Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/05/19 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    40 percent of the American people make $18,000 a year or less. One bipartisan project that both parties agree on but due to deep divisions we don't do is spend on infrastructure. If we do it right it would greatly soften an anemic economy for the poor half of America. We need over a trillion dollars worth of all manner of infrastructure. Millions of unskilled to highly skilled (engineers, technicians, etc) jobs. I would recommend the following. Make it a bipartisan effort so that no party takes credit similar to the race to the moon. Mandate only US companies if at all possible do the work and priority those companies who are fully domestic and not global US companies who will export the revenue.
  2. 1 point
    I long for the days of Jack Kemp and Bob Dole and the old McCain, not the one that was forced fringe right. I loved the Dole-Kemp Republican ticket in '96. They were never going to win but had they won, we'd have had a much better administration than Clinton.
  3. 1 point
    Hey Flash, I'd love to know any campaign that upon close examination that has spent every dollar according to the law. This is NOT an excuse. I have a HS classmate who ran for a state legislature and as well as congregational seat outside Philly. I finished my HS years in the suburbs. Great guy, very honest. He will tell you that its pretty much impossible to run a completely transparent campaign. First of all, there are expenses that are cash and no receipts. Expenses can come in an emergency manner and you need to pay in cash. There is nothing about any of the 'squad' you mentioned that is beyond what are deemed routine campaign violations. Also, how is that an example of being currupt? I am using it in the context of being bought off by a person or group. I'd love to see any evidence any group has bought them off. AOC raised all her funds organically. The only group is the Wolf PAC which is a progressive group that gives money to candidates who do not want lobby money and only to raise money organically which may seem like a dichotomy but isn't. She (and the rest) or not in the pockets of any of the groups and people that own everyone else including every presidential candidate on both sides except possibly Sanders...maybe Warren. I'm not going to be cynical and suggest they will change. They gained their popularity in part by not being in the pockets of the people who own everyone else. As to your second point, first, Starr is a Republican. Hardly an impartial arbiter. Second, he was part of the the impeachment process for Clinton. Purely political with no basis for impeachment and a process that the Republicans totally rammed down the Democrats throat. If there is something the Dems are doing that is uniquely unethical with regards to the process, I'd love to hear it. I have the opposite opinion personally. The Democrats are prosecuting the impeachment process weakly. Peolosi narrowed the scope which is unheard of. Both Nixon and Clinton investigations were wide and far reaching even if it wasn't germane to the original investigation. Both prior cases went on fishing trips. Trump is getting off very, very lightly. So, I'd like specifics and I'd trust it from someone who is impartial. As an aside. The very fact a private citizen is conducting foreign policy in Ukraine, violating all manner of federal laws and the Democrats haven't done anything about it, I would conclude they are derelict in their duties. I understand why the Republicans haven't. They operate out of mortal fear of being on the end of one of Trump's tweets or tirades at a rally. Cowardly but I get it. I've long expected very little ethics out of the Republican party just as I expect very little competence out of the Democrats.
  4. 1 point
    Gentlemen, thorough inspection of Soi 7 new bar area makes me think it will take another 2 weeks til completion. 4 or 5 places ready but no people inside yet. There are good news even from Soi11: Where they have demolished the previous Cheap Charlie building, ground is currently prepared for a number of small businesses. According to workers.
  5. 1 point
    How dare CNN print something like this! Donald Trump was elected to break the elite. Of course they want to impeach him By Scott Jennings When the global elite are aligned against him and laughing like the immature cool kids you hated in middle school, President Donald Trump is winning. When the liberal law professors are neglecting their Thanksgiving turkeys to read congressional transcripts and snarking about Trump's 13-year old son, Trump is winning. When the politicians are mad — so mad that they have shut down all policymaking to impeach the President of the United States on what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called "wafer thin" evidence —Trump is winning. You have to remember: Donald Trump wasn't elected to fit in with these people — the political, intellectual class -- to make them happy, or to become one of them. He was elected to break them. And that's apparently what he's done. After Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring three liberal law professors and Thursday's announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that her conference is moving forward with impeachment, the die is cast -- Donald Trump will be the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. And honestly, that's just fine with Trump's supporters. What better evidence is there that you've shaken Washington to its core when the minders of a system you've come to despise are leveling the gravest punishment the system permits against the very President who is doing the shaking up? We can lawyer this to death, but for many Americans this comes down to a simple observation -- Trump said he was going to rattle their cages, and by golly they seem rattled. Trump's supporters have known since election night that this day would eventually come. After all, his sworn enemies have been openly promising it since before he was sworn into office! They've used words like "resistance," "coup," "insurance policy," and "impeachment" so often that, now that they are actually doing it, the American people — and Republicans especially — are offering a collective yawn. Rueful analysts stare into television cameras, lamenting and wondering why Republicans aren't fleeing from the President over the impeachment hearings (he stands at 90% approval among his party in the latest Gallup poll). But there won't be massive convulsions in public opinion because everyone has known for three years what was going to happen. Sure, some Democrats gamely argue that Pelosi didn't really want to go through with it, but she had to out of a sense of duty to the Constitution. But it's a half-hearted argument at best. It's true that Pelosi had no choice, although it's not because of the Constitution. Rather, her party's left flank and their inflamed grassroots activists overwhelmed her. This is a one-sided, partisan impeachment. It's the exact kind of thing Congressman Jerry Nadler, now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, warned Republicans about in 1998, during Bill Clinton's impeachment. But political party leaders almost always do what the bulk of their party's supporters want them to. Republicans — no matter how moderate — got in line to cut taxes and confirm an avalanche of conservative judges because that's what their activists expected. And what have Democrats wanted more than anything since Trump's election? Since the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Since Trump made Twitter his private channel to the electorate? Since the Mueller probe? Since the Trump Hotel story? Since questions over Jared Kushner's security clearance? Since...you name it? The answer is obvious: to undo the 2016 election by any means necessary. It's a political itch that had to be scratched, and Pelosi could hold off her tormented partisans no longer. So here we are, headed for a rushed, hyper-partisan (and futile) exercise put on by the very elites Trump railed against to get himself elected in the first place. But for all the relief they might feel in finally striking this blow against Donald Trump, I wonder: have these Trump opponents even considered what this impeachment signals to the American people? That partisanship is more important than policymaking? That House Democrats have no confidence in their party's ability to beat Donald Trump in an election? And, perhaps most alarmingly, that impeachment — once reserved for the gravest of situations — is now just another tool to inflict damage on their politica https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/05/opinions/trump-is-still-winning-jennings/index.html?ofs=fbia&fbclid=IwAR1CSaOebWGn17KeNxH7ApgEMJAupfxXF5FYhv2ZLx-xV49sSDkB9QtxHOw
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    A word or two about gangs. In America, gangs have always been a symptom of economic inequality. Good economic times for a community stifles gangs. LA is no different. The city has been known and is known as a liberal bastion going back decades but this is the same city that has had riots from the underclass going back to the Zoot Suit riots involving latinos in the 1940s. There was also the famous Watts Riots in 1965 as well as the Rodney King verdict riots in 1992. I'll provide further examples. Jews had been a pariah in Europe for centuries. The word ghetto came from the Jewish quarter of cities. Despite being literally run out of town in various cities over the centuries in Europe, Jews never resorted to criminal gangs and organized crime UNTIL they came to America. So, one has to ask why were there Jewish street gangs as well as organized crime that gave us famous names like Dutch Schultz, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegal among many, ,many other lesser known gangsters. Why would a people who never resorted to crime before, form criminal gangs. The lower east side of Manhattan was a Jewish stronghold and one of the most dangerous parts of NYC as well as America at one time. Why did they go into crime? Simple answer is the antisemitism they faced was so bad they chose criminality. It was a symptom of the Jewish immigrant masses being excluded from the economy. Yes, there were many Jewish merchants and even some very rich Jews but the masses, especially eastern European Jews, were excluded, even from within Jewish society. Western European jews wouldn't allow them into their synagogues and if you trace the lineage of the most ardent Jewish gangsters they were almost always from eastern European stock. Why don't you have them today? That's easy. Same with Italian, Irish and other ethnic group youth street gangs and organized crime of the adults. I've read that the Italian mafia has a hard time recruiting. They have even started letting in half Italians as long as the father is Italian. Why is it so tough to recruit? Because Italians are now regarded as the same as WASPs when they weren't at one time. Same with Jews and the Irish. The aforementioned three groups were not deemed 'white' at one time in America. Sort of a purgatory...lol...not WASP but not Black but somewhere in between and were the targets of so called 'nativists' the precursor to the term WASP. The Immigration Act of 1924 was enacted specifically to ban these groups as well as others from eastern Europe (Slavs, etc) Anyway, those same dynamics have not changed. The plethora of black and latino street gangs are a result of economic marginalization. This was also the case with certain Asian street gangs. Chinese triads, Vietnamese gangs in Orange country, California. Samoan gangs as well. Middle California, Stockton, Bakersfield and other desolate white areas are a breeding ground for white gangs as well as white biker gangs. Those areas are economically deprived and mostly poor white. It's tough in LA to make enough of a living wage if you are low or unskilled. Hence the drug dealing and the gangs. Simple really.
  8. 1 point
    My observance is that areas do well when both parties share power. One checks the other. One party dominating is never good, be it Democrat or Republican because one party eventually leads to a ton of corruption. Cities like NYC did well when they had both parties as mayors. My hometown, Philadelphia devolved when Democrats dominated all facets of government. Republicans made some headway into the city and it helped stopped the rot. Same for Republican dominated areas. If Republican rule was the solution, then why is Mississippi still a 3rd world state in a first world country?
  9. 1 point
    I can't offer a riposte to that, on account of I agree with you.
  10. 0 points
    Wow. https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-reportedly-sending-men-sleep-120625885.html China is reportedly sending men to sleep in the same beds as Uighur Muslim women while their husbands are in prison camps
This leaderboard is set to Bangkok/GMT+07:00
  • Create New...