Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

bostonangler

Members
  • Content Count

    9,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. Here's what I get at their official web address... https://cbi.iq/exchangerate.html The other is a .net.... B/A
  2. Here's what I get at their official web address... https://cbi.iq/exchangerate.html
  3. Third party needed.... The two party system is completely corrupted. B/A
  4. Let the Democratic Party freakout begin: Opinion Updated on June 22, 2017 at 6:37 AMPosted on June 22, 2017 at 6:33 AM House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, June 9, 2017. Democratic Party divisions are on stark display after a disappointing special election loss in a hard-fought Georgia congressional race. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) By Tim Morris, Columnist tmorris@nola.com, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune Hillarious Clinton still can't believe she was defeated by Donald Trump, and her Democratic Party is having trouble accepting the fact that it is still losing to the president and Republicans. The latest evidence comes after this week's special House election in Georgia where GOP candidate Karen Handel survived against Democrat Jon Ossoff and a ton of outside cash from liberal and progressive groups to keep the Atlanta suburb district in Republican hands. The night the lights went out in Georgia (for Democrats): Opinion Democrats who were billing the special House election in Georgia as a "referendum on Donald Trump" are no doubt deeply disappointed that the Republican, the president's surrogate, won by a reasonably comfortable margin Tuesday night. The New York Times captured some of the panic and angst under the headline "Democrats Seethe After Georgia Loss: 'Our Brand Is Worse Than Trump,'" "Among Democrats in Washington, the setback in Georgia revived or deepened a host of existing grievances about the party, accentuating tensions between moderate lawmakers and liberal activists and prompting some Democrats to question the leadership and political strategy of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader," the Times reports. While many Democrats were optimistic that an anti-Trump wave would bring their party back into the majority, the Georgia loss Tuesday (June 20) and another on the same night in South Carolina extended the Republicans' victory streak in 2017 special elections to 4-0. And some Democrats, including elected officials, saw Pelosi, a staunch liberal from San Francisco, as a bigger drag on their ticket than Trump was for the GOP. "Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried to unseat Ms. Pelosi as House minority leader late last fall, said she remained a political millstone for Democrats," the Times story says. "But Mr. Ryan said the Democratic brand had also become 'toxic' in much of the country because voters saw Democrats as 'not being able to connect with the issues they care about.' "'Our brand is worse than Trump,'" Ryan told the Times. And Ryan wasn't even Pelosi's harshest critic. "I think you'd have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top," Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Texas, told Politico in a story headlined "Pelosi faces growing doubts among Dems after Georgia loss." Vela, who supported Pelosi in her last leadership race, conceded that the House minority leader "is not the only reason that Ossoff lost. But she certainly is one of the reasons." Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., who backed a challenge to Pelosi last year, told Politico that the results of the Ossoff race further underscore that Pelosi should let someone else take the reins. "There comes a time when every leader has to say, 'For the good of the order and for the betterment of the party, it's time for me to step aside,'" Rice told Politico. "And I wish that that would happen right now. This is not a personal thing. I want to get back in the majority." Drew Hammill, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, told the Times that any Democratic leader would automatically become a target for the right, and dismissed the idea that Pelosi was the reason for Ossoff's loss. "Republicans blew through millions to keep a ruby red seat and in their desperate rush to stop the hemorrhaging, they've returned to demonizing the party's strongest fund-raiser and consensus builder," he told the newsmaker. "They don't have Clinton or Obama, so this is what they do." But the Times notes, "in a possible omen, the first Democratic candidate to announce his campaign after the Georgia defeat immediately vowed not to support Ms. Pelosi for leader. Joe Cunningham, a South Carolina lawyer challenging Representative Mark Sanford, said Democrats needed "new leadership now." And all this was just in the first 24 hours after the Georgia results. Political disagreement doesn't have to make us enemies: Opinion "Most importantly, we are forever grateful for the heroism of Special Agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey, who saved the lives of everyone at the baseball field that morning, including Steve's," Jennifer Scalise said. Republicans shouldn't get too cocky. As Hammill points out, the GOP has won four seats it was expected to win by tighter margins than one would have expected a year ago. And things will be a lot different next year, when they will have to defend seats much less friendly to the GOP. But for now, it's the Democrats who are in full panic mode. Republicans control the White House, Senate and Congress and cannot get anything done, because the party is so divided. Now the Democrats are a lost ball in high weeds.... If we ever needed a third party, now is the time. B/A
  5. I thought this was a very intelligent point to make.... Good post, too bad some folks hate reality, but love it's stars. B/A
  6. Are Democratic presidents more warlike than Republicans? By Permanent Republican Minority Tuesday Jul 19, 2016 · 6:56 AM EDT 2016/07/19 · 06:56 ) Military created by Permanent Republican Minority at 07/19/2016 06:56 AM History Military created by Permanent Republican Minority at 07/19/2016 06:56 AM Listening the Bob Dole speak last night, I was reminded that one of the recurring debates between Democrats and Republicans is which party is responsible for starting more wars. Democrats have a stereotype of Republican politicians as jingoistic warmongers, while Republicans like to point out that Democratic presidents presided over the bloodiest wars of the 20th century. But, Democrats point out that those big wars were mostly situations where the US was attacked and was perfectly justified in using force to defend itself. Beyond the conflicts we remember, there are literally dozens of smaller wars, incidents, conflicts, occupations, invasions, and armed interventions, a few undertaken for high-minded reasons, but just as many launched out of gross venality. Democrats are responsible for some of these adventures, but Republicans are responsible for just as many or more. So, who’s right? Which party is more likely to start wars? Which party is more likely to continue or end them? Using the source of all wisdom, Wikipedia, I looked up all military incidents involving the US since 1861, when the first Republican president was sworn into office. en.wikipedia.org/… I then totaled the total number of years that each conflict ran, rounding up — even if the actual hostilities just lasted for a few weeks or months — to get “war years”. Each year of each open conflict counted as one “war year.” If the nation had two or more different wars going simultaneously, it could accrue multiple war years in a single year. In total, I counted 200 war years over a 156 year period. I then looked at the broad reasons for each conflict and determined whether it was a “defensive” war or an “offensive” war. A war counted as being defensive if the US was attacked without provocation, and where the US didn’t actively provoke a war through imperialistic or aggressive behavior, or had previously attempted to use diplomacy to avoid war. A war also counted as being “defensive” if the US was operating as part of a broad humanitarian or military alliance under the auspices of NATO, the UN, or similar international body. Other types of wars counted as being “offensive.” Obviously, my criteria for “offensive” and “defensive” were subjective. I deliberately ignored wars against Native Americans, since those were bipartisan in nature, and by including them I would have vastly skewed the total number of “war years” in favor of Republicans who dominated the White House during the late 19th century. It’s worth pointing out that Democrats and Democratic Republicans, who dominated the presidency prior to the US Civil War, would have skewed the ratio of war years right back to parity had I included pre-Civil War Indian wars. I also ignored conflicts which didn’t directly involve US military forces, but which did involve CIA assets such as the 1956 coup in Iran, or 1980s-era aid to Nicaraguan “contra” rebels. Several “wars” on the list, such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion and operations in Thailand, are borderline cases, since they mostly used covert assets, or just used US military assets in a support role. Cold War operations short of war also had to be ignored since they were another example of bipartisan policy. In all, I counted 56 “war years” of Defensive Wars, and 144 “war years” of Offensive Wars. Defensive Wars: US Civil War (4 years), Garza Revolution (1), Rio de Janeiro Affair (1), Mexican Border War (10), World War I (2 — for the US), World War II (4 — for the US), Korean War (4), Multinational Force in Lebanon (3), Gulf War (2), Somalia (4), Bosnian War (2), Kosovo War (2), War in Afghanistan (13), Libyan Intervention (1), War on ISIL (3). Offensive Wars: US Expedition to Korea (1), Las Cuevas War (1), San Elizario Salt War (1), Second Samoan Civil War (1), Spanish-American War (1), Philippine-American War (3), Moro Rebellion (14), Boxer Rebellion (3), ***** Rebellion (Cuba) (1), Occupation of Nicaragua (21), Occupation of Haiti (19), Occupation of Dominican Republic (8), Sugar Intervention (3), Russian Civil War (3 — for US), Lebanon Crisis (1), Bay of Pigs (1), Simba Rebellion (1), Dominican Civil War (2), Vietnam War (9), Communist Insurgency in Thailand (18), Shaba II (1), Invasion of Grenada (1), Tanker War (2), Invasion of Panama (2), Intervention in Haiti (2), Invasion of Iraq (9), War in NW Pakistan (13), War in Afghanistan (2015-present) (2). Next, I totaled up the number of years since 1861 that each party has held the White House. Things get a bit weird because Andrew Johnson was actually a Democrat and tried to govern as one once Lincoln was assassinated. (He was elected with Lincoln as part of a bipartisan National Unity ticket.) This worked out to 156 years of presidents, 71 years of Democrats, 85 years of Republicans, or 45.5% Democrats, and 55.5% Republicans. I then determined who was president during a particular war. If the war lasted long enough to be a bipartisan affair, I divided the number of war years based on the number of years that each party was in the White House while the war went on. There have been 93 War Years under Democratic presidents, for 46.5%. There have been 107 War Years under Republican presidents, for 53.5%. While the raw numbers seem a bit bad for Republicans, the percentages work out to be about the same time as each party has held the White House, and are actually being a bit damning for Democrats since they were very slightly more likely to be engaged in a “war year” while in office. Breaking things out: There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total. There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total. There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total. There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total. So, Democrats are very slightly more likely to have been involved in “defensive” wars — wars launched in response to blatant acts of war, or sanctioned by a broad political alliance for humanitarian or political reasons . Republicans are more slightly likely to have been involved in “offensive” wars — wars of imperialism, or wars launched without reasonable attempts to deescalate a political conflict. There is no question that Democrats have been in power during the three big, “defensive” wars of the 20th century — the World Wars and Korea. Democrats are also responsible for starting and escalating the Vietnam conflict; the US’s first big “war of choice” since WW2. That said, Richard Nixon actually presided over the Vietnam conflict for a longer period of time than Kennedy/Johnson did. Furthermore, the Republican party must bear responsibility for being the party in the White House during the US Civil War, especially since that war was essentially triggered by Southern reaction to Republicans gaining power. It remains, in terms of military deaths, the bloodiest war in US history. Republicans also take the blame for the Spanish-American War, and most of the subsequent conflicts in the Caribbean and the Philippines, which were entirely products of Republican imperialist policies. Since WW2, Democratic presidents have been slightly less likely to order unilateral invasions of other countries, but their record is far from perfect, particularly during the Cold War. Where Democrats are involved in “offensive wars”, they often “inherit” them from prior Republican administrations. For example, Franklin Roosevelt inherited US occupations in Nicaragua and Haiti from Republican administrations, Clinton inherited the Somalia crisis from Bush I, and Obama inherited the Iraq debacle from Bush II. In some cases, Democratic presidents “wind down” these conflicts. In other cases, they escalate them (infamously, Kennedy allowing Eisenhower’s Bay of Pigs plan to go forward). Historically, the trend is to wind things down, although this is typically due to economic reasons, like the Great Depression or the Great Recession, or political expediency, rather than any great desire for peace. So, neither party can take credit for being the party of peace, but Republicans are a slightly more likely — at least historically — to engage in aggressive wars of choice.
  7. War of 1812 Begun and ended 1814 by James Madison (Democratic Republican, precursor of Democratic Party ironically) Mexican-American War 1846-1848 Started and ended by James Polk (D) Spanish-American 1898 Started and ended by McKinley (R) Philippine-American War 1899 Started and ended by McKinley (R) WWI 1914-1918 Started and ended by Woodrow Wilson (D) who declared war on Germany in April 1917 WWII 1939-1945 Started under Roosevelt (D) 1941 Ended under Truman (D) 1945 Korea 1950-53 Started and ended by Truman (D) Vietnam Started officially in 1959 under Eisenhower (R) Escalation under JF Kennedy (D) War ended by Nixon (R) Invasion of Grenada 1993 under Reagan (R) Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 Started and ended by Bush Sr (R) (note bombing of Iraq in 1993 by Clinton) Afghanistan Invasion 2001- By Bush Jr (R) Iraq or Second Gulf War 2003… Started by Bush Jr (R)
  8. Don't get too excited or upset. This one will never happen.... Pure fantasy on their part. B/A
  9. Began an apprentice program giving Americans the chance to earn while they learn.... Giving power to business, education and unions, really is great for all of us. B/A
  10. No conflict of interest here in the interest of the law... Greg Gianforte, a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, is being investigated by Montana police after allegedly assaulting a reporter. A key player in this major story is Brian Gootkin, the sheriff of Gallatin County, Montana who is looking into the Gianforte incident. Gootkin is a Republican, a supporter of President Donald Trump, and a donor to Greg Gianforte. Late on Wednesday evening, Gootkin announced that Gianforte was being charged with misdemeanor assault. Amazing how the system works and people like you still believe it is fair and balanced..... B/A I wonder what people would say if Sheriff Gootkin was a democrat and reduced the charge.... Hmmmmmm
  11. I can't blame him... Can you imagine how difficult his job must be keeping up with The Trumpdashians??? B/A
  12. As a conservative this should be right up your ally. Shouldn't everything public be turned private? Like the highways, air traffic control, education? The list goes on and on how private companies do a better job. Next the business controlled right will want fire and police private, then the armed forces. Somethings are better left to the public. I can't imagine a private education system. Kids and their educations would go to the cheapest bidder... B/A An import.... Perfect. MAGA B/A
  13. It's sad world my friend, when the mob mentality takes over..... These people sit here all day bashing everything they disagree with until it fits their agenda. Then they become the terror we all fear. Geeez B/A
  14. Funny how the conservatives have become the biggest whiners who feel as if they are losing control. As for the mob who violently protest. I agree they should all be locked up. As for those who condone violence by suggesting they should run mobs over with their big pick-up trucks (which I have read here by DV posters many times) they have lowered themselves to the same level. The problem is the left and right politicians work aggressively at dividing the public and it is obviously working... Everyday I come here, I post news stories then I'm attacked as if I wrote them, by the DV mob. How does that make you better than the losers who throw rocks or burn cars? You are a pawn of the system. Daily I'm accused of being liberal, I find that laughable. I'm independent and can pick the best person and not the party. It is actually very liberating, you should take off the party blinders and try it sometime. There is no rational discussion here because everyone is divided just like those inside the beltway want it. Don't be one their sheeple, don't be misled by party propaganda. Think about it and tell me the last time any politician has done something for the public good that wasn't self-serving for them. It is an ugly game and most people fall in line and do the Goose Step. Think for yourself and preach what you believe not what they tell you to believe. B/A
  15. After spending his Sunday being interviewed on all the television political interview shows, Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump’s new private attorney, made an appearance Monday on “Fox & Friends,” where he was begged by co-host Brian Kilmeade to please keep his client from tweeting while angry. “When the president is furious in tweets, it seems to make your job harder,” the longtime co-host said. “When the president makes his remarks this week, will he say I’m no longer talking about the Russia investigation, I’m going to let Jay Sekulow be my spokesperson for this?” Having obtained his new job through his unflinching on-air defenses of the president, Sekulow wasn’t about to relent this time. Sekulow, also the director of the Christian-right legal group the American Center for Law and Justice, began his defense on Monday noting the large size of Trump’s Twitter following. “When you study elections, 10 years from now, five years from now, in government management courses and political management courses, what the president did utilizing social media will be in the history books as the most successful utilization of social-media platforms and communication in our lifetime,” he said, without a trace of hyperbole. After completing the seemingly obligatory genuflection before the president, Sekulow then tried to minimize his own ability to give advice to Trump. “Look, I’m the lawyer. I don’t tell him what to write or not write. I’m his lawyer. He made a statement on Twitter,” Sekulow said. He was then interrupted by Kilmeade, who continued to press his argument. “But why wouldn’t you? But why wouldn’t you, Jay?” Kilmeade asked. “You’re his lawyer. You should be telling him what to; every client should get legal advice when so much is on the line.” Sekulow rebuffed the point. “Well, look, I’m not going to discuss with you, Brian, and we’re friends,” he began. “I’m not going to discuss legal advice I have given or have not given to my client, the president of the United States.” The First Amendment attorney turned private presidential lawyer continued, noting that The Washington Post story of last Friday that claimed that Trump was now under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller had been based on anonymous sourcing. “The situation on Friday that created the press coverage over the weekend was in response to a Washington Post story that had five anonymous sources,” Sekulow said. “So in one sense, could you imagine [that the president] didn’t have the opportunity to respond? He should have the opportunity to respond.” Following Sekulow’s defense, Kilmeade’s co-host Ainsley Earhardt jumped in, eager to defend Trump’s damaging Twitter habit. As she spoke, Kilmeade appeared to roll his eyes and take a breath in exasperation. He kept his head down while Earhardt responded. “He needed to — I agree with you,” Earhardt said. “He should respond because I got an alert on my phone that day that said ‘the president obstruction of justice.’ And you think, ‘Oh my gosh, this is going to be breaking news the next day.’ And then you find out it’s five anonymous sources.” She continued, spinning a bizarre conspiracy theory that perhaps the Post was being tricked by Russian agents. “Who are these sources?” she asked. “Then you have Rod Rosenstein that’s saying this could be from Russia; this could be from another country. You can’t trust these sources.” Steve Doocy, the third member of the “Fox & Friends” trio chimed in to agree as Kilmeade stewed in silence. “You know what’s going on,” Doocy said, “when you look at the political atmosphere and the way the Washington Post goes after the president.” Trump himself became peripherally involved with the segment. Just after 8 a.m., he tweeted to his followers, “Jay Sekulow on @foxandfriends now.” That message has since been deleted. Was the president heeding Kilmeade’s advice or taking a passive aggressive swipe at him?
  16. US Supreme Court to rule on gerrymandering 2 hours ago From the section US & Canada http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40332019 Read more about sharing. The Supreme Court will soon determine if gerrymandering, where voting districts are re-drawn in order to favour political parties, is legal. They will review a state ruling which found that officials engaged in "an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander". A federal court ruled in Wisconsin that Republican lawmakers had violated the US Constitution's equal protection under the law and free speech clauses. The case will set a legal precedent on the long-time political practice. In May, the Supreme Court invalidated state electoral maps in North Carolina, after finding that Republicans legislators re-drew them to diminish the political clout of African-American voters. But the court has never ruled on electoral maps that have been re-drawn simply to give a political advantage to one party over another. In states controlled by Republicans, Democrats have long complained that voting districts are designed to disadvantage them. And the reverse applies in Democratic states, although they are fewer in number. In 2010, when districts were last redrawn, Republicans controlled the process in a majority of states, which helped lock in their electoral advantage. Glossary: US elections The last time the Supreme Court looked at a challenge to partisan redistricting, the justices tied themselves in knots trying to resolve the case, ending with a muddled decision that didn't answer the basic question. Can politicians take politics into account when picking who their voters will be? The cleanest answer for the nine justices would be to reverse the lower court decision striking down Wisconsin's legislative districts as too partisan. That would preserve the status quo and leave the battle over the perceived ills of partisan gerrymandering to politicians and voters. A decision to uphold the ruling, on the other hand, would send courts across the US head-first into a legal thicket, where they would be asked to glean legislative intent in district-drawing and pore over electoral maps and data to discern evidence of imbalance. It's a practice federal courts are already familiar with when it comes to allegations of racial bias in redistricting, resulting in protracted legal battles that have often stretched on for years. This Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, may shy away from such an outcome. All we know right now, however, is that they have decided take a closer look. Up to one-third of electoral maps in the US could be affected by the justices' ruling, which is expected in the autumn. Maps are re-drawn by lawmakers periodically, in order to assign congressional representatives in proportion to US census data. The practice of gerrymandering has grown and become more specific since the invention of modern computing technology, which allows politicians to more easily identify their supporters. The term is named after 18th Century vice-president and Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, who approved a politically carved-up voting district that was likened in shape to a salamander.
  17. Great references if you are completely slanted... That works here. B/A
  18. He pled guilty to a reduced charge. Lucky break for him I guess.... Special treatment for a swamp dweller. Greg Gianforte, Representative-elect for Montana’s lone U.S. House seat, pleaded guilty on Monday to misdemeanor assault after body-slamming a journalist last month, reports say. A judge sentenced the embattled politician to 40 hours of community service, 20 hours of anger management and a $385 fine, which includes a court fee, CNN reports. He was given a 180-day deferred jail sentence, the The New York Times reports. A misdemeanor assault conviction carries a maximum weight of six months in jail and/or a $500 fine, according to the state’s website. <img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/PMkwN3Nkr.8eTw8fr6Dgvg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MzAwO2g9MjI1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/people_218/fec9520c0dab1178b83eb5bf7745de91" itemprop="url"/> Gianforte, 56, was charged with attacking The Guardian political reporter Ben Jacobs after the journalist asked a question about the GOP’s controversial health care bill. Jacobs claimed that Gianforte shoved him to the ground. Gianforte apologized to the reporter in the wake of the incident — as he declared victory in the heated Montana U.S. House election. “I should not have responded in the way that I did,” Gianforte said. “For that, I’m sorry. I should not have treated that reporter that way and, for that, I’m sorry Mr. Ben Jacobs.” Gianforte’s spokesperson issued a statement claiming that Jacobs entered the headquarters without permission and was the aggressor in the situation. However, Jacobs detailed the incident in the back of an ambulance after the alleged attack, telling The Guardian,“[Gianforte] took me to the ground.” “I think he wailed on me once or twice,” Jacobs continued. “He got on me and I think he hit me … This is the strangest thing that has ever happened to me in reporting on politics.” A Fox News reporter who witnessed the chaotic scene wrote that, “Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. [We] watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter.” Jacobs also captured the incident in an audio recording, in which Gianforte can be heard yelling at the reporter. “I’m sick and tired of you guys!” Gianforte said after trying to dodge a question. “The last guy who came here did the same thing. Get the hell out of here.” Sheriff Brian Gootkin later announced in a press conference that after conducting an investigation and interviews, “there was probable cause to issue a citation to Greg Gianforte for misdemeanor assault.” He added that “the nature of the injuries did not meet the statutory elements of felony assault.” B/A
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.