The Most Active Discussions Today
Just how stupid is trumpity and his followers
UNCATEGORIZED BushÃ¢ÂÂs Defense Secretary: Delusional Trump Has No Idea What HeÃ¢ÂÂs Talking About
ByJames DeVinnePosted on May 1, 2016
Donald TrumpÃ¢ÂÂs feeble attempt at an intelligently-sounding foreign policy speech last week has been recognized across ideological lines as the almost incomprehensible stage-managed populist spectacle that it was. Today, however, the presumptive Republican nominee received scathing criticism from a truly experienced foreign policy hand, the Republican former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Speaking on ABCÃ¢ÂÂs The Week Sunday morning, Gates slammed the hypocrisy and contradictions that defined TrumpÃ¢ÂÂs somber, teleprompted speech:
I think based on the speech youÃ¢ÂÂd have somebody who doesnÃ¢ÂÂt understand the difference between a business negotiation and a negotiation with sovereign powers. For example, he, on the one hand, says we need to be a more reliable ally to our friends. And then in the next breath he basically says weÃ¢ÂÂre going to rip up all those burden-sharing agreements that weÃ¢ÂÂve had over the decades with them and make them go their own way if they donÃ¢ÂÂt pay for everything
Gates, who has worked under every president since Jimmy Carter and is widely considered one of the most knowledgeable and influential foreign policy minds in the nation, went on to denounce Trump on a more fundamental level, taking aim at his arrogance and narcissism:
One of the things that worries me is that he doesnÃ¢ÂÂt appear to listen to people. He believes that he has all the answers, that heÃ¢ÂÂs the smartest man in the room. And IÃ¢ÂÂve worked for some very different presidentsÃ¢ÂÂ¦ one of the things they all had in common was a willingness to listen to people who had experience, and then make their own independent judgment. Now, theyÃ¢ÂÂve gone in different directions but they never assumed they had all the answers, and thatÃ¢ÂÂs one of the things that troubles me.
To be sure, TrumpÃ¢ÂÂs persona is that of a headstrong egomaniac who, certainly in foreign policy, is far out of his depth. His speech on Wednesday, riddled as it was with contradiction and obfuscation, came off as little more than a cynical populist play to mask his utter cluelessness and lack of direction with strident rhetoric and buoyant jingoism.
Besides his paradoxical rhetoric about providing more support to our allies while also insuring they pay their Ã¢ÂÂfair share,Ã¢ÂÂ he excoriated President ObamaÃ¢ÂÂs failure to launch a war in Syria while condemning his the interventions in Iraq and Libya in the next breath; frequently trotted out his new slogan Ã¢ÂÂAmerica FirstÃ¢ÂÂ to praise the American role in World War II despite the fact that the 1940s America First movement, and indeed the relative isolationism that he is now peddling, opposed American entry into the war; and insisted that Ã¢ÂÂwar and aggression will not be [his] first instinctÃ¢ÂÂ while praising the nuclear bombing of Japan and stating that he would consider nuking Europe.
Foreign policy veterans from across the political spectrum have criticized TrumpÃ¢ÂÂs haphazard and ignorant approach to world affairs, with many saying that they would refuse to work in his administration. It is, however, particularly refreshing to see a Republican expert like Robert Gates, who has even been mentioned as a possible running mate for the Donald, take a stand for reason and dignity over rhetoric. If TrumpÃ¢ÂÂs foreign policy speech was a pathetic attempt to sound presidential, it failed miserably, leaving viewers with the sense that he lacks even the most basic understanding of how the world works. To put such a man in the White House would represent a danger to America and to the
Dumber than Palin?
Dumber than Cruz and Foolarina combined?
Where would you like the new UN headquarters to be, maybe right here.
Do You Care If a Muslim is Offended by OUR National Anthem ?
DEAR AMERICA: Do You CARE If A Muslim Is OFFENDED By Our National Anthem?
Do you think Muslims have a right to be offended by our National Anthem? Or do you think they should embrace the culture of a country that they move to?
Imagine if the following was happening here in America. What would you do? Check it outâ¦
by Thomas Holmes
Everybodyâs favorite militant and oppressive- yet somehow peace-loving- cult of religious immigrants is back in the news. Last week, we reported on things getting serious in the U.K., today itâs all about Great Britâs former colony of criminals, Australia. Yep, after escaping to Down Under and western freedom, a glut of Islamists now declare that Australia has no right to ask Muslims to sing their national anthem or value the democratic principles of western citizenship.
This, according to Islamic activist group, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which is campaigning against Australia because they believe the country is enforcing democratic values and a âdisputed viewâ of history which contradicts Islamic beliefs.
âRequiring schoolchildren to sing the national anthem, and the citizenship pledge supporting democratic values, are a part of an oppressive campaign by Australian authorities of âforced assimilationâ of the Muslim communityâ.
â Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman, Unthman Badar
Well, if thereâs one culture that knows a thing or two about âforced assimilationâ it would be Islam. Mr. Badar goes on to insist that this supposed oppression is due to an âexaggerated fear of a security threatâ. Yeah, because someone who represents a belief system with a history of violence while giving the finger to democracy from inside your own borders is a totally absurd thing to be concerned about. Personally, I think Mr. Badar is just ticked off because he thinks the government got their indoctrination process started before he could start his.
Getting back to the whole national anthem quibble, Mr. Badar asks, âIf you donât share those values, why should they [Muslim children] be forced to sing it?â Believe it or not, Mr. Badar does veer into a valid question, although he mistakenly thinks it lends credence to his argument. If our western leaders would take a second to remove their heads from a certain sun-less location they might realize what this question actually implies: If Muslims donât share our values, why would they want to migrate to democratic countries? If they reject democracy in favor of continued Muslim/Sharia culture, are they really âfleeingâ from that society at all? Why would we want people like that inside our borders?
Mr. Badar makes another crucial point when he states, âThe attempt to reform Islam is doomed to failure.â Truer words have never been spoken. Sharia living is inseparable from Islam as any Muslim who admits to living under the Quran will tell you. The so-called western Muslims are keeping quiet about all these âBad Muslimsâ either because theyâre in abject denial about true Islam, in outright disobedience â which would be a death sentence â or are secretly supportive. Either way, itâs past time western leaders took a page out of Islamâs dedication and started identifying liberty-centric principles to stand up for exactly what democracy is andâ¦ is not. Anyone who wants to stand on our side of the line is welcome, anyone who doesnât can go back home and rape your own women and embrace global hate.
Lawsuit Accuses Donald Trump of Raping Teen Girl [Documents]
The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party
Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that itâs the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into Americaâs real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Letâs take a closer look.
An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and theyâre all Republican!
1. Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him Americaâs first black senator.
2. Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
3 Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
4. Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
5. Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didnât stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
6. Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
7. Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.
Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. How can this be? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republicâs founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.
Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then thereâs the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.
Read more at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/the_secret_racist_history_of_the_democratic_party.html
Listed above, in order, left to right
Describe Mr. Trump in Two Words or Less That Most Differentiate Him from Hillary
For example: politically candid... Have at it!
5 Reasons Barack Obama Doesn’t Get The Credit He Deserves
5 Reasons Barack Obama Doesn’t Get The Credit He Deserves
May 2, 2016 7:03 am / 40 Comments / Featured Post, Memo Pad, Politics, Top News, White House
The greatest compliment Barack Obama ever got from the right was their complete unwillingness to accept reality.
The stock market nearing new highs? Bubble! Jobless claims at a 43-year low? The numbers must be fake! Twenty million more Americans with health insurance? Obamacare can’t possibly be helping anyone because I know a guy who knows someone’s doctor who said…
While many on the left have been disappointed by the president’s “incrementalism,” the Obama administration has engineered tremendous change since 2009 — even as a conservative Supreme Court spent much of 2010 tearing up campaign finance law while the president was forced to reduce the massive deficit he’d inherited from George W. Bush, who inherited a surplus.
Though the president’s approval rating has been edging up, he’s not likely to reach the heights Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan did in their final days in office, nor see anything like the depths that George W. Bush or Richard Nixon earned as they prepared for their last helicopter flight of shame out of the White House.
But there is a strong case to be made for President Obama being one of most consequential presidents ever.
And it’s not just because of the symbolic value of his being our first African American president, nor because he avoided a Great Depression, nor even just because every solar panel, Tesla and wind turbine you’ll ever see — and you’ll see a ton — came about much quicker as a result of Obama’s stimulus. These are all achievements that will endure regardless what happens in November.
“He just flew above it all,” Jim Nelson wrote in GQ. “And, luckily, he took most of us with him. He was the Leader not only of our country but of our mood and disposition, which is harder to rule.”
Why is it so hard to see that now?
Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the six most recent presidential elections. In 2012, Obama became the first president elected twice with more than 51 percent of the popular vote. Yet Republicans handily won the popular vote, and eventually both houses of Congress, in both 2010 and 2014, forging one the largest conservative majorities since the Great Depression. This phenomenon has been described by political scientists Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven Webster as “negative partisanship,” which means that almost every race has become nationalized and 90 percent of voters participate in straight-ticket voting. While Donald Trump’s candidacy has thus far been so polarizing that it could disrupt this trend, “A growing number of Americans have been voting against the opposing party rather than for their own party,” Abramowitz and Webster explain. Republican voters have no interest in seeing anything Obama does as a success, and others, including myself, tend to see what he’s achieved as substantively positive. However, given George W. Bush’s messy last year and the corporate capture of our “Winner-Take-All” political system, even some on the left are dismayed by how much work remains to be done, and how little seems possible in our divided government.
2.An activated left that recognizes the very real crises of inequality and endless war.
When the Congressional Budget Office released “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007” in October of 2011, its recognition of the massive transfer of wealth that had taken place in America helped launch the Occupy movement. But when economist Emmanuel Saez found that most of the economic recovery was going to the richest one percent through 2013, it set off a wave of despondency on the left. We’re yet to see if new taxes on the rich, combined with the greatest anti-inequality measure since the Earned Income Tax — Obamacare — have affected this trend, which began with the anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-financialization policies that marked the Reagan Revolution. There are encouraging signs that Medicaid expansion is helping to move some the working poor out of debt, but the lack of a public option in the Affordable Care Act is still seen as a massive betrayal of the left and has fed Bernie Sanders’ push for a fully-realized Scandinavian-style safety net. Likewise, Obama’s remarkable victory in 2008 campaigning against the Iraq War sparked hopes for a new era of diplomacy, which has been somewhat realized through the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Change agreement.
President Ofaggot To Create A Gay Monument.
Tennessee's at it again! LGBTQ Discrimination
It’s About To Be Legal For Tennessee Counselors to Deny Mental Health Services Based On Religion
April 27, 2016376 Comments
by: Camille Beredjick
***Update***: The bill is now law. Gov. Haslam signed it. Good luck, LGBT people in TN. It’s now legal for counselors in your state to deny you service because they love Jesus more than doing their job. (– Hemant)
Tennessee is on the brink of legalizing faith-based discrimination in a particularly despicable way.
In mid-April, the state passed HB1840, which allows therapists and counselors to deny services to people — including children — if treating them would “violate sincerely held principles.” Today is the last day Gov. Bill Haslam can veto the bill or it will become law.
As the Secular Coalition for America points out, this law would be especially problematic for LGBT youth, who already face higher risks of mental illness and suicide, as well as other groups frequently targeted by conservative Christians, such as atheists and Muslims. And in a political climate where anti-LGBT legislation is becoming more and more common, especially in the South, to deny these groups mental health services seems especially cruel.
“Tennessee lawmakers have demonstrated a callous disregard for the health and safety of children, voting down an amendment that would have added protections for children who are victims of bullying. The legislature also struck down an amendment requiring therapists to make it known who they will and will not serve. This places an unjust burden on patients by making it nearly impossible to make informed decisions about their care. The governor should understand when making his final decision that to support this legislation would amount to state-sanctioned discrimination, harming the most vulnerable citizens of Tennessee, particularly children. We strongly urge Governor Haslam to veto this bill.”
Religious-fueled discrimination has been spiraling out of control over the last few months, and it can have serious consequences, many of which merit professional psychological help. Restricting these services from the people who need it doesn’t help the health providers in any way; it just hurts those already most at risk." END OF ARTICLE TEXT
For more, check out Active Topics
This is where we talk about politics, economics, and life in general.
Subscribed users: 14427
New to the forum? Jump in, say hello, and introduce yourself here.
Subscribed users: 14405
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
A place to talk about anything else (discussions not related to politics or the economy).
Subscribed users: 14437
List of all sections on the forum.
Total number of users: 14565
Total number of posts: 1503091
Posts in the last 7 days: 8140
Posts in the last 24 hours: 1137
Top 5 users in the last 24 hours: A Democrat In 2016
(97) Little Ball of Hate
(38) Super Dave
(users who are currently online are marked bold)