192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  5  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 05:40 pm
Bad ratings. Really bad. You've never seen ratings this bad, believe me.
Quote:
The conventional wisdom says if any issue is going to doom Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress at the ballot box, it will be health care. They have tried over and over to ram through massively unpopular Obamacare repeal bills and failed in spectacular fashion.

But new polling shows Trump’s dismal record on the economy is also contributing to a significant drop in his approval ratings — including from his own supporters.

A poll from Associated Press-NORC shows Trump’s net popularity has plummeted 19 points since March, with his approval rating at a dismally low 32 percent. And even support among his Republican base has cratered from 80 percent to 67 percent.

And while Trump’s approval ratings on health care have fallen from 36 percent to 32 percent, his numbers on the economy have dropped even more substantially.
shareblue
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  0  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 05:56 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Is this your way of confessing lynchings?

You're being silly, but I don't mind. Smile The way things are, I have a constant need for comic relief. No, I've not committed any lynchings as they obviously are against the law today. However, I've been told that my ancestors include a few horse thieves, who (if they were unlucky) may have had a rendezvous with a necktie party.

My parenthetical comments were simply intended to show my independent political and social inclinations. Since I'm an oddball (and have been for many years), I hate to be stereotyped.
blatham
 
  4  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 06:19 pm
Rather interesting quote here (from wikipedia page on "globalism")
Quote:
...as George Kennan's Policy Planning Staff put it in February 1948: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. […] Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity"

...In their position of unprecedented power, US planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which, in economic terms, meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States.
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  2  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 07:07 pm
@blatham,
As I've said before, there was a time in this country when both of the major parties had a left wing and a right wing. I began to follow domestic politics closely when I was a college freshman in the fall of 1969, and I also began to study the rather unpleasant history of race relations in this country. If I had been around in, say, 1865, given my racial attitudes, I would have been a Republican. I was a liberal from the late '60s through the '70s. Today I'm apolitical; and I'm not a member of any political party. Given the sorry state of political affairs today, I seriously doubt I will ever change in that regard. My poor wife began to identify with the Republican Party when she was a young girl, but she left the party when Donald Trump won the presidential nomination. She will never become a progressive, but neither will she ever financially support the Republican Party again.

In 1960 while living in Houston, Texas, I was all but an eyewitness to a particularly vicious form of racial discrimination. I was home from school with a cold one day when a black Korean War veteran who had been working for my parents as a yardman was bitten by a water moccasin in our backyard. My mother told me she was going to take him to the nearest clinic and that she would be back in time to cook dinner. (As I recall, my father was out of the country on a business trip.) Well, my mother didn't get back until late that night. I remember greeting her at the door. She was crying. I later found out that the yardman had been turned away at the clinic simply because he was black -- despite the fact that he was a combat veteran who had put his life on the line for this country. In fact, he was suffering from shell shock. So, my mother had to drive him all the way over to a hospital on the other side of town, where he was not treated for an hour and was mocked by white interns. No wonder she was crying when she came home! About a year later, I was bitten by a copperhead and taken to the same clinic that had refused to treat my parents' yardman. I knew nothing about the Southern heritage of Jim Crow at the time; and, so, I wondered why my snakebite was treated but the yardman's snakebite wasn't. Funny, but I've never heard of any white person who was denied treatment for a snakebite because of the color of his skin.

Yes, I've posted about this experience before; but it had a profound effect upon the development of my political views. Years later I learned who opposed legislation to put an end to this incredibly vicious mistreatment of human beings. I also noticed which ideology was considerably less sympathetic to the civil rights movement. Of course, other factors have influenced my political views as well.

I'm quite familiar with the Southern strategy, blatham. I think Patrick Buchanan had a lot to do with it. We should remember that there have been individual Republican politicians (such as Robert Dole, who is probably considered to be a RINO today) who had pro-civil rights records. (In fact, I voted for him when he ran for President in 1996.) My mother-in-law, a wonderful lady who was a Herbert Hoover Republican, once participated in a public demonstration against the University of Texas for refusing to admit black WW2 veterans as students.

Of course, some conservatives today claim the Southern strategy was a hoax. But the Chairman of the Republican Party under President George W. Bush declared that it had, in fact, been a deliberate policy.

In the last 30 years or so, I've noticed just how dishonest some white conservatives are about the record of their movement on race. For example, Rush Limbaugh claims that President Lyndon Johnson never would have gotten the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed without the help of Republican Senators. Of course, since he's intellectually dishonest, he won't point out that most of these Republican Senators were MODERATES and LIBERALS -- precisely the sort who would be dismissed as unwanted RINOs if they were alive today. Most, if not all, of the Democratic Senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were white Southern CONSERVATIVES.

I have to say that I'm not completely liberal. I am against abortion and same-sex marriage. While I agree with conservatives on these two issues, I fear what might happen to civil rights laws when President Trump appoints more Supreme Court and Federal court appointees. I fear that in ten years discrimination against minorities will become legal again. It's happened before in the history of this country. It can happen again.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 07:21 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
Although I am not sure, I don't think everyone has the constitutional right to possess and own bazookas and RPGs.

If we brought back the militia (which the Second Amendment requires us to have anyway) militiamen would have the right to have such weapons and keep them at home.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  3  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 07:23 pm
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:

That's right. Smile

Isn't it strange and ironic that today we find neo-Confederates in the party of Lincoln? They hate him. WWLS (What would Lincoln say?)


Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Lester Mattox and Jesse Helms - this history begins in 1948.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
wmwcjr
 
  2  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 07:33 pm
@BillW,
Yep.
BillW
 
  3  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 08:23 pm
Yankees Lose! Yankees Lose! Yankees Lose!
BillW
 
  2  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 08:35 pm
Per Trump Campaign Digital Director: Facebook staff "embedded" in Trump Campaign office - Republican Trump supporters only! One more solid step towards collusion.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -2  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 10:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
CA voter here. While I don't agree with the voters of that time, they passed the ballot initiative fair and square; the problem was that it was ruled unconstitutional, not that it didn't reflect the will of some silent majority in the state.


When I posted the case of dictator governor Arnold Schwarzenegger , the chronology shows that the vote was unjustly declared unconstitutional two years after the dictatorship measurement.

Quote:
NOVEMBER 2008

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/1105/california-votes-down-same-sex-marriage

In California, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor, Californians voted 52% in favor and 47% opposed with 92% voters amount to ban gay marriage. (Proposition 8)

AUGUST 2010

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/obama-still-opposes-gay-marriage.html

Schwarzenegger says gay marriages should resume in California; Obama still opposes them

FEBRUARY 2012

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/court-says-california-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/article_529df8c0-4b2e-5602-9b8e-9ad49541b8b5.html

Court declared that vote "unconstitutional"


The California vote on Proposition 8 was indeed constitutional, because the same governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gave green light for the vote to happen.

The dictatorship abuse from Arnold Schwarzenegger was manifested after the result of the poplar vote said "No Gay Marriage".

The so called "militia" in California, behaved cowardly, perhaps afraid of an actor who played characters of tough guy in movies.

In reality, Arnold Schwarzenegger can be a sissy when is about fighting, but his image is about being tough just because he faked to be one in Hollywood movies.

Books of history must teach to future generation for this event never repeat again, because causes shame when the Second Amendment the Constitution is mentioned.

There is no excuse at all to justify the trashing of the popular vote as governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did.
cameronleon
 
  0  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 10:12 pm
A militia has the right under the Constitution to have weapons of any kind, because the militia must be capable to confront an army under control of a dictator.

The calling of gun regulation is mostly demanded by politicians who know they are corrupt and try at all cost to keep The People without arms which can be used against their corrupt actions.

BillW
 
  1  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 10:48 pm
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Fri 6 Oct, 2017 11:57 pm
@cameronleon,
cameronleon wrote:
A militia has the right under the Constitution to have weapons of any kind,

Back when politicians from the southwest used to call for stealing water from the Great Lakes, I used to call for the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force to be equipped with Pershing II nuclear missiles. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Sat 7 Oct, 2017 12:50 am
@cameronleon,
Quote cameronleon:
Quote:
The California vote on Proposition 8 was indeed constitutional,

No, it wasn't. The highest court to rule on the issue of whether Proposition 8 was constitutional-theDistrict Court for Northern California-said it was not. Their opinion counts for a lot more than your opinion. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the District Cort's ruling on technical grounds. A Proposition can be passed by the people, but if the courts rule it unconstitutional, it is no longer valid.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 7 Oct, 2017 02:17 am

Pass The S.H.A.R.E. Act of 2017

Title XV of the SHARE Act removes firearm silencers from the tyranny of NFA regulations and requires that silencers instead be bought and sold using the same regulatory standards that are used for buying and selling rifles and shotguns.

Title XVI of the SHARE Act will:

a) legalize all armor-piercing rifle ammo (AP ammo in handgun calibers will remain prohibited)

b) allow dirt cheap assault rifles like the AK-47 to be imported into the US even if they do not pass the "sporting use" test (semi-auto-only of course)

c) free assault shotguns like the Street Sweeper from the tyranny of NFA regulations, even if they do not pass the "sporting use" test, and require that they be bought and sold as normal shotguns


Obviously a number of long term problems will finally be resolved if we get this bill passed. Let's get Congress to get off their butts and get it done!
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Sat 7 Oct, 2017 03:23 am
Quote:
Donald Trump's government has issued a ruling that allows employers to opt out of providing free birth control to millions of Americans.
The rule allows employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their "religious beliefs" or "moral convictions".
Fifty-five million women benefited from the Obama-era rule, which made companies provide free birth control.
Before taking office, Mr Trump had pledged to eliminate that requirement.
The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare - President Obama's efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system.
But the requirement included a provision that permitted religious institutions to forgo birth control coverage for their employees.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Friday it was important to expand which organisations can opt out and deny free contraceptive coverage.
"We should have space for organisations to live out their religious ideas and not face discrimination because of their religious ideas," said one HHS official, who did not wish to be named.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, praised the decision as "a landmark day for religious liberty".
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National National Women's Law Center have announced that they will sue the federal government over the decision.
In announcing the rule change, HHS officials cited a study claiming that access to contraception encourages "risky sexual behaviour".
The department disputes reports that millions of women may lose their birth control coverage if they are unable to pay for it themselves.
Roger Severino, the director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights, argued that only a small percentage of employers will choose to opt out, and therefore only a limited number of women will be affected.
But many health policy analysts say employers that do not wish to pay for their employees' contraceptive coverage will now be able to.
Diedra Penner, 33, from Bellingham, Washington state, told the BBC she feared losing access to the birth control she uses to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. At the moment, the treatment is paid for with partial subsidies through the Affordable Care Act.
"Without the birth control mandate I don't know how much the treatment would cost," she said.
"This is definitely an attack on women - if this issue affected men it wouldn't be happening this way."
The immediate outcry from the president's detractors has been that this is an attack on women.
Birth control is used for a variety of reasons. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is, of course, one of them. But it can also be used to treat medical conditions such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was blunt. They said the decision undermined the best interests of their patients and turned back the clock on women's health.
Another women's advocacy organisation, UltraViolet, said employers and insurers now needed to pick a side, asking if they stood "with Donald Trump and his attacks on women," or "the women who depend on your coverage?"
The administration says only a limited number of women will be affected.
Whether or not that is true, the president is being criticized for politicising women's bodies and health to score political points with his base.
The contraceptive coverage mandate had become a hotly contested legal battleground since Obamacare passed in 2009 - with the Democratic administration aggressively pushing back against attempts to carve out sweeping religious exemptions to the women's health provisions of the law.
With Donald Trump now in charge, the dynamic has been turned on its head. Now the White House will be much more lenient in granting waivers, and Obamacare's defenders are the ones turning to the courts for a remedy.
The move will be celebrated by religious groups and conservatives - a tangible benefit of their presidential victory last year.
There's a risk of blowback outside the Republican Party's evangelical base, however.
According to some estimates, the contraceptive mandate saved women $1.4bn in its first year in effect. The decision could deal a direct financial blow to women across the US - something they might remember when they head to the polls in 2018.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41528526
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Sat 7 Oct, 2017 04:02 am
Quote:
A jihadist plot to attack New York City including Times Square and the subway system was foiled with the help of an undercover FBI agent, officials say.
One man in the US and two others in Pakistan and the Philippines are under arrest and face charges of plotting the attacks which they hoped to carry out in the name of the Islamic State group.
One of the suspects allegedly said he wanted to create "the next 9/11".
The trio allegedly used chat apps to plan their attack.
It was prevented last year with the help of an undercover FBI agent - posing as an IS supporter - who communicated with the three plotters. Details of the alleged plot were released on Friday as prosecutors revealed the charges.
Police on Friday announced charges against Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, 19, a Canadian citizen detained in New York; Talha Haroon, also 19, a US citizen based in Pakistan and Russell Salic, 37, from the Philippines.
El Bahnasawy was arrested in May 2016 and pleaded guilty last October to seven terror-related charges. He is awaiting his sentence.
Haroon was arrested in Pakistan in September 2016, while Salic was arrested in the Philippines the following April. Both men are due to be extradited to the US.
"The planned attacks included detonating bombs in Times Square and the New York City subway system and shooting civilians at specific concert venues," a Department of Justice statement said.
The trio hoped to carry out the attacks during the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan in 2016, inspired by an attack the previous year on the Bataclan concert hall in Paris and by an attack on the metro in Belgium.
Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy: is alleged to have sent the undercover FBI agent an image of Times Square, saying that "we seriously need a car bomb" to attack it. He allegedly wanted to "create the next 9/11"
Talha Haroon: is alleged to have told the agent that the subway would be a "perfect" target, and that suicide vests could be detonated after their ammunition was used up
Russell Salic: known as "the doctor", he is accused of sending "approximately $423" to finance the attacks with the promise to supply more cash
New York was the target of the 11 September 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people and led to President George W Bush's "war on terror"- which included the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41536402
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 01:05:26