Displaying 41 - 50 of 77 Forum PostsPrev 3 4 5 6 7 Next
  • Sep 14, 2015 08:27 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Who, you ask. Everyone should know that answer because it is self-evident: TRUMP and the WEALTHY.
  • Sep 14, 2015 08:27 PM
    Last: 6yr
    I was watching the Donald speak in Texas tonight, and noticed that all he says is something negative about his opponents, his predecessors, or the other party. He never mentions a program or an idea that he might offer for improving some less-than-ideal situation here in America. I did hear him say that he WOULD be presenting some terrific new tax program later on, but who can guess when that might be? He added that one of the first things he would do about U.S. companies moving some or all of their operations overseas, is that he would be bringing TRILLIONS of dollars that left, back home where they belong. How would he suggest this be done? Obviously he gave no specifics. I think his method is to bring huge crowds together, incite them with some far-out logic that no one can follow, and then just leave them hanging on for more.
  • Jun 18, 2015 01:30 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Gun violence continues to exist and will continue getting worse until prevention is addressed in a positive manner. Whatever the role guns play in gun violence it will be a long time and probably never before guns are removed from the streets. The problem is that most people that support gun control won't support what it will take to remove guns. Removing guns will require a police presence that people have already said they don't want or will accept. But if the police presence was immediately funded and put into effect all violence and violent crimes would diminish. There are already strong laws designed to keep guns away from potential offenders but there is no stomach to fund execution of those laws. Crime prevention requires police presence. We should pay our cops more and hire many more of them. People have and live with burglar alarms in their house. The best peace of mind I have comes from my security system. Why not extend that system with more cops. The wealthy have gated communities with the gates attended by guards. Why can't the poor have the same protection. start with increased police protection and I mean significant protection. Any group or gathering should have protection available. Anecdotally I see violence escalating everywhere . There will be many many many more tragedies before any type of gun control begins to have even a very slight effect on gun violence.
    Chet, you make some very valid points here, but as I read Dutch write in another post, "there are always exceptions." Indeed I believe this to be true, and I see one more "exception" that should be noted. More cops will very likely also mean more BAD cops, as there is undeniably some small percentage of those who are. Just look at that percentage in the current level of policing. Whatever this small percentage is, it is enough to rear its ugly head quite often, and NEVER fails to make the news. I'm just saying that this variable would have to be considered in the hiring of more cops.
  • Sep 11, 2015 09:53 AM
    Last: 6yr
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: All the news media seems to be going out of their way to not talk about Sanders. They will say something that concerned him but never follow up like they are not supposed to talk about him. Even the Democratic pundants gloss over him like he doesn't really matter. I feel like Bernie Sanders is the last lifeline that will be thrown to us and if we don't take it then ......you.
    Chet, the issue I see here is that, like Bernie himself says, he relies ONLY on the "small" (
  • Sep 04, 2015 02:16 AM
    Last: 6yr
    Great post and information Wyt, just too bad that Hillary never brought up the issue. I think if she had, all this nonsense would have been avoided, and the polls would be in her favor.
  • Aug 26, 2015 07:12 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Dutch Wrote:

    What is happening right now will have an huge effect on jobs; MSMBC had a good program about what Trump wants. He says we have to compete with low labor countries in the world, so we have to keep our labor cost lower than them to attract business here. So the billionaires can pocket more. Wow, I'm amazed that anyone still listens to that dumb ass. Sure, put us back into the slave time. Unbelievable. In the meantime his running buddy Jebb held a speech for a bunch of veterans and promised just like Trump to "rebuilt" and increase defense spending as well undo all Obama did to curb this. He copied Trump on this; like the statement: "If you can't fight them, join them" What an horrible weakling baby face..

    Let's be honest, I'm scared as hell if any of these nutheads get elected. They are not even suited for first grade toddler class. The worst part of it is that I don't hear anything at all from the Democratic side to forcefully, with a lot of common sense, counter act these lunatics. Especially Hillary does not make any dent with her low intensity politicians voice. Sorry to say, we need an Bernie type; but a bit younger with as much a big mouth as Trump who can counteract all this B.S. in a big way.

    However may be the policy to "keep quiet" could work as well, till they fall on their flat faces. But kind of dangerous, because most Americans are very dumb and love clown shows!!!


    Great post Dutch, Trump wants wages to remain low or even go lower, just to fatten the pickets of the wealthy. That's the same reason why some companies leave our borders--to rely and wallow in the HUGE profits that are totally based on this cheap labor. I sure wish he had to try and eek out a living on minimum wage or lower.
  • Sep 05, 2015 09:34 AM
    Last: 6yr
    Hey Chet, I believe you are correct in saying Trump is the rich guy......... but you sure could be wrong in saying Sanders will be the poor guy..... How do you know Sanders is a poor guy? Years in the Senate at well-over $100K/year would very likely NOT result in a poor guy. Just saying
  • Apr 06, 2015 12:31 PM
    Last: 6yr
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    It's all over, folks. Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34 Senator to come out in favor of the Iran deal, which guarantees there are enough votes to uphold a promised Presidential veto if Congress initially votes to disapprove it.

    Our next goal should be to pressure the remaining Democrats who haven't stated how they will vote to fall in line and filibuster the disapproval vote, which would keep the President from having to veto anything in the first place. If 41 of the 45 Senate Democrats filibuster the vote of disapproval then the agreement will become law without the President needing to do anything at all. If we can't get 41 Democrats to come out in favor of the Iran deal then President Obama will be forced to veto the measure, but it won't matter much because he now has the votes necessary to uphold his veto.

    I know it sounds a little confusing, but in short--this deal is going to pass. The age of cowboy diplomacy is over and America working with its international partners to come to a diplomatic agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue has succeeded.

    Reuters Article: U.S. Senator Mikulski gives Obama key vote to protect Iran nuclear deal

    How right you are Jared, ANY Democratic Senator who votes in accordance with the Republican disapproval should be called on the carpet and have their 2016 re-elections put at risk for siding with the Republicans. I'm sure their respective Republican opponents in 2016 will be touting this fact as well, so let them get what they deserve.
  • Aug 30, 2015 08:56 PM
    Last: 6yr
    All politicians make promises, usually based on their opponents' differing views, or something that they just "feel" the public wants to hear. Not that I am suggesting that these promises are necessarily lies, but it sure seems to me that ALL politicians are blind to the reality that in today's political system these promises will NOT come to fruition unless, by some unreasonable twist of faith or luck, there could somehow be a president of any party who ends up with a majority of representatives and senators from that same party. Even then, the odds are stacked against it happening. As a perfect example, I remember Barack Obama offering his promise to have his FIRST action as president to be closing Guantanamo. And let's not forget that at some point he did have majorities in both the House and Senate. I think it is time to have all politicians campaign on the facts of what they WANT to do, instead of making promises that have very little chance of ever coming true.
  • Aug 02, 2015 02:29 PM
    Last: 6yr
    I certain;y agree with your analysis Jared, but what about Bernie? He has ZERO experience with the White House or as a Cabinet member, so why do you think he where he is in the polls? The bigger negative I see for Biden is that he is such a late-comer. I'm not saying too late, but why do you think he has held back so long? And don't you think he is smart enough to realize this?