They never did.... :^/

Michale

You understand wrong..

There has been a massive influx of illegal immigrants for the last several months...

Can't strengthening border control go hand-in-hand with a compromise that allows a pathway to citizenship?

It could.. But Democrats want to give the pathway to citizenship first and then maybe possibly discuss securing the border... Kinda like when Democrats pushed TrainWreckCare thru by hook or by crook and then said they will "talk" about tort reform after it's passed...

I really don't understand why strengthening border control can't just be part of the overall reform process and not a stumbling block to it ...

It CAN be a part of the overall reform process.. But it has to come FIRST....

It's like laying a foundation of a house.. It's part of the overall house construction process, but it HAS to come first or else everything falls apart...

Michale

That's the only logical conclusion that makes any sense and fits the facts...

Until I realize that there is no immigration reform that you can get behind, even if a bipartisan proposal is made. Am I mistaken?

I am willing to entertain ANY immigration reform...

ONCE we secure the border...

o, you are saying that there can be no immigration reform because many Americans will be attacked, raped and murdered??

You are comparing apples and orangutans...

There is immigration reform..

And then there is border security...

You can't have one without the other... (why does the theme from MARRIED WITH CHILDREN pop into my head?? :D)

The problem is, Democrats want to ignore border security...

Forget about the Democrats' version. I want to know what your version might look like and would it be worthy of bipartisan support and, therefore, workable?

My version first and foremost means securing the border. When someone is deported for criminal activities in the US, they STAY deported and are not free to re-enter the country to kill or rape or victimize MORE Americans...

Why hasn't HIllary or Obama talked with the families of those who have been murdered by illegal immigrants????

Michale

I agree... But before we can get to that compromise we must secure the border and STOP more illegals coming in...

I understand that net flow of immigrants across your southern border is close to nil, these days. Does border control need to be strengthened beyond what it is now. I don't know. But, if that is needed then it shouldn't be hard to do.

Can't strengthening border control go hand-in-hand with a compromise that allows a pathway to citizenship? Why can't border control be part of the compromise? Does it have to be a separate track that needs to be accomplished to the satisfaction of some standard before compromise on immigration reform can be reached?

I really don't understand why strengthening border control can't just be part of the overall reform process and not a stumbling block to it ...

The cost of the Democrats' version of immigration reform is too high..

So, you are saying that there can be no immigration reform because many Americans will be attacked, raped and murdered?? You mean that immigration reform is not possible? Then, why are we having this discussion. I thought you were open to possibilities that could lead to real reform.

Forget about the Democrats' version. I want to know what your version might look like and would it be worthy of bipartisan support and, therefore, workable?

Yes, I know that's what you have been saying here. That Democrats want more illegal immigrants pouring across the border because that means more Democrat votes. That's your position, right?

Well, I don't know where that leaves our little discussion here. Which, by the way, I thought was progressing so well ...

Until I realize that there is no immigration reform that you can get behind, even if a bipartisan proposal is made. Am I mistaken?

But many Americans will be attacked and raped and murdered...

The cost of the Democrats' version of immigration reform is too high..

'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here by victimized. Victimized by crime committed by illegal immigrants, violent or otherwise?

Yes...

Victimized through loss of opportunity taken by illegal immigrants? Economically victimized?

Yes...

In any case, don't you think that reforming the system and providing a pathway to citizenship will reduce the victimization?

Truly reforming the system would..

But that's not what the Democrats are pushing..

You see, I believe that an 'America First' strategy for immigration reform (legal and illegal immigration) would include a compromise that allows illegal immigrants who meet a set of criteria to remain in the country and work towards citizenship. I think this compromise can benefit all Americans.

I agree... But before we can get to that compromise we must secure the border and STOP more illegals coming in...

THAT's what Democrats DON'T want...

Michale

I think this is where we really see things differently. Part of the reason why is that I'm an outsider looking in and hoping against hope that the promise of America is alive and well and I am just cockeyed optimist at heart who always tries to look on the bright side, no matter what! :)

You see, I believe that an 'America First' strategy for immigration reform (legal and illegal immigration) would include a compromise that allows illegal immigrants who meet a set of criteria to remain in the country and work towards citizenship. I think this compromise can benefit all Americans.

I don't presume to know all of the details of how that would work but I don't see any other option that would keep America great, to borrow a phrase ...

But, that doesn't seem to me to be too hard to fix. You just need political will and a citizenry demanding reform through compromise. Easier said than done, I realize. But, certainly not an insurmountable problem, given some bold political leadership.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here by victimized. Victimized by crime committed by illegal immigrants, violent or otherwise?

Victimized through loss of opportunity taken by illegal immigrants? Economically victimized?

In any case, don't you think that reforming the system and providing a pathway to citizenship will reduce the victimization? If not, then you must think that reform is not possible and only draconian measures will solve this problem. Which is a vicious circle that will get you nowhere, fast, no?

By kicking the can down the road for so long, only draconian measures will actually FIX the problem..

The way I see it, the length of time that has elapsed has made the kind of fix you have in mind impossible, draconian measures or no.

Too much time, too many people, too settled in their lives. Draconian measures are not the kind of measures that can solve this. Your country needs to find a compromise that will benefit the country and all of its citizens.

Will compromise be easy to find? Apparently not. But, nothing worthwhile is ever easy, is it.

Because, the many will benefit from immigration reform, including from devising a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented or illegal immigrants who meet the criteria that is decided upon for that pathway.

Michale

I think a big part of the problem is that it has been a problem for so long and no administration has really been terribly serious about solving it. And, so, after so much time has allowed the problem to get worse, it is difficult to solve it with harsh tactics such as deporting every single last one of them and telling them to get in the legal line if they want to come back to the US.

EXACTLY.. Solving it back when it was a LITTLE problem would have been much more logical.. By kicking the can down the road for so long, only draconian measures will actually FIX the problem..

Over time, many of these undocumented workers have been working very hard for very little but at least they have the dignity of being able to provide for their families. How do you take that away from people. My answer is that you simply can't. Not if you have any compassion at all.

But the flip side of that is one must have compassion for the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who have been victimized in one form or another by illegals..

The FIRST duty of a compassionate government is to protect it's own citizens first...

And so, the solution has to involve allowing these undocumented workers and their families, including their naturally born American children, to stay in the US while meeting certain clearly identified conditions, including the ones recently suggested by Trump and outlined by many others for quite some time now.

But the problem is that the government has been lowering the standards by which the illegals can stay.. First it was ANY criminal record and yer gone.. Then it was ANY misdemeanor or felony and your gone. Then it was ANY violent misdemeanor or felony and then yer gone. And so on and so on and so on..

That is why the Right is so adamantly opposed to giving ANY kind of leeway or compromise. Because it's well documented that the Left will use that compromise to push for more and more...

I think you also have to take into account the kinds of work that many of these undocumented workers do - such as the dignified but back-breaking work in agriculture and the hospitality industry - and the responsibility that their American employers have in all of this.

I completely and unequivocally agree.. Employers who hire illegals should be penalized... No doubt..

I think the key notions here for America are compassion and good governance and rule of law - you must find a way to mesh these concepts, among others, in a solution to illegal immigration that is practical, that works and that live up to the promise of America.

Like I said, even in compassion, priorities must be established.. And Americans come first..

Michale

I think a big part of the problem is that it has been a problem for so long and no administration has really been terribly serious about solving it. And, so, after so much time has allowed the problem to get worse, it is difficult to solve it with harsh tactics such as deporting every single last one of them and telling them to get in the legal line if they want to come back to the US.

Over time, many of these undocumented workers have been working very hard for very little but at least they have the dignity of being able to provide for their families. How do you take that away from people. My answer is that you simply can't. Not if you have any compassion at all.

And so, the solution has to involve allowing these undocumented workers and their families, including their naturally born American children, to stay in the US while meeting certain clearly identified conditions, including the ones recently suggested by Trump and outlined by many others for quite some time now.

I think you also have to take into account the kinds of work that many of these undocumented workers do - such as the dignified but back-breaking work in agriculture and the hospitality industry - and the responsibility that their American employers have in all of this.

I think the key notions here for America are compassion and good governance and rule of law - you must find a way to mesh these concepts, among others, in a solution to illegal immigration that is practical, that works and that live up to the promise of America.

If everyone starts from that kind of thinking, then I believe this issue can be resolved in the best interests of all.

It's rewarding criminality... It totally decimates the idea that crime doesn't pay...

I prefer to send them back to their countries and let them get in line like honest law-abiding immigrants do..

Having said that I spose I could come round to the idea that they can stay while they are paying their back taxes... I am not a big fan of ripping families apart SOLELY because of illegal entry..

But ANY violent misdemeanor or felony and they're out, regardless of family status...

Michale

How do you feel about it?

Actually, I didn't catch that.. :D But it makes no difference in how I feel about it..

The question is, how do YA'ALL feel about it???

Michale

Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not otherwise broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

I know you always point out that undocumented workers have broken the law just by being here ...

Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

Do you have any issues with this??

Michale

I haven't forgotten you.. Your comment requires a bit more thought than usual and I have a few irons in the fire so to speak...

If you don't mind, let's follow it up on the coming http://FTP...

Michale

Lol. Here it is in raw format:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/25/trump_live_polls_immigration_policy_with_hannity_town_hall_audience_who_wants_them_thrown_out.html

Apparently Trump & Hannity polled the audience for an instant 'market test'....and that's how we formulate policy in the 21st century...

There is video backing it up.

Good. You're trying, at least. My turn:

Hillary is fallible.

So has Donald Trump...

Now something a bit more challenging:

Donald Trump believes that undocumented workers who have not broken the law will not be deported if they: 1) have been in the country for many years, 2)pay any 'back taxes' owed, and/or 3) have children who are natural American Citizens.

So does Hillary Clinton.

How'mi doing?? :D

Michale

Let us stipulate, then:

Your turn..

Hillary has had some spectacular and embarrassing failures..

So has Donald Trump...

Michale

Yes. Consensus.

CONSENSUS! :D

Michale

Hillary is fallible.

Donald Trump is fallible.

Your turn..

On the other hand, try explaining Pokemon Go to an aboriginal Amazonian. He'd shrink your head.

So reaching consensus on a shared reality has admitted degrees of difficulty.

Further, this is a forum for REALITY-BASED debate...

Debating the idea that Hillary can do no wrong is not reality-based debate...

It's religious fanatic type debate....

Michale

You misunderstand..

It makes no sense for ME to waste my time debating with a religious fanatic, the existence of god...

Michale

Nonsense. This is a forum for debate. If the ideologues and party faithful wish to contribute their opinions, they're as welcome as free thinkers or even word salad aficionados.

And I suppose Nihilists are included in there somewhere...

It would be like debating the existence of god with a religious fanatic..

Completely and utterly a waste of time.. You point out every fact that PROVES them wrong, but they stubbornly hold onto their faith..

So it is with partisan political fanatics..

NO amount of facts will sway them from their position...

But at least the journey is fun.. :D

"I love fucking with the clergy"
-Loki, DOGMA

:D

Michale

If we were talking logic and reason, you would have a point..

But we're not..

ALL of your assumptions have been based on partisan ideology..

I have my suspicions that all these international populist/nationalist insurgencies are being coordinated by some billionaire (Russian or otherwise) somewhere, but for now I'll keep that to myself.

Of course you do.. :D

Like I said... Nothing but ideology.. :D

That's probably why Trump is trying to gin up an attack on the (completely transparent) Clinton Foundation - to distract from his own dark money sources and ties, some of which might be found in the tax forms he refuses to release.

Ideology....

And Hillary is at death's door which is why she won't release any medical records...

Michale

You must live in a state that has legalized marijuana and you just got an awesome new batch.... :D

So you think the House will go Democratic this year? I want some of what YOU'RE smoking; I'm sure it's better!

And yes, Either party to a case before the Appellate Court can appeal a verdict to the SCOTUS, as both Larry Flynt and Anna Nicole Smith were able to do, for instance.

The aforementioned Obamacare case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 6 (or 10?) Republican States' attorney generals.

Yea, you also said that Brexit wouldn't pass.. You ALSO said that if it did pass, it would be armageddon.. You ALSO said that Trump wouldn't be the GOP nominee.. You ALSO said that Trump's numbers are dropping like a stone..

You have been WRONG at each and every turn...

Yeah, it's been a tough year for logic and reason. It's also been a tough year for anyone trying to predict from past models. Mea Culpa!

I have my suspicions that all these international populist/nationalist insurgencies are being coordinated by some billionaire (Russian or otherwise) somewhere, but for now I'll keep that to myself.

On that note, American billionaire Robert Mercer is having a pretty good year, considering his financial ties to Breitbart. I heard he's just sent funds to John McCain's primary opponent. I'm sure he's proud of himself.

That's probably why Trump is trying to gin up an attack on the (completely transparent) Clinton Foundation - to distract from his own dark money sources and ties, some of which might be found in the tax forms he refuses to release.

:D

Michale

Yea... That's what I thought.... :^/

Michale

From who???

The Supreme Court also settles differences between the different branches of government, so, say, the House of Representatives could bring a case against the executive branch.

So you think it's realistic that a Demcorat House would bring suit against a Hillary Administration???

You must live in a state that has legalized marijuana and you just got an awesome new batch.... :D

We weren't wrong about Brexit.

You weren't???

So.... Brexit failed and there was no vote successful to leave the EU???

And all the hysterical proclamaitions ya'all made that would occur if Brexit PASSED (Not if it was implemented, but if it PASSED) all came true???

Ya'all were DEAD WRONG about EVERYTHING to do with Brexit..

But, as per the norm, you do not have the integrity to stand up and say, "Yes, Michale.. YOU were right about Brexit and I was wrong.."

Which simply proves what I have said all along...

Ya'all simply CAN'T admit when you are wrong...

I'm guessing that Brexit will wither on the vine, eventually.

Yea, you also said that Brexit wouldn't pass.. You ALSO said that if it did pass, it would be armageddon.. You ALSO said that Trump wouldn't be the GOP nominee.. You ALSO said that Trump's numbers are dropping like a stone..

You have been WRONG at each and every turn...

And when Brexit DOESN'T "wither", you STILL won't admit you are wrong...

Michale

We weren't wrong about Brexit. It appears that, the British government has adopted a policy of taking as long as possible to implement Brexit, so almost nothing has been done yet about implementing it, if they ever intend to at all. This calmed the markets.

I'm guessing that Brexit will wither on the vine, eventually. There are too many ties to Europe to undo, too many markets that would be unsettled if decoupled from the Euro. In a year or so, the new Prime Minister will begin introducing legislation that mitigates or reverses many of the supposed provisions of Brexit, until it is little more than a rearranging of chairs on the deck.

Why am I doing your research for you?

Okay, there are several ways that a case can reach the Court without interference from the Executive branch. There is direct appeal from an Appeals Court ruling. Or there might be disagreements between different circuits of the Appeals Courts. One could also (as in Bush v Gore) appeal the decision of a State Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court also settles differences between the different branches of government, so, say, the House of Representatives could bring a case against the executive branch.

It only requires four votes among the Justices for the Court to grant a writ of certiorari, so conservatives can, at the moment, get just about anything they want before the Court in any given session.

Does anyone {{cough}} Paula {{cough}} :D want to address the point on how wrong ya'all were on BREXIT??

No?? Didna think so... :D

Hay, if ya'all are going to accuse me of shit, I am going to prove ya'all wrong with FACTs are every juncture.... :D

Michale

Oh com'on, M... Let's be honest..

Stein's ONLY problem is she doesn't toe the Hillary/Demcorat Party line... She is not a slave to Party ideology and dogma..

THAT is Stein's only "problem"....

Michale

Why, thank you! I think... :D

Michale

That dog won't hunt (and I think it's a goat).

Really??

So, explain to me exactly how a Citizens United Case could get to the SCOTUS if President Hillary doesn't want it to..

Your examples are ridiculous as they are special circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated...

I'll await your response.. 1,000 quatloos says I never see it.. :D

Michale

So, Michale seems less insane than usual with his open ignoring of facts.

Which "facts" did I ignore??

Or, to be more accurate, which RELEVANT facts did I ignore??

Oh and..

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane

:D

Michale

And Don Harris; the problem with Stein is that she doesn't have a base. She has no local, state or federal supporters.

Also, her platform is vague; she's going to create millions of jobs by switching us to green energy by 2030? That's not a jobs plan.

She's going to institute single payer healthcare?

She's everything Bernie tried to warn his followers against; someone who claims that by winning the Presidency they can solve America's problems.

That just isn't the case. You need a movement built from the ground up; that's why Bernie never said he could solve everyone's problems from the White House. His main promise was that from the Bully Pulpit he could put the pressure on Congress and the courts, and keep the base fired up, to win change through successive elections.

Stein promises a fantasy, of a savior riding in and instituting the right policies and magically righting the ship.

The US has been subjected to poor policy and bad decisions for decades; it's going to take decades more work. And the Greens aren't interested in the hard work that real change requires. That's why Stein isn't even on every ballot.

The Libertarians at least do the work, but their beliefs are too "pure" so they have a built in ceiling of about 12%- the conservative third of people who lean Republican, basically. But they've lost their most extreme people to the Constitution Party, who are... just nuts.

If you want to institute change on a nation the size of the US, you need the support of AT LEAST 100 million people.

If Jill Stein can't get 55k people in Georgia she's never going to provide change.

The fact that individual members preferred Hillary to Bernie is both understandable and natural. When it's all said and done, that preference has not been shown to have turned into any actions by anyone. You can't force people to like someone they don't -- I can't make you like Hillary or Obama. And, although I liked Bernie in the beginning and, while I'm still mad at him to an extent, like him again now -- I ended up preferring Hillary and no amount of "he was robbed!!!" Could change my mind. Or the minds of lots of other Democrats. Bernie came into the party, used its assets while bitching the whole time, made his case, won over a large group of people and didn't win over an even larger group of people, then said he will leave the party again. But he's still prepared to do some campaigning for Hillary so he's apparently come to terms with events and realizes he still has a platform from which to do more good. Which is terrific.

I'm not saying you can't or even shouldn't do protest votes if you want to, I'm just saying they accomplish nothing in terms of creating practical changes in real life.

Similarly, my point about the ACA is that it has, in fact, done a lot of good for a lot of people while still being imperfect and a step on the continuum. You may sneer at people no longer being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, but that's why I was able to get insurance after ACA but not before. There's al whole lot of things that improved for a whole lot of people after passage of ACA and still more things happening now. I wasn't happy about the public option situation then; I'm happy it's on the table now. I think medical insurance companies SHOULD be put out of business but lots of Americans work for them and invest in them -- it's coal miners all over again. But until we work out how to run economies in today's environment old-school stuff will continue. Many, many Americans do "make-work" -- some of which is quite harmful. But we live in a society that demands people earn money to be able to live and we have lots of bad ways for them to do it. Until we have nothing-but-good-ways or we convert to a society/economy that offers a guaranteed basic income or some such thing shit is gonna continue to happen.

Stein's inevitable loss won't build competition. It won't do anything. Instead of expending energy doing futile things to "change the system" you might join the system, build a power-base and change it from within. You're way more like to have an impact.

Congratulations, you've just flunked constitutional law.

May I remind you that Bill Clinton was STILL president when Bush v Gore was decided? That Nixon was STILL president when the Pentagon Papers case was decided? That Obama was STILL president when opponents of Obamacare got their hearing before the court?

The Supreme Court didn't listen to FDR, either, despite his having named a large number of its judges.

Every SCOTUS judge of the modern era has voted with both the majority and minority of the court, as far as I know. For instance, Elana Kagan voted against parts of the Obamacare plan, Roberts famously decided in favor of parts of it.

That dog won't hunt (and I think it's a goat).

she could try, but she'd have no leverage. a lifetime appointment can't be taken back.

President Hillary doesn't have to apply leverage in any case..

She could just make sure that the case never goes before the SCOTUS...

Whose going to go against a President Hillary and push a CU case to the SCOTUS??

Answer... No one who wants to stay on this side of ground level... :D

Michale

That's just jolly as a sentiment. The problem is turning it into laws and rules and ways to live. Scratch a libertarian and you end up with gabble and babble -- they offer very little in the way of workable anything. They can't figure out how they can have comfortable lives where people have jobs and roads are maintained and people get educated and everyone isn't poisoned by bad actors while they abolish taxes in the name of "freedom". Their answer: let the free market handle it. Which is stupid, stupid, stupid.

But, as I am wont to do, credit where credit is due..

At least Obama showed up....

Michale

That's because there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...

Michale

"I don't think Dems are for perpetual war."

I said they're "good with it". I stand by that assessment.

I don't watch conventions, but I did see that general barking like mad man. I thought Biden was ready to drone somebody and I don't recall hearing anything critical about the body count or the pointlessness of our perpetual wars. Lots of cheering though.

Sure it can.... Quite easily as a matter of fact..

As the body count associated with the Clintons attests to...

Michale

She has all the leverage she needs.. Personal loyalty..

Let's say she put Huma Abedin in as a Justice...

Do you HONESTLY believe that Abedin would say NO to Hillary??

Michale

she could try, but she'd have no leverage. a lifetime appointment can't be taken back.

JL

libertarianism is a fairly well reasoned philosophy; i may not agree with it, but i don't see why you'd see fit to call it a "conglomeration of badly thought out ideas," nor the value in calling its adherents "idiots." libertarianism holds that the highest value in society is personal freedom, and that whatsoever increases overall freedom for the most people is generally for the best. this has led them to advocate lower degrees of both social and economic control, and policy based on the austrian school of economic theory. friedrich hayek may have lost out to keynes in popular policy, but he and his adherents were no fools.

JL

But I am always amiable to being corrected.. :D

Michale

But they are NOT immune to ideological leverage which is, I believe, the point..

Hillary could pressure the judges to protect her cash cow/golden goose...

Is that not a possibility??

And what will the Demcorat voters do in retaliation??

Not a damn thing...

THAT, i think, is the point Don is making..

Michale

the government is made up of human beings, and those people are only as beholden to campaign finance as their positions make them. "big money" isn't who they are, it's just one of the necessary tools to do the job.

legislators and executives generally don't enjoy being beholden to big money donors, and have in the past been happy to pass laws like mccain-feingold, in spite of their fear of retribution. supreme court justices keep their job for life, and therefore are mostly immune to economic leverage, no matter who appointed them.

JL

Ahhhh So... Name-calling runs in the family.. :D

Michale

Just as you believe your horrible mish-mash of hate against anyone who doesn't toe your HILLARY IS GOD line is legitimate too..

What makes you any different from the Trump supporters you attack??

Michale

I have argued with Libs and heard debates with them and they break down in two rounds.

Trump followers sincerely believe their horrible mish-mash of hate is legitimate too. Sincerity is not a useful standard of measurement for the "legitimacy" of anything.

However, I agree that some Republicans might decide to vote Lib rather than for Trump. As a practical matter that's fine. But they aren't doing it because they've become enamored of Libertarianism.

{178] Don Harris And when you say I am dead wrong when I say the whole purpose of elections is to give citizens the opportunity to bring about change- then what the fuck is the purpose of elections?

The purpose of elections is to choose between available candidates.

CHANGE is accomplished in a variety of ways with elections being only one. And generally speaking, if you achieve change through the person elected it is because that person is willing to enact whatever is needed to create the change. And leaders typically become change-agents only after all sorts of activism and other activity has happened over time to convince them of the "change" position.

Hopefully we will eventually achieve Single-Payer healthcare. If we do it will have happened because of the steps that came before. When ACA was being negotiated I was both furious and disillusioned when the Public Option was nixed. That was my lowest point in the Obama presidency. But my sister, who is a nurse, told me not to be an idiot. She said she spent half her time on the phone arguing with insurance companies on behalf of patients and that the laws about pre-existing conditions and etc. were going to be a huge improvement and that it was a first step. A friend of mine who worked in Social Services expressed herself similarly. Both saw it as the beginning, not the end.

Now, Aetna decides to be a prick because it couldn't merge with another company and pulls out of the Exchanges in some states. And the Public Option is on the table. And as time moves on the Public Option may come about in part because Insurance companies shoot themselves in the foot. And that way the public is behind the President/Congress/Senate instead of resisting the change. At the time of the ACA debate the American public was still more afraid of losing the existing system than disgusted with it. Plus 7% of the economy runs on the for-profit medical industry. So there is resistance. Change happens when the potential Change-Agent is backed by enough people to withstand/overcome remaining resistance.

And Change-Agents have to work in the system they walk into. So if, by some miracle, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson won, they wouldn't be able to wave a wand and force change. They'd have to get Congress/Senate to agree with them and the public would have to support them. And the Courts have to agree the changes are constitutional, etc.

To me fringe candidates serve a purpose -- they bring issues into discussion. Fringe candidates and activists then push, in a variety of ways, until the issue becomes mainstreamed, then the "mainstream" candidates pick them up and make them happen. The fringe candidates deserve credit for what they do, but shouldn't be seen as saviors because they aren't.

In each case, according to emails released Monday from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, the requests were directed to Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and confidante, Huma Abedin, who engaged with other top aides and sometimes Clinton herself about how to respond.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

Hillary Clinton and her Pay-To-Play State Dept....

I have the facts....

I await the standard response from the WPG when presented with facts they don't like..

"Michale, you post too much!!!"

:^/

Michale

State trooper shoots dead an unarmed deaf father who was trying to communicate via sign language after being pulled over for a speeding violation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753378/North-Carolina-state-trooper-shoots-dead-deaf-mute-man.html

Call out (O)BLM!!!!

Get the race baiters out in force!!!!

Let's Riot!!! Let's Pillage!!!! Let's Destroy!!!!

Huh??? Whaaa??? It's a white guy who was killed???

Ooops.. Nothing to see here... Go about your business....

The Left Wingery in action... :^/

Michale

What the Hillary supporters believe is that Hillary will follow thru on all her promises and push a progressive/liberal agenda...

They actually BELIEVE Hillary when she says she is going to do away with CU, even though Hillary has been the BIGGEST beneficiary of CU.. Just like Obama before her....

Hillary had to "evolve" on practically every issue that progressives hold dear..

And the Hillary supporters actually BELIEVE that the evolution will hold after she is elected..

They are in for a rude awakening...

The magical thinking is to vote to validate Big Money politicians, then expect those politicians to change the system that they are currently exploiting.

EXACTLY!!!!

To expect Hillary and the Demcorats to actually KILL their golden goose or BBQ up their cash cow???

Well, that's just plain gullibility...

"Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin birth, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."
-Rufus, DOGMA

:D

Only the threat of losing the elections to independents or third parties will get the politicians in the CMPs to change- and if they don't then it will be possible to replace them with independents or third party candidates.

"ding, ding, ding, ding.. We have a winner!! Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!"

It's all ideological enslavement..

WINNING is more important than beneficial change....

Michale

Now that DEMOCRATS have come out and given Trump props and kudos for his actions, NOW no one here wants to talk about Obama's bonehead move of having Trump act like the President and Obama act like the schmuck...

"Kahn.. I am LAUGHING at the superior intellect.."
-Admiral James T Kirk

:D

Of course ya'all could just come out and admit ya'all were wrong, that Trump DID, in fact, do a good thing..

Ha! What am I thinking... It's well established that Weigantians *NEVER* apologize and *NEVER* admit they are wrong (NEN {cough} Joshua {cough} :D )....

Michale

calling people names won't help them change their behavior. you call him a troll, he calls you a prick, no progress.

You are dead on ballz accurate on this..

I treat people exactly how they treat me. If they want to talk issues and have intelligent conversations, then I can faithfully do that..

If they just want to hurl insults, well I can do that as well..

"To those who want to be our friend, you will find no more faithful a friend than the United States.. For those who would wish to make war? Well, we can be faithful to that as well."
-President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS

I call Hillary a no good lying bitch and Weigantians take that personally and call me names... And then I respond and so on and so on and so on..

Michale

SO WHAT!???

And if I posted in the exact same manner, but posted RAH RAH HILLARY/DEMOCRAT posts neither you nor anyone else would say dick about it..

So the *FACTS* clearly show that my posting a lot is not the problem.

My posting a lot against Democrats..

THAT is the only "problem".

Michale

“Mr Trump really cares, and this is his way of showing it. It’s something a president should do.”
-Flood Survivor

Once again, Donald Trump being more presidential than President Obama...

I can't wait til Obama gets boo'ed when he travels to the flood zone today. If he actually goes..

Michale

The difference being that I did not call Listen a prick..

I said he is ACTING like a prick..

But, why bother with the facts when making accusations.. :^/

wow, you posted seven times since i started typing.

SO WHAT!???

Jeezus H Christ, if you want to count my posts, wait til the Holiday Fundraiser.. :D

I post a lot. Get over it.. :D

Michale

“I want to thank Mr. Trump for coming because he brought attention to our state, and we need that now.”
-Former Dem Senator Mary Landreiu

Ooooo That just pisses ya'all off, doesn't it!?? :D

You can't see me but I am laughing at ya'all... :D

Michale

One has to wonder how Obama saw the people of Louisiana from the golf courses of Martha's Vinyard??

Bush at least had the integrity to cut short his vacation and actually GO SEE the devastation of NOLA..

Apparently, Obama couldn't be bothered...

Ya gotta hand it to Obama. He accomplished an incredible feat..

He made Trump look more presidential than the President Of The United States...

Quite and accomplishment..

Michale

wow, you posted seven times since i started typing.

@russ,

calling people names won't help them change their behavior. you call him a troll, he calls you a prick, no progress.

be the change you want to see in the world
~gandhi

and that goes for all of us, self included.

JL

Yes.. Yes their is...

hillary reflects ideological movement like she reflects everything else, based on whatever the polls and the focus groups say.

I couldn't agree more. Which is exactly why I DON'T like Hillary... She is a consummate politician and will say ANYTHING that she thinks people want to hear..

Hillary had to "evolve" on gay marriage... Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that her evolution isn't contrived and campaign related?? Trump was pro-gay when Hillary was defending the Defense Of Marriage Act...

That is exactly why Hillary will make a BAD President. The President has to be the one with the cool head and will have to do things that are unpopular to serve the greater good.. A poll-driven President will get this country into so much trouble...

to my knowledge they haven't done anything to warrant the name-calling.

Bigotry knows no logic or reason..

Michale

Trump is the Republican candidate in NAME only...RCINO???

As is well documented, Trump has policy positions that are to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton.. Ya'all's comments indicate that Republicans hate Trump almost as much as Democrats do...

For all intents and purposes, Trump *IS* the only Independent that actually has a chance of winning..

So, if a Weigantian IS truly against the Democrat AND Republican Partys, then Trump is the only logical vote...

Michale

Voting for Stein in 2016 will make it possible for her or another Green Party candidate to win in 2020.

that's just magical thinking. no matter who wins or loses this time around, the party infrastructure will still be there for the next presidential cycle.

if your goal is to create conditions to facilitate a minor candidate having a legitimate shot, the first step is having a liberal supreme court to uphold changes to campaign finance. the judiciary is the only part of government still capable of being free of the influence of campaign money, and without that neither vouchers nor vendettas will come to much of anything. in this cycle, unless you live in a "safe" state, a vote for hillary will bring that possibility closer; a vote for stein will not.

@balthasar,

agree that donald didn't have a leg to stand on with the "rigged" comments; he was just having a tantrum because he was down in the polls. neither you nor donald is necessarily wrong though. if you look, there's plenty of evidence both parties try their best to game the results in one way or another. those kinds of shenanigans have been going on since the invention of the ballot.

@paula,

hillary reflects ideological movement like she reflects everything else, based on whatever the polls and the focus groups say. i have no problem with public servants supporting whatever they think the public supports, that's been a big part of how the clintons have succeeded in politics. i support hillary because she has the most experience and knows how to do the job of president, but i have no illusions that her ideology is driven by anything other than the pragmatics of her position.

i do take issue with you for bad-mouthing gary johnson and the libertarians as selfish "idiots." they have a legitimate philosophy which they believe in, and they apply it equally to economic and social issues. one need not agree with libertarian philosophy to recognize it as a sincerely held belief system. since hillary is a statist and donald is a demagogue some people with a conservative mindset might wish to vote libertarian. although that probably won't accomplish anything practical, to my knowledge they haven't done anything to warrant the name-calling.

@JFC,

sometimes dropping bombs is required to prevent even worse things from happening. i don't favor going out in search of a fight where none exists, but some fights will come to us regardless of whether or not we come to them.

JL

HOLY TESTICLE TUESDAY!!!

JFC actually not only said something coherent, he actually said something that I dead on ballz totally and 1000% actually agree with...

Michale

And when you say I am dead wrong when I say the whole purpose of elections is to give citizens the opportunity to bring about change- then what the fuck is the purpose of elections?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Weigantia. Where you can't hold your own opinion without being attacked and, AFTER you are attacked, you get accused of the one doing the attacking.. :D

It's fun.. You'll get used to it..

Michale

Uhhhh Maybe because the American people WANT a change of direction??

Maybe the American people DON'T want a scumbag rhymes-with-witch who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and slapped her on the ass... A greedy and conniving luser who's ONLY claim to fame is that she is married to a serial rapist and sexual assaulter..

Din't THAT possibility ever occur to you?

Of course not. Because you are so blinded by political bigotry and hatred you can't see past your own ideology..

Michale

Yep..

The difference between ya'all and me is that *I* have FACTS to back up what I post..

A group of men chanting "Black Lives Matter" were accused of viciously beating up seven white victims in Akron early Sunday morning.

Police said seven white men were walking when they were approached by five black men and two white men, shouting, "Black lives matter."
http://www.cleveland19.com/story/32814897/men-chant-black-lives-matter-before-viciously-attacking-white-victims

Ya'all just have nothing but political bigotry and personal attacks..

Michale

Bigotry anyone???

:^/

Michale

I am going to start posting *EXACTLY* how ya'all accuse me of posting.. I am going to take ya'all's words to heart and post exactly like ya'all say I do.. I mean, what the hell. If I am going to be accused of it, I might as well, do it, right??

Hope ya'all enjoy it.. Ya'all will be BEGGING me to go back to my normal posting style...

Michale

TrumpTroll: (noun) A thin-skinned creature that tries to force others to concede to his arguments through bullying, inundating the board with flurry of messages that he wants addressed, yet cannot handle being treated how he treats others. Avoids addressing criticism or admitting when he is wrong by playing hurt and rambling on about random tangents on how mistreated he is. Easily recognized by the bright orange ring around his mouth

Yer acting like a real prick, did you know that??

I find it really funny how I am accused on the one hand of OVERLY addressing criticism, then on the other hand, accused of NOT addressing criticism..

It's also hilarious that ya'all go on and on about how I post then blame ME when ya'all go on and on about how I post..

Your entire comment is one big personal attack that, in one instance, says one thing and then in the very next instance, says the exact opposite...

But you have given me a great idea..

Michale

I hope that you're prepared for a flurry of posts insisting that both sides have violent actors, and that BLM protesters and lefties are MUCH more violent than Trump supporters, etc etc....

I'm with you, Paula: Hillary isn't the one pre-judging the election to be 'rigged' before a single ballot has even been printed.

Perhaps this is Trump's version of an old sports tactic: "working the refs", wherein both sides tell the ref (or ump) to watch the other team extra closely, because of their opponent's particular reputation for bad sportsmanship. I believe it was Richard Nixon, who first started pinning back the ears of the press in this way in the modern era.

But I have a question for the Donald: would you still consider the system rigged if you were to somehow win? Did it suddenly un-rig? Or could someone complain that you'd won because the system was rigged (against Hillary)? Why not? They'd have the same evidence that you have right now that it is rigged in someone's favor, not necessarily hers. Depends how you look at the evidence. The network news divisions seem to hate Trump, but are owned by corporations whose CEO's are actually very friendly with Trump and travel in the same circles. And why not? Trump has been a bonanza for ratings, and everyone agrees, including those CEO's, that he was worth every bit of the two billion dollars worth of free media he received from them. During that same period of time, it was Hillary, not Trump, who received the most negative press.

The worst offender was FOX, who treated Bush as a joke and Rubio as a child, and who actually divided candidates for the presidency into adult and kiddie sections and got away with it. Worst of all, they have excused every inexcusable utterance that's come out of Trump's mouth, including his obnoxious dismissal of McCain's heroism. This from the network that once devoted whole segments to whether Obama's statement to Hillary during the 2008 primaries "you're likeable enough" was rude enough to disqualify him for the presidency. I'm not kidding.

And now Roger Ailes, forced out of Fox's executive office by his own indiscretions, is an advisor to Trump, and has, by some accounts, been advising Trump for some time. Now that we know what we know, we have to ask: was Trump's attack on Megyn Kelly actually a brushback aimed at potential witness by Roger Ailes? As much as to say, "I can turn the crowd against you when I want to."

Of course, Trump's attack was so inartful, it actually proved the point that Kelly was making with the question: that Trump publicly demeans women. Later, when Kelly revealed that she, too, had been sexually harassed by Ailes, Trump publicly defended Ailes.

So can Hillary followers make a case for bias? You bet your Citizens United they can. How else could Trump be in a statistical tie with Hillary despite having a nearly non-existent campaign?

So yeah, I can make a case that the system is rigged - against Hillary!

If you put Bernie or Jill Stein or Gary what's-his-name in the Oval Office they would very quickly be faced with decisions on that front and I don't think they'd find it easy at all to just say "pull out" or "cut the defense budget in half" or anything else that we'd like to see. NOT unless there is a better solution/option provided. Otherwise I think you'd find things would probably change very little. But I recognize that's purely speculative on my part.

True enough. That's why I've made it plain that my objection to Hillary really isn't really about her, but I don't believe she'll even do less bombing.

Do you mean literal wars, or the constant internal struggles within the party?

I don't agree with either, but in terms of the internal conflict I think there's been a lot of movement over the last several years and I think HRC reflects an understanding of that movement. I myself have been deeply unhappy with the Dem party for a long time, but I far happier now than I have been previously. I think it's very easy to get in a groove where one gets so used to the problems they can't acknowledge any forward movement. I think Obama is exactly right in saying the ship of state moves slowly. People hate change. Change happens usually after years of sustained effort that seems to lead nowhere, then BAM! you get critical mass and it happens.

Now with respect to actual wars, there is a problem to be addressed but the question is how, and the answer isn't elect Bernie, or elect Jill Stein or whoever. The war problem is bigger than individual presidents.

It seems quite evident to me that a majority of Dems are good with our various perpetual wars. It doesn't make sense to even be part of a party so committed to something I oppose so completely. (D) or (R), we get more perpetual war. No thanks. I won't be voting for that.