2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Manic Moran

Well, he has to use carrot as well as stick. The company will do what it can to reduce costs, so if it saves 65 million by moving, or gets a tax gift of 65million from the US government doesn't make that much difference to the shareholders. But there will still be some tax coming in to offset the potential total loss, as well as the tax coming in from the employees, and the fact that they remain employed. So, overall, its more a win for having made the deal than not.

eire4

aloyisious wrote: »

I assume he'll make local state govt's, now that they're majorly republican, pony up state funding to go towards overall funding for the effort if he roll's out the plan nationwide.

It is certainly going to cost a lot of money to the tax payer if all a company now has to do is threaten to move jobs abroad and they get major financial incentives to not do so. Does everyone get a sweet heart deal like Carrier did even though they still moved most of the jobs abroad anyway, or is it only some companies who get the special deals. Then what about companies who do not move jobs abroad they have now been put at a financial disadvantage by companies like Carrier. It really is quite the can of worms that Trump has opened with this.

Nody

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, he has to use carrot as well as stick. The company will do what it can to reduce costs, so if it saves 65 million by moving, or gets a tax gift of 65million from the US government doesn't make that much difference to the shareholders. But there will still be some tax coming in to offset the potential total loss, as well as the tax coming in from the employees, and the fact that they remain employed. So, overall, its more a win for having made the deal than not.

Except there are no actual jobs left so the moment the state stops paying the employees they will be fired and all that's happened is that the state has taken over responsibility to pay them full salaries instead of social wellfare. Now take the same money and instead offer it to a company to move jobs BACK to USA and suddenly you also get the added benefit of the sub contractors locally picking up additional job etc. and you got a hell of a lot more bang for your buck...

20Cent

Checking trumps tweets is a current guilty pleasure. Latest tweet is him criticising a Saturday night live sketch about him. The sketch is about how trump tweets uncontrollably. You couldn't make it up.

26000 Elephants

aloyisious wrote: »

I assume he'll make local state govt's, now that they're majorly republican, pony up state funding to go towards overall funding for the effort if he roll's out the plan nationwide.

He will have to - this kind of thing requires central planning. The local collectivization of firms like Carrier cant really happen in isolation. How will a firm react if they discover that their 'reward' for efficient technique is to have part of their profit taken and given to less efficient competitors who simply threaten to up sticks and leave? It will have to be applied across the board - an interesting race to the bottom.

TheOven

Will be interesting to see how much Trump's businesses get to bring production to America.

aloyisious

TheOven wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how much Trump's businesses get to bring production to America.

Start by privatizing the White House tours away from the Govt agency and let foreign tourists stay at the Washington Trump hotel (Washington's former Post Office) at a reduced rate.....

Amerika

Isn’t it interesting that up to two months ago the media and Democrats where trumpeting the fantastic news about the jobs the economy added thanks to all of Obama’s hard work... regardless whether they were crappy and low paying jobs, or people having to accept part-time jobs just to survive. Now, since Trump won the election, they suddenly notice that a lot of those new jobs are pretty crappy and part-time work is terrible for those needing full-time employment. Funny... This is what conservatives have been screaming about all through the so-called ‘Obama Recovery.’ Let’s just face it... Everything is going to be terrible now in America according to the media and Democrats as long as Trump is in charge.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Isn’t it interesting that up to two months ago the media and Democrats where trumpeting the fantastic news about the jobs the economy added thanks to all of Obama’s hard work... regardless whether they were crappy and low paying jobs, or people having to accept part-time jobs just to survive. Now, since Trump won the election, they suddenly notice that a lot of those new jobs are pretty crappy and part-time work is terrible for those needing full-time employment. Funny... This is what conservatives have been screaming about all through the so-called ‘Obama Recovery.’ Let’s just face it... Everything is going to be terrible now in America according to the media and Democrats as long as Trump is in charge.

This in relation to what exactly? I haven't seen democrats suddenly start complaining about the style of jobs recently. At least not more than usual as it has been pointed out - just that a job was better than no job.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

This in relation to what exactly? I haven't seen democrats suddenly start complaining about the style of jobs recently. At least not more than usual as it has been pointed out - just that a job was better than no job.

Rather than praising Trump on what he did with Carrier, the White House and Democrats have basically come out an said Trump accomplished nothing. They will never give Trump credit for the creation of jobs and will always find some method of making everything look bad, IMO.

The mainstream media, which everyone pretty much knows has become a political arm of the Democratic party. And it was apparent they took their marching orders on what to print, from the DNC.

Here's a Washington Post article in regards to what I'm talkin' 'bout.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/06/who-gets-hurt-when-part-time-work-becomes-the-new-normal/?utm_term=.4bbfc79fb446&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

But it’s often the quality, not the quantity, of the jobs that is in question.

Just for the record, I agree with this, and have agreed for a very long time. It’s just now that Trump has won the election, that history seems to start today for the media and the Dems. Things that were trumpeted under Obama will now suddenly be castigated since Trump's victory.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Rather than praising Trump on what he did with Carrier, the White House and Democrats have basically come out an said Trump accomplished nothing. They will never give Trump credit for the creation of jobs

Carrier announced they are moving jobs. That is not job creation. Now they were moving anyway but you still can't say Trump created jobs when there are less jobs there then there was before hand.

As for what he did with carrier, he rolled over and gave them whst they wanted for a minor benefit (800 jobs and now every company will want to play hardball for tax breaks).

If he thinks it is such a good deal why has he started to blame the union boss for it?) As far as those workers are concerned he promised companies wouldn't be moving jobs to Mexico. Now he intervenes in a specific case and jobs are still moving to Mexico.

On the other hand there are more jobs there than when Obama started. Actually a higher number of them. Many are also good jobs. He didn't just create part time work.

TheOven

Amerika wrote: »

Isn’t it interesting that up to two months ago the media and Democrats where trumpeting the fantastic news about the jobs the economy added thanks to all of Obama’s hard work... regardless whether they were crappy and low paying jobs, or people having to accept part-time jobs just to survive. Now, since Trump won the election, they suddenly notice that a lot of those new jobs are pretty crappy and part-time work is terrible for those needing full-time employment. Funny... This is what conservatives have been screaming about all through the so-called ‘Obama Recovery.’ Let’s just face it... Everything is going to be terrible now in America according to the media and Democrats as long as Trump is in charge.

How many new jobs were created due to the Carrier deal? Last I saw that was about keeping current jobs.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Carrier announced they are moving jobs. That is not job creation. Now they were moving anyway but you still can't say Trump created jobs when there are less jobs there then there was before hand.

As for what he did with carrier, he rolled over and gave them whst they wanted for a minor benefit (800 jobs and now every company will want to play hardball for tax breaks).

If he thinks it is such a good deal why has he started to blame the union boss for it?) As far as those workers are concerned he promised companies wouldn't be moving jobs to Mexico. Now he intervenes in a specific case and jobs are still moving to Mexico.

On the other hand there are more jobs there than when Obama started. Actually a higher number of them. Many are also good jobs. He didn't just create part time work.

Technically correct, the Carrier jobs are not new jobs, but it is the example of Trump’s promises on jobs that most people are familiar with. As for new jobs, remember he isn’t president yet, but his win is already starting to generate favorable results in moves towards job creation. The CEO of US Steel said with the Trump win they want to accelerate investments and bring back about 10,000 jobs. And after meeting with Trump, the CEO of SoftBank, a Japanese telecommunications corporation, said it would soon invest $50 billion to create 50,000 jobs in the U.S.

I think it’s pretty evident the mainstream media and Democrats are already suffering from Obsessive Trump Disorder. They will find any way to discredit or discount anything he accomplishes (I’m confident most here will also). The media and Dem’s would have never done this to Obama and would have spun everything remotely positive into some glorious accomplishment of his. And I believe it all comes out of a fear that Trump might actually be successful as US President.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-softbank-pledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Technically correct, the Carrier jobs are not new jobs, but it is the example of Trump’s promises on jobs that most people are familiar with. As for new jobs, remember he isn’t president yet, but his win is already starting to generate favorable results in moves towards job creation. The CEO of US Steel said with the Trump win they want to accelerate investments and bring back about 10,000 jobs. And after meeting with Trump, the CEO of SoftBank, a Japanese telecommunications corporation, said it would soon invest $50 billion to create 50,000 jobs in the U.S.

I think it’s pretty evident the mainstream media and Democrats are already suffering from Obsessive Trump Disorder. They will find any way to discredit or discount anything he accomplishes (I’m confident most here will also). The media and Dem’s would have never done this to Obama and would have spun everything remotely positive into some glorious accomplishment of his. And I believe it all comes out of a fear that Trump might actually be successful as US President.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-softbank-pledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

You are the one that called it job creation and wondered why it wasn't being treated the same as Obama's actual job creation. I am aware he isn't president yet. That does not mean they should celebrate him for getting a terrible deal here. He has no accomplishments for them to discredit.

Those are not in fact jobs until they are in the US. I am aware that he is not president yet and so it is unfair to expect him to deliver jobs yet. I am not critisizing him over not bringing the rust belt back to prosperity yet (and I don't expect him to manage it) but nor will I herald as great over nothing. As Billy says. Let's revisit this when he has had a chance to achieve something.

On the Carrier stuff that was somewhere where he directly intervened and got beat. It is fair to critisizing him on that deal specifically.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

And after meeting with Trump, the CEO of SoftBank, a Japanese telecommunications corporation, said it would soon invest $50 billion to create 50,000 jobs in the U.S.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-softbank-pledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

You really need to start reading other stuff than Trumps Twatter account and not take every thing that falls out of his mouth as truth. I'm sure you actually didn't read the links you posted This fund was announced months ago it's a $100billion fund that is mostly Arab money.

The only thing Trump did for this deal was to let that Japanese dude into his golden lift entertain him for five or ten mins and then go back down the lift and give everyone his little tumbs up and take Credit for doing nothing, grrrr

Seriously Amerika please do some research, can you not see the charade he is running?

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

You really need to start reading other stuff than Trumps Twatter account and not take every thing that falls out of his mouth as truth. I'm sure you actually didn't read the links you posted This fund was announced months ago it's a $100billion fund that is mostly Arab money.

The only thing Trump did for this deal was to let that Japanese dude into his golden lift entertain him for five or ten mins and then go back down the lift and give everyone his little tumbs up and take Credit for doing nothing, grrrr

Seriously Amerika please do some research, can you not see the charade he is running?

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

I understand people’s attempt to but a damper on anything Trump does, but it still doesn’t change the fact that Son said he decided to back American startups because Trump had made deregulation a part of his platform.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

I understand people’s attempt to but a damper on anything Trump does, but it still doesn’t change the fact that Son said he decided to back American startups because Trump had made deregulation a part of his platform.

Good job deregulation never hurt ordinary people.

Like I said, he can some credit for those jobs when they arrive. He can also take credit for any crashes deregulation causes.

TheOven

Christy42 wrote: »

Good job deregulation never hurt ordinary people.

Like I said, he can some credit for those jobs when they arrive. He can also take credit for any crashes deregulation causes.

Get rid of regulation and we can make coal profitable again! I can picture it now, no health and safety, soot covering everything nearby and filling the lungs. Beautiful. Deaths? I think you mean job openings! We won't have any of the pesky crappy or low paying jobs Obama created.

aloyisious

I'm waiting to see if Scott Pruitt's replacement as State AG in Oklahoma, assuming that Scott get's the EPA Sec job, continues the court case Scott has taken against the EPA, or quietly stow it away so as to avoid having Scott take the stand as a witness for the EPA. Conflict of interest is such a bummer.

Amerika

Be careful what you wish for...

Jill Stein sought a recount in Michigan over the integrity of the count. Well, the recount process, before it was stopped, did not find any evidence of hacking but it did uncover serious evidence of possible voter fraud, especially in Detroit - a democratic stronghold. Some reports indicate single ballots being counted as many as six times and officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

And as a result of these reports, Wednesday evening, Michigan’s House of Representatives passed a strict voter I.D. bill that would require voters who don’t show identification to bring their I.D. to the local clerk’s office within 10 days of casting their ballots.

About time!!!

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for...

Jill Stein sought a recount in Michigan over the integrity of the count. Well, the recount process, before it was stopped, did not find any evidence of hacking but it did uncover serious evidence of possible voter fraud, especially in Detroit - a democratic stronghold. Some reports indicate single ballots being counted as many as six times and officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

And as a result of these reports, Wednesday evening, Michigan’s House of Representatives passed a strict voter I.D. bill that would require voters who don’t show identification to bring their I.D. to the local clerk’s office within 10 days of casting their ballots.

About time!!!

Surely counting the same ballot 6 times could still happen whether or not an Is is shown?

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/2016/12/07/strict-voter-law-approved-michigan-house/95127394/

"We are not aware of fraud related to the affidavit. "
Also serious link to what the evidence is of voter fraud. Even you are only willing to go as far as some reports say.

SIt's attempting balance are not reporting fraud and indeed I would expect some high ranking Republicans to be all over this but nothing aside from sites called truthfeed and the like
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/

Amerika

Ken Crider, a 2014 Republican candidate for District 19 of the Michigan House of Representatives, said he watched the recount effort in Cobo Hall in Detroit. Afterwards he wrote:

...Detroit Precinct #152 had an unbroken seal and everything looked proper. The tag on the box said 306 and the book said 306 and the ticket said 306, so there should be 306 paper ballots on the box, right. Well when they pulled out the ballots the stack seemed short and when they finished separating the two page ballot to count the Presidential page only guess how many ballots were in the box? 304 no, 299 nope, 200 nada, how about 100 wrong again. There were only exactly 50 paper ballots in a locked sealed box that again was supposed to have 306.

Heck, No wonder Detroit gets such high turnout rates!

But perhaps Trump was the beneficiary of those extra votes...

Apparently not, as a map of Michigan voting shows:

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Ken Crider, a 2014 Republican candidate for District 19 of the Michigan House of Representatives, said he watched the recount effort in Cobo Hall in Detroit. Afterwards he wrote:

...Detroit Precinct #152 had an unbroken seal and everything looked proper. The tag on the box said 306 and the book said 306 and the ticket said 306, so there should be 306 paper ballots on the box, right. Well when they pulled out the ballots the stack seemed short and when they finished separating the two page ballot to count the Presidential page only guess how many ballots were in the box? 304 no, 299 nope, 200 nada, how about 100 wrong again. There were only exactly 50 paper ballots in a locked sealed box that again was supposed to have 306.

Heck, No wonder Detroit gets such high turnout rates!

But perhaps Trump was the beneficiary of those extra votes...

Apparently not, as a map of Michigan voting shows:

For someone so against any investigation you are suddenly very sure fraud took place. Quite the 180. You have to present evidence of fraud and not some other error. That quote does not even say fraud took place. It also doesn't have anything voter I'd laws could ever fix so the entire argument is a mess. There isn't even evidence the box had more than 50 votes counted. Just that at some point it was labelled as having 306 votes inside (where they even counted at that point).

There really is a blood from a stone issue trying to drag any evidence out here.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

For someone so against any investigation you are suddenly very sure fraud took place. Quite the 180. You have to present evidence of fraud and not some other error. That quote does not even say fraud took place. It also doesn't have anything voter I'd laws could ever fix so the entire argument is a mess. There isn't even evidence the box had more than 50 votes counted. Just that at some point it was labelled as having 306 votes inside (where they even counted at that point).

There really is a blood from a stone issue trying to drag any evidence out here.

Maybe not enough evidence for you, but apparently enough evidence of fraud for the Michigan legislative branch to enact stricter valid voting ID.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe not enough evidence for you, but apparently enough evidence of fraud for the Michigan legislative branch to enact stricter valid voting ID.

...and, as we all know, Republican legislatures are always careful to wait for evidence of fraud before enacting strict voter ID laws.

Tell me: if this evidence is the reason for the voter ID bill, why was the bill introduced on November 29, given that this story only came to light in the last few days?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe not enough evidence for you, but apparently enough evidence of fraud for the Michigan legislative branch to enact stricter valid voting ID.

Wasn't this legislation brought forward before this story? And Republicans have been gunning for it for years before this story. And the proposed laws would in no way have stopped the alleged fraud.

Really seems like they are not related.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and, as we all know, Republican legislatures are always careful to wait for evidence of fraud before enacting strict voter ID laws.

Tell me: if this evidence is the reason for the voter ID bill, why was the bill introduced on November 29, given that this story only came to light in the last few days?

There's been evidence of voter fraud for a long time now. Republican legislatures have tried to enact voter ID laws in many states for years. I guess what happened recently in Detroit is what was needed to get it through. Liberal judges have a tendency go against the will of the people in many states and get the voter ID laws stopped. I figure that will also happen in this case.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

There's been evidence of voter fraud for a long time now. Republican legislatures have tried to enact voter ID laws in many states for years. I guess what happened recently in Detroit is what was needed to get it through. Liberal judges have a tendency go against the will of the people in many states and get the voter ID laws stopped. I figure that will also happen in this case.

Your evidence for Detroit was that this bill passed. Now you are saying there has been evidence for ages and that is why this bill was put forward and assuming there was fraud in detroit without evidence. What exactly is the evidence for fraud.

Also why would the Detroit accusations affect this bill when voter id would not stop this issue.

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

There's been evidence of voter fraud for a long time now.

Not evidence. Evidence is a legal term, and its something admitted in court. There's allegations is all. This is why newspapers use the word 'alleged' all the time - not proven.

And even less proof (as in, proven in court, rather than proven in the media.) I seem to recall a story about a Trump voter registering twice and getting caught at it. It was rare, and made the news.

Hope that helps. Words matter. Republicans are screwing with voter registration regulations because they can, having taken over 2/3 the states. There's some very interesting allegations about the behavior of secretaries of states throughout the country selling their services to the PAC's to control districting in order to maximize opportunities for the candidates the PAC's are backing - usually Republican.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

There's been evidence of voter fraud for a long time now.

No, there hasn't. Just because Trump was elected doesn't mean that facts are obsolete.

Republican legislatures have tried to enact voter ID laws in many states for years.

Yes, they have - and they've made bogus claims about voter fraud as a fig-leaf for what are transparently intended to be voter suppression measures.

I guess what happened recently in Detroit is what was needed to get it through.

I'm sure the Republican legislature will be only too happy to jump on this sketchy story as evidence to justify their voter suppression measure - but let's not fool ourselves that they wouldn't have passed it without that fig-leaf.

Liberal judges have a tendency go against the will of the people in many states and get the voter ID laws stopped. I figure that will also happen in this case.

How dare those devious bastards refuse to collude in blatant voter suppression?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, there hasn't. Just because Trump was elected doesn't mean that facts are obsolete.

Yes, there has. Is 1948 long enough to qualify that voter fraud has been going on for a long time now?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/no-voter-fraud-us-three-prominent-examples/

Yes, they have - and they've made bogus claims about voter fraud as a fig-leaf for what are transparently intended to be voter suppression measures.

Part of the tougher voter ID bill included $3 million for funding of free state identification and birth certificates. Doesn't sound like voter suppression.

I'm sure the Republican legislature will be only too happy to jump on this sketchy story as evidence to justify their voter suppression measure - but let's not fool ourselves that they wouldn't have passed it without that fig-leaf.

Republicans have a super-majority there. They could have passed it any time.

How dare those devious bastards refuse to collude in blatant voter suppression?

No, how dare those judges go against the voters will by claiming that tired old boogieman tale of 'voter suppression.'

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, there has. Is 1948 long enough to qualify that voter fraud has been going on for a long time now?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/no-voter-fraud-us-three-prominent-examples/


Part of the tougher voter ID bill included $3 million for funding of free state identification and birth certificates. Doesn't sound like voter suppression.


Republicans have a super-majority there. They could have passed it any time.


No, how dare those judges go against the voters will by claiming that tired old boogieman tale of 'voter suppression.'

How many people have been convicted of voter fraud in the USA in the last 10 years ? How many have even been charged ?

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

How many people have been convicted of voter fraud in the USA in the last 10 years ? How many have even been charged ?

I've said time and time again, the time to stop voter fraud is before they vote, as almost no election officials ever go after, or even investigate, voter fraud once the election is over, as by that time it is a difficult, time consuming and an expensive process.

I've given this type of analogy before. If only 5 people are fined for jaywalking in Detroit last month, does that mean only 5 people actually jaywalked in Detroit last month? And go ahead and try to prove otherwise.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

I've said time and time again, the time to stop voter fraud is before they vote, as almost no election officials ever go after, or even investigate, voter fraud once the election is over, as by that time it is a difficult, time consuming and an expensive process.

So that would be none then ? Correct ?

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

I've said time and time again, the time to stop voter fraud is before they vote, as almost no election officials ever go after, or even investigate, voter fraud once the election is over, as by that time it is a difficult, time consuming and an expensive process.

I think there's been a phantom erected here. From your link:

1) 1960 JFK-Nixon election: All historians accept that Vote Fraud happened in Texas, Illinois, and West Virginia. The only argument was just how massive it really was. Ike urged Nixon to dispute the election. Check the Internet for your favorite details.

All historians isn't really proof of anything to be honest. Even "All historians" isn't backed up.

2) Democrat historian Robert Caro admitted (and went into great detail on how) 1948 LBJ won his first US Senate primary in TX thru massive voter fraud. Tens of thousands of votes were fraudulent.

An example from 1948? Really? You portray this as something which is endemic. If this author had to dig as far back as 1948...

3.) The 1982 Illinois Gubernatorial Race. Jim Thompson vs. Adlai Stevenson III. The official total had Thompson up by only five thousand votes. The US Department of Justice found at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (over 10% of Chicago’s vote). Sixty-three people were convicted of voter fraud. The feds broke it open because a campaign worker complained that he didn’t get his promised city job after helping with the fraud. (Love that detail! So Chicago!) Dead people voted then too. People with vacant lot addresses voted. All kinds of wild fraud was uncovered. Adlai appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. It took two months before Adlai conceded.

So where's the investigation on this then? Would ID's have helped because in this example, it sounds like they wouldn't have.

4.) Al Franken versus Norm Coleman in the Minnesota senatorial race in 2010: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. 1,099 felons voted illegally in the election.

How on earth did felons vote?

All in all, sounds like it's been blown out of all proportion to me and any attempt at fixing this needs to look beyond the short term goal of reducing the Democrat vote.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

So that would be none then ? Correct ?

14 so far this year, and that was before the election.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

14 so far this year, and that was before the election.

...and 135 million people voted.

You're seriously going to argue that a 0.00001% problem justifies voter suppression laws?

I almost have more respect for those Republicans who are honest enough to admit that the entire point is to prevent minorities from voting.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

14 so far this year, and that was before the election.

and the number of voters is ???? Never mind the number of elections .

A bit like the flag burning - a non event used to stoke up the worst in people.

Pity ye can't get as excited about gun control - now that is something worth fighting for .

InTheTrees

The inexorable slide downhill towards petty third world politics.

Putin must really be laughing. Poor old ronald Reagan, Russia won it turns out.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

The inexorable slide downhill towards petty third world politics.

Putin must really be laughing. Poor old ronald Reagan, Russia won it turns out.

Wouldn't say that NATO still around in Europe and the Russians are fighting a war against terrorists that has all but been ignored by the international community. They still see Saudi Arabia as a reliable broker of international relations.

Igotadose

Wow, head of Exxon to become Secretary of State. Only ever worked for Exxon. "Has a good business relationship with Putin."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/rex-tillerson-of-exxon-mobile-expected-to-be-named-trumps-secretary-of-state-sources.html

Romney would've been a better choice; at least it's not Rudy. Loony John Bolton will be deputy Secretary of State - which is a new one to me.

Oil prices up, up and away I think - what incentive is there for the head of Exxon to keep them down?

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

Wow, head of Exxon to become Secretary of State. Only ever worked for Exxon. "Has a good business relationship with Putin."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/rex-tillerson-of-exxon-mobile-expected-to-be-named-trumps-secretary-of-state-sources.html

Romney would've been a better choice; at least it's not Rudy. Loony John Bolton will be deputy Secretary of State - which is a new one to me.

Oil prices up, up and away I think - what incentive is there for the head of Exxon to keep them down?

I can see an oil slick about 10 miles wide in that supposedly 'drained' swamp.

eire4

Igotadose wrote: »

Wow, head of Exxon to become Secretary of State. Only ever worked for Exxon. "Has a good business relationship with Putin."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/rex-tillerson-of-exxon-mobile-expected-to-be-named-trumps-secretary-of-state-sources.html

Romney would've been a better choice; at least it's not Rudy. Loony John Bolton will be deputy Secretary of State - which is a new one to me.

Oil prices up, up and away I think - what incentive is there for the head of Exxon to keep them down?

Yes and an oil and gas industry bagman Scott Pruitt is the pick for the EPA!!!

aloyisious

Amerika wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for...

Jill Stein sought a recount in Michigan over the integrity of the count. Well, the recount process, before it was stopped, did not find any evidence of hacking but it did uncover serious evidence of possible voter fraud, especially in Detroit - a democratic stronghold. Some reports indicate single ballots being counted as many as six times and officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

And as a result of these reports, Wednesday evening, Michigan’s House of Representatives passed a strict voter I.D. bill that would require voters who don’t show identification to bring their I.D. to the local clerk’s office within 10 days of casting their ballots.

About time!!!

The bill requires voters who don't show I/D when voting to bring their I/D to the local clerk's office within 10 days. To make the act work, the clerks would have to have been in every vote centre on the day/s of the vote and have excellent facial recognition memory up to 10 days later when the I/D was shown, as the vote centres would have been used by thousands on the day.

It sounds like it's assumed the clerk will be able to say for definite the I/D carrier is - or is NOT - the person who actually voted in order to eliminate voter fraud. What is going to prove that the person showing up with the I/D 10 days after the vote is the person who actually cast the vote?

Overheal

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I can see an oil slick about 10 miles wide in that supposedly 'drained' swamp.

Drain the swamp is already a running joke.

Inquitus

Overheal wrote: »

Drain the swamp is already a running joke.

Per SNL he decided to smush "Build the Wall" with "Drain the Swamp", creating the new policy we all clearly see......"Build the Swamp!"

20Cent

Whether I choose him or not for "State"- Rex Tillerson, the Chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!

It's exactly like he thinks he's hosting a game show. Stay tuned!
Just pick your cabinet no need for the teaser trailers ffs.

Amerika

Hillary Clinton has blamed her loss on FBI director James Comey, then because white women are “misogynists,” then on ‘fake news,’ and now the Russians. She seems to blame everyone but herself.

Wonder who she’ll blame next week?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton has blamed her loss on FBI director James Comey, then because white women are “misogynists,” then on ‘fake news,’ and now the Russians. She seems to blame everyone but herself.

Wonder who she’ll blame next week?

Trump has taken responsibility for what?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Trump has taken responsibility for what?

His win? And rightly so.

And he’s winning the transition from candidate to president, also. Although the mainstream media is attacking him for every decision he makes, it’s not affecting him with the voters and he’s just becoming more popular.