Slashdot Mirror

How about specifically one of the things Trudeau talked about, Cuba's medical system. They have an amazing medical system that's ranked in the same ball park as the US but yet they spend a tiny fraction of what we spend ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). What we could do with that with first world funding would be amazing.

Let's assume that were true. Look at the health expenditure per capita graph. Notice how US per capita public spending is the same as, or higher than, all other OECD countries except Norway? What that means is that the US government has the money to institute, not just a Cuban-style, but a Canadian/UK/...-style single payer system any day they want to, simply by reforming Medicare/Medicaid and extending it to everybody.

The problem with US public health care is exceptionally poor management and a powerful medical lobby, both of which make it extremely inefficient. Extending the broken US single-payer system to the entire nation would cause medical costs to skyrocket and services to get much worse. Sander's plan he simply says "let's raise taxes on the rich"; in fact, there is nothing in his plan that addresses the core of the problem, namely the gross inefficiencies in Medicare relative to other single payer systems. All Sanders' plan is is a big handout to pharmaceutical companies and medical providers.

It's questionable whether Cuba really is as good as official statistics say, and, in any case, Cuba spends about as much per capita as South Korea now, so it's not all that cheap anymore. But even if it were true, it is wrong to attribute longer life expectancy or lower child mortality to a better medical system: authoritarian governments can do a lot to extend life expectancy, like telling people what to eat, what hobbies to engage in, aborting at-risk fetuses, mandating exercise, etc. Heck, Cuba dealt with the AIDS crisis first by locking up HIV-positive patients, then by forcing them into annual eight-week re-education camps. So, yeah, authoritarian shitholes can make people healthy and live longer, and because they need workers, they do just that; believe me, based on first-hand experience with real socialism: you don't want to live like that. That's also what makes Trudeau's comment so offensive to people who actually know real socialism.

Was to make himself a liar...

Obama promised that he "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

One of President Obama's major campaign planks was making government more open and accountable. It's a reaction to a habit in Congress of rushing bills through the House and Senate without giving people much opportunity to know what the bills would do. Indeed, sometimes members of Congress don't even know what's in the bills.

So Obama pledged during the campaign to institute "sunlight before signing."

"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them," Obama's campaign Web site states . "As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days."

But the first bill Obama signed into law as president — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — got no such vetting.

In fact, the Congressional Record shows that the law was passed in the Senate on Jan. 22, 2009, passed in the House on Jan. 27, and signed by the president on Jan. 29. So only two days passed between the bill's final passage and the signing.

The legislation was not posted to the White House Web site for comment in any way that we could find.

We see no way the bill could be deemed emergency legislation, even taking the broadest view. The bill overturns the effects of a Supreme Court decision that limited when workers could sue for pay discrimination. Most pertinently, the bill is retroactive to the time of the court decision — May 28, 2007. Obama earned a Promise Kept from us for signing the law. But it would have the same effect if had been signed a few days later, so it's clearly not an emergency.

We asked the White House about this and if they planned to begin posting laws to the Web site for comment soon, but we got no response.

Obama signed the measure at 10:20 a.m. About two hours later, the White House posted the bill on its Web site with a link that asks people to submit comments . But the bill was already signed at that point.

We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can't see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise. But there it is — his first one. Promise Broken.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Even the left-leaning "fact-checkers" marked him with multiple lies, even at least one "Lie of the Year"

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

LOL, thanks for the laugh. I will be sure to remember the "most transparent administration" as honest. Meanwhile in the real world;

http://www.politifact.com/pers...

That was just the first link from google. Good god you are sheltered.

Trump, meanwhile, has shown zero inclination to any sort of compromises from an absolute hard line position, either on the campaign trail or now that he's in office.

That's bullshit, because he's been all over the map on many issues. Just take immigration as one example. He softened his stance to support "dreamers". He went from an all-out ban on Muslim immigration to a narrow ban based on a list from Obama's administration.

Look at health care. He's not holding to his campaign promises (which were impossible, because he wanted it all without any way to pay for it), and he doesn't really seem to give a shit about the particulars of the Republican plan, as long as something gets passed and he can claim victory on getting rid of Obamacare.

Look at the most recent budget that was passed. By all accounts, Trump got hardly anything of his "hard line" positions that he campaigned on.

That said, she did give press conferences - far moreso than Trump

What the fuck? It was a national story that Hillary was not doing press conferences.

In the U.S., he actually bet against the female candidate.

Not at all! Once again, Illiberals fail to recognize their own. To wit, Hilllary Clinton:

• Offered Russia a "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars of investments — and technology transfers — into Russia's high tech
• Forgave Putin's aggression against Georgia — and lifted all sanctions imposed for same — thus practically inviting Putin to repeat the same thing in Ukraine, as predicted
• Made vast amounts of proprietary Department of State information available to foreign intelligence agencies

Of course, Putin would've loved for her to retain — and elevate — her stature...

Yes, we know But, you know, there's someplace between "California" and "Papua New Guinea" that still works well and isn't taxed to death.

Well, California works quite well, so they're not taxed to death, sorry for breaking the news to you.

San Francisco's city budget is about the size of Tennessee's state budget. At what point do we realize that something just isn't right about this?

Hmm, now?

I mean, 9 billion versus 37 billion. That's only off by 4. And not even comparable, since the budget of the state of Tennessee isn't covering the same things that San Francisco's city budget is. A lot of what San Francisco the city does is also done at the city and county level in Tennessee.

So bad enough you totally bullshitted on the numbers, you're bullshitting on the funding principles.

We have roads, sewer, a police force, schools, etc. They're paid for with a state sales tax that's 9.25%, about what CA pays. But we don't have a state income tax. We realize that we don't need it.

Much of the expenditures for police in Tennessee is paid for with property taxes. As are schools but well, courts are hearing if it's underfunded.. And the state just passed an increase in its gas tax to pay for roads.

I'm sorry you don't know how things work, but that you don't know is quite detrimental to your own ability to communicate your ideas.

CA's tax structure is maniacal, and the wealthy people who set this up have no idea how badly they're screwing the middle and lower classes.

Yet you have demonstrated no knowledge about your OWN state's funding or taxes, let alone another one's.

If you're leaving a state that has high unemployment and a ridiculously high cost of living, amd high taxes, going to a state with low costs, high pay, amd low taxes, recognize that those conditions were created by policies.

Well, turns outs out California is doing great. Unemployment is only 4.9%, lower than Texas at 5%. What a huge difference!

Of course, Texas has a history of poverty and failing schools as well as a dangerous obsession with bathroom inspections.

Even Texas's own governor admits that the state has a problem when it comes to transportation and congestion. And in fact, the California High-Speed Rail project is not light rail, but like the Houston-Dallas link a inter-city connection.

Furthermore, no, Trumpcare does not grant states more freedom. Of course, it turns out, somebody who voted for it admitted they didn't read it.

Maybe that's your problem? You didn't read it, so you couldn't find out what was in it?

80% of the cases the Supreme Court hears out of the 9th circuit are overturned. That should make you wonder about all the cases the Supreme Court cannot hear.

Oh Sean Hannity your lies are obvious.

Let's see, the Supreme Court probably heard somewhere around a dozen cases from the ninth circuit last year, so what, less than 1% of their cases?

Yet you choose to go with the 80% number. Hmm. I would wonder why, but it is obvious. Distortion and mistruth.

You mean lowered.

Trump didn't receive a pile of cash. He received a stake in his father's business that was worth 40 million dollars.
In 8 years, his net worth ballooned to 200 million dollars.

If he had liquidated all of those assets and invested that money in the correct mutual fund at the end of 1982, it would be worth about 9 billion dollars today.

If he liquidated the 40 million dollars in assets he received from his father in 1974 and invested that in a fund that followed the S&P, he'd have about 4 billion dollars today, which is in line with what Bloomberg and Forbes estimate his net worth to be.

Most importantly, Politifact rates your claim as false.

Apparently you don't know what the fuck you're talking about since that's not remotely close to being true.

Please educate yourself. You're embarrassing all the other asshats on Slashdot.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html

Uh, yeah. You're the embarrassment who needs to educate yourself. The executive order is based on a law passed in 2015 and signed by Obama - and the seven countries are listed there. Even the loons at Politifact know this:

http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

You mean the uranium deal regarding Russia’s nuclear power agency when it bought a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company? Which owns mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium)? When Clinton was secretary of state, but didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal and the State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it? That uranium "scandal"?

I tried to look up "Clinton campaign contributions". But mostly got Breitbart and FoxNews.....oh! and the ever accurate "shadowproof.com"

Of course Trump doesn't have annnny connections to Russia except "ornate gold" - I think in particular he FBI, NSA, CIA and both House and Senate Intelligence committees are investigating this love, in fact. Nothing at all there....probably

If the GOP was dumb enough to try a coup d'etat by Constitution, they would find out that they don't run as much as they think. There is a reason why they lost the popular vote.

GOP won (by popular vote) 3/4th of state governerships.

Nope. Governorships are not allocated proportionally. Check out the raw numbers, you'll find it is a lot lower.

GOP won (by popular vote) 3/4ths of state legislatures.

Again, nope. Check out the raw numbers, it's heavily warped gerrymandering and voter discrimination. You'll have to do some work, but try the ones that have lost in court. Like North Carolina. Who also tried such a coup d'etat as already mentioned. It failed. Badly.

GOP won (by popular vote) the majority in the Congress.

Nope!

63,173,815 61,776,554 in 2016.
40,081,282 35,624,357 in 2014.
58,228,253 59,645,531 in 2012
44,827,441 38,980,192 in 2010
52,249,491 65,237,840 in 2008

Notice a pattern to it? Not quite what you think. They're still behind 2 million from 8 years ago.

GOP won (by popular vote) the majority in Senate.

Oh, you don't know how the Senate works do you? The Math works out in favor of the Democrats. By 23 million.

GOP won (via the electoral college) the Presidency.

Yes, exactly, relying on the electoral college shows where the GOP is failing.

Every election Democrats lost in 2016 except the Presidential election, was lost in a popular vote.

Oh my, you want to play that card? Turns out, that actually, when you look at the history, you're wrong. Check out the effects of gerrymandering.

Add in the illegal voter discrimination, the unlawful districts in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, and Florida, and the loss in their Arizona lawsuit, and it's not looking good for the GOP.

Yeah, I know you don't want to admit it, but the GOP can't afford a coup d'etat. They aren't winning. They don't have a wide swell of popular support. Frankly, they're lucky they didn't lose the popular vote for the House this time, if that had happened, they'd have really looked bad, the disproportionate representation is bad enough, but not quite

Your last presidential candidate even went so far as to say that Australia-style gun confiscation is "worth considering".

If you're a Democrat, you'd be smart to tell your party to drop gun control from the platform.

Yeah, except that she didn't. As a gun-owning Libertarian, the only thing I find more frustrating than everyone's willingness to spread and consume misinformation is how much everyone seems to have missed the whole point about gun ownership. If you're a Republican OR a Democrat, you'd be smart to remember that the 2nd amendment isn't about letting you have guns just because you like them. The 2nd amendment is about giving you have the ability...the responsibility actually...to defend the Constitution against tyranny. All of it. Even the parts of it you don't always care for. Liberals aren't coming for your guns. An no, owning a gun isn't a sign of mental illness. But paranoia sure is.

rhode island rates for 2015.

http://www.politifact.com/rhod...

ignore the misleading stuff of 20 bucks an hour, that's at its maximum for a single mother with 2 children. wellfare can provide the equivalent of that.

"looking only at the welfare, food stamp and Medicaid programs that, they said, nearly all poor people would be eligible for. Cato found that the value of just those benefits was equivalent to being paid $17,347 a year, or $8.34 an hour."

which apparently is like 66 cents less than full time minimum wage. which begs the question, why get a job when they're paying you for existing?

the welfare state is your answer.

> United Kingdom: 110 (worth noting the UK is the highest in violent crime among western nations) The UK's definition of "violent crime" is MUCH broader than in the US, including such things as shouting at a police horse. I suspect many of the figures for other countries are similarly dependent on local definitions of what constitutes a crime. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.

https://aclj.org/supreme-court... [aclj.org]

i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion

http://www.economist.com/blogs... [economist.com]

I'd think you'd worry a bit more about Congressional malfeasance.

Of course, the fact is, all that President Obama had to do was this:

"he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,"

No effort by Congress to consider his nominee? Ok, he could force the Senate to meet. Bring a list of names. Eventually they'd do their job. And it'd be ENTIRELY Constitutional.

i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws.

If you read the Constitution, the President has obligations with regards to the laws:

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If a law were passed that violated the aforementioned, the President would have the OBLIGATION to ignore and deny them.

vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.

Obama, as even DONALD TRUMP admitted, deported 2.5 million people. What exactly did Obama do wrong? You can't even say it isn't constitutional for the President to grant such reprieves.

i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers.

You won't get that with Gorsuch. He'll just claim that to justify his abuses. Just like a certain Chief Justice Taney.

There is nothing more dangerous than a man who can't stand on his principals, but will gladly wrap himself in the cloak of others to defend his iniquities.

i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that...

Which is why you're wrong. See Kentucky:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Pennsylvania:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienabl

But Obama tried to shove it under the carpet to meet a self-imposed deadline, instead of truly cleaning up the mess.

Obama had no such self-imposed deadline, the withdrawal of troops was a result of an agreement with the Iraqi government made during Bush's presidency.

You are falsely blaming Obama for a campaign promise(one that was entirely what the American people wanted, BTW) that was nonetheless tempered enough that he could have accommodated such action as you purport was necessary, while completely ignoring the fact that the decision for a specific date had been made prior to his election. Furthermore, you are not even noting the most important point. The Iraqi government and people WANTED the US to leave. No remaining troops. No agreement. Yankees go home. That's what they wanted. What are you going to do, suggest that Obama not only ignore what the American people want, but violate the sovereignty of another government that didn't elect him as well?

And there was no agreement to leave more that Obama could have signed, despite Bush's lies to the contrary.

Sorry, but Bush did more than drop the cake. He blamed Obama for his own mess. By lying.

The most you can say is that Obama wasn't persuasive enough to get everybody to agree to some other than what was done. Oh my, that's not a mistake, that's not an error, that's just not being able to enlighten everyone.

Unless, of course, you do support seizing power in Iraq just to keep the peace by use of an iron heel. In which case, sir, I respect your honesty, but reject your tyranny.

I have to chime in to support Roca on this point about schools and charity.

For many decades, the only viable choice for education for many poor, minority, inner city kids has been the private Catholic schools. The Catholic church pours millions of dollars into scholarships in each inner city in the country.

As for "starving the funding" of inner city schools, even adjusting for inflation, funding of public schools has only gone up. Here, there's a chart for that. Or if you prefer politics with your facts, here's a left-leaning takedown of Republican claims that education spending is up astronomically and the results are flat. They rate it "mostly true". No honest broker could claim that any public schools are starved of funding. (Or that evil Republicans or conservatives are running any inner city schools or setting their funding levels.)

However, the cost of administering public schools has gone up exponentially over the same period. A problem that things like charter, magnet and religious schools seek to address. Christians and conservatives (and big, greedy corporations) have put their money where their mouth is on this topic, funding "school choice" voucher programs in inner cities around the country (most notably in Milwaukee) as a demonstration of their commitment to educational excellence for all and as pilot programs to demonstrate a better way of running public education. The left have predictably opposed these moves. (Obama notably killed off Washington DC's voucher program as one of his first acts, relegating thousands of minority students who were doing well to failing schools)

As for Christian charities, well... c'mon. You can't seriously suggest that Christians don't do charity. Just look around the city you live in. What are the hospital names? Baptist Hospital... Methodist Hospital, St. Jude's Hospital, St. Anthony's Hospital.... in fact, the healthcare system in America was largely founded by Christian charitable organizations. And those homeless programs? Mostly Christians. Ever been to a soup kitchen? They are usually in church basements.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to deny the reality all around you. Guidestar maintains a directory of all US charitable organizations, searchable by category. They have 84k christian charities. 48k secular charities. There are thousands for other religions as well. Religious people do charity. That's kinda their thing. In fact, many (if not most) of those secular charities are founded by religious people. The Red Cross is theoretically non-religious. Yet it was founded by people who were Christians, and is now expanded with lots of Muslims as well. The United Way was founded by a group of ministers and a rabbi. Like I said, religious people do charity.

My mother was involved in Meals on Wheels for decades. Her Methodist church was the primary source of funding and volunteers for the program in her county. This silly partisan attempt to make state block grants all about Meals on Wheels is stupid.

My wife had several hundred hours volunteered at our local public school last year. Plus time put in as an officer of the PTA. Plus thousands of dollars spent on supporting the schools. I put in quite a few hours as well. And we both find time to volunteer at our church every week.

So yeah. Christians do put their money where their mouth is. And their time. Whether it is in education or other charitable works.

I'm going to put this anonymous, because I don't like to attach politics to my handle. Besides, being passionately in favor of individual rights and opposed to killing people around the world, my personal politics are decidedly at odds with both major political parties, so getting in political arguments is off-putting for everyone who attaches their self-worth to either team red or team blue.

Right now, the legal limit is 'birth',

Nope. Even historically, it was first breath, not birth. But even now, it is a matter of differing laws, with some, like Kansas, trying to go for fertilization.

Yes, we can do better, and I (and many like me) am working on it. However, I have a completely sincere question: The elected officials who say dumb things and the protesters who clearly haven't done a lick of critical thinking get a whole lot of airtime, for free, and it echoes far and long. What should those who are trying to address the matter in the right way supposed to do?

Here's a way you can do it: Disavow some of your crazies, there are more than a few of them around, including the submitter. Instead of ignoring, confront them and dissuade them from their madness. They're not hard to find, here in this thread, and you can make a good start by standing against them.

That's a suggestion for you. Even these "activists" would be a good target. Denounce them. Condemn them as enemies to your movement. Because they are, same as Trump lying about abortions in the debate, or Fiorina making up a story about seeing an abortion video, or Eric Harris committing an act of terrorism.

You lose the moral high ground with every lie, every deceit, and every act of violence.

And do look at the abuses at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They're as bad as the Catholic ones in Ireland.

Why do you think they call them red states?

Of course first generation immigrants in the US (both illegal and legal) are significantly less likely to commit crimes (outside of illegal immigration in the case of illegal immigrants obviously) than native born citizens.

To site just a few, easy to find, sources...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Not that I think such a pesky thing as reality will change your mind as "racial purity" is a system of belief that inherently doesnt allow foriegn views.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Use google much? Yeah its a broken promise, but gitmo had 242 prisoners in it when he took office - congress did everything they could to block the closure of that base. Trump then made promises to keep it open - so we don't have icky terrorists living on US soil.

Its shocking too it costs 11 million dollars per inmate - but they don't care.

The overhead of charities ranges from 15% to as much as 70% — with government's operations being on the greater side of it [theadvocates.org].

Ah, and how lucrative is it to misrepresent information?

See, you, like a certain well-known fact-deficient congressional representative, are misconstruing information. You're confusing "Not paying the poor directly" with "overhead and bureaucracies" as it were. Well, that site is, but you are citing them, so you bear the burden of their mistakes.

That's right, your assertions are based on shoddy premises, instead of comprehensive understanding. So the question is, are you a smooth-talking nincompoop, who is sincerely defending your own dogmatic denunciation of your opponents as greedy and egotistical bastards, or do you realize now, that you've been informed of the misapprehensions of your own source, that you don't have the facts you think are behind you?

Reminds me of an editorial I saw in the paper, railing against other people misusing statistics. Then ended up with a statistical misrepresentation of its own, namely claiming a 125% increase, by adding two years of 12% and 13% increases...an obvious error, but beyond that, they only gave the percentages, rather than the actual increases. Very shoddy and hypocritical of them.

Well.. While we are making stupid claims... How about Obama's trips to the Med, where he and his wife took separate aircraft and a boat load of friends?

You mean the ones where Michelle Bachmann claimed it was 200 million a day? They're lying crap, that's what.

See, that's the issue, you start lying, you keep on lying, and nobody believes you.

But Trump's excursions are all too real. And far too expensive. And way too hypocritical from a guy who claimed to do the exact opposite.

And what makes you think protecting the president in FL is all that much more expensive than having him at the White House? It's not like they don't have SS staff in both places at this point...

There's all sorts of expenses, including the law enforcement in FL. And the NYPD for that matter, for Melania. It's quite a burden.

Why can't he go back to looking for a birth certificate he can't find?

Haters gota hate I guess....

You're the one carrying water for a liar and a fraud. How do you live with yourself?

I'm really tired of seeing this same racist/misogynist bullshit repeated time and time again.

Oh you are? When have you opposed it? Ever?

Even Obama and Clinton were calling for securing the borders previously, including fence/wall building. It's on youtube if you don't believe me.

Trump actually claims they wanted open borders. It's right there.

More to the point, none of them claimed there was a need for a Wall as vast as Trump's, let alone that Mexico would pay for it.

Obama also put a hold on people entering from the same countries that Trump is trying to temporarily ban.

Obama did not put a hold on people entering with actual visas and permits already, but held up further processing of refugee visas.

Your reply is all echo-chamber.

Ironic.

If the sore losers somehow manage to knock Trump out of power before the next Presidential election, prepare for all hell to break loose. That will be a call to arms that I believe will lead to the end of the United States.

You still believe in Jade Helm and Fema Camps, don't you?

We're already heading that direction with the judicial branch shitting all over the executive branch.

You mean actual judges recognizing the hysteria caused by Trump's Mill-considered is in your mind, mere pique, and thus the judges are at fault?

Huh. Good show of your partisan leanings there.

Your mention of race riots is humorous given that Obama started that, not anyone in the GOP.

No, sorry, that Ohio Campaign chair was wrong.

Nuclear fallout? Thank Hillary for her uranium deal and Obama for letting Iran do whatever it wants.

To the contrary, it did the exact opposite. For far less than any of the other options.

Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.

What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators

I don't like to see Hillary selling access to foreign dictators, any more than I like her selling access to Bear Sterns and domestic corporations. I am not a Hillary fan.

Trump, however, did things like personally change the Republican platform from supporting arms to the Ukranian resistance to pro-Russian factions. At the same time Trump had business deals with Russians like the "Fertilizer king" which got him hundreds of millions of dollars. This was documented pretty well by Rachel Maddow and others http://www.politifact.com/trut... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/... and, if you prefer the other reality, even the Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...

So Trump was taking hundreds of millions of dollars from a country run by a dictator and adversary of the U.S., and he subsequently changed U.S. policies to favor that adversary and go softer on him (and defended Putin's killing of political enemies).

If he is serving the interests of a foreign adversary against the interests of his own country, because of his financial benefit, that's treason.

Hillary did something similar with her Clinton charity, Bear Sterns speeches, and other corporate favors. However, unlike Trump, she didn't take money from countries that were U.S. adversaries, but from "friendly" middle eastern dictatorships. And while I think that corporations like Bear Sterns are enemies of the American people, U.S. law doesn't support me on that.

Hillary sold out the working class (which should be a crime but isn't).

Trump sold out the whole country to a foreign enemy in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars laundered as business deals. That's treason.

Then it's good that it is politicians in NY that are doing this rather than some in the South.

He's an interesting big of information.

From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%.

Gosh, you mean that Nixon's initial EPA budget isn't enough to pay for all this country's environmental protection needs almost 40 years later?

Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration.

From the EPA:
(Funding and Employees)
FY 2016 $8,139,887,000 15,376 FY 2015 $8,139,887,000 14,725 FY 2014 $8,200,000,000 15,408 FY 2013 $7,901,104,000 15,913
FY 2012 $8,449,385,000 17,106 FY 2011 $8,682,117,000 17,359 FY 2010 $10,297,864,000 17,278 FY 2009 $7,643,674,000 17,049
FY 2008 $7,472,324,000 16,916 FY 2007 $7,725,130,000 17,072 FY 2006 $7,617,416,000 17,355 FY 2005 $8,023,483,000 17,495
FY 2004 $8,365,420,000 17,611 FY 2003 $8,078,703,000 17,741 FY 2002 $8,078,813,000 17,590 FY 2001 $7,832,211,000 17,558
FY 2000 $7,562,811,000 17,726 FY 1999 $7,590,352,000 18,110 FY 1998 $7,363,046,000 17,739 FY 1997 $6,799,393,000 17,152
FY 1996 $6,522,953,000 17,082 FY 1995 $7,240,887,000 17,508 FY 1994 $6,658,927,000 17,106 FY 1993 $6,892,424,000 17,280
FY 1992 $6,668,853,000 17,010 FY 1991 $6,094,287,000 16,415 FY 1990 $5,461,808,000 16,318 FY 1989 $5,155,125,000 14,370
FY 1988 $5,027,442,000 14,442 FY 1987 $5,364,092,000 13,442 FY 1986 $3,663,841,000 12,892 FY 1985 $4,353,655,000 12,410
FY 1984 $4,067,000,000 11,420 FY 1983 $3,688,688,000 10,832 FY 1982 $3,676,013,000 11,402 FY 1981 $3,030,669,000 12,667
FY 1980 $4,669,415,000 13,078 FY 1979 $5,402,561,000 12,160 FY 1978 $5,498,635,000 11,986 FY 1977 $2,763,745,000 11,315
FY 1976 $771,695,000 9,481 FY 1975 $698,835,000 10,438 FY 1974 $518,348,000 9,743 FY 1973 $2,377,226,000 9,077
FY 1972 $2,447,565,000 8,358 FY 1971 $1,288,784,000 5,744 FY 1970 $1,003,984,000 4,084

Gosh, with all that money, why haven't they fixed the environment completely? Shouldn't we all be living in some sort of weather-controlled paradise?

Where are our flying cars?

But no, your claim doesn't add up. Sorry. Even the largest year increase was only temporary, and that was the ARRA which was short-lived.

The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts.

Gosh, I wonder why the Military got cut. Whatcould have been behind that. What indeed. (Oh and side note, Trump has called for more cuts in that area, hasn't he? Huh.)

Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets.

Yeah, terrible thing, population has grown, inflation, more tasks, it's like we're expecting them to not shrink, and do more with less. What a terrible world it is, isn't it?

The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.

Oh, but Trump is cutting those clean energy programs, in fact, he appointed a guy who declared he was going to cut the Department of Energy to run the Department of Energy. Brilliant.

Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the n

From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%. Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration. The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts. Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets. The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.

Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the number of total federal personnel decreased by 15 percent," he said on March 25 during testimony before the House Budget Committee. Today that office is at an estimated 18,500 employees.

The only staffing reductions in Washington over the last 40 years happens to be the dwindling Military. The second quote is only covering up until 2011, and since then there has been growth in every single agency in Washington. "Executive branch civilian employees numbered 2.82 million in 1972 and 2.76 million in 2011, a drop of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, uniformed military personnel numbered 2.36 million in 1972 and 1.58 million in 2011, a decrease of 33.1 percent. So the reduction in federal employees has more to do with a smaller fighting force than with a shrinking bureaucracy.

I think an important point here is that the President's budget matches exactly what he said during the campaign. A whole lot of people are in shock that a President is doing what he claimed he would during the campaign. That really has to blow people's minds after nearly three decades of years of "read my lips, no new taxes" (Bush SR.), "we will increase transparency" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will fix immigration" (Sr. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will balance the budget and work on the deficit" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), and since we isolated the first Republican I'll close with "Hope and Change" (Obama).

FLASHBACK: This was the same President Obama that was caught by his own DoJ having illegally seized the phone records of 20+ lines, including of journalists' personal cell-phones, AP news lines, and a phone used by reporters covering the House of Representatives. Forgot that one, didn't ya?

https://www.wired.com/2013/05/...
http://www.politifact.com/pund...

So please do tell me how the US Intelligence Services, or President Barak Obama, have ANY more credibility on this issue than President Donald Trump.

I'm waiting...

The accusation is quite plausible, even likely given the players. And the only thing that's actually been denied is Obama's personal ordering of the supposed wiretap. Nobody to my knowledge has denied that the tap actually happened.

Yep, that's pretty much it- documented history of skirting this law, long before Trump's campaign. The Obama Administration has zero credibility on this subject.

LOL, Try not to project so much. Statistically, conservative right wingers (classical centrists who are for limited government and as much personal freedom as is reasonable) are the working middle class.

The liberal progressive Democrats are 25X times more likely to be unemployed (or maybe that's unemployable) and 7X more likely to be a criminal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

(If you can get past the spin at politifact, you can find the actual statistics there on criminals registering to vote.)
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

The truth is that even the majority of NRA members back more background checks on all gun purchases.

http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

Yes but their leaders don't really give a shit about what the members think. If you were an NRA member would you like to be represented by a guy that sold guns to an Islamic terrorist group less than a year after they had killed over a hundred US Marines? Don't like it? Tough. Oliver North is not moving for anyone. He's also the guy that pushed for suspected terrorists on the no-fly list to be allowed to buy guns. If they had honest votes from members choosing their leadership he wouldn't have been chosen.

The truth is that even the majority of NRA members back more background checks on all gun purchases.

http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

There are middle class politicans, like Bernie Sanders:.. and some politicians are in considerable debt, though it's fair to say you have to be rich to be in extreme debt: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

While it's true that most politicians are millionaires, not all of them are.

80% of rulings overturned in 2015? From the kindly folks at politifact:

The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.

So, if you look at the total numbers (which you have to to match the statement you made), the Supreme Court only overturned 8 out of about 12000 rulings. (or .066%)

I hope in real life you don't deal with math like "give someone 80% of a dosage of 5% solution" or anything else that relies on numbers.

And you are now an excellent example of WHY people need to be taught to identify bullshit, like what you are spreading.

Actually, you are an excellent example of WHY people need to be taught to identify bullshit, like what you are spreading.

A specific school, with some hypothetical problem of dubious validity (the research indicates that firearms are a poor choice of method for defense against bears), used to justify refusing to answer a question on policies applicable across the nation, are why what she had to say shows she is so much of a lying bullshit artist. Even the school she named...Doesn't have a gun for that purpose. That means you are wrong, though to give her credit, her actually only indicated that she believed they would probably have one. But they don't, and so what's she going to do, repudiate it?

It was their state's decision.

But of course, bullshitters like you, try to deceive us over the issue, making her out as if she was being unfairly persecuted for some wise and profound statement, but instead, she is really being derided for making such a flimsy and transparent excuse to duck and evade a question, obviously demonstrating that she was not professionally qualified to administer the Department of Education.

Because you know, the actual question was about guns in schools in the general sense, rather than the applied sense, her deflection demonstrated a poor commitment to the issue that made her a joke, fit for further mockery. Or do you think police officers are routinely charged for carrying firearms in schools?

At the least, she should be properly prepared enough to not make herself look stupid by citing one irrelevant discussion point.

Or do you think that Wyoming School would benefit by having students, visitors, and the like armed?

Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left.

That you know, eh?

How many people do you know?

I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists.

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Such as I did above showing wage discrimination.

But what about this?

Here's a challegen: Show why it's wrong.

Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over.

Bogus information like these?

The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)

Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.

Oh, so you think your shit don't stink, is that it?

Plenty of others. Lots of them.

How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original sense of the phrase.

This is the problem the right-wing phonies like you have, you can't understand what you're doing wrong.

You can't even grasp that you're doing something wrong.

Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left.

That you know, eh?

How many people do you know?

I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists.

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Such as I did above showing wage discrimination.

But what about this?

Here's a challegen: Show why it's wrong.

Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over.

Bogus information like these?

The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)

Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.

Oh, so you think your shit don't stink, is that it?

Plenty of others. Lots of them.

How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original sense of the phrase.

This is the problem the right-wing phonies like you have, you can't understand what you're doing wrong.

You can't even grasp that you're doing something wrong.

Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left.

That you know, eh?

How many people do you know?

I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists.

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Such as I did above showing wage discrimination.

But what about this?

Here's a challegen: Show why it's wrong.

Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over.

Bogus information like these?

The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)

Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.

Oh, so you think your shit don't stink, is that it?

Plenty of others. Lots of them.

How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original sense of the phrase.

This is the problem the right-wing phonies like you have, you can't understand what you're doing wrong.

You can't even grasp that you're doing something wrong.

Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left.

That you know, eh?

How many people do you know?

I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists.

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Such as I did above showing wage discrimination.

But what about this?

Here's a challegen: Show why it's wrong.

Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over.

Bogus information like these?

The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)

Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.

Oh, so you think your shit don't stink, is that it?

Plenty of others. Lots of them.

How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original sense of the phrase.

This is the problem the right-wing phonies like you have, you can't understand what you're doing wrong.

You can't even grasp that you're doing something wrong.

Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left.

That you know, eh?

How many people do you know?

I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists.

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Such as I did above showing wage discrimination.

But what about this?

Here's a challegen: Show why it's wrong.

Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over.

Bogus information like these?

The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)

Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.

Oh, so you think your shit don't stink, is that it?

Plenty of others. Lots of them.

How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original sense of the phrase.

This is the problem the right-wing phonies like you have, you can't understand what you're doing wrong.

You can't even grasp that you're doing something wrong.

Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left.

That you know, eh?

How many people do you know?

I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists.

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Such as I did above showing wage discrimination.

But what about this?

Here's a challegen: Show why it's wrong.

Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over.

Bogus information like these?

The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)

Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.

Oh, so you think your shit don't stink, is that it?

Plenty of others. Lots of them.

How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original sense of the phrase.

This is the problem the right-wing phonies like you have, you can't understand what you're doing wrong.

You can't even grasp that you're doing something wrong.

The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.

Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)

The wage gap gets smaller when you control for job and experience, it doesn't disappear. And it's not certain you should be controlling for those things.

The stat about unmarried women in the 22-30 range earning more is part of it. For one those articles are from 2008-2012 when uneducated males were probably the hardest hit demographic, I'm not sure that stat would be true today.

Also, as they get older that gap is likely to reverse as men move out of apprenticeship positions (in labour or medicine) and as they start moving into management.

Do men get promoted into management because women make different career choices, or because we tend to view men as leaders? The answer to that question affects whether you view the wage gap as legitimate.

Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.

I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.

More women in College isn't necessarily a sign of equality, women need degrees because uneducated women don't have the same job opportunities as uneducated men in skilled and unskilled labour. I think Iran, hardly an example of gender equality, also has more women in University.

Besides, you're arguing a straw man. The thing you actually year is not "we need more women in college", it's "we need more women in technical fields". There are a lot of well paying fields like software and engineering that women don't pursue, that's also responsible for part of the wage gap. It also leads to the creation of hostile dysfunctional workplaces like the one described in this article.

The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.

Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)

Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.

I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.

Kind of odd considering all Trump is doing is reviving an Obama travel ban - all of the countries Trump had on the ban list were defined under Obama.

I poop on that argument.

What he has said, what the house has said, all we know for sure is the corporate tax rates are coming down. That affects small and medium sized businesses the MOST because we cannot afford a giant team of lawyers to find us tax breaks.

I shit on that argument as well.

FTFY since your wording had no basis in reality for most Americans.

You failed, me laddo.

I'll let you have the last word since I can't spend all day teaching you the simplest basis of American taxes for business.

You'd have to know what you're talking about, first.

It definitely seems like politicians don't keep many of their campaign promises, especially because it tends to get thrown in their faces when they don't, but it turns out that most politicians keep their election promises. Given the extravagance of many of his campaign promises, it seems like there will be an exceedingly good chance that he will have the highest rate of broken promises in modern history. Politifact seems to be keeping score here, and they mark some accomplished goals already.

You have quite mistaken your argument. But you're also mistaken in trying to focus this discussion on Trump, and this issue is actually more important than any given candidate. If he's successful, great, but that's not an argument for the process that put him there, which was stupid. Election science did not exist when we designed our system. I'm not trying to argue anything but some basic facts. Tell me why, absent any considerations of the present officeholder, a simple measure of popularity is preferable to rating or ranking candidates. Do you not consider it better that voters should express their opinion about each candidate? Do you not have an opinion of each candidate? Would you, given the opportunity, not choose to express those opinions?

Again, to me this is pretty clear-cut, but since nobody else seems to think so I'm left searching for the problem with the reasoning. Frankly I'd have thought the anti-Establishment crowd would be all over it, and for that matter the Libertarians too. I would certainly think it highly likely that both factions would enjoy greater representation, and think that's a good thing. To the degree that I have political opinions, they run pretty much directly counter to Libertarianism, but millions of our fellow citizens feel differently, so I feel they should be heard. I think this needs to be done not to further some partisan principle, but to preserve our democracy, and while I am certainly crazy, I do not believe I am wrong.