JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Just so you know. The statement that the Obama administration had more deportations than any other administration is due to the changing of the definition of a deportation. Under the Obama admin. "turn backs" were counted as deportations for the first time ever. Easy to research. By the way you don't debate as much as just give your opinion. After someone wades through all your BS you usually are just parroting left wing talking points. In your own way you are as narcissistic as Trump. If only all of us were impressed with you as you are. Calling Blade a N**i is exactly what you lefties do. I'll give you this, you're using your go to word, r****t without using that word. You guys need some new material. You are boring. Nice of you to downgrade someone like Craig over spelling. He was serving in the military while you were getting your vaunted education. That service alone deserves your respect.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

The wall isn't opposed because it's expensive. It's opposed because it will work. If anything else would work, Democrats would oppose that too.

The entire wall will cost Americans about as much as the cost of i*****l a***ns' welfare costs hard working Americans in a few months.

Democrats blew $.8Trillion on a stimulus package that had almost zero shovel ready jobs and didn't belch.

vernon01

He was in a private meeting with a bunch of liars and I don't blame him one bit.Now go read the absolute crap they presented to the pres. and you will realize what a dirty piece of work it was when you realize what the previous meeting entailed .

vernon01

If your interested there is an article in this mornings paper 1 13 18 about another person being shot in the head just before

he was scheduled to testify about clinton crimes.

vernon01

hell lBJ should have known better but he cut loose anytime he wanted to.And read obamas rag book and see how many times

he used Mother f--ker.I didnt see you ir anyone of your kind complain.

vernon01

will defend him.He was in a private meeting with a lying snake and of course being a snake he comes out and tells a lie to create all this mess,

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Kinda full of yourself, eh there sU?

So is this guy:

Any relation?

vettelover Loc: Richmond Va

Of course not Vernon, the left prays to Obama as the saint of Lucifer.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Folks, I committed a sin this morning and listened to MSNBC at the right time. I say that because a Democrat admitted that Turban Durbin didn't tell the same story as anyone else in that room. I remember hearing Senator Cotton talking about what Durbin said. Actually that Democrat said that the left media failed to check out Durbin's story. Just ran to the presses to get it out as Durbin told it. Cotton, much like the other Republicans in the room, said he was sitting as close to Trump as Durbin was and that he didn't hear those words the same way Durbin says he did. Do we have to keep on accepting the lies of people like Durbin because the media told them their way? Not only do I not have to, I refuse to. I know what I think of Durbin and what I think of Cotton and I would readily accept anything Cotton says over Durbin.

straightUp Loc: California

That's probably your own delusion ;)


Ah... so you're blaming "big pharma" on Hillary. Being a strong opponent to "big pharma" since the Clinton administration, I can tell you that so far... there is ZERO difference between Hillary and DonnyS**thead when it comes to controlling that s**m, which isn't exactly a government program and it's certainly not something Hillary created.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly is the issue you are dealing with? Technically, you can't have "a case of Agent Orange" because Agent Orange is NOT a health condition, it's essentially a herbicide that was used as a weapon... but it can cause a wide range of health issues. Personally, if I was exposed to Agent Orange I'd be far more pissed off at Nixon for giving the order to expose the entire country to it, including the U.S. troops that he obviously saw as being disposable. Indeed, the VA assumes ALL Vietnam Vets have been exposed to Agent Orange.


You really don't know that. One of the things about facts Craig, is that they come from the past where things actually happened, not the future or some "alternate universe" where Hillary won the e******n, the best you can do there is guess.

Still, I'm glad you bring this up... you may find this surprising but I'm a strong advocate for the VA and as such, I've learned a few things, like the fact that veterans have been underappreciated by the U.S. government since it's inception. You probably remember Kovic's advocacy back in the 70's... Or even long before that... Have you ever heard of the Bonus Army, Mr. history buff? ;) In 1932, approximately 17,000 WW1 vets AND their families, all of which were suffering from the Great Depression, marched on Washington to demand the bonus money they were promised for their service, which Hoover refused to give them. Instead, Hoover ordered the U.S. Army under the command of Douglas MacArthur and George Patton to shut them down, which they did with 500 infantrymen, 500 cavalrymen and 6 tanks, k*****g 2 of the civilians and injuring approximately 1,000 of them, including women and children. That's an extreme example but it's worth pointing out to put things in perspective.

The VA has consistently been mismanaged and underfunded but the politicians are always sure to give them a big warm applaud for their service to make up for it. Now, to be clear, I haven't had any direct experience with the VA like you have, but that doesn't mean I'm oblivious. I have a number of close friends who have served and I can see the government reports, just like anyone else... Also, you don't need to be a veteran to believe that if a government can send a young man to war, they should have the decency to take care of his resulting injuries and ailments when/if he returns.

But before you talk about a "shrinking" VA, you might want to look at the reports... There is a chart in this one https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2154, from the VA itself that shows how it's budget never actually get's cut. Notice the dotted line. (The drops you see along the solid line is caused by inflation where the dollar looses value, not an actual cut in the budget).

*edit: I've taken the chart from the PDF, saved it as an image and attached it to the end of the post, in case you don't want to bother opening the link. (ain't that nice of me?)

Under the Obama Administration, the the VA budget was increased, they say by 85%, but only about half of that was actually increased BY the Obama Administration, the other half comes from mandatory spending allocated by previous administrations and projected across the years that Obama took office. Bottom line... If Hillary was elected and cut the VA budget, it would be an uncharacteristic first and there is ZERO indication that Hillary would have done that.

But just because the budget is increased doesn't mean it's enough... This is why I said the VA is typically underfunded. The fact is, not all veterans are eligible for, enrolled in, or even fully covered by the VA’s health care system. In actuality, most veterans and their families depend on private health insurance, which covers 13.6 million veterans, or public insurance such as Medicaid, to which nearly 1.8 million veterans turn for coverage.

https://va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile_of_Veterans_2015.pdf
https://usa.ipums.org/usa/sda/

Now, I know you don't like Obama, but to his credit, the number of uninsured veterans decreased nearly 40% between 2013 and 2015 due to his expansion of Medicare under the ACA. Now think about what the politicians you support are doing... Under previous congressional repeal proposals, nearly half a million veterans would have lost Medicaid benefits by 2026. The latest ACA repeal effort—referred to as the Graham-Cassidy bill stops funding for the ACA’s Medicaid expansion after 2026 and caps the remaining Medicaid program. This proposal is estimated to cost 579,000 veterans their Medicaid coverage by 2027. So it appears that Trump is one of those lip service politicians blowing you kisses as he cuts your service.

If that's not enough, Trump's budget proposal cuts $74 billion from the disability programs that cover an estimated 1 million veterans through the SSDI.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2015-02.htm

If THAT isn't enough, Trump is also proposing the elimination of the Individual Unemployability benefits program, which permits the VA to provide benefits at the 100 percent-disabled rate to veterans who are unable to get a job because of service-connected disabilities. This proposed elimination—which was put on hold in response to fierce opposition from veterans groups—would cut disability benefits for older veterans, including more than 225,000 veterans currently receiving benefits.

If THAT isn't enough... Trump has also proposed eliminating the Limb Loss Resource Center and the Paralysis Resource Center, both of which provide essential support for veterans, who are disproportionately likely to be paralyzed and have elevated rates of traumatic amputation.

If THAT isn't enough... It's been estimated that nearly 1.5 million veterans live in households that rely on SNAP benefits to keep themselves and their families healthy and fed. Trump is proposing a cut of nearly $200 billion from SNAP over the next decade which could snatch critical nutrition assistance away from an average of 400,000 veterans per year.


There's actually more... for instance the cuts to rental assistance programs for the homeless, two thirds of which are estimated by the “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, American Community Survey”; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to be veterans. I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the idea.

Honestly, it saddens me to see veterans that put their lives on the line supporting a slimy, draft-dodging bulls**tter like Trump. It's like they survived the wars only to put themselves in peril by choosing to be angry instead of smart.


What discrepancy? All I mentioned was size... one of the few things about any protest that has always been estimated and reported.


"Well-known" and "t***h" aren't necessarily the same thing.


You said scandals "against her" That would be a reference to the manufacturing of lies about her, no?


So you're going to trip out on smack talk? Wouldn't it be better to base your assessments on actual policy decisions?


According to Breitbart, she's "most likely" a Saudi spy. You folks would be more believable if you can get your stories straight.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-p**********l-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-huma-abedin-most-likely-saudi-spy/


What evidence is there that he did?


*sigh* ...because you have ESP so you can read his mind? Look, none of these character assaults are factual Craig. Ya know, YOU said you were a nightmare for liberals because you know so much... So... when does this nightmare start..? So far for me this conversation has been a cakewalk.


Not in his first year. Look Craig, you can make wh**ever claims you want about being a Marine or a "Biker for Trump" or wh**ever makes you feel significant but somethings are a matter of public record. So don't bulls**t me about things like how many executive orders a president writes because it's really easy for me to look that s**t up. OK?


LOL... of course. Keep the faith in that narrative Craig. ;)


This is where I have to ask... how are you measuring this?

I spent 15 years consulting on business intelligence projects (specifically, I was an architect for information systems that support the kinds of questions a business executive needs answers to), so it's second nature for me to ask that question. You can take a block of data and extract all kinds of conflicting stories from it, like the blind men and the elephant. So...

1. what are you calling a law?
You're detailed enough to specify two numbers... bills signed into law and XOs (assuming you mean "executive orders"), so I'll also assume you know that executive orders are not bills signed into laws. And, BTW, once a bill is signed into law, you don't have to call it a "bill signed into law" ...it's not a bill anymore, it's a law. You don't call butterflies, "caterpillars turned into butterflies", right?

2. what time frame are talking about?
If you're talking about the first year, Donny signed 94 and Obama signed 110. This is according to govtrack using what they say is Trumps own interpretation of what constitutes a "bill signed into law". So, I guess that's where you picked up "bills signed into law" phrase ;) And that leads to my next question...

3. Why is the Trump Administration using stupid terms like "bills signed into law"?
Again, it's the BI consultant in me, and I suppose the rhetorician in me too... but I can SMELL the trick. They're actually counting the bills he hasn't signed yet. Like his praises for how beautiful his wall is going to be, a lot of what Trump brags about is stuff he hasn't actually done yet. So I guess I'm answering that question.

4. Does the effort to repeal an order equal the effort to design the order? Every order is an attempt to solve a perceived problem. But repealing them seems more like just saying no thank you. By far, most of what Trump has signed has been repeals and there really much in the way of replacement either... I've been reading these orders and they really don't offer anything beyond, no thank you... well, actually it's more like "f*ck you". ;)

5. How much effort really goes into declaring a day of recognition? Obama went right to work trying to solve a complex problem that leaders have been trying to solve for over a decade. Trump is basically, prancing around between Obama regulations and an assortment of innocuous policy proposals with a wand, saying "yes", "no", "yes" "no", "no".

one final point on the matter, which I will illustrate with this graph, which looks at the records for the first 100 days...

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5903d3a42f6ae479018b54ec-1200/laws%20signed%20aftersign.png

The thing to note here is how the picture changes when you look at what's actually in the laws they are counting. (Six crates of 32 oranges is STILL more than 12 crates of 2 oranges.)

Clearly, by a count of actual pages, the total value of Obama's efforts far surpasses that of Trumps...


I'm just gonna call bulls**t on this one.


Or... maybe you're just really caught up in the outrage machine. Do you ever question motives? Or is it enough to just make the accusation and screw it's viability?


Uh... I'm not the one backing up Fat Donny - I thought that was you.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

No surprise that you can't remember what morals are, liberals never had any. So, it is easy to see why you don't know the difference.

Morale, also known as esprit de corps, is the capacity of a group's members to maintain belief in an institution or goal, particularly in the face of opposition or hardship. MAGAdittoes, baby!


Yep, the democrat party has moved so far into the kook extreme left that its ability to function and sustain itself is a joke. The morale of the democrat party went down the s**t hole on e******n day.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Damn, go ballistic with political mush no one will read.

DILLIGAF.

grizzak

I think Robin Williams said it all right. Give the Statue of Liberty a baseball bat and say you want a piece of me. This country is going downhill fast.

rich boise Loc: Idaho

This whole topic is just another distraction from reality. We join the chase for the squirrel while the world burns.

kankune Loc: Iowa

Great post Craig!!