ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
That's the funny thing about you uneducated folk. You assume because someone disagrees with you they must align with a different ideology. That's the only way your feeble minds can process it. Too amusing.

When did I downplay the black voter block? I said inbred, that should automatically tell you it's white people I'm talking about.

You are downplaying the uneducated voter while only singling out poor whites (the same white voters demorats feasted off of then abandoned once their policies destroyed their income) I wanted to know your position on the uneducated black vote that without , your corporatist democrats wouldn't win one national election?

Let's see how you feel when the shoe is on the other foot? Or are you too scared to comment on it?
 
This is just factually untrue. If you were buying a business, do you pick the one struggling and on the brink of foreclosure, or the one thriving? Do you pick an injured, wounded player, or the best healthiest option available? That is literally the dumbest thing you have said and maybe the dumbest thing in this post. And their have been a lot dumb things. That was ideal for Trump, he could continue the improvement and take all the credit? Wish he has done. How do you think he would have done navigating the economic crisis with all his personal crisis and a war?
Trumps been in office 19 months. We are getting to the point his policies should start having real effect. If the economy starts tanking it probably is related to his administrations policies. Why wouldn't he get the blame? How is that ignorant? Just maintain and you'll look great. Make improvements and you'll look even better. Even if it's somewhat fake. Obviously his supports don't worry or care about that.

Now you're just talking the conspiracy theorist, faux news bullshit that I can't even take serious. Provide some actual evidence of this. Obama's numbers were as real and accurate as every president that's been tracked. Trying to manipulate the argument with lies and miscalculated numbers and data to support your argument just ins't going to cut it man. Even the smart and honest republicans and moderated will openly admit that. You come across as a Kelly Anne or Sarah Sanders lap-dog when you do that.

How is job quality better? Outside of a few industries, several are hurting and potentially facing lay-offs because of the tariffs. The auto industry that Obama administration saved, will likely be impacted, again. That's big in the rust belt as well. Speaking of which. How do you feel about Trump continuing to outsource for his company and requesting and receiving aliens to work on his properties annually, particularly his golf courses and hotels? Do you feel that help America? Manufacturing didn't tank under Obama, but again, if you read the articles I posted, you would know that is just Conservative fodder and faux news. Nafta is being renamed, woo-hoo, that was an accomplishment. He is now considering re-entering the TPP. We can't compete when we continually allow jobs to be sent overseas, and give those same big corporations tax breaks to give their execs, board members and shareholders. It's been proven time and time again, very minimal, if any, actually gets trickled down to employees and their families. You want to fix it, tax the shit out of any company that outsources jobs overseas. Tax them per dollar per job. That shit will change real quick. Give corporations the option, they can pay American workers, or they can pay America's taxes. Tax churches, especially the mega churches and any involved in politics in any way. We'd make billions there alone.

Why are all these primaries so close if they are staying with him? I mean, we are talking places he won in wide margins. So, why are the races considered toss-ups or leaning the opposite way of they are staying with him. Wasn't Conor Lamb from PA, which would be the rust belt, no? Even a lot of the southern races are toss-ups and that's a big red flag. NYT put out an article today with Amy McGrath 2 pts from Barr in the KY house race. That's a state Trump won with ease. Why the struggle?

I agree natural gas is up, and higher currently than renewable's. I gave you a graph showing it. However, renewable energy has grown at a much higher and faster level and created a lot more jobs. And that is projected to continue. Which was part of the original point of this argument you seem to want to get away from. Why do you support lying to the coal industry and coal workers for votes? You know coal is dying and not coming back. Why don't we replace those jobs instead of lying and say the are bringing them back? Drop rates for user? My bill is up over this time last year with less use. Most people around me are getting are dealing with the same issues.
Solar is hugely in demand right now. Do you not have all the solar farms going up where you are at? I've seen ton's. A lot of people here have them on their homes as well. Obviously they have electric or gas as well, but they are relying more and more on solar. Especially in attempt to reduce cost, since the companies sure as hell aren't as you falsely claim. We'll take sources for $500, Alex.

Where are you getting this? You do know the FED rate was raised under Obama, right? See here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/business/economy/fed-rates-powell.html
And the fads raise rates to slow down the growth of the economy and in instances, preclude a recession. Why did we want to slow down the economy for most of Obama's terms when we were recovering from the biggest recession ever? In 2015 they began to raise it. Here's a graph. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/business/economy/fed-rates-powell.html
Lol, I'm a socialist now? That's a new one. Well people in reality are still waiting for the trickle down. You must be one of the ones staring the trickling.
You just lost all credibility using the NYT as your source...
 
Blacks people we're oppressed greatly by their white counter parts until the mid 60's on a national scale, and even longer on a state scale. Racism still exist today for god's sack. Which would be evidence that some oppression still exist. Whether you want to admit it or not is completely your call. A good amount of people doubt the Holocaust, however; historical facts tell another story.

Democrats did not feast off black people or solely depend on their vote. The black vote has always been undependable because of lower involvement and turn out. Some of this can be attributed to lower education standards and availability. White people have been entitled to and received a free education of a somewhat decent quality. Particularly in that time period. Obviously you elected not to take advantage of that. Also, it's in part because even to this day, their is still obvious discrimination and oppression in voting. Conservatives are all about redistricting the black vote or making it harder for the them to vote period. Many Democrats have long worked to improve the rights of minorities. More so as a party than that of the Republican party of today, or really the last 100 years. That does not include all. There have been bad and good on both sides, but stating the general terms. Obviously, because of this minorities tend to identify more with democrats. It's kind of like that crazy argument you are always spewing about white people and Herro. And by saying it's crazy, is not me saying it's untrue in this case. I do believe in a lot of instances it is, and that is incredibly sad and one of the reasons black voters tend to flock more to democrats and liberals. And now you are saying far more minority and female candidates on the democratic side. So if that logic applies to white people, why would it not apply to minorities? As sad as it is.

Why would I be scared? Liker seriously, what is there to be afraid of?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you are a Caucasian male? If so and you would like to see real racism, dress as nicely as you can,put on the finest jewelry you have and take a trip to the south side of Chicago tonight around lets say 11:00 pm..take a leisurely stroll for a while and share your views with the local folk..That would be a great time for you to express your sincere apologies for what "mean ole whitey" did back in the 50's and 60's..and please don't forget to report back as we will all be anxiously waiting your response.
 



giphy.gif
 
DECEMBER 3, 2010
Download PDF Clemency Warrant

NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
James Bernard Banks D. Utah 1972 Illegal possession of government property (misdemeanor), 18 U.S.C. § 641
Russell James Dixon N. D. Ga. 1960 Felony liquor law violation, 26 U.S.C. § 5604(a)(1)
Laurens Dorsey D. N. J. 1998 Conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false statements to the FDA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001
Ronald Lee Foster E. D. N. C. 1963 Mutilation of coins, 18 U.S.C. § 331
Timothy James Gallagher D. Ariz. 1982 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Roxane Kay Hettinger N. D. Iowa 1986 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Edgar Leopold Kranz, Jr. U.S. Air Force general court-martial 1994 Wrongful use of cocaine, adultery, and writing three insufficient fund checks, Articles 112a and 134, U.C.M.J.
Floretta Leavy D. Kan. 1984 Distribution of cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (a)(2) and 846, 18 U.S.C. § 2
Scoey Lathaniel Morris W. D. Tex. 1999 Passing counterfeit obligations or securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 2

You Mean This Table? What is the Date there, big guy? So about that reading comprehension thing........?

What does a phone have to do with it? That's like saying you cant spell because you are writing with a pen instead of pencil. The damn thing literally has spell check.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...nald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/
Again, here we go with your fake news facts. 151.8 Billion was the actual number. Of course, Trump stated higher so you bought it. Facts present another story though. Only the 1.8 billion was actual cash. The rest was assets.
On January 17, the United States government agreed to repay $400 million plus approximately $1.3 billion in accumulated interest to the Iranian government to resolve a disputed arms sale between the two nations that occurred “prior to the break in diplomatic ties” during the 1979 Iranian revolution. According to reporting from Agence France-Presse (AFP) and other news agencies, the payment resolved a deadlock at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal that had stood since the tribunal’s inception in 1981, and represented “a broader clearing of the decks between the old foes” just one day after the signing of an historic nuclear agreement. AFP reported at the time that the Obama administration’s political opponents were already attempting to scandalize the arrangement:


LMAO, or it could be a tribute to Grafenberg, but hey, you spin your narrative and assumptions however you want. Lord knows you don't have facts. You got your head in gutter, which maybe explains why it is void of fact. :joy:
Exactly, you said Obama waited 2 yrs to pardon anyone, he was sworn in in Jan 20 2009, dumbass, exactly what I said. Thank you for proving me right. What college you get your MBA from?. Still fact is that Obama still pardoned more people than Trump has, that was the original point. Trump being in office for how long? 7 people? That is what I'm talking about. I mispoke on my dates. I'll admit that. And the 200 bIllion is real cash and assets that were frozen. Still don't know why you named yourself, vagina, very infantile. Go google and cut n paste more liberal scwag, next you will be quoting wapo, huffpost, vox and nyt...Wait you already did. Good look with convincing others by straight ripping what reporters print. It's Friday, almost quitting time. Later pu$$y, mean gspot. Remember to pull your fingers toward the front wall...coochie cookie coo..now to go get some 30% fire, high in myrcene and limonene and get my chill on.
 
Last edited:
When is the vote for confirmation coming? Enough of this nonsense

First the committee has to vote on him .This will take about three weeks as the dems can stall . Expect the full senate to vote by the end of September. The court starts the new term in October and Kavanaugh will be seated for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
I wonder if any major universities will follow suit? Or do they just keep receiving the Big Nike Money??


Todd Starnes: Truett McConnell University drops Nike relationship


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...nnell-university-drops-nike-relationship.html


Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.
Is this a serious question?
Tennessee recently took less money from Nike than what was available from Adidas because athletes prefer Nike.

Meanwhile, today made 4 out of 4 days this week that NKE outperformed the Dow.
 
I cannot stomach to hear a Democrat ever speak about bipartisanship. These people can suck my nuts. When do these people EVER reach across the aisle? They oppose everything.

Tax breaks? Against it
Enforcing immigration law? Against it
Guns? Against it
SCOTUS nominations? Against em

The left only calls for bipartisanship when it’s for their cause.
Actually they are simply doing what the GOP did the previous 8 years.

Whenever the GOP decides it will put the country over party the Dems will follow suit.
 
Why would people in Chicago hate me for telling them they are right and white people have enslaved and oppressed them for decades? Also, crime in Chicago isn't so much a racial thing as drug and money thing. They generally don't give a shit about your skin color as long as you have something of value to them. Not sure how that would accomplish much.
You should try anyway..ya never know it might do some good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGrafSpots
An NFC Divisional playoff rematch that went down to the last minute featuring last year's first time Super Bowl champions at home and a huge Super Bowl banner unveil results in the lowest rated NFL season opener since 2008 and the fifth lowest in the history of the NFL.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2018/09/nfl-kickoff-ratings-falcons-eagles-overnights/

The Falcons-Eagles NFL Kickoff Game earned a 13.4 overnight rating on NBC, down 8% from Chiefs-Patriots last year (14.6), down 19% from Panthers-Broncos in 2016 (16.5) and the lowest for the season opener in ten years. This year’s 13.4 overnight is the fifth-lowest in the history of the game.
 


“While we could find or do find the president’s constant lying or lawlessness or reprehensible behavior morally unacceptable, a lot of people vote pretty selfishly, and they say, ‘What’s going to give me more money in my pockets?’ ” Ruhle said.

“Or what’s going to make abortion illegal, or what’s going to make sure that my Second Amendment rights stay the same, and clearly, that adds up to enough people that the president still has [the support of] something akin to 40 percent of the electorate in polls,” Velshi added.

The implication of their comments is that conservatives who vote in favor of conservative issues are voting “pretty selfishly,” however, they did not address whether the same was true of liberals who vote for liberal causes.”
 
Lol wait did obama come out today and claim he is responsible for how great the economy is..lololol...two years after he is out of office...lolololol. the same guy that said theres nothing we can do it's not coming back, deal with it...lololol

Worst president of all-time. Obama, Bush, and Carter absolutely sucked. But Obama took this country so far to the left in everything that it has done major damage.

Pre-Obama vs his tenure/now is not even remotely close. The PC BS blew up under him, far left activism got ramped up, racial division became horrendous, he weakened us in so many ways.
 
Can you provide some evidence to support this?
I think the data is readily available if a person is willing to look and crunch some numbers. But let's look at some statistics from an article I read a couple of years ago discussing the black lives matter movement. In 2015 police killed 987 civilians. 493, or 50% of those were white, 258, or 26% were black, the rest were other. In the vast majority of those shootings the persons were armed or otherwise threatening the officer. So we first have to understand that using the percent of the population compared with the percent killed by police is not a valid measure of bias by police. In other words, what is relevant is how many times a police officer is coming in contact with a person because that person has committed a crime or is a suspect in a crime. Right off the bat, high crime neighborhoods will have more of this than low crime neighborhoods because they come in contact with police in threatening situations much more than the folks living in low crime neighborhoods.

In 2009 in the largest 75 counties in America, blacks were 62% of all robbery defendants, 57% of all murder defendants, and 45% of all assault defendants, and they were 15% of the population in those counties. 40% of all cop killers over the last decade have been black. Those statistics would indicate a much higher rate of blacks being shot by police than what has actually occurred. In other words, cops have larger presence in higher crime neighborhoods, many of which are black neighborhoods, are looking for suspects in those neighborhoods, and are coming in contact with people who are dangerous at a much higher rate for blacks than for whites, and yet blacks only make up 26% of people killed by cops. The data would suggest the rate would be much higher than the 26% for blacks than it is. A better question might be how are 50% of the victims white.

Let's look at New York City by itself. Black people make up approximately 23% of NYC. They commit 75% of all shootings, 70% of all robberies, and 66% of all violent crime. Add in Hispanic shootings and you account for 98% of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33% of the population and commit fewer than 2% of all shootings, 4% of all robberies, and 5% of all violent crime. So think about how the affects who cops come in contact with in dangerous situations. When they are called out because of a shooting, they are generally looking for a black or Hispanic person in black or Hispanic neighborhoods. That will lead to higher percentages of those races being shot by police than their respective percent of the population.

That's why profiling works. NYC police was one of the first to implement profiling. In 1990 before profiling, there were 2,245 homicides. In 2014, there were 333. It is estimated that those practices have saved over 10,000 minority lives.

I'll leave you with one more stat. 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide victims were killed by cops compared with only 4% for blacks. Since cops aren't killing a high percentage of the blacks who are killed, who is killing blacks? Other blacks. Approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered every year. That number is greater than whites and Hispanics combined even though blacks are 13% of the population. Blacks are killed at a rate 6 times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles blacks between 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean. Blacks males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at 10 times the rate of white and Hispanics combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at 8 times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined and 11 times the rate of whites alone.

Statistically, one would expect blacks to be killed by cops at a much higher rate than they actually are.
 
Graf, You’re showing you’re inexperience, buying a business is not the same as being President. Didn’t Rahm Emanuel say never let a crisis go to waste? What do you think that means? It’s the economy stupid, when a an elected official comes into a situation where they can get no blame, and all the credit that is the best situation, whether you’re smart enough to realize it or not is up to you.

I suggest you get out in the real world and quit relying so much on statistics. I explained to you, with first hand real world knowledge, that renewable is not reliable. Natural gas has replaced coal, without the huge rise in NG, that decline in coal usage isn’t there, the renewables did not replace it.

At the end of Obama’s term, 43 million people were still on food stamps, in 2015 the middle class was no longer the largest class for the first time in anyone’s lifetime, home ownership was down, FED interest rate was at zero. Does that sound like a good economy?
You know what happens when people can’t support their families? Crime and drug usage, which you already stated was at all time highs.

Utilities are dropping costs due to the tax cut.
Here’s one of your favorite copy and pastes that agree.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-101-utilities-cut-rates-thanks-gop-tax-bill/

I wasn’t coming off as anything, the unemployment formula changed in 94. It can use any cute names you like, but we all see it for what it is, you have no way to counter so you resort to being cute. You’re a child that believes everything that favors their argument, and none that doesn’t.

You think renewables provide more jobs than natural gas or coal produced power? Really?
Where are these jobs at? What are you considering renewable?
 
I think the data is readily available if a person is willing to look and crunch some numbers. But let's look at some statistics from an article I read a couple of years ago discussing the black lives matter movement. In 2015 police killed 987 civilians. 493, or 50% of those were white, 258, or 26% were black, the rest were other. In the vast majority of those shootings the persons were armed or otherwise threatening the officer. So we first have to understand that using the percent of the population compared with the percent killed by police is not a valid measure of bias by police. In other words, what is relevant is how many times a police officer is coming in contact with a person because that person has committed a crime or is a suspect in a crime. Right off the bat, high crime neighborhoods will have more of this than low crime neighborhoods because they come in contact with police in threatening situations much more than the folks living in low crime neighborhoods.
Statistically, one would expect blacks to be killed by cops at a much higher rate than they actually are.
There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force. Black people are much more likely to be shot by police than their white peers.
An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox's Dara Lind found that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police killing victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population. Although the data is incomplete because it's based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.
The disparities appear to be even starker for unarmed suspects, according to an analysis of 2015 police killings by the Guardian. Racial minorities made up about 37.4 percent of the general population in the US and 46.6 percent of armed and unarmed victims, but they made up 62.7 percent of unarmed people killed by police.
These disparities in police use of force reflect more widespread racial inequities across the entire American criminal justice system. Black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs, even though they're not more likely to use or sell them. And black inmates make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population.
Some of these disparities are explained by socioeconomic factors — such as poverty, unemployment, segregation, and neglect by the police when it comes to serious crimes — that lead to more crime and violence in black communities. As a result, police tend to be more present in black neighborhoods — and therefore may be more likely to take policing actions, from traffic stops to arrests to shootings, in these areas.
But a review of the research by the Sentencing Project concluded that throughout various time periods in the past few decades, the higher crime rates in black communities only explained about 61 to 80 percent of black overrepresentation in prisons. This means that up to 39 percent of the racially disparate rate of imprisonment is attributable to other factors, including, potentially, racial bias or past criminal records influencing a prison sentence.
Another study, from 2015, by researcher Cody Ross found, "There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates." That suggests that, again, other factors are involved in the disparities seen for these shootings.
One of those potential factors: subconscious racial biases. Studies show, for example, that officers are quicker to shoot black suspects in video game simulations. Josh Correll, a University of Colorado Boulder psychology professor who conducted the research, said it's possible the bias could lead to more skewed outcomes in the field. "In the very situation in which [officers] most need their training," he said, "we have some reason to believe that their training will be most likely to fail them."
The racial disparities have fueled criticisms of law enforcement over the past few years, culminating in the Black Lives Matter movement that has risen to national prominence due to the controversial police killings of Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York City, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, and Freddie Gray in Baltimore, among others. For critics, the disparities and high-profile killings have fostered concerns that black lives matter less to police, and that the next victim of a police shooting could be just about any black American.
Any “analysis” of police killings will of course show that in absolute numbers, more white people are killed in police shootings than black people, because (non-Hispanic) whites comprise a roughly five times greater share of the U.S. population (62% vs. 13%). So any “analysis” that is based on nothing more than absolute numbers and does not take demographics into account is inaccurate and misleading
Because the federal government doesn’t keep an accurate log of police shootings, news outlets such as the Washington Post and journalists such as D. Brian Burghart have begun tracking such data independently. The Post described the statistical breakdown of fatal police shootings in 2015 thusly:
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
According to Fatal Encounters, the database created by former Reno News & Review editor and journalism instructor Burghart (which tracks all deaths resulting from interactions with police), a total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white. According to those statistics (adjusted for racial demographics), black people had a 2.7 higher likelihood of being killed by police than whites.
The grim trend has carried over into 2016. Of the 1,034 people killed and tracked by Burghart’s Fatal Encounters database so far this year, 215 were black while 338 were white, so thus far in 2016 black Americans have been three times more likely than white people to die in interactions with police. That statistic holds for figures sent to us by Burghart compiled between Jan. 1, 2013 to Sept. 21, 2016, with suicides-by-cop removed. Burghart told us:
I think it’s pretty obvious that black people are killed at much higher rates than white people. I’m not going to say that white people are underrepresented in these numbers, since I think all people are overrepresented in this data, but it’s clear that black people are highly overrepresented.
Other factors that are also prevalent in analyses of deadly use of force by police officers include age, gender, mental illness, and the circumstances of the deaths. In 250 of the fatal shootings recorded by the Post in 2015, the victims showed signs of mental illness. Men were far more often killed than women. In 782 instances, the person killed was armed with some type of “deadly weapon.” In 28 instances, there was no record of the victim’s race.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/
https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism
 
When is the vote for confirmation coming? Enough of this nonsense
I almost feel like these hearings shouldn't go on but for one or two days at most. Hell, everyone already knew if they were voting for him or not the day after he was nominated. A bunch of morons screaming at each other for 3-4 days is over the top. Just call the vote already.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT