The Independents Dilemma

  
By:  Perrie Halpern  •  5 months ago  •  474 comments

The Independents Dilemma
I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone. Robin Williams

Leave a comment to auto-join group Stuck in the Middle with You (song included)

Stuck in the Middle with You (song included)

Recently in a political discussion, I was asked why do I always take a side. I was kind of shocked since I really don't participate in political discussions much. The reality of my life is that I don't take sides in politics since I view partisanship as pointless. What I do care about are the issues, the character of the politician, and current events that will impact my life. 

But the problem is, whoever is in charge at the moment, is who you are going to be critical of. Of course, Trump is in power now, and although I would hardly describe myself as having TDS, I do have opinions of the man, and his party. But the same was true during the Obama years. In fact, I was actually more critical of Obama and the Dems, than I am of Trump. But to those who feel that Trump is infallible when I do complain, I get labeled a Democrat or a liberal, a Republican, a conservative or whatever. I just have to roll my eyes. 

Independents are not libertarians. Yes, we have right-leaning ones and left-leaning ones, and even centrists, but most libertarians that I know, will vote libertarian no matter what (please correct me here, if I am wrong), while most independents that I know have voted both parties and even third party, and I would be included in that mix. For independents, it is about the issues, and quality of character and the person who checks off the most boxes given that will be who I vote for. To an independent, a libertarian, it is wanting to disturb the status quo, since they don't like it no matter what. They are about less government... end of story. To an independent, they are for better government (if that is possible) and so are willing to work within the system.

Independents are also for more choice.  Choice gives you freedom from partisanship. I would rather have 24 parties than 24 Democratic hopefuls. But that is not the case. So given these circumstances, I will hope for the best of the lot. 

Right now, our country has never been so polarized. I find it very disturbing. I really don't know how anyone can say that their guy or gal is great. Sorry, I don't see any Adams, Jeffersons, Lincolns or Roosevelts in the crowd. Heck, I don't even see a Reagan. How did this great nation get to the point, where we have to choose the less of all evils instead of the best? I have no answers to these questions, but I worry about what that means about Americans. 

So I do walk the road alone. I have come not to mind it much. I just don't enjoy seeing the garbage left the sides of the road. Who would?

Article is Locked by Moderator


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago

I'm sure someone will find a spot for me and my opinions. Have at it. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 months ago

I can relate to your dilemma. I am non-partisan. I don't belong to any political party. Yet, dimply because they don't agree with what I say, and/or feel I don't have a right to my own opinions or beliefs, I am endlessly labeled as a Liberal, Secular Progressive, Democrat, as well as a few unsavory labels by the Republicans. OTOH, I am labeled as being a Republican, Marxist, Socialist, and a few demeaning labels by the Democrats and others.

It seems that people here are unable to engage in a civil discussion of any topic that does not devolve into snarky, demeaning and derogatory names and labels. Most of which are untrue. And it seems that party, or assumed party, affiliation becomes far more important than the topic, and and those who do not agree with the others are then considered to be the enemy and subject to deemed rightful personal attacks.

I don't care for 'lock step' discussions, as there is nothing to be learned from the echo of my own thoughts, opinions and belief. The sharing of these things with others is how we grow as human beings, how we expand our knowledge, both of which results in better understanding and more tolerance of each other. 

I don't claim to be the smartest apple on the tree, but, my own life's experiences provide me with a different view of life, which if shared with others may enable them to better understand me. And that which is shared by others in a like civil manner may help me see a different side of life and better understand them. 

While I may not change my mind, opinion or beliefs from such discussions, I respect the right of others to express their own, and hope that others will respect my right to my own as well. 

JMOO

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1    5 months ago

Hi Raven,

Well, first I would like to address civil discussion. I find that can only be had, if the poster demands it, and if the topic is presented in a non confrontational way. Otherwise, it can become a free for all. 

Also making assumptions about people based on so little information makes for anger. I usually ask the person to clarify before I get defensive. Usually, one of us have gotten something wrong, and I will often say that it's my bad, but I do expect the same in kind. 

As for positions, mine has changed over the years. If someone presents to me a well thought out idea, I will contemplate it before I make a call. That is why I enjoy reading a good discussion. I might get to see something I never considered before. 

Labeling is the lazy way out. It's just a way to pigeon hole people, so it doesn't mess with their own ideology. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    5 months ago
Labeling is the lazy way out. It's just a way to pigeon hole people, so it doesn't mess with their own ideology. 

I totally agree. It is easy to wrongly label someone whom a person does not really know and disagrees with. Nothing of value can be gained from that kind of attitude other than anger. And that leaves little room for civil and productive dialog.

I find that if someone questions another for clarification of their comment that they don't fully understand, that often leads to a hostile reply instead of an explanation. As if a person does not have the right to question their comment. There are, however, exceptions that do help to better understand their meaning. 

No one person on this earth can know everything there is to know, yet, some like to give the impression that they are a living Google. And that makes it hard to have a productive dialog when that person is always putting others down for their lack of intelligence, or so they think, and unwilling to acknowledge when they are wrong. They are not open to learn from others. There is nothing wrong with learning something new.

I have learned a great deal from many of the Members here on NT, and feel very grateful that they are willing to share their own experiences and knowledge. I have learned things that have given me pause to reflect on my own thoughts, beliefs and opinions. With learning comes a broader understanding, and that can lead to a more open minded way of thinking about things. I may not change my own thoughts, beliefs or opinions, but, it can help me better understand the person or the world around me. 

When I consider a person's fitness for a position, no matter at what level, I like to learn as much as I can about the person's background, accomplishments, merits and what they see going forward. Political party affiliation or religion is a secondary interest. A political part or religion does not, and should not, automatically qualify anyone for any position. 

Thank you for your response, I truly appreciate your input.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 months ago

You just have to live with the fact that you are going to be smeared by everyone.  The liberals will smear you because you're not 100% in agreement with their biased agenda and the conservatives will smear you because you're not 100% in agreement with their biased agenda.  And the worst thing is to NOT be an American, because you don't have the right to "speak your mind" about American issues, because contrary to Americans, you might actually have reason to be objective.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2  Trout Giggles    5 months ago
How did this great nation get to the point, where we have to choose the less of all evils instead of the best?

Because the best of the best don't want to be in the limelight

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    5 months ago
Because the best of the best don't want to be in the limelight

They used to not mind. Maybe we all have a little dirty laundry, but a decent person has only so much. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    5 months ago
Maybe we all have a little dirty laundry, but a decent person has only so much. 

Even a decent person couldn't withstand the barrage and btw the "dirty laundry" dosen't even have to be real, it's more likely created. The wife of a recent Supreme Court nominee said "the process has been “harder than we imagined, and we imagined it might be hard”.

The sad fact is the "process" was absolutely disgusting!

That's why it will be hard to find people who will subject themselves and their families to such smearing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    5 months ago
The sad fact is the "process" was absolutely disgusting!That's why it will be hard to find people who will subject themselves and their families to such smearing.

That is a good point. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.3  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    5 months ago

I really think that most people who are smart enough to be President are too smart to run for President, for just that reason.  The Internet and social media have only made it worse.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  katrix @2.1.3    5 months ago

The internet has made it worse. It does make it so it's hard to even want to be a part of it. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.5  CB   replied to  katrix @2.1.3    5 months ago

24 cable news, talk radio, newspapers, millionaire anchors, 'rags,' true news and fake news can be overwhelming when it piles on. Remember, a lie can be half-way around the world before truth gets its pants on. We are killing the fine art of the politician with truth, error, spin, and noise.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3  Bob Nelson    5 months ago

Refusing to take sides is not a rational position. It kinda depends on the issues.

It is downright immoral to camp stubbornly on a mid-point between good and evil.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago
It is downright immoral to camp stubbornly on a mid-point between good and evil.

Yes because camping on the far left and embracing an Ideology that murdered close to 100 Million in the 20th century is moral. Well done.

jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1    5 months ago
Yes because camping on the far left and embracing an Ideology that murdered close to 100 Million in the 20th century is moral. Well done.

Why does left always have to be far left? Even then I don't see anyone on the far left in the US advocating murder. I do see people on the far right openly advocating for murder and others actually doing it.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.2  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1    5 months ago

Straw man fallacy. Well done, especially the descriptive emoji. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago
Refusing to take sides is not a rational position.

Define sides. Not taking a position on issues is not rational. But sides are for partisans. 

It is downright immoral to camp stubbornly on a mid-point between good and evil.

Gee Bob, thanks for calling me immoral. And nowhere did I say I was in the middle, especially between good and evil. I am always on the side of good. What we have now, is worse and a huge unknown. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2    5 months ago
Gee Bob, thanks for calling me immoral.

How do you figure that?

Are you saying that "you camp stubbornly on a mid-point between good and evil"?

I did not say that. I don't think that.

My comment was impersonal. I was insisting that refusing to take a decent position is sometimes - often - in fact taking an indecent position.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.1    5 months ago
My comment was impersonal.

OK sorry for taking it the other way.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.2    5 months ago

And I apologize for for not being more careful.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2    5 months ago
I am always on the side of good.

There's nothing like it! You can sit right next to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago
It is downright immoral to camp stubbornly on a mid-point between good and evil.

Moderates (what you just described) are not Independents.   Moderates are similar to partisans;  the difference is that moderates try to find a happy medium between the parties.   That is not critical thinking, that is simply wishy-washy partisanship.   In other words, it is absurd to think that the mid-point position is the 'most correct'.   Sometimes an extreme partisan position is indeed correct.   The ideal position could be anywhere on the extreme (based on current parties) and possibly outside of both parties.

Best to ignore the parties and evaluate each position on its merits and based upon facts, logic and one's core principles.   That would be independent thinking.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    5 months ago
Moderates (what you just described)

You and I have very different definitions of "moderate".

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.3.2  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    5 months ago
Moderates (what you just described) are not Independents.   Moderates are similar to partisans;  the difference is that moderates try to find a happy medium between the parties.   That is not critical thinking, that is simply wishy-washy partisanship. 

Moderates know the most effective means of governance is from the middle. Moderates understand moving the needle by small degrees is more palatable to the populous than huge shifts and thus more likely to pass the legislative process. Moderates are more often both left on some issues and right on others but seldom smack in the middle of every issue.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago
Refusing to take sides is not a rational position.

Sometimes two idiots (or parties) take opposing positions on an issue, but both positions are flawed. Both positions may be rooted in bigotry, hysteria, dogma, or some other driving force that has nothing to do with facts or the public good. I don't assume that just because Republicans think one thing or Democrats think another that one or the other of them is "right." Both can easily be wrong.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @3.4    5 months ago

100% correct Tacos! 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.4.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @3.4    5 months ago
Sometimes two idiots (or parties) take opposing positions on an issue, but both positions are flawed.

True.

IMNAAHO, policy positions should not be tied to any political party. Certainly, someone like me, way way left, is more likely to find policies to my taste among the Democratic candidates, but I pay attention to conservative policy ideas as well...

... oh wait... there aren't any...

This is a problem. How can I... or an independent... or anyone... make a rational choice between liberal policy and conservative policy, when there is no conservative policy?

So... What's the choice, really? Between rationality and tribalism?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @3.4    5 months ago
Both can easily be wrong.

It happens frequently. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.2    5 months ago
but I pay attention to conservative policy ideas as well...

Apparently not.

... oh wait... there aren't any...

Then how do you manage to complain about them so regularly?

This is a problem. How can I... or an independent... or anyone... make a rational choice between liberal policy and conservative policy, when there is no conservative policy?

Well....while you were sleeping, various conservatives have put forward policies on school vouchers, increased defense spending, drug testing for welfare recipients, allowing businesses to deny service to transgendered people, cutting taxes, reducing illegal immigration, requiring voters to show ID, and improving trading terms with China, Mexico and Canada.  Also, they're actively trying to overturn Roe v Wade.  

I'm surprised you missed all that.  

"Rational choice"..... that's funny.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.5  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago
It is downright immoral to camp stubbornly on a mid-point between good and evil.

How so? What is deemed good or evil? Besides, morality is subjective too.

Refusing to take sides is not a rational position.

Why not? 

It kinda depends on the issues.

This is true. Which is why taking a side completely may not be rational too, as either side has their associated issues they are stubbornly locked into.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.6  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago

Who said anything about not taking sides? Right now both sides are sheer evil. Trying to pick one evil prick over the other is a waste of time.  Hillary or Trump, heart attack or stroke cast your vote; or be forever blamed for whatever happens.

Was I am member of the Reform Party when I voted for Ross Perot? Or a Democrat when I voted for Bill Clinton second term? Or a Libertarian when I voted for Gary Johnson twice? No, I don't subscribe the the lesser of two evil BS. Though I still admittedly regret my vote for Bill Clinton.

I have stated repeatedly I will vote for a Democrat if they find a moderate candidate I can support. With the clown car overflowing with stupid; chances are very dim.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.6.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @3.6    5 months ago
Hillary or Trump, heart attack or stroke cast your vote

Only one of those two losers is likely to be on the 2020 ballot, so it's going to be "stroke vs mild nausea" and I don't know of anyone who would rather have a stroke than feeling sick to the stomach. No politician will be perfect, but just about anyone will make a far better President than the abject failure of a human being that is Donald Trump.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.6.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.6.1    5 months ago

Your opinion is noted - but you are still ignoring the facts of the matter.  You vote for the facts of the issue - good issue?  bad issue?  what are the facts and it's benefits to ALL.  Then, you review the candidate and tell the parties to kiss your butt.  If the candidate can't/doesn't support the facts of the issue - look for another candidate and, again, tell the parties to kiss your butt.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.6.3  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.6.2    5 months ago

You support Trump, which is completely inexplicable. You lost all your credibility to instruct anyone about politics, and for what? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.6.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @3.6    5 months ago
I have stated repeatedly I will vote for a Democrat if they find a moderate candidate I can support. With the clown car overflowing with stupid; chances are very dim.

I second that, but I'm more optimistic that rational, non-leftist, non-whackadoodle heads will prevail and we'll get a decent option.

 
 
 
katrix
3.6.5  katrix  replied to  Jack_TX @3.6.4    5 months ago
I'm more optimistic that rational, non-leftist, non-whackadoodle heads will prevail and we'll get a decent option.

I hope you're right.

If only the Republicans would mount a decent primary campaign too, so we could have two potentially decent candidates.  But both parties fight tooth and nail against a primary when they are in power.  The last time around, it was hard for me to believe that neither of the two major candidates would even pass the background checks that many of us have to pass to get and keep our jobs. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.6.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  katrix @3.6.5    5 months ago

I vote that one up. It's so true!

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.6.7  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @3.6.5    5 months ago
If only the Republicans would mount a decent primary campaign too, so we could have two potentially decent candidates.

I have been asking for the same thing; but Trump's hard core supporters are too much to go against. The Republican party doesn't want to alienate them- like the Dems did Sanders supporters. 

Justin Amash has hinted at running; but he never had the support of the Republican party to begin with. He is about the only person on the right I know of that has thought of challenging Trump.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.6.8  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.6.1    5 months ago
so it's going to be "stroke vs mild nausea"

Depends on which Democrat comes tumbling out of the clown car last.  It could be stroke vs chronic dementia. 

No politician will be perfect,

An understatement; but agreed.

but just about anyone will make a far better President than the abject failure of a human being that is Donald Trump.

Hold onto that thought.  It is thinking like that gave us Hillary and Trump to begin with. Given the massive TDDS and the way the media is pushing the hard left Dem candidates (like they did Trump); Trump might become the lesser of two evils candidate.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.6.9  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @3.6.5    5 months ago
If only the Republicans would mount a decent primary campaign too, so we could have two potentially decent candidates.  But both parties fight tooth and nail against a primary when they are in power.

Because doing so openly declares that the person you put into office is a terrible choice.

The thing is...Trump is loud and obnoxious, tasteless and crass, but he's not actually destroying the country, despite what the legion of Henny Pennys would have us believe.  

He could make four or five major moves and walk to a Reagan-esque re-election.  He won't, but he could.  The middle of the field is wide open, and nobody seems to have much interest in claiming it.  The 2020 election, like all others, will be won in the middle.

 
 
 
CB
3.6.10  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.6.9    5 months ago
He could make four or five major moves and walk to a Reagan-esque re-election.  He won't, but he could.

Because Trump is a arrogant jerk who his own life continues to enjoy the sound of his own voice and now a Twitter feed. That's just for starters.

 
 
 
katrix
3.6.11  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @3.6.7    5 months ago
He is about the only person on the right I know of that has thought of challenging Trump.

Hogan toyed with the idea, but finally decided not to go for it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.6.12  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @3.6.10    5 months ago
Because Trump is a arrogant jerk who his own life continues to enjoy the sound of his own voice and now a Twitter feed. That's just for starters.

Absolutely.  Tip of the iceberg.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.7  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    5 months ago

This independent centrist doesn't consider my position to be between good and evil. Too many varying shades of gray.

I hold definite opinions on many subjects (subject to change when more data becomes available).

 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.7.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @3.7    5 months ago
This independent centrist doesn't consider my position to be between good and evil.

The word "between" does not imply "either/or". It implies "somewhere/anywhere"

Too many varying shades of gray.

Exactly. Dark gray is not the same as light gray. Claiming they are the same is wrong - either foolishly or intentionally.

 
 
 
Ender
4  Ender    5 months ago

I don't know. I tend to think that most Libertarians vote republican.

What bothers me most of all about our current climate, I was able to criticize Obama. I didn't like a lot of things he did. It just seems some now would defend trump to the death, even when he is wrong or his policies are detrimental.

I do think that the two party system has a stranglehold on our political landscape and I don't see a way out of it any time soon.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @4    5 months ago
What bothers me most of all about our current climate, I was able to criticize Obama. I didn't like a lot of things he did. It just seems some now would defend trump to the death, even when he is wrong or his policies are detrimental.

I have to agree with you 100%. Those who are into Trump see him as flawless, (which is rather funny). I criticized both Obama and Trump to varying degrees. I think that Trump is more of a "cult of personality" than Obama was. 

I do think that the two party system has a stranglehold on our political landscape and I don't see a way out of it any time soon.

True and utterly depressing.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @4    5 months ago

 It just seems some now would defend trump to the death, even when he is wrong or his policies are detrimental.

I would never defend Trump to his death, but the left wing has not made a rational determination that his and actions are wrong or detrimental. I could just as easily say the Democrats positions are wrong and detrimental to the nation and the majority of its people 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    5 months ago

Greg,

You are not drawing equal comparisons. Trump is one man. He is not his party. And within his party, there are mainstream Republicans, conservatives and rightwingers. Same thing with the Dems. There are mainstream, conservative and left-wing Democrats. 

Within both parties, there are good people, so it's hard to make a sweeping generalisation about them, ( don't worry, that won't be removed, LOL)

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.2  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.1    5 months ago

One thing I never understood either. Some people will say each party is a block then in the next breath say that the parties have different factions.

Both parties have their differences. Republicans have the freedom caucus, etc. Dems have the progressive branch.

One thing our two party system has done is the extremes, moderates, etc. are all thrown into one camp.

One of these days I keep thinking some may branch off. But that may diminish their power, so they stay put.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @4.2.2    5 months ago
One of these days I keep thinking some may branch off. But that may diminish their power, so they stay put.

And really, it's all about staying in power.  I would like a third choice though. Most countries do. We have a monpoloy. 

 
 
 
Kavika
5  Kavika     5 months ago

It's always good to pick and choose who has the best policies between the parties on areas that are of interest to one. In many states if you register as a indie you have no vote in the primary....Right or wrong that is the way it is.

 It would seem that being an indie cuts your ability to get in a person that has a view that you support. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.1  Ender  replied to  Kavika @5    5 months ago

In my state one can vote in the primaries. Some are trying to change that though.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @5    5 months ago

Very true Kavika on all accounts and I find it very frustrating. But the parties devised it this way for a reason, and that was to protect themselves. They did a fine job. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6  TᵢG    5 months ago

Some people cannot imagine that a person would not follow the lead of a political party.   I, in contrast, find it amazing that so many seem to adopt as true almost everything their chosen party declares as such.

As you note, an independent evaluates each issue using facts and logic and makes a decision; the essence of critical thinking.  That is very different from simply adopting the decision of a political party and accepting the party's justifications.

However, that does not mean an independent does not have core principles (an ideology).   We all have certain core principles that we have found to be good guides for decision making.   For example, one core principle is that resources (and that includes tax revenues) should be used in the most effective manner possible and (ideally) for the intended purposes.    Another is that it is best for people to be free to live their lives as they see fit as long as they contribute to (rather than do harm to) the civil society that enables our lifestyles.

Where an independent lands on any particular issue is largely a function of that individual's core principles and the specifics of the issue.   The position of a particular party is largely irrelevant except in those cases where the independent is considering the balance of power.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @6    5 months ago

I'm glad you brought up core principles, Tig. I do have mine. I am not lost in the middle as some have claimed. And my opinions swing both ways when it comes to the issues. But I do think that I apply critical thinking to my decisions and that matters to me more, than just belonging to belong. To me, that is irrational.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    5 months ago
I am not lost in the middle as some have claimed.

Exactly.  You are an independent.  An independent would not vote middle-of-the-road any more than she would vote either extreme. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @6    5 months ago

Tribalism is everything.

Decades of assault on experts, science, rationality... have emptied public discourse of any "referee". All that's left, for many people, is dogma - the "Tribal Truth".

Bereft of any "real reality" - "facts" being "whatever" - many people have nothing to anchor them, other than their tribe. The tribe, at least, is real. So they accept as "truth" the dogma of the tribe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2    5 months ago

Good point.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2    5 months ago

Right now, people who should know better seem to be rallying behind the tribe of far left liberals who seem determined to ruin and denigrate out great country.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.2    5 months ago

I think that both extremes are bad for this country Greg. In fact, at the end of the day, we end up in the same rotten place. Hence why I am for movement more to the center.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.2    5 months ago

I don't think so, Greg.

The left is fairly "data oriented". That's why we're seeing the candidates making "policy propositions" what to do and how to pay for it.

There's no "Warren tribe" or "Buttigieg tribe". Progressives are comparing the various policies.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.4    5 months ago
The left is fairly "data oriented". That's why we're seeing the candidates making "policy propositions" what to do and how to pay for it.

It doesn't count as "data oriented" if the plan to pay for something bears no resemblance to reality.

Proposing $130 trillion of new spending over 10 years and saying "you just pay for it" is not actually being "data oriented".  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.2.5    5 months ago

Do you have a case like that?

I see no problem with making propositions for how to best spend the federal budget on the one hand, and how to best ensure adequate federal revenues on the other.

We've seen tax reform propositions that largely cover outlays.

I'd guess that your problem is with form, not substance.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    5 months ago

Single biggest reason Bubba got elected the first time?   

Independent Ross Perot.

I'll never waste a vote like that again.   I wish it wasn't that way for third party voting but there you go.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7    5 months ago
Independent Ross Perot.

True.   

Being an independent voter does not mean voting for a declared Independent candidate.   That is tacit partisanship.   An independent voter could have voted for Bush, Clinton or Perot.   The choice would be a result of that voter's own thought process - what the voter considered important rather than the 'party' of the candidate.

Now, the other aspect of this is the splitting of the vote.   That would be a strategic factor in the decision.   I can see how you would not vote for an alternate candidate who was your first choice because that candidate splits the vote for your second choice and thus enables your last choice to win.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    5 months ago
 

That is exactly what happened in 1992.   And to a lesser degree in 96.   Votes for the third party largely hurt only one candidate.   Like if Schultz ends up running in 2020, he we will likely hurt the Dem more than the Rep.

Don't think it changed the outcome in 96 but i have little doubt it changed it in 92.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    5 months ago
An independent voter could have voted for Bush, Clinton or Perot. 

Exactly. And I don't think that having Perot on the ballot was bad. He was the closest we got to a third party candidate in years. Had he won, I wouldn't have been upset. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    5 months ago
That is exactly what happened in 1992.

I know.   I was using your example.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    5 months ago

Hard to say what Perot might have done.   But we do know that he was 'all ears' so there you go.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.4    5 months ago

LOL, good one, Tig. And sure no one knows how someone will perform when they are up at bat. He could have been awful. But at the time, I don't think I would have minded. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    5 months ago
Votes for the third party largely hurt only one candidate.

To me, that means the party it hurt had a contrary position on some subject that was so important to those voters that they were willing to make their voices heard by the party they belong to.

Problem is, sometimes the position the party holds might be perfectly understood and supported by the majority, and sometimes the position the party holds is being deemed too extreme and the voters want to rein the party in.

I would assume that most independent voters would look at both sides most extreme positions, and decide which ones they can live with the easiest.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    5 months ago
I would assume that most independent voters would look at both sides most extreme positions, and decide which ones they can live with the easiest.

Actually, as I said somewhere else, extremism of any sort, left or right, I want to avoid. So what I am doing is looking at the candidates and making my decision. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @7    5 months ago

Wow, you hated Clinton that much? I actually thought we prospered under him. Did you ever vote dem? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.2    5 months ago
Did you ever vote dem? 

Yes i have and another independent (Anderson) before Perot.

And i don't think i said i hated Bill Clinton.   Your words, not mine.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.1    5 months ago
And i don't think i said i hated Bill Clinton.   Your words, not mine.

True enough. Then tell us how you felt about him?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.2.2    5 months ago

btw Sparty, I removed my second question to you. I apologize for having missed it the first time around. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @7    5 months ago
Single biggest reason Bubba got elected the first time?    Independent Ross Perot.

I have seen studies of that election that indicate that Perot probably took votes pretty evenly from both Bush and Clinton. Many people were pretty pissed off about the failure of the "no new taxes" pledge and likely would have voted for Clinton anyway.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @7.3    5 months ago

I think I remember reading that, too. 

In all honesty, I didn't mind Bush. I did vote for him the first time. But I like Clinton better. He fit my issues more. But at the end of the day, and he was a boon for the economy. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.4  Heartland American  replied to  Sparty On @7    5 months ago

I did third party in 2016 out of ignorance and then inability to predict how great Trump would be doing so far.  For me though living in California I knew that my 3rd party vote would contribute nothing to electing Hillary, something I was resigned to expect that night. I was relieved it turned out the way it did because there’s a lot of difference between not being ready to trust someone and outright virtually almost hating her.  I still relish rubbing it in who won the office to others here in California, after the 4 million vote thing.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    5 months ago

Donald Trump is the worst president in the history of this country. To pretend otherwise for the sake of promoting political independence is ..... I cant even think of a word for it. 

Presidential historians did a poll on all the presidents last year. Trump came in dead fricking last. And it sure as hell isnt going to get any better. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @8    5 months ago

Yes, John, I know you hate Trump. Were you around during the Buchanon or Jackson years? They sucked pretty badly, too. 

Trump has to say some of the dumbest stuff I have ever read and he has a limited vocabulary and a grand opinion of himself, but I am not sure if that makes him worse than the other two... 

You know time cleanses the mind. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1    5 months ago

I dont "hate" Trump, I just know that a complete asshole is not fit to be president of the United States.  Plus he is a KNOWN fraud and crook. And a pathological liar. Are you serious? 

What independents do when they do a Hamlet thing as regards Trump ("to be or not to be - against Trump- that is the question"), is they help to "normalize" this travesty that is currently taking place in this country. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1    5 months ago

Many US Presidents of both parties have been flaming narcissists.   Some just hide it better.  

Trump clearly isn't one that has the desire or ability to hide it.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    5 months ago

Take heart JR, it could have been a lot worse.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @8    5 months ago

You've said essentially the same thing hundreds of times John. And you're still wrong.

Trumps popularity continues to rise, and the pace will probably increase as the democrats continue to self destruct.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446347-trumps-approval-rating-hits-highest-point-in-two-years

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    5 months ago

The poll you are linking is an outlier. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    5 months ago
Trumps popularity continues to rise, and the pace will probably increase as the democrats continue to self destruct.

In the scheme of things, we shouldn't take polls seriously. I thought we would have realized that from the last election. 

As for the Dems, they are exactly where the Republicans were at this point. A lot of players on the field, with any of them being a possible black horse. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.1    5 months ago

But you love polls John, so that one should be an outstanding example for you to ponder.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @8    5 months ago
Donald Trump is the worst president in the history of this country.

Unless one is a 12 year old, that is just a ridiculous statement.

When he confiscates Oregon and puts liberals on a Trail of Tears, do let us know.  

 
 
 
TTGA
8.3.1  TTGA  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3    5 months ago
When he confiscates Oregon and puts liberals on a Trail of Tears, do let us know.  

What the hell, Jack.  Liberals have been marching and crying (not to mention screaming and falsely accusing) ever since Nov. 2016.  I guess we could call that a trail of tears (non capitalized in this case though).

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.4  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @8    5 months ago

Donald Trump is a great American.  He is a good President.  That he kept the wicked witch Hillary out of the presidency is enough to make him a hero.  

 
 
 
CB
9  CB     5 months ago
How did this great nation get to the point, where we have to choose the less of all evils instead of the best? I have no answers to these questions, but I worry about what that means about Americans.

Actually, dear Perrie, this statement is 'difficult' for me. I will try to indicate why.

Ronald Reagan was a "friendly" conservative, but as it turned out for eight years his 'grain' was cut to feed hungry conservatives in this country; assuming you were an independent in the Eighties, how did that help you and me? For the record, I voted for Ronald Reagan. Two reasons:

  1. I am a pragmatist. President Carter, a man with acknowledges strong faith, had no business dealing with a recalcitrant Iran (hostage) crisis.
  2. I liked Reagan's public demeanor (soft, calm, firm), and I had no specific reason to withhold a vote for him.
  3. I was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Being an independent gives one a responsibility to be pragmatic in politics, too. Trump is a dangerous man, because he does not respect any other person's reason for being. That is, he tramples on the power of others and institutions—choosing instead to install his own base personality over anyone else.

You, me, and other parties are forced to fall back in a Trump Administration. Unless you like looking toward the front of politics from the back of the administration, you would be wise to forego any short-term advantage Donald Trump can bring this country (and you); so as to keep a country for the duration of your lifetime that you can respect for its independence!

Trump manipulates independence - he does not believe it it for others with a different opinion than his own. Test that theory: See video of how he bashes anyone in, near, or out of his particular ("trump-view") worldview when they strongly disagree with him. That includes, running conservatives and other evangelicals out of the conservative movement who don't stand with him.

With Trump it boils down to this: Do you stand with Trump or not?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @9    5 months ago

Yes, Reagan was a friendly conservative. Yet, during those years, I hardly slept feeling like I was on the edge of nuclear war. I didn't despise the man though. I didn't like Carter either. I voted for them both once. Regretted it both times. 

I am not sure that Trump manipulates independents. I think he appeals to the common man since he speaks their language. Most Americans don't want to hear great speeches. They want to hear what makes them happy at that moment and Trump delivers that. 

With Trump it boils down to this:Do you stand with Trump or not?

There I have to agree with you. 

 
 
 
CB
9.1.1  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    5 months ago

President Obama did not deliver just 'great speeches' as a job description. He fixed and ended a recession. He gave homosexuals a  greater political space/voice, and against all odds: he gave them more than hope of marriage. Obama is the reason we have "American" television daring to integrate homosexual relationships and marital relationships as status quo.

He increased rights and privileges for the permanent 'least of these' of American cultural views and society; he delivered what has defeated politicians all through the latter half of the twentieth century: A national healthcare policy. One so strong that even though it is beaten down and burnt it still works disabled and sitting on a stool. 

Obama cried for the dead children of America. He showed up with respect and valiantly tried to make policy changes that matter to the 'state' of gun violence in this country—he was withstood by men and women conservatives who simply brushed off the dead and dying with 'thoughts and prayers.' I love that one. But, it is not a policy 'paper.'

Trump is a talking chump, period. Everything he is currently doing is short-term gain, or losses, either because a new president will likely have to reverse it for cause or as simply a contested move against the system and understanding this country has operated on which was incrementally helping more than one base SEGMENT of the country.

I am not deceived. I respect Trump for taking action and being busy; but I do not deceive myself: all changes which come about to set people back and lift one group categorically above another is bad for this country's stated goal of diversity and equality for all.

Independents are not Trump's base. When he speaks he is speaking to a conservative "movement" agenda—independents and democrats "parties" are an afterthought.

Great speeches? What is wrong with a speech that is not pocked with lies, half-truths, and affronts to 2/3 of the populace?

If a leader has the GALL to lie and attempt to make us believe it to our faces,  then what the heaven should we believe said leader is saying about us or believing about us in his heart?

I will repeat Maya Angelo here: Ah! But you know the quote du jour already. So there is no need to write it.

 
 
 
CB
9.1.2  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    5 months ago

One more thing about Trump:

I am confident from watching and reading Trump that he thinks he is a better president than Reagan ever could be. I'll even go so far as to suggest Trump thinks he is more qualified to run England than the British leadership and its Queen (herself). I imagine him sitting next to Queen Elizabeth thinking along the lines of: I can run this court and state dinner better than she.

That is my imagining, to be clear. I base it on listening to Trump, nevertheless. And God help the Queen if she is reported to make a perceived misstep about Trump ('s visit). Trump does not take constructive criticism well at all! The coming days will tell us a lot about Trump's character after he departs the Queen's presence and 'territories.'

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @9.1.1    5 months ago

OK, so I see that there is a dangerous dichotomy being set up here, that I think needs to be clarified. I am not comparing these two men. There is no comparison. I am still speechless that Trump is our president, even more so when people of faith say it was divine. A less godly man there couldn't be. I shake my head and walk away. 

I have a long list of grievances about Obama. The difference is that I expected better of him and he didn't cut it. And while I agree he did do good things he also did plenty of disappointing things. 

But this article is about the bigger picture. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.3    5 months ago

There is no bigger picture right now. All politics is a referendum on the clown moron holding the presidency hostage. 

It is not desirable, but it is reality. Ambivalence about this is not acceptable. 

 
 
 
CB
9.1.5  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.3    5 months ago

Okay, I am strongly with you my dear Perrie and you know that, but I want to deep digger into this. I have another thought:

Q. Which gives independent voters concern more - former President Obama's and 2020 democratic candidate's arrogance or President Trump's and the Republican Party's humility?

 
 
 
CB
9.1.6  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.3    5 months ago
even more so when people of faith say it was divine. A less godly man there couldn't be.
The difference is that I expected better of [Obama] and he didn't cut it. And while I agree he did do good things he also did plenty of disappointing things. 

The first black president to hold the office had to expect better of himself; for he was playing with personal high stakes. Thus, his critic's, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker John Boehner, and Speaker Paul Ryan took advantage of Obama's positioning to be intolerable and unmanageable. Remember the republicans (including former speaker Newt Gingrich, et al) 'ambushed' the Obama presidency at its inception in a Washington D.C. dinner meeting the night of his inauguration. (During a national financial crisis no less!) I will never accept the pretense they did not take into account the "novelty"  factor of this presidency.

We can only wonder, if it had been another dominant white male president struggling to lift the nation out of a 'great' recession if republicans would have toyed with positioning or sat down to cooperate for the good of the republic and all its citizens. We will never know now. It is all played out, canned, and behind us now.

For my part, I will end this segment, by stating President Obama had a legacy (first black president) to build and he could not afford to leave its construction in the care of diabolical republican 'framers.' I think Obama got us out of recession and got this nation a national healthcare plan (so critics could bitch and moan about it) once and for all.  Those two decisions if alone are worthy of an all-time high.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @9.1.5    5 months ago
Q. Which gives independent voters concern more - former President Obama's and 2020 democratic candidate's arrogance or President Trump's and the Republican Party's humility?

These are both fait accompli. Obama's presidency has come and gone, but while he was president, I had some major issues with him. I think the Dems blew it running Clinton. They should have cared more about who was the best candidate and not the first woman. Furthermore, it was her arrogance, that made them lose battleground states. 

As for Trump, I don't think that Republicans wanted him. It was how it shook out. In fact, I don't think he thought he would win the nomination. But here we are. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @9.1.6    5 months ago

I don't think that the Republican reps had it in for Obama for being black. There were citizens who did for sure. I think that the party though was going to put up roadblocks to anything he was going to present, since that is what parties do, and why I dislike them so. 

Race became a big thing because of other things going on in the nation, like police shootings of black men and the way the press played it up. 

Obama's legacy of being the 1st black President is something. Changing health care is something. Pulling us out of a recession is something. 

But there were things that he did that were bad. 

But we are straying from the general to the specifics. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.8    5 months ago

I think that generally this post of yours is correct. I would just emphasize that when Obama ran for president it came at a time when whites in America began to realize that they were losing their grip on a numerical majority in America. Obama as the first non white president became a very tangible symbol of the changing demographics and the political power that attaches to numerical equality. 

There were a number of Republican politicians that became birthers or tacitly supported birtherism. One of the famous ones was the now Trumper congressman Mark Meadows who ran in 2012 on a vow to send Obama "back to Kenya". These sort of racist appeals were made because the right wing GOP voters encouraged it if not demanded it.  Still the politicians had to acknowledge it, and some did. 

 
 
 
CB
9.1.10  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.7    5 months ago

First, Obama was not an arrogant president. Trump is the single most arrogant president in my lifetime. President Obama had to be humble, because he knew the blow-back and the odds of success are against him based on people "probin" him for stereotypes. Safe to state it would have been lacking in wisdom to forget or ignore what history books would write about a stereotypical unsophisticated, and "angry" black president who thought to turn the nation into some version of 'blackness.' Obama could not be that and he was not that!

President Trump is an arrogant, flagrant liar and he is in England flouting its system as we discuss him.

The choices offered were false and inverted for rhetorical effect.

In my opinion, the Democrats chose to 'run' Hillary not solely as a woman candidate, but based on the caliber of her service as:

  1. Service to the nation in the White House as first lady for eight years.
  2. Participation (and nearness) as first lady in some policy decisions during her husband's president.
  3. She was a Senator.
  4. She was Secretary of State.
  5. She is coast to coast well-established and well known.
  6. She was 'positioned' to run for president.
  7. She is not a so-called, "democratic socialist."
  8. She was a properly vetted 'quantity.'

Also, one has to consider if Hillary Clinton, who by some matrices won, would be President of the United States based on merit, had not Trump been the opponent and he being allowed to deploy dirty tricks on social media platforms, make 'pass through" lies, and garner assist from foreign adversaries of this country. We may never know what could or should have been in the 2016 election were it conducted properly!

One other thing to consider: many people are running today, simply because a black man dared (and won!). There is no other way to explain how a homosexual man married to another man is running to be president in 2020 apart from the context of Barack Obama (first black) and Hillary Clinton (first woman clearing the path).

Are we proud of Trump's representation of us on the world stage right now?

Question: Are independent voters apolitical (unbiased) or presenting as Machiavellian (self-interested)?

 
 
 
CB
9.1.11  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.8    5 months ago
I don't think that the Republican reps had it in for Obama for being black. There were citizens who did for sure. I think that the party though was going to put up roadblocks to anything he was going to present, since that is what parties do, and why I dislike them so. 

Putting up 'roadblocks' to particular policy announcements, introductions, bills, and/or passage is to be expected in politics. Everyone expects and accepts the challenge of foundational politics. But appearances and perceptions are a thing too. Republicans abused and scandalized former President Obama throughout two terms. They schemed against him the night of his inauguration; yelled, "You lie!" during his first State of the Union speech; dealt with him in bad faith and lack of confidence.To this day, republicans curse the record of acts done by the Obama Administration and Trump is attempting to make it look like Obama never 'really happened.' That is radical.

The Obama Administration fixed the U. S. economy so Donald Trump can come in an "crow" about its success now. Obama left Trump a more level playing field than Bush left the first black president (who had plenty to prove and model) to this country. I won't stop saying it, because it is the truth!

Republicans either disrespected Obama because of his skin color in part or whole; or, they are guilty of not letting appearances matter at a point in time when being the first black "head" of the United States he could have used all the support these men give themselves!

In place of support and openness to the newness of Obama and an expanding recession, the republicans put out spite, resentment, and more and unnecessary 'roadblocks' up! You can say republicans/conservative's made the great recession's hell—hotter!

As you can only now imagine because they destroyed the near woman candidate for president (falsely), republicans plan and intend to do the same thing to the first woman president when the time comes—no matter who the democrat female will be. Ditto, for a homosexual candidate! Republican will abuse him or her out of spite, resentment and more!

Snatch off the covering and gaze for a while at what is under it. If Republicans are one thing; it's deliberate.

 
 
 
CB
9.1.12  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.9    5 months ago

Another way of looking at the Obama candidacy and presidency is this country simply had it up to its eyeballs in "same old - same old" monotonous men who were after the same value systems in government and who were leaving too many gaps between their acts and failures to act.

President Obama's first term was a consequence. An audacious act by the nation to spurt a new government of ideas. May be? Just may be?

Of course, republicans and conservatives got busy to dumb "all that" down!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  CB @9.1.10    5 months ago
First, Obama was not an arrogant president.

He was much, much worse than that. He was an uppity nigger.

Objectively, he was a moderate conservative. His manner was quiet and dignified.

The only way to find "arrogance" is to set the bar so low that any normal person cannot limbo it.

OTOH, racism explains perfectly why some think him arrogant.

 
 
 
CB
9.1.14  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.13    5 months ago

I see how you squared the "uppity n—" phrase throughout the rest of your comment. Ah! Clever comment.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10  JohnRussell    5 months ago
In fact, I was actually more critical of Obama and the Dems, than I am of Trump.

I am dumbstruck. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @10    5 months ago

So to clarify, Obama was touted as the second coming and he fell far from that mark. I had a low opinion of Trump from the get-go (being a NYer), so really nothing he does shocks me. 

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.1  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1    5 months ago

I am always surprised when people are shocked or dismayed by him. He has always been this way.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @10.1.1    5 months ago

People are not "shocked" at Trump. That is a silly supposition. People are shocked at the indifference. At least the right wing nut jobs have an excuse. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @10.1.1    5 months ago
I am always surprised when people are shocked or dismayed by him. He has always been this way.

Tell me about it! It's far more disappointing when someone you thought was going to be good, falls far from the mark. You feel betrayed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1    5 months ago

I don't think anyone touted Obama as the 'second coming' except his detractors when they were smearing him endlessly 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.4    5 months ago

So the stage that Obama's crew set up to look like a chapel with the ghostly lighting and wavering music during his swearing in ceremony didn't look like a "second coming" to you????

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    5 months ago

The reaction to Trump statements can be interpreted philosophically:

“When someone tells you, ‘I love you,’ and then you feel, ‘Oh, I must be worthy after all,’ that’s an illusion. That’s not true. Or someone says, ‘I hate you,’ and you think, ‘Oh, God, I knew it; I’m not very worthy,’ that’s not true either. Neither one of these thoughts hold any intrinsic reality. They are an overlay. When someone says, ‘I love you,’ he is telling you about himself, not you. When someone says, ‘I hate you,’ she is telling you about herself, not you..... Adyashanti

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @10    5 months ago

Obama's economic policy was simply awful. His crony regulations obstructed economic recovery.

Many of us are still in the workforce and do not want to return to the economic misery.

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.3  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @10    5 months ago

No comment....

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    5 months ago
Right now, our country has never been so polarized.

We hear this a lot, but I don't think it's actually true. I would concede we are more polarized than we have been in a long time, but we have been through worse. I think one reason we feel that way, though is that we measure our levels of polarization against the unprecedented bipartisanship we saw during and after WWII.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12  KDMichigan    5 months ago
Right now, our country has never been so polarized. I find it very disturbing.

I don't think so. Maybe it's because of the life style you live?

The web gives people a platform to spew their rage but in the real world people go on with there life's. If it wasn't for this platform and the world news I would never hear anything about politics. I have one friend who is a total LWNJ on FB always crying about President Trump. Now I spent about 3 hours around him a few weeks ago at a celebration of life party and he never once went political. People just don't want to hear it.

Now I consider myself a right leaning independent because I'm really anti-fed and more state rights. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @12    5 months ago
I don't think so. Maybe it's because of the life style you live?

Excuse me? You know nothing about my lifestyle to make that kind of comment. 

Now I consider myself a right leaning independent because I'm really anti-fed and more state rights. 

That makes you a libertarian not an independent. I don't know any indie who calls people names like LWNJ. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1    5 months ago
Excuse me? You know nothing about my lifestyle to make that kind of comment. 

You run a blog? That is mostly political. Why I made that comment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @12.1.1    5 months ago

But that is not a lifestyle. That is what I do part-time keeping a long held promise to provide an interactive, non partisan, discussion site. Sadly due to my position here, I get to say very little.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    5 months ago

It's discouraging to see so many salivate over these two political parties. They both believe government is the solution and they are both wrong. The simple deregulation by the Trumpanzee took a big shit all over both party's obsession with protectionism and crony regulatory abuse.

While I don't believe Trump to be a solution, I do believe when we decide who to replace him with we chose someone who continues to remove the obstruction of government from the economy so the prosperity can continue.

Government is not the solution. Anyone beating that drum needs to be met with disdain.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13    5 months ago
While I don't believe Trump to be a solution, I do believe when we decide who to replace him with we chose someone who continues to remove the obstruction of government from the economy so the prosperity can continue. Government is not the solution. Anyone beating that drum needs to be met with disdain.

I respect your POV. You place most of your concerns on the economy. For me, there are many concerns, including the economy. 

Our government should serve the people, but most of the time, it serves itself.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1    5 months ago
Our government should serve the people, but most of the time, it serves itself. 

Are you saying that civil servants enrich themselves at public expense? Otherwise, I don't know who this pernicious "government" might be.

Might it be more accurate to say that "some people use the government to enrich themselves"? This expression leads us to ask "what people are doing this?" We should be looking for the villains.

"The government" is not at all an active agent. "The government" has no will of its own. There are people who direct the government. They are identifiable, and they should be identified.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1    5 months ago
Our government should serve the people, but most of the time, it serves itself.  

Libertarians or anarchists dont want any government at all. Or they want a government designed the way they want it, not the way the majority wants it. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
13.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.2    5 months ago

You need to invest in studying. libertarians do not share the anarchist view of no government whatsoever 

I adhere to minarchist libertarian beliefs which are close to that of many founders like Samuel Adams and Jefferson

I'm specifically a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government

Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent that its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well.

 Secular libertarianism, socialism, fascism, and crony capitalism are strongly opposed, as is theocracy. The latter does not include merely being influenced by Christian concepts; whereas in a theocracy, government derives its powers from a divine or religious authority directly exercising governmental control. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights.

Thomas Jefferson inaugural address March 4,1801

"what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13    5 months ago

The Libertarian candidate has never gotten above 3 percent of the votes. And its not for a lack of trying. They have been on the ballot many many times. You can't find enough people to think it would be better to let corporations run the country even more than they already do. Or that we should allow polluters and frauds to run wild in the name of "freedom", or we should have no taxes so the rich can exploit the poor more than is already happening. Dream on. 

 
 
 
luther28
14  luther28    5 months ago

libertarians that I know, will vote libertarian no matter what (please correct me here, if I am wrong

In my particular case (non Darwinian Libertarian), sorry Perrie you are wrong:). In truth though I subscribe to the theory, I have never actually voted for a National Libertarian candidate due to the fact that they always run a nut case for office.

While due to the social fabric of our Nation, there will never be a candidate that satisfies the needs of every citizen, I would settle for one that addresses the needs of the many.

Sadly, between the lobbyists, seemingly never ending terms of office and the apathy of most voters ( see the first two) our system is broken, time to admit it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  luther28 @14    5 months ago
In my particular case (non Darwinian Libertarian), sorry Perrie you are wrong:)

I have never heard the term non Darwinian Libertarian before. Please explain.

While due to the social fabric of our Nation, there will never be a candidate that satisfies the needs of every citizen, I would settle for one that addresses the needs of the many.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.. very Spock of you, and I agree. 

Sadly, between the lobbyists, seemingly never ending terms of office and the apathy of most voters ( see the first two) our system is broken, time to admit it.

Ah! Now you have hit on something that drives me mad. Lobbyist. They take away the power from the people! Citizens United was one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever happen. In that sense, the system is beyond broken. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
15  livefreeordie    5 months ago

Ever since I made the mistake of voting for Nixon in 68 and he turned out to be a socialist, I left the Republican Party in 1970.  Only in the case of Reagan in 80 and 84 have I voted Republican since and never for a Democrat. I actually would have voted for Bobby in 68 if he hadn’t been assassinated.

I follow the advice of John Adams which has led me to vote 3rd parties to show my distaste for both major parties

John Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago

Well, I wouldn't call Nixon a socialist.. maybe a liar and a cheat. That being said, he was a great internationalist. 

John Adams is a personal hero of mine. Has been since I was a child. He was right when he said: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." 

And I have always done that. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @16    5 months ago

Really. Nixon  who gave us the EPA, OSHA, Earth Day, Clean Air Act, Earned Income Tax Credit,   proposed a guaranteed living income, universal healthcare, created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, created Title IX for women’s sports, added the cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security, and expanded food stamps and welfare assistance. Nixon raised the minimum wage by 40% in 1974. He also supported the Equal Rights Amendment.   Nixon unapologetically engaged in deficit spending and publicly declared, “Now I am a Keynesian .”   Nixon reduced defense spending by 1/3 and surrendered South Vietnam to the Communists.

Noam Chomsky: Richard Nixon Was 'Last Liberal President'

Three Democrats have held the position of commander-in-chief since the Richard Nixon era, but if you ask philosopher Noam Chomsky, it was the 37th president and infamous Watergate casualty who was truly the last liberal to preside in the Oval Office.

During a discussion on HuffPost Live, Chomsky weighed in on the minimum wage debate, blaming neo-liberals for keeping talk of wage increases off the table until now.

"It's a shame that it's taken so long to even be a discussion," Chomsky said. "As for support, we may recall the last major program for helping families at the level of survival was under Richard Nixon. In many respects Nixon was the last liberal president."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
16.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @16    5 months ago
Well, I wouldn't call Nixon a socialist..

LFOD seems to considers everything liberal, progressive or designed to protect the masses as "socialist". Nixon created the EPA and did do a bunch of very liberal things, but was nothing even close to a "socialist". But when some people choose to redefine a known word in an effort to make it fit their pre-conceived narrative, this is what you end up with.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @16.2    5 months ago

Even Chomsky who is a leftist anarchist rightly calls Nixon a leftist president.

when you have massive control over our lives and businesses and forced statist collectivism, that is Marxist. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @16.2    5 months ago
LFOD seems to considers everything liberal, progressive or designed to protect the masses as "socialist"

Kind of like, "I see dead socialist"? ;)

 
 
 
Dulay
16.3  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @16    5 months ago

I wish that Adams would have listened to his wife when it came to rights for women. 

 
 
 
CB
17  CB     5 months ago

I am pissed now. Independent voters (which I aim to be as a pragmatist) are supposed to stand up for something positive and good for all people. I have never thought that all that could matter for an independent voter is a damn buck and a good place for their children individually and collectively.

Trump is a chump. He is a diabolical liar. One Case in Point: He PROMISED independent voters and others he would show us his tax returns (after audit):

  1. He has not shown us a single tax return of his own volition.
  2. He has stonewalled a democratically elected Oversight Committee seeking his taxes.
  3. He has positioned cabinet and internal revenue officials who will not even clarify if he is now or ever been under tax audit—to Congress.
  4. Trump won't us to respect government and he won't.

And independents are 'conflicted' about the character of this Trump chump? Give me a break. Trump is a living breathing contempt 'citation'! He is treating this country with contempt every day he wakes up to solicit and enact policies that he won't obey himself!

Trump delights in his own "stinkin' thinking" and I am appalled that any independent voter does not want to check such characterization of our national consciousness. But rather, thinks he or she could bask in four more years of. . . this!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago
Really. Nixon  who gave us the EPA, OSHA, Earth Day, Clean Air Act, Earned Income Tax Credit,proposed a guaranteed living income, universal healthcare, created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, created Title IX for women’s sports, added the cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security, and expanded food stamps and welfare assistance. Nixon raised the minimum wage by 40% in 1974. He also supported the Equal Rights Amendment.

Let's take that apart. None of this is socialist: EPA, OSHA, Earth Day, Clean Air Act, created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, created Title IX for women’s sports, the Equal Rights Amendment. They are departments and bureaucracies. Earned Income Tax Credit is tax reform. Kind of like what Trump tried to do and will fail at. 

He never gave us universal healthcare.

The Equal Rights Amendment pertains to the constitution, has never been ratified, and was first introduced in Congress in December 1923. 

These are socialist: the cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security, and expanded food stamps and welfare assistance.

And Noam Chomsky is a babbling idiot so who cares what he says. 

I give you the Chomskybot:  https://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

See, you can make up stuff he never said and it still sounds like him. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18    5 months ago
See, you can make up stuff he never said and it still sounds like him. 

Pandering is intellectual laziness and seems to be an epidemic among academia and our political class. They all sound very similar.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18.1    5 months ago
Pandering is intellectual laziness and seems to be an epidemic among academia and our political class. They all sound very similar.

You know I don't disagree with that. So many people are intellectually lazy and would rather think in sound bites than actually come to their own conclusions. Something that makes them feel good even if it isn't good in the long run. 

Academia and politicians take advantage of that. Hence we are where we are. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
18.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.1.1    5 months ago

Pandering is particularly effective when "advisors" and "assistants" and "experts" are selected because they pander, not for any technical competence.

I hope everyone still has in mind the disgusting Cabinet meeting, when the Secretaries, one after the other, groveled before President Trump.

 
 
 
katrix
18.1.3  katrix  replied to  Bob Nelson @18.1.2    5 months ago
I hope everyone still has in mind the disgusting Cabinet meeting, when the Secretaries, one after the other, groveled before President Trump.

That was simply astonishing. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago

OK closing article for now. Will reopen later. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago

Hello Everyone, 

The article is now reopened. Have at it. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
21  Freedom Warrior    5 months ago

After having read most of the comments above I had to conclude very few of you have come close to figuring it out.  (Think power dynamics) Except for the Libertarians and the Libertarians at heart I can't agree with much of the so called independent gobbledygook being pushed out there.  Sure go ahead and tell me about those core principles whatever the hell they are.

Leftism which forms the basis for much of what the Dems promote is a non-starter.  Republicans are useful to the extent their principles overlap with those of Libertarians and serve as a counterpoint to left wing fukwadism, but lord knows I could do without plenty of those d-bags.  Trump is just another means to an end.  Plus from a personality perspective just another typical highly annoying New Yorker IMHO.   So okay go ahead do your Triumph the insult comic Trump routine and tell me some more lies DT as long as we get a decent Supreme Court pick, less regulation, lower taxes, less foreign military adventurism, better trade deals and more secure borders.

Besides I don't need another kiss ass in the oval office.  Speaking of which, here's a core philosophy some of you might consider.   Life is all about Ass ... covering it, kissing it, kicking it and getting some.  That ought to rile up a few of the faithful.

And by the way, alluding back to the first sentence. Who in the fuck seriously thinks that the government is going solve anything for you.  Lot of blind squirrels looking for nuts out there I suppose.

 
 
 
CB
21.1  CB   replied to  Freedom Warrior @21    5 months ago
Trump is just another means to an end.

Yeah, that. Trump is working on being a first, last, and everything.  In my opinion, what it all comes down to for "Mr. President" is all of us can go to he__ if we do not like him and his plans for the United States. Including libertarians and its proponents' "disconnectedness to the whole." I don't like any repeat liar, Trump is a repeat liar, and I ain't going to he__ just to please him!

Q. Is "Mr. Means to an End" Trump a reasonable person, in your opinion?


Who in the fuck seriously thinks that the government is going [to] solve anything for you.

Just let your imagination run loose with all the varied perspectives 300 million people plus can come up with; especially, remember the "wild west era," and what "everybody doing what is good and his or her own eyes" looks and feels like. Sensible government and laws work! Which brings me back to wondering why some libertarians are nonchalant about Trump tearing up every form of law he sees fit!

Trump is doing what he wants when he wants it to this country. How "libertarian" of him. Are you pleased or afraid?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @21    5 months ago

Well, you should be proud of yourself. You are the first person here with a condescending comment. Well done!

I think you need to go back to Libertarian school. Here let me help:

Libertarianism   (from   Latin :   libertas , meaning "freedom") is a collection of   political philosophies   and   movements   that uphold   liberty   as a core principle. [1]   Libertarians seek to maximize   political freedom   and   autonomy , emphasizing   freedom of choice ,   voluntary association , and   individual judgment . [2] [3] [4] Libertarians share a skepticism of   authority   and   state   power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing   political   and   economic systems . Various   schools of libertarian thought   offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of   state   and private   power , often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive   social institutions . [5]

Traditionally, libertarianism was a term for a form of   left-wing politics . Such   left-libertarian   ideologies seek to   abolish capitalism   and   private ownership   of the   means of production , or else to restrict their purview or effects, in favor of   common   or   cooperative ownership   and   management , viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty. [6] [7] [8] [9]   Classical libertarian ideologies include—but are not limited to— anarcho-communism ,   anarcho-syndicalism ,   mutualism   and   egoism , alongside many other anti-paternalist,   New Left   schools of thought   centered around   economic egalitarianism . Modern   right-libertarian   ideologies, such as   minarchism   and   anarcho-capitalism , co-opted the term in the mid-20th century to instead advocate   laissez-faire   capitalism   and strong   private property rights   such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. [10] [11] [12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The moment you start talking about Leftism, you have not aligned yourself not with libertarianism. The moment you tied it to the Dems only (you do know that there are conservative leaning Dems, right?), you solidified yourself as a conservative (not that there is anything wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade). 

And I never dumped on Trump. He is just a given to me. 

I'm not going to bother with the rest. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
21.2.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2    5 months ago

 I’m pulling my punches 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.3  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @21    5 months ago
Besides I don't need another kiss ass in the oval office. 

Trump only takes his lips off of Putin's ass long enough to give Kim a peck on the 'cheek'. 

 
 
 
CB
22  CB     5 months ago
What I do care about are the issues, the character of the politician, and current events that will impact my life.

2020 is coming! President Donald Trump and (Trump) Republican Party is still denying climate change science a role in this country's future. Is it reasonable to keep Trump as President?

All the democratic candidates support climate change science and one could say that is "better government" 101. What say you?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
22.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @22    5 months ago

Well, that would be showing my hand, right?

I am looking at all the dems. I hope someone reasonable is presented, since it is not who Perrie votes for, but who the majority of people will vote for. 

 
 
 
CB
22.1.1  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @22.1    5 months ago

Our vote is our voting power. Speak it in earnest. I am not against Trump because I am partisan. I am against Trump because he is a liar, a cheat, and he does not play fair with others in this game of life. This country's federal government has rules for its civil servants, Trump plainly does not care to be any (damn) civil servant. Begs the question why he placed himself in the que for a 'servant's job.

President Donald Trump is further interfering with congressional proceedings:

The White House has instructed Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson not to turn over documents to Congress in response to a subpoena.

If Trump with do this to a 'green tree' what will he do to a 'dried up tree' once he has starved it of proper functioning? This metaphor should not be lost on you, dear Perrie.

Is it reasonable to keep Trump as President?

 
 
 
Heartland American
22.2  Heartland American  replied to  CB @22    5 months ago

So called climate change “scientific consensus” is nothing more than a fraud. One that is bigoted enough that it’s practitioners try to silence and censor any alternative point of view.  Fortunately we have Heartland to promote our real point of view on that issue.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
22.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @22.2    5 months ago
... our real point of view ...

How revealing.   Not 'my' point of view (indicating critical thinking) but 'our' point of view (suggesting group-think).

So called climate change “scientific consensus” is nothing more than a fraud.

Because ... ?     I am aware that you also hold that biochemical evolution is a worldwide conspiracy to promote pseudo-science and support the nonsense of YEC Ken Ham and his 6,000 year old universe.

 
 
 
Kavika
22.2.2  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @22.2.1    5 months ago
How revealing.   Not 'my' point of view (indicating critical thinking) but 'our' point of view (suggesting group-think).

I wasn't imagining it. I did feel the thundering herd of lemmings pass by....

 
 
 
CB
22.2.3  CB   replied to  Heartland American @22.2    5 months ago
President Donald Trump and (Trump) Republican Party are still denying climate change science a role in this country's future. Is it reasonable to keep Trump as President?

The debate is real enough. Why not err on the side of caution and government sanctioned further investigation? I am not interested in batting opposing 'expert' opinions around for the sake of argument. If our environment is altered to damage us and or kill us - we all should be on one accord (of sound mind) to take stock of getting to a full and clear understanding of this problem.

Trump decidedly is not interested in further investigation that I can see.

 
 
 
Heartland American
22.2.4  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @22.2.1    5 months ago

I was talking about the global warming hoax and man caused climate change fraud.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
22.2.5  Heartland American  replied to  Kavika @22.2.2    5 months ago

How do you feel something pass by when you are leading it?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
22.2.6  Heartland American  replied to  CB @22.2.3    5 months ago

Really?  Then why is he strongly considering naming a commission to study all aspects of the issue and make recommendations to him as to how to handle whatever they determine?  I can’t wait to see a certain someone at a 3rd party place then declare the commission as pseudoscience and thus have its work not usable as a source unless quoted from an alternative source. 

 
 
 
CB
22.2.7  CB   replied to  Heartland American @22.2.6    5 months ago

Didn't hear or read about a commission on Climate Change. Therefore, when it happens (did see the Trump interview after the "climate change" discussion with Prince Charles of England - he a climate change advocate) followup with me on Trump's big idea/solutions (may be rejoining the Paris Climate Change Agreement is a start?).

Other than something interesting and big like that. . . . Well, I will have to wait and see.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
22.3  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @22    5 months ago
All the democratic candidates support climate change science and one could say that is "better government" 101. What say you?

The Democratic Party has a long history of identifying problems and passing laws that have no chance of solving them.

 
 
 
CB
23  CB     5 months ago

Is President Trump reasonable when he daily labels the Mueller Report party to a witch hunt?

If Trump believes this,

** II. RUSSIAN "ACTIVE MEASURES" SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN

The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering (collectively "Concord").2 The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.3 These operations constituted "active measures" (aKTMBHbie Meporrprumu1), a term that typically refers to operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs.4 The IRA and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014. Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and accounts, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists. Over time, these social media accounts became a means to reach large U.S. audiences. IRA employees travelled to the United States in mid-2014 on an intelligence-gathering mission to obtain information and photographs for use in their social media posts. IRA employees posted derogatory information about a number of candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. . . .

By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons through their social media accounts. Multiple IRA-controlled Facebook groups and Instagram accounts had hundreds of thousands of U.S. participants. IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S. political figures who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Face book accounts. 6 In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1 .4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an iRA-controlled account.7

___________________

6 Social Media Influence in the 2016 US. Election, Hearing Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 115th Cong. 13 (11/1/17) (testimony of Colin Stretch, General Counsel of Facebook) ("We estimate that roughly 29 million people were served content in their News Feeds directly from the IRA's 80,000 posts over the two years. Posts from these Pages were also shared, liked, and followed by people on Facebook, and, as a result, three times more people may have been exposed to a story that originated from the Russian operation. Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Page associated with the IRA at some point during the two-year period."). The Facebook representative also testified that Facebook had identified 170 Instagram accounts that posted approximately 120,000 pieces of content during that time. Facebook did not offer an estimate of the audience reached via Instagram. 7 Twitter, Update on Twitter's Review of the 2016 US Election (Jan. 31, 2018).

** Extracted from page 23 of the Redacted Mueller Report

is a "witch hunt" meant to hurt him or his campaign: How can such a delusional man be fit to be president and worthy of independent voters' consideration for a second term?

 
 
 
CB
23.1  CB   replied to  CB @23    5 months ago
How can such a delusional man be fit to be president and worthy of independent voters' consideration for a second term?

Please don't leave the portion extracted from the Mueller Report @23 out of this discussion! Pick it up and discuss it! It cost its fair share in millions and deserves to be read and remarked upon. If only to make clear that it has been noted.

We were 'had' by a foreign government and we ought to be outraged enough when our president does not take it seriously enough to shell out one copper penny (under his authorization) to fix the problems mentioned in the Mueller Report!

 
 
 
charger 383
24  charger 383    5 months ago

I am independent because both parties have some things I like and some things I really am against.

There are somethings I think are important and both parties avoid  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @24    5 months ago

Exactly. Why should I be tied to one party, when both have good things to offer.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1    5 months ago
... both have good things to offer.

Oh?

Could you name a "good thing" that the Republican Party has to offer?

 
 
 
Sparty On
24.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.1    5 months ago

Wow!   Polarize much?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @24.1.2    5 months ago

It's a simple question. Since "both have good things to offer", it should be easy to answer.

For example, Republican health-care! oh, wait...

Republican help for modest families! oh, wait...

Republican help for ultra-rich families! Yup! That one really does exist. But would anyone qualify it as a "good thing"?

 
 
 
Sparty On
24.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.3    5 months ago

Its an obtuse question formed with a heavily left wing bias in mind.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @24.1.4    5 months ago

If that's the case, then it should be easy to answer.

I've been asking NT "conservatives" for their policy ideas for several years now, thus far without ever getting a serious answer. But who knows? Maybe I've missed something...  jrSmiley_22_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
24.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.5    5 months ago

Thats because there is little point in doing so Bob.  

This is a great case of one persons reason is another persons vexation.  

Thus why the question, in this case, is obtuse.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
24.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.5    5 months ago
thus far without ever getting a serious answer.

It's because if they articulate their position they sound like heartless fascists. They want poor people with expensive medical conditions to go to their homes and quietly die. They want a medical treatment system that caters to the highest bidder while children born to the poor with congenital defects are sad but not their problem. They want a health care system run by the callous hand of the free market, where their insurance pays for their Viagra but not for low income women's birth control.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @24.1.7    5 months ago
It's because if they articulate their position they sound like heartless fascists.

Interesting how the definition of "heartless fascist" actually appears to be "one who fails to validate bleeding heart hysteria".

They want poor people with expensive medical conditions to go to their homes and quietly die.

You've never actually met any of these "fascists", then, have you?

They want a medical treatment system that caters to the highest bidder while children born to the poor with congenital defects are sad but not their problem. They want a health care system run by the callous hand of the free market, where their insurance pays for their Viagra but not for low income women's birth control.

Why would their insurance pay for people who are not on their insurance?  

 
 
 
CB
24.1.9  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @24.1.7    5 months ago

Yes, something like that. Republicans and democrats used to reach across the aisle. Damn, was that a great time! Remember back when the citizenry did not have to engage so often in the 'affairs' of government? The Pols did their jobs.

Well, then a great evil showed up: grumbling, mumbling, nagging, mocking, conservative and liberal radio shows infecting the ears, hearts, and minds of the citizenry: begging and encouraging citizenry to 'sharpen' their rhetoric and attack on congressional members and our presidents. Just being fair about this as I see it. Since then sides have been shored up and stacked. Heated rhetoric pours from the heartland to each coast and vice-versa.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.8    5 months ago
They want poor people with expensive medical conditions to go to their homes and quietly die.
You've never actually met any of these "fascists", then, have you?

Of course I have. I've met lots of Republicans.

You know: the people who tried again and again to suppress health-care, but never proposed any substitute.

That's pretty much "want poor people with expensive medical conditions to go to their homes and quietly die."

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
24.1.11  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.10    5 months ago

Everyone I know has healthcare, we pay for it, we just pay more for it after the failed affordable care act. Higher premiums, higher deductibles and less coverage.

The majority doesn't want your ilk to fix our health care. We don't want to pay more for a substandard product.

What utter nonsense.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1.12  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @24.1.11    5 months ago

We lost our healthcare. 

Now we pay a fortune for it. What if I couldn't afford that?

The system was broken long before the ACA for so many reasons. We could address those reasons (like the insane cost of drugs).. but we don't. 

Instead our poor use the hospital for the flu, instead of going to the doctor for a fraction of the cost. See broken. 

Don't like the ACA, fix the system. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @24.1.11    5 months ago
Everyone I know has healthcare...

That says much more about you than about health-care.

 
 
 
katrix
24.1.14  katrix  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @24.1.11    5 months ago
Higher premiums, higher deductibles and less coverage

Actually, you likely have more coverage under the ACA, not less.  Now the higher costs are true, but I'm not sure the increases are any higher than they would have been without the ACA.  I've read studies that go both ways on that.  My view is that if you make it harder for the insurance companies to manage their risk by eliminating the lifetime cap and requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions, it seems likely that they'd have to raise premiums.  With car or homeowners' insurance, the companies know exactly how much they'd have to pay out for you in the worst-case scenario.  Not so with health insurance.

Unfortunately, the ACA did nothing to actually make health care more affordable.  It dealt only with insurance, not all the issues that make health care so expensive. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1.12    5 months ago
The system was broken long before the ACA for so many reasons.

We could address those reasons (like the insane cost of drugs).. but we don't.

...

Don't like the ACA, fix the system.

    jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
24.1.16  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.13    5 months ago

It's a product, purchase it.  That is the point.

Government intervention and regulation is to blame for the outlandish costs. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @24.1.16    5 months ago
Government intervention and regulation is to blame for the outlandish costs.

America and Americans spend twice as much on health care as the other advanced nations... for a diminishing lifetime...

Do you imagine that the other countries have no "intervention and regulation"?

Seriously?

Wouldn't it be more useful to look at the real reasons?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
24.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @24.1.11    5 months ago
Everyone I know has healthcare, we pay for it

"About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance , and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance . This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families."

https://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html

Well aren't you lucky to not know any of the 44 million Americans with no health insurance.

If you want us to go back to the "old" system pre-ACA (aka repeal the ACA without any replacement which is all Republicans have actually proposed) then you are advocating for 20-30% annual rate increases while denying pre-existing conditions and spending millions on claims adjusters who work hard to deny coverage while patients without coverage simply wait till they are so sick they have to go to the emergency room for treatment which is often just an expensive stop gap on their road to dying from untreated diabetes or other treatable afflictions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure as they say, but apparently many conservatives just can't stand the thought of their prevention money being used for the poor or God forbid, undocumented immigrants, so they reject any sort of collective single payer health system for all, even though that's the whole idea behind insurance pools, to spread the costs of the sick to make it affordable for all.

I'm old enough to remember health insurance costs I had to start paying in the 1980's and I watched my coverage go down while my premiums and deductible kept going up. Since the ACA I saw my cost initially cut by about 20% and the annual increases have slowed but not disappeared. My first daughter was born under our old insurance and our second through the ACA and it's true, we didn't get to keep our OBGYN. In our case it worked out as we got an even better one and we later found out the prior one was arrested a few months after the birth for stalking her doctor ex-husband and putting live snakes in his car and vandalizing his home, so I think we dodged a bullet on that one, though my account is purely anecdotal. The several thousand dollars less I had to pay out of pocket however, was not but was a benefit of the ACA health care plan and both were born at the same hospital.

So while some seem to shriek under just the idea that they might have to pay a dime for someone else's heath care, the only way we make it affordable for all is to have everyone in the pool.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1    5 months ago
... both have good things to offer.
Could you name a "good thing" that the Republican Party has to offer?

You have not answered.

Did the question slip by you, unnoticed?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
24.1.20  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.19    5 months ago

The current administration unwound the following regulations

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/

and now Minority unemployment is the lowest it's ever been. I know Barrack Obama was the minority savior but he failed, he over regulated.

That was a positive whether you like the Trumpanzee or not.

Obama, gave out food stamps, the current administration got out of the way and people got actual jobs.

Breathlessly waiting for your bumper sticker retort......

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1.21  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.19    5 months ago

I keep telling you I don't do parties, I do individuals. 

So I will give you an example. 

Bush 1 going into Kuwait. It was the right call, he did it swiftly, and got out of there. It was decisive and well executed. 

Arms reduction agreement

Clean air act

Should I go on?

 
 
 
CB
24.1.22  CB   replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @24.1.11    5 months ago

"Bad fish!" (So bad: "Gotta luv it!")

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1.21    5 months ago
Should I go on?

As you wish... those are decades old. A modern-day "good thing" would be a lot more significant.

I don't think there are (present tense) "good things" on "both sides". I'd be happy to be proved wrong. I've been asking NT's conservatives for ideas for several years now... with no results.

The only "accomplishment" from the right (I won't name a party jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif ) has been a tax "reform" which was almost entirely to the benefit of the already-rich.

There has been nothing else...

Oh, and... Under the banner of "deregulation" the right is industriously emptying the Clean Air Act of its value...

 
 
 
Tessylo
24.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.23    5 months ago
'As you wish... those are decades old. A modern-day "good thing" would be a lot more significant.

I don't think there are (present tense) "good things" on "both sides". I'd be happy to be proved wrong. I've been asking NT's conservatives for ideas for several years now... with no results.

The only "accomplishment" from the right (I won't name a party ) has been a tax "reform" which was almost entirely to the benefit of the already-rich.

There has been nothing else...'
jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
24.1.25  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.23    5 months ago
A modern-day "good thing" would be a lot more significant.

And what would that be ?

"The only "accomplishment" from the right (I won't name a party ) has been a tax "reform" which was almost entirely to the benefit of the already-rich."

That's Baloney !

Free up "enterprise for ALL....and things take off. Regulate what ALL can do, and things are stifled.

These neat little....Get the Rich stuff….. effects the little folks …… EVERY TIME !

By the way …… I'm breathing fresh air as we speak.

And my Grandma didn't eat "Cat food" or get pushed over a cliff either.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @24.1.25    5 months ago

The Republican Party controlled both houses, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court... and did nothing.

Well... not nothing. They gave a trillion dollars to the already-rich.

 
 
 
It Is ME
24.1.27  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.26    5 months ago

And when Democrats Controlled, which has been more time than the Republicans, They did what  so EVERYONE would PROSPER ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @24.1.27    5 months ago
And when Democrats Controlled...

When was that?

 
 
 
It Is ME
24.1.29  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.28    5 months ago

You missed it ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Dominant Party. Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party over the last 100 years.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @24.1.29    5 months ago

Yeah... FDR...

When was the most recent case? The Republican Party had total control from 2016 to 2018...and did nothing...

 
 
 
It Is ME
24.1.31  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.30    5 months ago

Democrats = 2009 to 2011. What did the Democrats do when they had total control, except cost millions of Citizens Money they didn't have !

The simple Health Care "Penalties" on ALL, come to mind. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

If you can't afford it .....you'll pay, one way or another.

"The Republican Party had total control from 2016 to 2018...and did nothing..."

Really ?

Economies great for me.....and Millions of others right now.

Remind me what the setbacks are to a great economy again ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @24.1.31    5 months ago

McConnell filibustered everything...

 
 
 
It Is ME
24.1.33  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.32    5 months ago
McConnell filibustered everything...

The Money Grabbing Health Care system the Majority of Democrats put in place ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @24.1.33    5 months ago

That’s how you see it, hmmm?

 
 
 
Texan1211
24.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.32    5 months ago

Not so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for...

By Glenn Kessler
May 9, 2014
“Here’s what’s more disconcerting. Their [Republicans’] willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them.”
— President Obama, remarks at a DCCC dinner, May 7, 2014
In addressing a dinner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Los Angeles, President Obama made a rather striking claim — that Senate Republicans have filibustered “500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class.”
Regular readers knows that The Fact Checker has objected to the way that Senate Democrats tally these figures, but the president’s claim makes little sense no matter how you do the numbers.

The Facts
First, some definitions: A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation, while cloture is filed by supporters.
Since 2007, there have been 527 cloture motions that have been filed, according to Senate statistics. This is apparently where Obama got his figure. But this tells only part of the story, as many of those cloture motions were simply dropped, never actually voted on, or “vitiated” in the senatorial nomenclature.
Obama is assuming every cloture motion can be counted as a filibuster. Political scientist Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution, in 2002 co-wrote a paper that concluded there was 94 percent correlation between cloture motions and documented filibusters between 1917 and 1996. But the Congressional Research Service, using newer data, warned in a 2013 report that “it would be erroneous, however, to treat this table as a list of filibusters on nominations.”

Indeed, when you go through the numbers, there have just been 133 successful filibusters — meaning a final vote could not take place — since 2007.
But, even if you accept the way Senate Democrats like to frame the issue, the president is still wrong. He referred to “legislation” — and most of these cloture motions concerned judicial and executive branch nominations. In the 113th Congress, for instance, 83 of the 136 cloture motions so far have concerned nominations, not legislation.
Binder declined to comment on Obama’s claim but said: “I would certainly agree with you that if I were counting cloture votes aimed at ‘legislation that would help the middle class,’ I would not count cloture votes aimed at confirmation votes.”
Even then, while Obama referred to “500 pieces of legislation,” the same bill can be subject to as many as three cloture motions, further inflating the numbers. For instance, there may be cloture to get on the bill, cloture on the substitute bill (if lawmakers are simply using an unrelated bill as a vehicle for passage), and cloture on the underlying bill. All of these votes might take place on the same day, but it creates the illusion of the same bill being “filibustered” three times. It certainly does not mean there were three pieces of legislation. So far in the 113th Congress, 36 pieces of legislation were subject to a cloture motion — and 12 were actually filibustered. That’s a

far cry from the 136 that Obama is counting in order to tally up 500.

Obama’s count also includes at least a half-dozen instances when Republicans were blocked by Democrats through use of the filibuster. In fact, in the biggest oddity, the president reached back to 2007 in making his claim, so he includes two years when he was still a senator. On eight occasions, he voted against ending debate — the very thing he decried in his remarks. Here’s a list of those votes:

2/12/08 – Roll Call Vote #19, S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
1/28/08 – Roll Call Vote # 3, S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248
11/16/07 – Roll Call Vote # 410, S. 2340
10/24/07 – Roll Call Vote #392, Nomination of Leslie Southwick To 5th Circuit Court
5/16/07 – Roll Call Vote #168, S.Admt. 1134 to H.R. 1495
3/9/07 – Roll Call Vote # 68, S.Amdt. 312 to S.Amdt. 275 to S. 4
2/1/07 – Roll Call Vote #43, Motion to Proceed To S.Con.Res. 2
1/24/07 – Roll Call Vote #22, S.Amdt. 101 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2
There is one further wrinkle. The counting of cloture motions does not include the many times senators agree to have a 60-vote threshold for the passage of legislation — in other words, the equivalent of a threatened filibuster. Just this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sought unanimous consent for a 60-vote threshold for a Republican-backed bill to approve the Keystone pipeline, as part of an agreement to set up a vote for an energy efficiency bill that also would have required 60 votes for passage. Republicans might argue that Reid’s demand for a 60-vote threshold on Keystone is akin to a filibuster.
Such negotiated voting “suggests once again that cloture motion counts are an imperfect measure of threatened or actual filibusters,” Binder said. “A negotiated 60-vote threshold avoids the lengthy mechanics of the cloture process, but still imposes a hurdle to simple majority rule.”

The White House declined to provide an on-the-record response. Update, May 12: White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked about Obama’s comments at the White House daily briefing, responded: “I didn’t see the comments or the context. There’s no question that there has been historic obstructionism by Republican-led Congress, in the House in particular, but I don’t have the context for it.”
Update, May 15: Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in The Atlantic, agreed Obama’s numbers were “wrong” but disputed The Fact Checker’s methodology on filibusters. Binder also weighed in on The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog, noting that “Senate filibusters must be a fact checker’s nightmare.”
The Pinocchio Test
On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.
We realize that Senate rules are complex and difficult to understand, but the president did serve in the Senate and should be familiar with its terms and procedures. Looking at the numbers, he might have been able to make a case that Republicans have blocked about 50 bills that he had wanted passed, such as an increase in the minimum wage. But instead, he inflated the numbers to such an extent that he even included votes in which he, as senator, supported a filibuster.
Four Pinocchios

 
 
 
It Is ME
24.1.36  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.34    5 months ago

That's how it was.

The Sugar and Spice melted after it was voted on.

Thank God we finally got to see what was "Really" in it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
24.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @24.1.33    5 months ago
McConnell filibustered everything..

The statement is a lie. 

Easily proven one, too!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.38  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @24.1.35    5 months ago

This explains Justice Gorsuch...

 
 
 
Texan1211
24.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.38    5 months ago
This explains Justice Gorsuch...

Come on, Bob.

Even you would have to admit it is rather silly to give ONE example of something to prove that McConnell filibustered everything, as you claimed earlier.

Especially when what you claim had absolutely nothing to do with Gorsuch.

I have already proven that McConnell didn't filibuster everything as you claimed.

Do I have to do it again?

 
 
 
Tessylo
24.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.38    5 months ago

Gorsucks and 'I LIKE BEER' Kavanaugh

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.41  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @24.1.39    5 months ago
Especially when what you claim had absolutely nothing to do with Gorsuch.

Seriously?

 
 
 
Texan1211
24.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.41    5 months ago
Seriously?

Of course.

I have proven your statement wasn't true--McConnell simply didn't filibuster everything.

Can you prove that McConnell filibustered a SCOTUS nominee?

 
 
 
Texan1211
24.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @24.1.40    5 months ago
Gorsucks and 'I LIKE BEER' Kavanaugh

Adults spell the name "Gorsuch".

Both fine Justices.

For life!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.44  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @24.1.42    5 months ago

I'd post a meme for hairsplitting... but it would be deleted...

 
 
 
Texan1211
24.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.44    5 months ago
I'd post a meme for hairsplitting.

You could just mean what you post and post what you mean.

That seems to work for the rest of us.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.46  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.30    5 months ago
The Republican Party had total control from 2016 to 2018...and did nothing...

"Nothing" was the correct thing to do.  

The economy was strong.  Unemployment was very low and still falling.  Americans were working, saving, paying bills, raising kids and doing all the things happy people do...benefitting from decades of "moderate conservative" leadership.

So naturally, sane people would not want to interfere with all that.

The only thing that really needed to be done was a revision of the corporate income tax structure, which was accomplished.

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.47  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.46    5 months ago

IMO that was not necessary either as the only thing it accomplished was adding to corporate bottom line.

 
 
 
Dulay
24.1.48  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @24.1.2    5 months ago

What is polarizing about that question?

Would you feel better if asked for a 'good thing' offered by each party? 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Dulay
24.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1.21    5 months ago
I keep telling you I don't do parties, I do individuals. 

Yet you did say that both parties 'have good things to offer' and it shouldn't be an issue to give examples. 

It took me a while but I found something I might agree with in the GOP platform:

Supports background checks for all personnel who interact with school children.

I didn't find a similar proposal in the Democratic platform. 

Your turn. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.50  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @24.1.45    5 months ago

What works is not caring about truth.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.51  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.46    5 months ago
"Nothing" was the correct thing to do. 

Healthcare wasn't a subject... or poverty... or racism...

It was a perfect paradise where nothing was needed.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1.52  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @24.1.49    5 months ago

Dulay, read my comment again:

I keep telling you I don't do parties, I do individuals. 

And then you gave me an item from a party platform, while we both know that members of parties don't tow the party platform. 

I gave examples of things I liked from Bush 1 here: 24.1.21

Here are things I liked about Clinton:

Longest economic expansion in American history

Over 22 million jobs

The Crime Bill

Smallest welfare rolls

Paid off $360 billion of the national debt

Now I voted for Bush 1 and I voted for Clinton. I have few regrets. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.53  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.47    5 months ago
IMO that was not necessary either as the only thing it accomplished was adding to corporate bottom line.

US companies were leaving by the dozen, because US tax law made it massively more profitable to do so.  We needed to fix that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.54  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.51    5 months ago
Healthcare wasn't a subject... or poverty... or racism... It was a perfect paradise where nothing was needed.

A robust economy is the primary tool for both combating poverty and improving healthcare.  Labor supply becomes short and wages rise.  Companies offer health plans because they can afford to and because they can't find people to hire if they don't. 

Further, one cannot actually outlaw racism.  Thoughtcrime isn't actually a thing, outside of the dream totalitarian utopia of the far left.

 
 
 
Dulay
24.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1.52    5 months ago
Dulay, read my comment again:

I did. You said:

Why should I be tied to one party, when both have good things to offer.

So you weren't talking about individuals, you were talking about both parties the party platforms are their statement of values. Both of their websites say so.

Alternatively, there is always the legislation that they propose or support. 

It's easy to cite 'good things' with 20/20 hindsight. 

The only time that Trump hasn't towed the party line is with his tariff/tax veto. Other than that they've been in lock step. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.56  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.54    5 months ago
A robust economy is the primary tool for both combating poverty and improving healthcare.  Labor supply becomes short and wages rise.  Companies offer health plans because they can afford to and because they can't find people to hire if they don't.

Ayn Rand wrote fiction...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.57  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.56    5 months ago
Ayn Rand wrote fiction...

How about Barack Obama?  

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.58  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.53    5 months ago

The only thing I can find is that now double the corporations have paid zero taxes in 2018.

I cannot find any evidence of any surge or any major changes, except maybe the treasury bottom line.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.59  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.58    5 months ago
I cannot find any evidence of any surge or any major changes

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-us-repatriation-companies/u-s-companies-repatriate-over-half-a-trillion-dollars-in-2018-but-pace-slows-idUSKCN1OU0ME

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/repatriated-profits-total-nearly-500-billion-after-trump-tax-cuts-2018-09-19

So that 1/2 trillion was taxed at a special rate of 15%.  Fifteen percent of half a trillion is better than 35% of nothing.  Meanwhile, some of that money is going to expansion within the US, or dividends...at which point it gets taxed again.

We've also stopped US companies moving overseas to avoid the ridiculous taxes.  

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.60  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.59    5 months ago

I had read that before. That is repatriation of money already earned and stashed offshore.

It also seems most took advantage of the new law and now that is slowing after the initial use. It is out of about three trillion offshore.

It also says most of the money went to buybacks, which does not help with jobs or earnings for average people.

I still see no evidence of companies flocking to the states.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.61  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.60    5 months ago
That is repatriation of money already earned and stashed offshore.

Earned, but not taxed....which is why it was stashed.

It also seems most took advantage of the new law and now that is slowing after the initial use. It is out of about three trillion offshore.

Yes.  Still...we collected taxes on half a trillion, and it's now circulating back in the US.  It's about the same success rate as the Affordable Care Act.

It also says most of the money went to buybacks, which does not help with jobs or earnings for average people.

Money into the economy helps everybody.  Yes, there were buybacks...which means somebody sold, and the money they collected was reinvested or spent.  At least some of that money was spent a local restaurants, tipping waiters and bartenders.  Some was spent remodeling houses using local contractors.   You get the idea.

I still see no evidence of companies flocking to the states.

That's not how it works.  The important thing is that you don't see them leaving anymore.  You realize that Burger King is no longer a US company, right?  Neither is AON, or Johnson Controls, or Mylan or Medtronic or Samsonite or Michael Kors or Seagate or Fruit of the Loom.  We were totally uncompetitive and getting our asses kicked.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.62  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.57    5 months ago
How about Barack Obama? 

How about him?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.63  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.62    5 months ago
How about him?

The Kaiser Foundation says that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 8 million Americans have obtained employer-based insurance.

Only 5 million have purchased "Obamacare" plans.

But I'm sure the strong economy is just a coincidence....... riiiiiight.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.64  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.63    5 months ago

The systematic of your "data points" kinda escapes me...

"Apples, oranges... fruit salad!!"

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.65  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.64    5 months ago
The systematic of your "data points" kinda escapes me...

The number of uninsured in this country went from 48 million to 28 million in 8 years.  Forty percent of that was increased enrollment in employer-based plans.

The economy is good, we are past full employment, employers must offer health plans to attract and retain employees.  It's not remotely complicated, but it contradicts the idea that things don't improve without government intervention, so you attempt to call it "fiction".  Or "fruit salad".  I'm not sure which is sillier.

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.66  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.61    5 months ago

I still would not call the wealthy buying stocks from one another a major boom for the economy.

I take that back, it is a boom, for them. A select few. A select few giving a tip, while making millions, is in no means a great success for the overall people.

That's not how it works.

It's not? Isn't that what dear leader said? That business' would be coming back.

That is not how it woks. With a global economy corporations are global. They have operations anywhere that is beneficial only to them.

Did Burger King or any one of those company's mentioned move their headquarters back to the US? Do you think they will?

We were never not competitive to begin with when corporations, even with a higher starting tax, through loopholes and deductions, never paid that amount.

It was a ridiculous scheme that people bought hook line and sinker.

Corporations made a windfall, others not so much.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.67  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.66    5 months ago
It's not? Isn't that what dear leader said? That business' would be coming back.

I didn't hear that, but to be fair, I avoid Donald Trump as much as possible.

That is not how it woks. With a global economy corporations are global. They have operations anywhere that is beneficial only to them.

It's not about where operations are.  It's about where the company is domiciled, and where they pay their taxes.

Did Burger King or any one of those company's mentioned move their headquarters back to the US? Do you think they will?

No, I don't think we'll see them coming back.  I just think we won't see more companies leaving.

We were never not competitive to begin with when corporations, even with a higher starting tax, through loopholes and deductions, never paid that amount.

There comes a point where the loopholes have all been used, and they still had profits they were paying the full rate on.  It was cheap and reasonably easy to invert, and it saved billions in taxes, so they did it.  Had our tax rates been competitive with everybody else, they probably would not have. 

It was a ridiculous scheme that people bought hook line and sinker. Corporations made a windfall, others not so much.

Not everything is about wealth redistribution.  This was about competing in a global economy for businesses that can go anywhere.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.68  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.65    5 months ago
The economy is good... employers must offer health plans to attract and retain employees.

That is true, of course. Thank God! It is the only justification for capitalism, so when it seems to be untrue - as it has for thirty years - there's a problem.

The thing is, Jack... you have one data point here, and a fairly wobbly one, since wages didn't start rising until long after "full employment" (whatever that is) had been attained.

You're drawing a large number of conclusions from that single data point, without bothering to show any causation.

What bothers me, Jack... is that I'm pretty sure you understand all this. I can't help but wonder why you pretend not to know...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.69  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ender @24.1.66    5 months ago
I still would not call the wealthy buying stocks from one another a major boom for the economy.

One of the major triumphs of capitalism in the US has been to convince everyone that the DOW is the economy.

Workers may starve, but if the DOW is rising, all is well...

The economy does not serve the people: the people serve the economy, which is the DOW, which is the ultra-rich...

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.70  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.67    5 months ago

It's not about where corporations are? That is what this whole scheme was about.

Now the narrative is changing, to keep what we have left....

There were corporations that made billions of dollars and even with our old tax rate paid zero.

Now with the new tax law that number has more than doubled.

Of course it is about wealth distribution.

Distribution among themselves.

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.71  Ender  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.69    5 months ago

What I will never understand is people championing laws that were never designed to help them.

Really odd phenomenon. 

It has been shown that the new tax law has only given to the ultra wealthy. With the main noticeable aspect being less federal funds. And what gets cut when there is a lack of funds? Let's just say it isn't the military industrial complex.

As far as the stock market, people have been led to believe that their retirement funds should be wrapped up into it. We all saw how the last crash only wiped out the poor and middle class.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.72  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.68    5 months ago
That is true, of course.

Really?  Then what was the "fiction" nonsense about?

The thing is, Jack... you haveonedata point here, and a fairly wobbly one, since wages didn't start rising until long after "full employment" (whatever that is) had been attained.

Riiiight.  "Whatever that is".  It's actually a real thing.  Maybe you should "do your own homework".  Out of curiosity, how many more standard economic terms don't you know?

I'm pretty sure you understand all this. 

I wish I could return the confidence.  Clearly it would be misplaced.

You're drawing a large number of conclusions from that single data point, 

High employment accompanies robust economic conditions...for which data points abound, and which increase household wealth and reduce poverty.  They also increase access to...among many other things....healthcare. 

The obvious point that rational people understand by now is that the proper thing to do when things are going well is to leave them alone and let them continue to go well. 

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.73  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.72    5 months ago

We have all seen the data. We all know that wages have been about stagnant since the seventies while corporate wages have skyrocketed. We know that income disparity has increased.

Am I happy that wages finally made a small increase? Of course I am but I do have to wonder...

How much of that increase is do to some places raising minimum wage? It is getting to the point that $15 an hour is considered poor.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.74  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.70    5 months ago
It's not about where corporations are? That is what this whole scheme was about.

It's where they're domiciled, not where their actual offices/stores are.  Do you understand the difference?

Now the narrative is changing, to keep what we have left....

That was always my narrative.  

There were corporations that made billions of dollars and even with our old tax rate paid zero.

Yes. But there are lots more companies that pay.  

Now with the new tax law that number has more than doubled.

I haven't seen that data.

Of course it is about wealth distribution. Distribution among themselves.

Tons of these stocks are owned by mutual funds in people's 401(k)s or pensions for public employees or IRAs or 529 college funds or dozens of other investment vehicles that benefit ordinary working Americans.  The idea that it's just faceless corporations or billionaires with hedge funds is nowhere close to reality.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.75  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.73    5 months ago
How much of that increase is do to some places raising minimum wage? It is getting to the point that $15 an hour is considered poor.

There aren't enough of them to move the needle.  97% of workers make more than minimum wage.  

Keep in mind also, that the most cited number is "median" income, which is the point at which half of America makes more and half makes less.  So that number can only rise if families cross that threshold... which is around $60k/yr.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
24.1.76  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.72    5 months ago

I take it that you have not followed the debate among economists over "full employment". That doesn't stop you from speaking of it as though you know what it is...

the proper thing to do when things are going well is to leave them alone and let them continue to go well. 

Things are going well? Opioid crisis. Immigration. Inequality. Racism. Yup... things are going well...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.77  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @24.1.71    5 months ago
What I will never understand is people championing laws that were never designed to help them.

So you don't understand straight people who champion equal rights for gays?  How about the men who voted for suffrage?  Whites who support Affirmative Action?  

I bet you understand it more than you let on.

It has been shown that the new tax law has only given to the ultra wealthy.

Not by any objective source, it hasn't. 

I'm personally not a fan of the individual tax cuts, but they reduce taxes for the overwhelming majority of American families.  I just don't think they were necessary or helpful.  But something needed to be done about the corporate structure.  

As far as the stock market, people have been led to believe that their retirement funds should be wrapped up into it. We all saw how the last crash only wiped out the poor and middle class.

The poor never had money in the market.  How exactly were they wiped out?

 
 
 
Ender
24.1.78  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @24.1.77    5 months ago

Sorry Jack, but if I am going to speak to you it will not be in broken fragments.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
24.1.79  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.76    5 months ago
I take it that you have not followed the debate among economists over "full employment". That doesn't stop you from speaking of it as though you know what it is...

The CBO and the Fed seem to agree we passed it a while ago.  

Things are going well? Opioid crisis. Immigration. Inequality. Racism. Yup... things are going well...

Yes.  Things are going well.  I realize that's not the news people who lean "far left" want to hear.

They actually passed opioid legislation, which will undoubtedly work as well as every other such program, so prepare for bleeding hearts to "feel better", but actual addicts to remain addicted.

All the other leftists say immigration isn't really a problem so we don't need a wall, so the rest of us will wait for you all to get together and make up your minds.

Inequality is simply a code word attempting but failing to disguise wealth envy.

And the Consitution protects the rights of people to form their own opinions, even if they're racist ones.

 
 
 
Heartland American
24.1.80  Heartland American  replied to  Ender @24.1.71    5 months ago

It only wiped out those who sold shares at a loss.  Those who held and added more shares during the downturn did well.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
24.1.81  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Heartland American @24.1.80    5 months ago

True!  Which goes back to my issue of not teaching financial literacy in schools.

That stock market downturn was one of the best investing opportunities of a lifetime.

I was buying 8% preferred stocks with a par value of $25 at half price and for a short time for even less effectively yielding nearly 30%.  They are now at par value or higher.

All they had to do that situation was understand that the company was not going BK.   With equities of course they could have rock and rolled their way to even higher gains albeit with higher risk.  Sticking with S&P Index would have mitigated that risk and people's regular 401K contributions would have had similar experience.  People that make those sorts of comments about the market are another eample of how our education system has failed.

 
 
 
Sparty On
24.1.82  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @24.1.48    5 months ago

Since its clear to most that every party has something good to offer to someone, what isn't polarizing about it?  

One has to have at least a smidgen of unbiased intellect to realize that i guess.

Carry on!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
24.1.83  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @24.1.69    5 months ago
One of the major triumphs of capitalism in the US has been to convince everyone that the DOW is the economy.

No that's one of the major failures of education in the US thanks to the fukwads in our government run schools.

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
24.2  CB   replied to  charger 383 @24    5 months ago

Actually, I can understand this line of reasoning from you, Charger, Perrie, and Others. It is a form of pragmatism, though I asked a question @9.1.10 about its application as food for thought:

Question: Are independent voters apolitical (unbiased) or presenting as Machiavellian (self-interested)?

I have voted for Republicans (Reagan/G. W. Bush) at times in the past because I thought they were appropriate for the times. (Even if only for one-term respectively, as the case may be.) Moreover, I was not conflicted in my decision to do so. I can do so again. I simply detest meddlesome, inconsistent, lying, jerks  who think to set some group or the other 'at the back of the bus' is a good reason to be president!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @24.2    5 months ago
Question: Are independent voters apolitical (unbiased) or presenting as Machiavellian (self-interested)?

Well, first of all, I don't think you mean the word apolitical, since that would mean we are not interested in politics. I am apartisan. I can not talk for all indies, but as for me, I would say that I am unbiased. I try to look at things from a macro sense. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
24.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.2.1    5 months ago
I am apartisan. I can not talk for all indies, but as for me, I would say that I am unbiased. I try to look at things from a macro sense. 

Agreed. Just because a politician is from a specific party does not in any way automatically qualify them for the position they are running for. However, some on both sides seem to think so. 

There are far too many who vote party instead of whether or not the person is qualified for the position. We have seen that far too often on both sides. 

Party affiliation alone does not qualify anyone for a position, no matter how some may try to justify it.

JMOO

 
 
 
CB
24.2.3  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.2.1    5 months ago
apolitical (unbiased)

My dear Perrie! Love you! It was a qualified use of the term, meaning politically neutral.  That said, Apartisan is a much better term for this question! Thank you for bringing it to my attention!

I try to look at things from a macro sense. 

People (in percentages) are living and dying in the micro-sense, and are counting on the majority to see and help (be consciously aware of them and their humanity). Don't mean to lecture - just sharing, nonetheless.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.2.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @24.2.2    5 months ago

Zackly!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.2.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @24.2.3    5 months ago

Hi CB,

I would not call myself politically neutral either. I have opinions (sometimes very strong opinions) about issues, they are just not tied to one party. 

I just try to stay focused on the issues and not the party or individual Pres at the time. 

 
 
 
CB
24.2.6  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.2.5    5 months ago
or individual Pres at the time. 

I almost missed this. You have got to consider this lying, sniveling, victim of a man - using Twitter as a means to insult individuals and the masses, respectively. Trump if he is successful (only time will tell) is modeling self-interest, manipulation, and deception as the way to get ahead in life. He does not play fair with anyone. It is his 'way' or "No way!" with him.

The MACRO lessons Trump brings to the forefront are dangerous and can not be overlooked. Surely we can get our 'house in order' without authoritarian-styled rule!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
24.2.7  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @24.2.6    5 months ago

Sure, Trump is not the best person of character. BUT he has done the best job of modestly rolling back some of the damag done by past presidents, especially Obama.

what’s  needed is tearing down most of the institutions of the Federal Government that only enslave and control Americans and American enterprise 

And those of us who support President Trump love that he stands up to both parties, the media, and the courts who have been waging war on our Republic for over 100 years

i look forward to seeing the total meltdown by the left and the Establishment in both parties when Trump is easily re-elected 

 
 
 
CB
24.2.8  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @24.2.7    5 months ago
Trump is not the best person of character.

Livefree' what is it  that you most love about Jesus?

 
 
 
CB
24.2.9  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @24.2.7    5 months ago

I will not endeavor to speak with you about Obama. We're just let the sentiments lie where they are.

 
 
 
charger 383
24.2.10  charger 383  replied to  CB @24.2    5 months ago
Question: Are independent voters apolitical (unbiased) or presenting as Machiavellian (self-interested)?

I vote my self interest and for things I like.  Been a long time since I read "The Prince" in college but I remember point,

A big problem is there is some issues with both parties I strongly disagree with and both have some people I don't like.   

 
 
 
Heartland American
24.3  Heartland American  replied to  charger 383 @24    5 months ago

I agree that no party is perfect.  I am generally an economic and national defense conservative thus my + 7 on the political compass and vary between libertarian and social conservative thus the +/-0 on the other scale. I left the democrat party and was prepared to leave the GOP too had the base not taken the party away from the establishment via evangelicals, the Tea Party, and Trump. The best way to describe me is as a so called hate person per the SPLC based on conservative and religious groups I’m part of, contribute to or affiliate myself with.  My religious, science, and political outlook could be considered and proudly so as pseudoscience, questionable, and propaganda.  I’m an independent.  

 
 
 
CB
25  CB     5 months ago

President Donald Trump has been repeatedly filmed stating the Mueller Report cost at "about 40 million dollars" — consider this:

Between May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed Special Counsel — through Sept. 30, 2018, his office spent $12,287,852. This includes $7.3 million on salaries and benefits, $1.3 million on travel and transportation, and $2.2 million on rent and utilities. In the most recent of the three expense reports filed, the Special Counsel’s office also says it spent $15,618 on printing and copying needs.

Not included in these figures are “component expenses” incurred by the Department of Justice at large. These additional costs totaled $12,928,000, though the DOJ says it was not legally required to report them, and that they are approximate to what the DOJ would have spent elsewhere if the Special Counsel’s Office didn’t exist.

Mueller’s office has not yet filed an expense report for the last six months of his investigation, but including the DOJ’s contributions, the total reported cost so far is $25.2 million.

Given that the last three expense reports have covered about six-month timespans, and the last report was approximately six months ago, it is likely that the office will file its fourth and final one soon. The first three reports totaled approximately $6.8 million, $10 million and $8.5 million, respectively.

So the last one, if comparable to the others, would make the final dollar amount of Mueller’s probe between $32 million and $35 million . [CB emphasis added.]

Though that is a lot of money, the investigation may have actually paid for itself by uncovering tax evasion and fraud.

Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was sentenced for obstruction of justice and conspiracy in September. Manafort, as part of his plea deal, agreed to forfeit assets valued around $42 million, including about $22 million in real estate property, according to CNBC, though a Justice Department official told NBC News that the money would not go directly to funding the investigation.

. . . .

But the cost of Mueller’s investigation is much lower than previous ones. The investigation into President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2002 cost approximately $69 million, and the investigation into Iran-Contra cost approximately $47 million, not adjusted for inflation, according to the Washington Post.

http://time.com/5557693/mueller-report-cost/

So is President Donald Trump "making stuff up?" Why is he 'massaging' cost upwards in spite of true documents?

Is he a delusional person -who keeps his own 'counsel'?

How can an independent voter count on the words coming out of Trump's mouth to be factually true?  

Trump fooled some of us once - gonna let him do it again?

 
 
 
It Is ME
26  It Is ME    5 months ago

I root for the guy that allows me to get MY OWN business to GROW !

That's all this world is EVER about anyway. People want to MAKE MONEY ! PERIOD !

Let me make bunches, and then I can decide how much and where I want to contribute elsewhere. You'd be surprised how many Non-Billionaires and Millionaires contribute to the "Lazy" when they are allowed to make themselves better first.

Put your own oxygen mask on , before you help others. The "Others" will thank you.

Limit my business, and then make laws that tells me where I'll contribute, I'll despise you until it changes back to "MY Decision" ! I will "Hoard" my own stuff until then !

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @26    5 months ago

You know I was going to say you were not wrong until you wrote this:

You'd be surprised how many Non-Billionaires and Millionaires contribute to the "Lazy"

The assumption that all poor are there because they are lazy is false. Life can be cruel. You can have one minute and lose it in a heartbeat. Look at our farmers, coal miners, the auto industry, iron workers. 

I'm all for business doing well.  I don't think that any one party has a monopoly on that. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.1    5 months ago
The assumption that all poor are there because they are lazy is false.

No it's not !

ANYONE, can actually Grow.... if they want to. That's what this country has ALWAYS been about ……. "Growing".

If one "Settles", and then even asks for "Others" accomplishments to finance them, that's called …… "LAZY" !

If one is not a constant "DINK" that claims "They DESERVE" in this country, you can MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURSELF.

I've worked for a few companies in my lifetime, and then took the ever scary plunge, and went out on my own. Everyone in my Family was SCARED, but in the end.... NOT BEING LAZY and "SETTLING"...… got me where I'm at today.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.1    5 months ago

[Deleted]

[Bob, make your case and use your words. Please don't spam my article.]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @26.1.1    5 months ago

What a pile of hogwash. 

My family was dirt poor when I was a kid and they were not lazy.  It was circumstances that were beyond their control. They kept plugging at it until something clicked. But there was a time when we lived below the poverty level and my mom had to make a choice whether to take me to the doctor of buy food. No one should have to do that. 

My family did well over the years, but when they were poor, they worked like slaves for next to nothing wages. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.1.3    5 months ago
What a pile of hogwash.

"They kept plugging at it until something clicked."

In case you forgot, here was my comment in 26.1.1:

ANYONE, can actually Grow.... if they want to. That's what this country has ALWAYS been about ……. "Growing".

You didn't do yourself any favors, by saying "Hogwash" ! Seems your Family "Proved" my statement to be correct. Those that actually want for themselves ...… CAN DO !

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  It Is ME @26.1.1    5 months ago
No it's not !

Meh.  I'm going with Perrie on this one.

ANYONE, can actually Grow.... if they want to. That's what this country has ALWAYS been about ……. "Growing".

Yes.  Absolutely.  No question.

If one "Settles", and then even asks for "Others" accomplishments to finance them, that's called …… "LAZY" !

OK, but that doesn't actually describe most poor people.

If one is not a constant "DINK" that claims "They DESERVE" in this country, you can MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURSELF. I've worked for a few companies in my lifetime, and then took the ever scary plunge, and went out on my own. Everyone in my Family was SCARED, but in the end.... NOT BEING LAZY and "SETTLING"...… got me where I'm at today.

I took the same scary plunge over 20 years ago.  But the point you're missing here is that you and I had both the opportunity and the skill to make it work.  Lots of people don't.

My nephew is trying to start a glass installation business.   He knows how to install glass.  He hasn't a clue about anything business related, so it's not going well, as you might imagine.   

He grew up in a family that was both lazy and stupid, and the only pride they take in anything is in their knowledge of how to milk the handout system and continue the generational cycle of free government handouts.

But the boy is different.  He wants his business to succeed.  He has zero idea what that's going to take, and it's not really his fault considering the role models he's had.

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Jack_TX @26.1.5    5 months ago
But the point you're missing here is that you and I had both the opportunity and the skill to make it work.

Opportunity is all about "Self"....even if one doesn't have some wonderful skill.

Example:

Everyone with sense knows a President can make a nation go one way or another, just by how they speak. Nonsensical types think that the President can actually get jobs for them.

YOU..... are the only one that can present yourself as someone worthy of hiring !

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @26    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2    5 months ago

YOU Bet your ass it's all about "ME". Charities actually send me "Thank You" notes quite a lot.

Have you gotten a "Thank You" note yet ….. from anywhere ?

 
 
 
Heartland American
26.2.2  Heartland American  replied to  It Is ME @26.2.1    5 months ago

There is no doubt that private charity is a great thing and that those who have in America particularly if they are also religious are very generous.  I do agree with Perrie though that there are some who are poor through no fault of their own due to illness, unexpected lay-off,injury,or pure bad luck/disaster.  Those who are temporarily in that condition looking for a hand up rather than a hand out are worthy of the help we provide through our charitable contributions.  I’d far rather have low taxes and be able to be generous on my own rather than hamstrung by high taxes with little ability to make decisions as to who to help.  I agree with you about hating government that taxes so high and takes our money and decides for us leaving us no way to help with our own decisions.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Heartland American @26.2.2    5 months ago

Thanks XX for the recognition that there are poor out there that need a helping hand to get on their feet. You said:

I’d far rather have low taxes and be able to be generous on my own rather than hamstrung by high taxes with little ability to make decisions as to who to help.  I agree with you about hating government that taxes so high and takes our money and decides for us leaving us no way to help with our own decisions.  

I would be fine with that, if we knew all that can give would give, but the reality is that we need to know how much money we have to help these people. Maybe donations could be given directly on your taxes as a percentage of what you make? Kind of a blend of both schools of thought. I am not married to a specific idea, as long as those in need get the services that are necessary.

 
 
 
Heartland American
26.2.4  Heartland American  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.3    5 months ago

We could leave taxes where they are and do two things.  1. make charitable contributions deductible on taxes whether one itemizes or not.   IRA contributions to ones own retirement are deductible regardless and charity could be on a line on the main form instead for those not itemizing.  2.  People could donate to a government agency engaged in helping others above and beyond their legally obligated amount and get a deduction at their highest income tax rate the following year with or without itemizing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
26.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.3    5 months ago
Thanks XX for the recognition that there are poor out there that need a helping hand to get on their feet.

It is not just a matter of helping people get on their feet. Saying that implies that the point could come when everyone would be "on their feet". Capitalism ensures poverty and creates poverty through the "race to the bottom" wage structure. Since capitalism demands that workers be paid as little as possible, there will always be an underpaid group. The poverty rates in the United States havent been below 10% for more than a couple of the past 70 years. Usually they have been higher than that 10%.  The need for 'charity' is constant. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @26.2.5    5 months ago
It is not just a matter of helping people get on their feet. Saying that implies that the point could come when everyone would be "on their feet".

No, it doesn't. It implies that there will always be people in need. 

Capitalism ensures poverty and creates poverty through the "race to the bottom" wage structure.

Every mom and pop store that succeeds is showing that capitalism works. It's not perfect and that is why I also believe in helping out our fellow Americans. 

Since capitalism demands that workers be paid as little as possible, there will always be an underpaid group.

That is not what capitalism is. 

cap·i·tal·ism
/ ˈkapədlˌizəm /
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The poverty rates in the United States havent been below 10% for more than a couple of the past 70 years.
I don't doubt that. Tell me, do you think that everyone lives above the poverty level in Russia? I can tell you the answer is no. There is no place or time in history where there are no poor. 
 
 
 
CB
26.2.7  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @26.2.5    5 months ago
The need for 'charity' is constant. 

Perrie, I think JR may be addressing this application of capitalism (in reality):

1. I ron law of wages

The iron law of wages is a proposed law of economics that asserts that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker. The theory was first named by Ferdinand Lassalle in the mid-nineteenth century.

2. What is the history of the minimum wage? Background from official sources

A minimum wage is the lowest wage that employers may legally pay to workers. The first minimum wage law was enacted in 1894 in New Zealand.

With the passage of  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938  (FLSA), the U.S. minimum wage was initially set at $0.25 per hour for covered workers.  Since then, it has been raised 22 separate times–most recently, in July 2009, to $7.25 an hour.

FSLA provided a number of federal protections for the first time including

    • payment of the minimum wage 
    • overtime pay for time worked over a set number of hours in a work week 
    • restrictions on the employment of children 
    • recordkeeping requirements

In 1938, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about 20 percent of the labor force. Coverage has been expanded over time, and the wage now covers approximately 130 million workers or 84 percent of the labor force.

State Minimum Wage Laws

A number of states have their own  state minimum wage laws .

    • Five Southern states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina) have no minimum wage laws.
    • Two states (Wyoming and Georgia) have state minimum wage rates that are lower than the federal rate, so the federal minimum wage applies.
    • Fourteen states have laws that set the minimum wage at the federal rate.
    • Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia set their rates higher than the federal rate. Currently, Massachusetts and Washington have the highest minimum wage rate at $11.00 per hour.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-history-minimum-wage

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @26.2.5    5 months ago
Since capitalism demands that workers be paid as little as possible, there will always be an underpaid group.

No.  They will be paid what they are worth, as determined by the supply of and demand for the labor their skills can provide.

 
 
 
CB
26.2.9  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @26.2.8    5 months ago
They will be paid what they are worth, as determined by the supply of and demand for the labor their skills can provide.

That is untrue. Before policies, federal rules, and laws were enacted to provide wage growth, workers were paid whatever a business man wanted. Hell, black citizens were paid uniformly 'below the wage floor' pitiful as it was. New white immigrants to the United States were paid more wages than black citizens who worked here all-their-lives. How do you suppose that occurred? And a single woman, still can't get wage parity today and this abuse of them is publicly known.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @26.2.9    5 months ago
That is untrue.

It is irrefutable.

Before policies, federal rules, and laws were enacted to provide wage growth, workers were paid whatever a business man wanted. Hell, black folks were paid uniformly 'below the wage floor' pitiful as it was. New immigrants to the United States were paid more wages than black citizens who worked here all - their - lives.

They were paid what they would accept, which is how supply and demand works.  Workers will take the best offer available, and employers pay no more than they have to.

 
 
 
CB
26.2.11  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @26.2.10    5 months ago
They were paid what they would accept, which is how supply and demand works.  Workers will take the best offer available, and employers pay no more than they have to.

Let me try something new for me: jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

And they invented unions why? Poor huddled masses trying to catch a 'break' - even then 'laborers' were intimidated , coerced , lied to , cheated , blackballed , injured , damaged , and them and members of their families killed .

History marks the spot: with blood, sweat, and tears.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @26.2.11    5 months ago
Let me try something new for me:

Yes.  Well, I'll continue making actual points with actual words.  

And they invented unions why?

To control the supply of labor and artificially drive up the amount employers had to pay.

Poor huddled masses trying to catch a 'break' - even then 'laborers' were intimidatedcoercedlied tocheated,blackballedinjureddamaged, and them and members of their families killed. History marks the spot: with blood, sweat, and tears.

"Poor huddled masses"....riiiiiight.  Because "poor huddled masses" frequently commit large scale violence, including but not limited to shooting people and blowing stuff up.  Or had the 150-year history of union violence somehow slipped your mind?

I find it fascinating that people who have no problem with the laws of supply and demand in every other aspect of life suddenly want to suspend the concept, but only on when it comes to employer/employee relationships.  So the business owner, who has the most at risk, is still supposed to be subject to the fundamental laws of the economy.  But she's supposed to pay her employees more than their labor is worth....simply because they need the money.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.6    5 months ago
Every mom and pop store that succeeds is showing that capitalism works.

Mom and pop stores are not representative of capitalism. Amazon is. Monsanto is. BASF (zyklone-B) is. Union Carbide (Bhopal) is. Big Pharma is.

Big Oil is representative of capitalism. Deep Water Horizon.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
26.2.14  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.13    5 months ago

You left out Newstalkers as an example of Capitalism.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @26.2.14    5 months ago

No

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
26.2.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.15    5 months ago

Wanna bet?

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.13    5 months ago
Mom and pop stores are not representative of capitalism. Amazon is. Monsanto is. BASF (zyklone-B) is. Union Carbide (Bhopal) is. Big Pharma is.

Those are all enterprises operating in a capitalist economy.   In all cases, the enterprise owns their portion of the MoP/MoD and hires employees who are not the exclusive owners and who have relatively little control over the direction of the enterprise and, in particular, the disposition of profit.

The difference, of course, between the Mom and Pop stores and transnational, monopolistic mega corporations is that the former have relatively little control over society whereas the latter exert substantial influence.   A society replete with Mom and Pop stores would (unless they organized) provide a distributed economic control of a sort.   In contrast, powerful enterprises who can materially influence legislation and consumer behavior is consolidated economic control.   

My point is that capitalism in itself is not necessarily a net negative;  the problem is that capitalism (the system) enables largely unchecked consolidation of economic power into the hands of a relatively small minority.

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.2.18  It Is ME  replied to  Heartland American @26.2.2    5 months ago
Those who are temporarily in that condition looking for a hand up rather than a hand out are worthy of the help we provide through our charitable contributions.

Seems the "Hand out" people are growing more than they used to be. Look who is getting voted into office on the "Liberal" side.

They all wanted "YOU TO HAVE" ….. and said so ! Even the ones in that same party running for President now, "Promise" …… YOU WILL "GET" !

"I’d far rather have low taxes and be able to be generous on my own rather than hamstrung by high taxes with little ability to make decisions as to who to help."

Always Worked for me. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.2.19  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.3    5 months ago
if we knew all that can give would give

Why does one need to now Who can do it ?

So they get robo calls or notices until they do ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.17    5 months ago
A society replete with Mom and Pop stores would (unless they organized) provide a distributed economic control of a sort.   In contrast, powerful enterprises who can materially influence legislation and consumer behavior is consolidated economic control.   

My point is that capitalism in itself is not necessarily a net negative

Subverting the "free market" via price collusion, bribing buyers, fixing "standards", capturing regulators, et cetera, et cetera, to eventually attain monopolistic size... has been associated with capitalism since its first days. Empirically, this process has proven to be an integral part of capitalism. The mom & pop store does these things on a smaller scale than Monsanto, but only because the store is smaller.

So the idea of "distributed economic control" is a fantasy, even more unlikely than socialism.   jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
26.2.21  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.20    5 months ago
Subverting the "free market"

Undermining the free market is exactly what has failed us. Corrupt regulators and crony legislators misrepresent protections with the intended purpose of picking winners and losers based on the politics. They also enrich themselves in the process.

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.20    5 months ago
So the idea of "distributed economic control" is a fantasy, even more unlikely than socialism. 

Given it has never existed in a national economy, distributed economic control is likely to never exist (at least not in our lifetimes).   But that was not my point.    My point is that consolidated economic control is a problem.   Mom and Pop stores have virtually no impact — they have not achieved the critical mass required to exert significant influence.   In contrast, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, etc. have substantial socio-economic/political power and that power is at the hands of a relatively small minority.

In short, small to medium sized enterprises best represent the good of capitalism whereas mega corporations illustrate the dark side.    They provide defacto standards, economies of scale, etc. ... a net good.   But that good comes at the price of granting them increasing economic control.

To wit, is corporatocracy net good for society?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.23  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.21    5 months ago
Bob: Subverting the "free market" via price collusion, bribing buyers, fixing "standards", capturing regulators, et cetera, et cetera, to eventually attain monopolistic size... Badfish: Corrupt regulators and crony legislators misrepresent protections with the intended purpose of picking winners and losers based on the politics. They also enrich themselves in the process.

Both of you are right. The thing is that both of you are talking in absolutism. Capitalism like any system of economics can be abused. The same thing can be said about socialism. The point is, you are supposed to take these things into account and make adjustments. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
26.2.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.23    5 months ago

Capitalists don't want truly "free" markets. An actually free market would bring competition to the makers of popular products and thus lower prices and lower profits. This is why we see lobbyists constantly seeking protection from competition for their clients. People who make a lot of money, become rich, are almost always participating in some kind of racket or at least subverting "free" markets. 

Capitalism definitely brings great material progress to the world, but it must be constantly controlled and regulated , or greed will cause it to subvert economic fairness. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.25  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @26.2.12    5 months ago
CB: And they inventedunionswhy? Poor huddled masses trying to catch a 'break' - even then 'laborers' were intimidated,coerced,lied to,cheated,blackballed,injured,damaged, and them and members of their familieskilled. Jack: "Poor huddled masses"....riiiiiight.  Because "poor huddled masses" frequently commit large scale violence, including but not limited to shooting people and blowing stuff up.  Or had the 150-year history of union violence somehow slipped your mind?

Again, both of you are telling the truth. Before unions, workers were treated almost as slaves. There is an awful story of women who were seamstress' in NYC who died in a fire because the doors where chained closed who were working 12 hours shifts. That is the ugly side of capitalism. 

But it is also true that labor parties have employed violence. 

So obviously this is more complicated than just examples. As I said before, no one system is going to be perfect, but we can fix what doesn't work. But first we have to get real with what has been going on.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
26.2.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.25    5 months ago

The employer has the power to fire anyone who is not protected by a union contract. They would regularly fire people who asked for, uh, a raise or better working conditions. Because they don't own the company, workers only recourse was to seek strength through numbers. 

Most union instigated violence occurred when owners brought in scabs to replace striking workers, and the situation escalated. Companies hired private "armies" or coerced local law enforcement to intimidate and even use violence against striking workers. 

The tendency some people have to excuse everything a company owner or a "capitalist" does is sad. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.27  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.22    5 months ago
To wit, is corporatocracy net good for society?

Dixit Hamlet, "That is the question!"

IMNAAHO, it's awful...

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.23    5 months ago

History has shown that the unchecked consolidation of power is undesirable.    Strong leaders (e.g. entrepreneurs) are net good as they drive people towards productive accomplishments.   But that same dynamic that is so good in the small often turns into net bad in the large.   

Seems to me that a preferable system is one which enables and encourages many leaders in a competitive environment but mitigates the consolidation of power below the point where it subverts democratic societal processes.   The most successful winners could still amass fortunes but the ability to increase wealth slows with accumulated wealth.

In short, a system that enables substantially more wealthy winners (i.e. they earn it) is better than one that allows a relatively small minority to consolidate uber-wealth (i.e. modern mega billionaires) and thus power.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.21    5 months ago
Corrupt regulators and crony legislators misrepresent protections

Yes

Who corrupts them? The capitalist corporations, of course. These actions are among the ones I cited

My point is that a "free market" is anathema to a true capitalist.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.23    5 months ago
The thing is that both of you are talking in absolutism. Capitalism like any system of economics can be abused.

I don't think so.

The corporation that abuses is NOT the exception. It is the standard. Any corporation that finds a way to "cheat", will do it. Shareholders pay top management to maximize dividends by any and all means. "Cheating" is their job!

I agree that your mom&pop stores don't abuse much... because they don't have the opportunity. Walmart certainly does.


The same thing can be said about socialism.

I don't see how you can affirm that, since socialism doesn't hold sway anywhere...

That said... in order to examine this a bit closer, we need to look at something that is joyfully ignored, most of the time: the attribution of resources.

Everyone spits on "central planning", forgetting that German central planning kept that economy competitive right up until the end, and that America's industrial might was under strict central planning during that time, too.

This is important because central planning means "objectives". A company that attains its objectives has rapidly diminishing rewards for over-producing.

The idea is to avoid the "success at all costs" mentality that leads to the 737Max.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.28    5 months ago
In short, a system that enables substantially more wealthy winners (i.e. they earn it) is better than one that allows a relatively small minority to consolidate uber-wealth (i.e. modern mega billionaires) and thus power.

That seems to me to be a powerful argument in favor of confiscatory inheritance taxes.

If "rich daddy" can only help "rich kid" by improving everyone's chances, then there's hope. If "rich daddy" can give all his help to just "rich kid", then all the rest of us are screwed.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
26.2.32  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.31    5 months ago

If someone's daddy was rich it's not your business nor are you entitled to any part of that money nor should our government have any claim. 

No one is screwed when money is passed down to family. The only one upset by such are those that want to piss the money away with another ridiculous and ineffective government program.

Want money? Get a job and work for it.

 
 
 
CB
26.2.33  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @26.2.12    5 months ago
To control the supply of labor and artificially drive up the amount employers had to pay.

You are kidding right? I mean there is the employers' (of old) side of the argument, then there is the workers' side of the argument. I am willing to share with you and discuss both sides. I wonder, are you? I just want a clear-eye understanding of what you are doing right now.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.25    5 months ago
But it is also true that labor parties have employed violence. 

Pinkerton worked for the unions??

I recommend Wikipedia: History of union busting in the United States .

And of course.. the bosses never put their own lives on the line, as the workers did constantly . That should mean something , shouldn't it?

But first we have to get real with what has been going on.

Exactly: Bosses got fat, workers died.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.35  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.32    5 months ago
If someone's daddy was rich it's not your business

Of course it is.

Property is theft, and inheritance is doubly theft - it steals from babies.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.36  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.31    5 months ago

Bob,

My family was dirt poor. They worked like slaves to make the money they did. They have a charitable trust that my sister and I will run after they pass. 

But they have paid their taxes on that money already. Why should I have to pay when I inherit? They did not steal that money from someone. They worked for it. 

Why should farm families have to pay inheritance taxes? These farms work on close margins and have been paying taxes. 

The concept that every person who inherits is greedy is wrong. Yes, we do have some uber-rich who are greedy, but look at the good the Rockefellers have done with their charitable foundation?

Sorry, but we disagree here. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
26.2.37  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.32    5 months ago
No one is screwed when money is passed down to family. The only one upset by such are those that want to piss the money away

Robert Reich had a video and a commentary about this not long ago. One of the reasons to tax great wealth is to prevent it from being handed to the next generations of that family. When wealth is passed down we have political power being instilled on people who have done absolutely zero to earn it.  We don't need a hereditary wealthy class (oligarchy). 

Want money? Get a job and work for it.

This contradicts what you said before it. 

The next generation of Walton heirs will have undue political power through their inherited wealth.  There is absolutely no reason that the rest of us, as a society, have to accept this. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
26.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.35    5 months ago

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", eh?

Marx would be proud of you!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
26.2.39  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.36    5 months ago

Inherited wealth should definitely be taxed. What the rates are and at what level they begin is a matter for discussion and debate. I am in favor of taxes that BEGIN after a certain threshold. In other words the first 5 or 10 million is not taxed or is taxed lower. But after that level the tax rate increases proportionally. People who can't pay a small tax on 50 or 100 million or 500 million have something wrong with them. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
26.2.40  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.35    5 months ago
Property is theft, and inheritance is doubly theft - it steals from babies.

Whose …. or …. What Baby ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.41  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.36    5 months ago

(My family was paycheck-to-paycheck, too, for a while. Lots of people have been there.)

Why do you need an inheritance? That's a very serious question.

If the answer is honest, it is always "To get ahead." Let's imagine that everyone goes to the same schools, gets the same health-care... Everyone has the same start in life. Why do you need an inheritance?

Now... let's turn that around. If the rich can pass on their fortunes, why should they give a shit about schools or health-care?

Inheritance is rich people staying rich, without doing anything to deserve it... while poor kids bust their asses to try to stay alive.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.42  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @26.2.38    5 months ago

It would really be nice if you stuck to what I actually say.

This shit that you invent... it's fine for you... but please leave me out!

Thank you.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
26.2.43  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.41    5 months ago
Why do you need an inheritance?

What business is it of yours? It's not your money!  If someone in my family passes and leaves me some coin, it doesn't affect you at all.

Mind your own business, worry about yourself and you will be a lot happier.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.44  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.43    5 months ago
it doesn't affect you at all

Of course it does.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
26.2.45  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.44    5 months ago

I have a son with a disability, I am leaving him enough money to live his life. You aren't going to provide for him. Government isn't going to do it. 

It really is none of your god damn business what i do with my money!!!!!!

Nonya

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.46  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.41    5 months ago

You presume that every inheritance is to a rich person. It isn't

Farm families for instance. 

In my case, I helped my family. I worked in that shop from the time I was 10 years old till I was 22. Then I worked in their real estate business, painting walls and scrubbing floors. 

Your assumption about what gets passed down is just wrong.. and actually punitive to those of us who worked hard for it. 

The money was taxed once. It should not be taxed again. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
26.2.47  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.46    5 months ago

What is Bob doing with his wealth? Giving it to Government?

Walk the Walk Bob!

 
 
 
CB
26.2.48  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @26.2.12    5 months ago
supposed to pay her employees more than their labor is worth....simply because they need the money.  

Define "how much the labor is worth" to an owner who would have to do the job/s for him or herself on a regular (daily) basis.

Anyway, what we are interested in here is employers' who have the ability to pay and will not pay simply because as a matter of personal principles they can or want to find someone (a Sap) to work at reduced, substandard wages. Even if employees work in industries doing jobs requiring the same repetitive procedures, motions, steps on the job for years or a career, though the position/workload barely fluctuates it is the duty and in the interest of the employer to raise the wages of said workers as a matter of job loyalty, attention, efficiency, time investment,  and a basic realization that if a worker/workers dedicate their (one) career to service to a particular industry - a prosperous company can do the same.

I am not suggesting that every pay request or demand made by an employee or union is practical or reasonable, but when the company is abundantly profitable: wages should reflect so. Or, grumbling and mumbling will be the fall-out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.32    5 months ago
Want money? Get a job and work for it.

I think that ultimately is what Bob was saying.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.50  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.31    5 months ago
That seems to me to be a powerful argument in favor of confiscatory inheritance taxes.

Suffice it to say, it is much easier to describe an objective (and that is really all I did) than it is to devise a system that would achieve that objective and not introduce negative consequences.   This is a profoundly complex subject matter.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.51  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @26.2.24    5 months ago
Capitalists don't want truly "free" markets.

Of course they don't.  Unfettered free markets run amok quickly.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.52  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @26.2.38    5 months ago
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", eh?

You clearly do not understand what Marx was saying.   That is the problem with parroting phrases without actually going to the source material and reading what the author was saying in his 'Critique of the Gotha Program'.   I recommend you read it (available online) or (less effort) simply read a credible analysis of same (where the analyst explains what is going on).

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.2.53  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.50    5 months ago
This is a profoundly complex subject matter.

Agreed Tig. The problem is that people want to discuss it in sound bites and personal agendas. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.54  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.45    5 months ago
I have a son with a disability...

... and it is a double pain to have to worry about his future.

In the richest nation in history... such worries are obscene. You should be serene.

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.55  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.41    5 months ago
Inheritance is rich people staying rich, without doing anything to deserve it... while poor kids bust their asses to try to stay alive.

An example of why this subject is so complex.   Everywhere you turn we see that 'it depends'.   Further, it is quite difficult for people to start with our existing system and devise a system that enables everyone with the opportunities (education, capital, etc.) to apply themselves in a productive manner.    It is next to impossible to insert factors into our system that address problems without introducing a host of new problems.

At best we can talk about what we would consider good (e.g. everyone being productive, well compensated and pursuing that which interests them) and what we consider bad (e.g. people exploiting positions of power to control others).   How general notions of good are supported and bad are not supported in a socio-economic/political system is likely an endless debate, but it is almost impossible to do that by envisioning how one would change our existing system (a product of a long evolution) which is, in effect, a complex web of rules and counter-rules with myriad interdependencies.   

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.56  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @26.2.46    5 months ago
You presume that every inheritance is to a rich person. It isn't

No, I do not. Perhaps when you were a child, the farm was still a reality, but today it is statistically inexistent. Farm Corp has taken over.

I don't think you've really asked yourself why anyone needs an inheritance. We are the richest nation in the history of the world. Our children - all our children - should be assured of a good start in life.

When you defend "inheritance", you are above all defending the transmission of fortunes from generation to generation. That is the bulk of the money. Wouldn't it be better to defend a good start for all?

 
 
 
TᵢG
26.2.57  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @26.2.39    5 months ago

In principle I think you are correct.   Inheritance tax (or another measure) would not apply to small to medium family owned businesses but rather would serve as a governing agent for runaway consolidation of wealth (needs definition).   However, I have a real problem with taxation given the disgusting display of fiscal irresponsibility, dishonesty and abuse by our wonderful politicians.   Personally, I prefer Gates and Buffet (for example) decide how to distribute their wealth rather than put it into the hands of contemporary politicians.    

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.58  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @26.2.33    5 months ago
You are kidding right?

Not at all.   Hear me out.

I mean there is the employers' (of old) side of the argument, then there is the workers' side of the argument. I am willing to share with you and discuss both sides. I wonder, are you? I just want a clear-eye understanding of what you are doing right now. 

The easy way to understand this is that absolutely anything is worth "whatever you can get somebody to pay for it".  Whether it's real estate, stocks, a Ferrari, or a cheeseburger.   Labor is no different.

Let's say there is a painting company that wants $100k to paint houses up to 2500sf.  Now, nobody is going to pay that, so that labor is not worth that amount.  

We can say the same thing about a stock clerk at a department store demanding $50/hr.  Nobody is going to pay that, so the labor isn't worth that much.

But let's say that stock clerk demands $18/hr.  If the owner can find people to do that task for $12/hr, she's not going to hire the $18 person.  If $18 is the best deal available, she'll take that.

That's the math of supply and demand.  Math doesn't care about subjective, emotional concepts like "dignity" or "rights" or "empowerment".

The purpose of a labor union is to constrict the supply of labor and artificially change that math by controlling what workers will accept and keeping them from undercutting each other.  The workers have the same rights they've always had, in that they could have left that job over pay or conditions at any time.  With a union, they're just operating in coordination.  (A practice that is illegal for businesses, BTW)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.59  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @26.2.47    5 months ago

Ad hominum ?

    jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.60  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.34    5 months ago
Pinkerton worked for the unions??

Ignoring 90% of union history, I see.

I recommend Wikipedia:

Of course you do.

Exactly: Bosses got fat, workers died.

She said get "real", not "melodramatic".

 
 
 
Texan1211
26.2.61  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.52    5 months ago
You clearly do not understand what Marx was saying. That is the problem with parroting phrases without actually going to the source material and reading what the author was saying in his 'Critique of the Gotha Program'. I recommend you read it (available online) or (less effort) simply read a credible analysis of same (where the analyst explains what is going on).

Just out of sheer curiosity, has anyone ever disagreed with you that you thought understood anything?

Or is it just me?

 
 
 
Texan1211
26.2.62  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.42    5 months ago

I didn't invent anything, Bob.

You are entirely welcome!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
26.2.63  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @26.2.35    5 months ago
Of course it is.

Actually, US privacy law says otherwise.

Property is theft, and inheritance is doubly theft - it steals from babies.

No, it isn't.  Just because you've found a crazed anarchist to voice your wealth envy does not mean any of that has any basis in reality.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
26.2.64  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.50    5 months ago
This is a profoundly complex subject matter.

Agreed.

IMHO, a big part of the subject is custom, habit. For a very long time, "leaving a good inheritance for the children" has been a social ideal. I think the social aspect is far more significant than the economic aspect.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
26.2.65  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.57    5 months ago
Personally, I prefer Gates and Buffet (for example) decide how to distribute their wealth rather than put it into the hands of contemporary politicians.    

No way. Read of Anand Giridharadas. 

Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World

Former  New York Times  columnist Anand Giridharadas takes us into the inner sanctums of a new gilded age, where the rich and powerful fight for equality and justice any way they can--except ways that threaten the social order and their position atop it. We see how they rebrand themselves as saviors of the poor; how they lavishly reward "thought leaders" who redefine "change" in winner-friendly ways; and how they constantly seek to do more good, but never less harm. We hear the limousine confessions of a celebrated foundation boss; witness an American president hem and haw about his plutocratic benefactors; and attend a cruise-ship conference where entrepreneurs celebrate their own self-interested magnanimity. 

Giridharadas asks hard questions: Why, for example, should our gravest problems be solved by the unelected upper crust instead of the public institutions it erodes by lobbying and dodging taxes? He also points toward an answer: Rather than rely on scraps from the winners, we must take on the grueling democratic work of building more robust, egalitarian institutions and truly changing the world. A call to action for elites and everyday citizens alike.

https://www.amazon.com/Winners-Take-All-Charade-Changing/dp/0451493249/ref=asc_df_0451493249/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312674808447&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9651814808409676679&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021746&hvtargid=pla-525785836229&psc=1

 
 
 
livefreeordie
26.2.66  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @26.2.52    5 months ago

I began studying Marx and his terrible philosophy 60 years ago and that includes Critique of the Gotha Programme. I doubt you have ever come close to my level of study on politics. Can you say you were studying politics including Marxism 60 years ago?

There is no conflict in my statement with Marx’s view on distribution of productive outcomes

For decades communists have proposed redistribution of wealth like the Democrats impose as a transition to full communism wherein capitalists no longer have the product (profits) of the labor of the proletariat  

I agree that the context matters so here it is for others to equally understand

“Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its en