their future retirement.  It's short attention span theater with Trump supporters, and magic tricks and sleight of hand, and they lap it UP, lock her UP!

[ChimmyChai]

Interesting (or perhaps the better word is horrifying) story in Mother Jones on how school vouchers are destroying public education in Indiana.

 

Quote

A study by researchers at Notre Dame University published last year shows that in the first three years of the program, Indiana kids who left public schools to attend voucher schools saw their math scores decline in comparison with their peers who remained in regular public schools. The public school students saw improvements in their English skills, but the voucher kids' results stayed flat. The voucher schools can't necessarily blame low test scores on poverty, either. According to data from the state, today more than 60 percent of the voucher students in Indiana are white, and more than half of them have never even attended any public school, much less a failing one. Some of the fastest growth in voucher use has occurred in some of the state's most affluent suburbs. The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a Chicago-based think tank, recently concluded that because white children's participation in the voucher program dwarfed the next largest racial group by 44 points, the vouchers were effectively helping to resegregate public schools.

Mike Pence's Voucher Program in Indiana Was a Windfall for Religious Schools

[Padma]

I don't know about charter schools, but private schools--even the most expensive ones--often don't hire credentialed teachers or provide benefits for them.

[Hanahope]

Its scary that private and charter schools don't have to teach to certain standards, even if they get public funds via vouchers.  Generations of kids growing up with significant deficits in their education.  Again, brought to you by the party that thinks education is wrong and loves its uneducated masses who vote for sound bites and tweets.

[izabella]

7 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Its scary that private and charter schools don't have to teach to certain standards, even if they get public funds via vouchers.  Generations of kids growing up with significant deficits in their education.  Again, brought to you by the party that thinks education is wrong and loves its uneducated masses who vote for sound bites and tweets.

That is exactly what we will be saying about the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid in a few years if they privatize it..."It's scary that Trump-Ryancare health insurance providers don't have to provide coverage to certain levels to all people, even if they get public funds via vouchers.  Generations of Americans will end up with significant deficits in their coverage.  Again, brought to you by the party that thinks available and affordable health care is wrong and loves its uneducated masses who vote for sound bites and tweets."

[callmebetty]

I want to be the hemorrhoid in Paul Ryan's ass.  I want to follow him around and perpetually ask him why about privatizing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  I want to be every annoying child who has ever kicked the back of someone's seat, ran unencumbered through a coffee shop shouting and breaking things.  I want to be his personal hell on earth.

I need to know besides wanting to be President besides wanting all the power and wealth he can accumulate, why he needs to do it off the back of people who can least afford it?  Who have given for this country, fought for this country, have worked hard, paid their taxes, towed the line and just want to live, not paycheck to paycheck but to have some left over so that sleeping at night can be peaceful.  Who deserve to be able to rely on a government system that they trusted to not use them as their own personal ATM.  Maybe they weren't born wealthy, but perhaps they were fiscally responsible.

I need to know why.  Answers that's all I want.  Is it really all about the money?

Edited December 2, 2016 by callmebetty

[navelgazer]

The Republicans are scrambling now, trying any legal justification, no matter how flimsy, to try to put a stop to Jill Stein's recount efforts in those three Rust Belt states, PA, MI, WI.  Unfortunately for the GOP, they don't have a partisan Supreme Court to put an illegal stop these gosh-darn stupid recounts for them this time.  

[KIMBERLYANN11]

On 12/3/2016 at 8:54 AM, navelgazer said:

The Republicans are scrambling now, trying any legal justification, no matter how flimsy, to try to put a stop to Jill Stein's recount efforts in those three Rust Belt states, PA, MI, WI.  Unfortunately for the GOP, they don't have a partisan Supreme Court to put an illegal stop these gosh-darn stupid recounts for them this time.  

Just some info about our Michigan attorney general - Bill Schuette (and Michigan politics in general). He is a rabid republican from a rabid republican part of the state.  We call it the Michigan bible belt.  Betsy Devos is from the same area.  Schuette went to the same university as my daughter, much to DDs horror. 

One of the cases leading up to the Obergefell supreme court ruling, Deboer v Snyder, was fought tooth and nail by Schuette.  Our governor, Rick Snyder, is a hands-off businessman.  He doesn't seem to have any animosity to the gay community, but chooses to toe the party line and let Schuette do his thing.  That's one problem with having a businessman run government - the delegation.  Anyways .. Schuette's reasoning was that it was the will of the people as the people voted down a gay marriage proposal.  Keep in mind that this was ten years prior and would have certainly passed at the time of the lawsuit.  On the other hand - he has some kind of a hate-on for medical marijuana and fights like hell to eliminate it - although it was voted in by the voters.  This makes him a huge hypocrite.  I'm not saying he had anything to do with voter fraud - but if it was found that he did, it wouldn't be a huge shock.

I heard on the news today that some insane number of votes came through where people voted straight democrat all the way down but left the president blank.  That seems weird as hell to me - I mean, who does that? I have to admit to not remembering the number and being to lazy to find it, but it was  more than just a few thousand.  

If it were found that Michigan actually voted for Clinton, it would restore my faith in where I live.  But it's a possiblity that the Trump vote is genuine.  The state voted for Trump in the primary.  We have a huge number of Bernie supporters (I was a Bernie supporter but voted Clinton because I have some common sense).  The red county where I work is known for its racism - as is another county west of me with a strong klan presence.  Where my mom lives, they closed an air base in 1993 and the community never recovered.  That's Obama's fault somehow.  Then there's the Michigan bible belt to contend with.  And oh yeah. guns.  In my opinion, they won't find enough to change the state over, but I think it's important to at least look and it does make me wonder why Schuette doth protest so much.

 We also have state loudmouth Ronna "dumb ass" Romney, head of the state republican party - running her mouth like usual.  Just a bit of trivia - she is the niece (I think) to Mitt.  She is also so rabid  about the recount that I wonder if she has something to hide as well.  

[AntiBeeSpray]

^ You nailed it. Synder is a pathetic joke, I still remember the recalls via a friend telling me about them. The guy is a cockroach. And Schuette, is just as bad or worse, from what they've told me.

As for the people who didn't vote for president, I thought it was more third parties and some Republicans who did it. If Dems did that, damn. I understand not really liking Hillary (I'm not one who's really that fond of her -- I think she's bought and paid for), but the alternative is SO much more of a risky proposition. You guys (no matter what the party affiliation), helped to bring this situation on.

[sistermagpie]

27 minutes ago, KIMBERLYANN11 said:

I heard on the news today that some insane number of votes came through where people voted straight democrat all the way down but left the president blank.  That seems weird as hell to me - I mean, who does that? I have to admit to not remembering the number and being to lazy to find it, but it was  more than just a few thousand.  

According to Michael Moore these were people who felt the Democrats had abandoned them and so couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary even if they also would never vote Trump.

[KIMBERLYANN11]

7 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

According to Michael Moore these were people who felt the Democrats had abandoned them and so couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary even if they also would never vote Trump.

Michael Moore has my respect.  The man certainly gets out of his little echo chamber - unlike me.   In all fairness to myself, I only stay in my chamber to keep from having a stroke.  I'll have to do some googling to find his explanation of what exactly these people wanted from the democratic party that they didn't get.

The number I found earlier is 75,000.  That seems crazy to me.

[ByTor]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:25 PM, mythoughtis said:

As I have gotten older( younger female baby boomer only in late 50s), I've actually moved left of center as it pertains to people's personal lives.  The only thing I seem to have in common with the GOP these days is fiscal conservatism, and the desire for a smaller government. Oddly, I think that should mean stay out of my bedroom and medical decisions as well as my wallet.  The Tea Party and the religious right have chased me out of my own party.  I think I'm not the only one. They have got to quit trying to run everyone's personal lives to their own values, or their only supporters will be hate filled judgemental people.  I don't agree with the Democrats  on monetary matters or immigration( the law is the law). So I have no party. 

The Patriot Act is what made me leave, but I do have a party, I'm a Libertarian.

[navelgazer]

Go get 'em, Senator Graham!  

Quote

 

Lindsey Graham, Democrats plan probes of Russia hacking

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/lindsey-graham-democrats-investigations-russia-hacking/index.html

Washington (CNN)Lawmakers in Congress intensified their calls Wednesday for a probe into hacking during the 2016 election, raising chances of a clash with President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump continues to reject the US intelligence community's conclusion that Moscow is to blame, telling Time Magazine that he does not believe the intelligence community's assessment that Russia was behind the hacks. 

House Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday that would convene a bipartisan, independent commission to look into alleged Russian attempts to interfere and sow distrust in this year's voting. 

[more a link]

 

I saw the senator on Trevor's show not long ago.  He was delightful -- funny and self-deprecating.  Trevor brought in a pool table so they could play. The senator grew up living over a pool hall, so he's a pool shark.  I was a little shocked at my liking him.  In general GOPers make me rage-blind.

Edited December 8, 2016 by navelgazer

[AntiBeeSpray]

10 minutes ago, navelgazer said:

Go get 'em, Senator Graham!  

I saw the senator on Trevor's show not long ago.  He was delightful -- funny and self-deprecating.  Trevor brought in a pool table so they could play. The senator grew up living under a pool hall, so he's a pool shark.  I was a little shocked at my liking him.  In general GOPers make me rage-blind.

I don't agree with him for the most part. But I give him and the others credit, Dems included, for doing this. Keep the pressure on.

[sistermagpie]

10 minutes ago, navelgazer said:

Trump continues to reject the US intelligence community's conclusion that Moscow is to blame, telling Time Magazine that he does not believe the intelligence community's assessment that Russia was behind the hacks. 

Just thought it was important to pull this part out to remind us that the candidate who's going to "make America safe again" is doing it by ignoring actual intelligence if he doesn't like it. Remember, all he knows is what he reads on the internet.

[Padma]

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 7:54 AM, sistermagpie said:

According to Michael Moore these were people who felt the Democrats had abandoned them and so couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary even if they also would never vote Trump.

Michael Moore is really just guessing on that. I know he feels he's a spokesman for Michigan's working class, but he really doesn't know whether votes were miscounted there that should have gone to Hillary or not.  I have mixed feelings about him normally--some really positive, some very negative--but he doesn't know any more about the real vote count than the rest of us (so far) do.

I wish he'd direct more public attention to the "corrected" votes -- 5000 in Wisc., 22,000 in Penn--that were taken from Trump (and not given to anyone else)-- just before the counting began. Then there are all those weird pried open ballot boxes (and Michigan's got a bunch resealed -- and invalidated -- with duct tape.)  Shady dealings are more important to me right now than speculation of how Hillary "lost" the white working class. (Plus Duke Silver posted the info on another thread here showing that a MAJORITY of white working class voting on economics and foreign policy concerns chose Hillary over Tubby.

Anyway, as usual with our "surprise wins" for Republicans, we don't really know what happened with the battleground votes (esp. Mich, PA, Wisc., Florida and NC)..

[DollEyes]

On 12/1/2016 at 10:21 PM, Menrva said:

I made this a while back, before the election. I think this should be the official portrait of Hair Gropenfuhrer.

 

That's an insult-to shit. 

[Duke Silver]

 

Recall that Betsy DeVos is Trump's pick for Sec Ed; Thiel is a (IMO) weasel'ish member of Facebook Bd of Directors who finances lawsuits against media outlets.

Thiel-Backed PAC May Have Made Illegal Payments to Bannon Company

[slf]

So the Republicans killed a bipartisan effort to combat Russian interference before the election, especially Mitch McConnell. And now McConnell's wife is going to be in Trump's cabinet?

[Duke Silver]

6 minutes ago, slf said:

So the Republicans killed a bipartisan effort to combat Russian interference before the election, especially Mitch McConnell. And now McConnell's wife is going to be in Trump's cabinet?

I posted the WAPO story in the OK What's Next subforum...

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/807745401604472832

[izabella]

Have any Republicans in Congress stepped up and expressed a desire to get to the bottom of this Russian hacking scandal besides Lindsey Graham, Ron Paul, and John McCain? 

Is that it? 

[slf]

6 hours ago, izabella said:

Have any Republicans in Congress stepped up and expressed a desire to get to the bottom of this Russian hacking scandal besides Lindsey Graham, Ron Paul, and John McCain? 

Is that it? 

Devin Nunes and Richard Burr. I'm pretty sure that's it for Congressional Republicans.

Republicans Karl Rove, Mike Rogers, and Will Hurd have also acknowledged it's Russia.

Edited December 12, 2016 by slf

[AntiBeeSpray]

Oh boy. Republicans have just passed a bill to change US broadcasting.

Source: washingtonpost.com

This is not good. I hope the Dems stand up to it, big time.

Not thrilled that the Obama administration supported this.

Quote

The Obama administration — perhaps anticipating a Hillary Clinton presidency — supported these changes. Now its outgoing public-diplomacy officials will have to hope that Mr. Drumpf chooses an executive committed to the U.S. broadcasting tradition of independent and reputable journalism rather than a political loyalist or alt-right ideologue. Either way, there is likely to be an exodus of seasoned professionals from the surrogate broadcasters as well as VOA — meaning that U.S. international broadcasting, whatever its current deficiencies, is likely to get worse.

This can be used in a bad way. In spite of whatever good the other administration thought it could be used for.

[theredhead77]

Go home Oklahoma, you are seriously drunk. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-may-require-anti-abortion-signs-in-public-restrooms_us_584fed85e4b0bd9c3dfe9dec

[Duke Silver]

FFS, Republicans.  Trump has gotten an entire party to view an enemy as a potential friend:

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/809067195082883076

[Duke Silver]

Suuuuure...Trump can get GOP'ers to utterly reverse course when it comes to an enemy, but his attitudes about race/misogyny have no negative impact:

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/809069737879674888

[AntiBeeSpray]

Um... I have no words. Guess the term 'there's a sucker born every minute' would apply here.

 

15 hours ago, theredhead77 said:

Go home Oklahoma, you are seriously drunk. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-may-require-anti-abortion-signs-in-public-restrooms_us_584fed85e4b0bd9c3dfe9dec

Word. Who the heck do they think they are? F them. Whether a woman had an abortion or not is none of their business.

[theredhead77]

I was looking for a new avatar and came across this old image. Sigh.

 

 

[Duke Silver]

I found this to be an interesting read.

 

Quote

Right-wing economic thinkers from Richard Weaver and Barry Goldwater on have feared the ability of democracy to empower majorities to redistribute resources from the few to the many. That fear is also the heart of Ayn Rand’s political philosophy. Hatred of redistribution is not the entirety of Rand’s philosophy, which is wide-ranging, totalistic, and cultlike. And a completely purist interpretation of Randism would reject rather than embrace a figure like Trump, who has always used government power to enrich himself. But the element of Randism that has translated into practical politics is a generalized worship of the rich as the drivers of prosperity (which is why Republicans call rich people “job creators”) and a primal suspicion of redistribution of market outcomes.

[Duke Silver]

I've posted about Rohrabacher a couple times.  His Russia/Putin fetish is bizarre; again, he's a former Reagan speech-writer.

[roamyn]

The outgoing Republican Governor & Republican legislature of NC should be ashamed of themselves. They passed two bills limiting the incoming Democratic governor power. They claim that they want power to be balanced.

If they limit his power then how can it be balanced it will lean almost exclusively Republican. The main reason is the new governor wants to repeal HB2.

This is why I want to leave the Republican Party.

[onthebrink03]

41 minutes ago, roamyn said:

The outgoing Republican Governor & Republican legislature of NC should be ashamed of themselves. They passed two bills limiting the incoming Democratic governor power. They claim that they want power to be balanced.

If they limit his power then how can it be balanced it will lean almost exclusively Republican. The main reason is the new governor wants to repeal HB2.

This is why I want to leave the Republican Party.

How come the power didn't need to be balanced when McCory was working overtime on destroying the state?  And how come the fact that the majority of the NC voters wanted a change, and voted for a Democrat, doesn't come into play when these cretins are dismantling all that democracy stands for?  All of this should be illegal and I hope the courts can overturn each and every one of these disgusting bills limiting the power of the person the voters of the state elected.  

Roamyn, you won't be leaving the Republican Party.  It already left you years ago when they relinquished their doctrine to that of the Tea Party, the Evangelicals and the Radical Christians.  

Edited December 17, 2016 by onthebrink03