Just watched the Miss America 2018 show

1. 77

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   It was very entertaining and the show was nicely done. My only complaint is the final question segment.
   Three of the final 5 questions were political in nature and the questions have no business in a talent and entertainment show...IMHO. It seems to me the entertainment industry just can't help themselves. They need to bash the current Trump administration every chance they get.
   
   I don't mind political questions in gemeral but they should be asked fairly.
   The one about climate change and the Paris Accord was a sham.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe the girls have taste, but the show does not.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jack - politically motivated questions have always been part of these types of events.  What I find laughable is that these young ladies faced tougher questions by the judges than anyone ever asked President Obama while he was in office...as President.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I don't mind tough questions but they need to be fair...I don't think these people rven realize their leading questions are biased.

         replyreport
   3. 79

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, the pageant is already a dog and pony show that I am surprised that women would continue to accept  in this day and age. The girl has opinions, she has a right to these. We like to think that these women are more than the sum of their parts. BTW wasn't Trump a major player in the pageant? How did these touchy questions pass muster in the first place?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         As I said, I don't mind controversial questions but it needs to be asked in a fair way. If the question is biased and take on a group mentality... then it is unfair to even answer. If I was a contestant, I would call them out on the question.
         In the example of The Paris accord, I would say something like...
         Climate change is a controversial topic and the Paris accord penalize the US over other countries such as China which is the largest polluter on the planet. It is right for our President to reject this accord and seek a better more equitable agreement...

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            No doubt, Jack, I almost certain I would know what You would say in such a case, but we have to acknowledge that everyone is not of the same opinion.

            replyreport
2. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

   Miss America is meant to be a well-rounded person with a "platform" (inspiring goal) that they will advance using their fame if they win.  So I think the questions should be challenging and about topics like politics and science.  If they know they answer great, if not how they deal with it is revealing.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It was no reflection on the girls. They answered the question the way it was posed. It is the question it self I had problems with. They were construed as anti-Trump policies... I hope you see my point.
      The one about the Virginia statue was a way to paint Trump as racist and Nazi sympathizer...totally false.
      I guess they just can't help themselves.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         
         My friend, your post makes the claim that  President Trump’s reputation as a racist is "…totally false."
         
         I think this would be a good time to jump in with documented evidence found in the public record, evidence that proves Mr. Trump has earned his reputation for being a racist!
         
         During his tenure as president of Trump Management Corporation, Donald Trump was sued, not once but twice, by the U.S. Department of Justice. The first time, the Justice Department produced evidence of racial discrimination against blacks who tried to rent apartment units he owned in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, NY. The Department of Justice proved that his company quoted different lease terms and conditions to black rental candidates than it did to white candidates and, further, that the company lied to black applicants about available vacancies. 
         
         Mr. Trump settled out of court and he stipulated to the court he would stop discriminating against blacks, Puerto Ricans and other minorities. Never the less, just three years later, the Justice Department sued Trump Management Corporation again for failing to keep his sworn pledge to the court. The facts are as unavoidable as they are unsavory. Mr. Trump has a long and infamous history as a redlining Realtor {1}
         
         This is NOT fiction or personal opinion. These are undisputed details from the public record that reveal Donald Trump is a lifelong racist. Perhaps the conservative media on which you rely did not inform you about the $200,000 fine paid by the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino because of Trump’s policy to discriminate against African-American card dealers. A state appeals court not only upheld the fine but also stated in its final decision, “In our view, the transcript fairly reeks of Trump Plaza's guilt.”{2}
         
         There are even more facts in the public domain regarding Mr. Trump’s legacy as a racist.
         
         A former Trump Castle employee relates his own first-hand experience with Mr. Trump’s racism. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Kip Brown recalled in an interview with The New Yorker.  "I remember it: they put us all in the back.” {3}
         
         Occasionally, we may hear a random claim that some blacks are lazy, but, a racist will insist, irrationally to be sure, that ALL blacks are lazy! Mr. Trump has proven himself to be a bona fide racist and, yet, this is something you and his other supporters continue to deny.   
         
         He once had this to say about the black financial executive at his Trump Plaza Casino: “And isn't it funny. I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. . . . I think the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.” [Ed: Bold font added for educational purposes.] {4}
         
         Need more proof? Read the story under this headline in the New York Daily News: “TRUMP HIT WITH RACE SUIT BLACKS: DON DEALT US OUT OF CASINO JOBS.”  {5}
         
         Now we all know that Donald Trump was graduated from an elite New York Military academy, nearly lost the empire he inherited from his father, and is now President of the United States. Yet, his supporters believe the lie that in all of those years he never heard the name of David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan!
         
         When asked by CNN if he would disavow the support of David Duke and the KKK, Mr. Trump actually said, "Honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I’ve ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him."
         
         Again, to be perfectly clear, he said, “Honestly, I don’t know David Duke." Yet, the public record shows that Mr. Trump knows a great deal about David Duke and his status as a white supremacist. As a matter of fact, Mr. Trump issued a public statement in 2000 saying, “the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. (Pat) Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. (Lenora) Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.” Interesting, isn’t it? In 2016, Mr. Trump claimed he didn’t know anything about David Duke and the KKK! {6}
         
         There is more but I should stop here. The bottom line: Mr. Trump, despite the irrational and unsupportable denials in your post, is responsible for his racist baggage. These facts are all found in the public record and they stand unchallenged to this day. You are invited to respond with documented evidence that proves these events did not happen or are untrue. I think we would all like to see your sources too.
         
         {1} http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/donald_ … tion_suit/
         {2} http://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/10/19/ … 719467200/
         {3} http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ … antic-city
         {4} http://articles.philly.com/1991-05-10/n … nald-trump
         {5} http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/mon … e-1.726389
         {6} http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /81101906/

         replyreport
         1. 77

            jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So, if 40 percent of voters voted for him, are they all racists?
            How many members of the KKK do you know?
            The number is very small. These fringe hate groups are a small minority and they are shunned by everyone. For the media to prop up the connection between Trump and KKK is just the "bias" the media is known for. When the race card is pulled, it usually means they ran out of ideas.
            
            Assume you are correct about Trump, then how do you explain his success in Hollywood with a top rated show for last 10 years? The Apprentice...Is Hollywood run by racist sympathizers?
            Remember Paula Deen? And what happened to her?

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks so much for your comments.
               
               I posted facts showing how President Trump’s reputation as a racist is the result of his own actions and statements. Since you made the claim that this reputation is "totally false," I expected you had more than your own personal political bias to support your claim. 
               
               Instead, your remarks ignore the uncomfortable reality of President Trump’s history and totally dismiss all of the fully documented events from his past without a comment.
               
               Obviously, unanswered questions are not reliable, verifiable facts and they certainly do not prove these events did not happen or are untrue. These events did happen. They are true and they debunk the claim that President Trump’s reputation as a racist is "totally false."
               

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  snakeslaneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Dear Quilligrapher, Sir, Good to see you in action.

                  replyreport
         2. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Careful, Quill.  Being sued does not prove racism, and neither does settling out of court.  Not even being sued a second time does.  In addition, the suits were apparently against a business enterprise, not Donald Trump, which means that someone in that business allegedly performed racist acts (allegedly because it was never proven) and that is far different than convicting President Trump of racist actions.
            
            Donald Trump may or may not have racist tendencies, but none of the "evidence" you provide shows it.  The closest you come is the (alleged) comment that he dislikes blacks counting his money given without context, time, location or listener.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Hi there, Wilderness! Nice to see you join in this strand.
               
               Wow! I posted solid facts and I received two responses containing nothing but irrelevant rationalizations! I pointed to documents compiled by the US Department of Justice that includes, in part, sworn affidavits from Trump employees, rental agents, and building managers describing how Donald Trump consciously and systematically engaged in the real estate practice known as racial redlining. There are also details among the evidence describing how building supervisors were instructed to write a secret code on the rental applications submitted by blacks and other "undesirables."
               
               So I should be careful? This is not a criminal court nor am I trying a capital offense where the evidence must prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a political forum in which the evidence should be factual, reliable, verifiable, and logically relevant. And, on this last point, Wilderness, your post doesn't even come close!
               
               Let me begin with the sentences following the warning:
               "Being sued does not prove racism, and neither does settling out of court.  Not even being sued a second time does."
               
               Even with my deep respect for our long friendship and for your prolific contributions to this platform, I must admit I found this opening salvo totally inane. Obviously lawsuits don't prove racism. It's the underlying evidence from those lawsuits that contributed to Donald Trump's reputation as a racist. Instead of responding to the actual facts in the lawsuits, you ignore them as if they don't even exist.
               
               Critical thinking demands that the mind recognizes relevant factual data as being more important than political ideology and unsupported personal conclusions. Well developed critical thinking skills would not have led to this additional false statement: "the suits were apparently against a business enterprise, not Donald Trump, which means that someone in that business allegedly performed racist acts."
               
               Here we see a personal opinion that isn't supported by any facts combining with ignorance of the law to produce two false assertions.  First, the lawsuits brought against Donald Trump allege violations of the Fair Housing Act which requires that employers be responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Secondly, the DOJ lawsuits included explicit reference to Donald Trump, the president of Trump Management.
               
               By the way, as a sidebar, there is also evidence that Mr. Trump lied about his responsibility for rentals. During a sworn deposition, he was asked: “Do you ever have anything to do with rental decisions in individual cases?” Mr. Trump replied, under oath, “No, I really don’t." However, during an interview with a New York State investigator about his real estate broker license application, Mr. Trump  contradicted his prior sworn testimony by asserting that he supervised and controlled the renting of ALL apartments owned by the Trump organization. {1}
               
               Then we have this statement,"Donald Trump may or may not have racist tendencies, but none of the 'evidence' you provide shows it."
               
               Forgive me if I missed something, but your remarks do not address any of the actual (and factual) evidence from the public record. Instead, they try to advance a strawman argument that "Being sued does not prove racism. " It seems your post categorically ignores the substantial volume of evidence produced by the US Department of Justice. It dismisses evidence that led to a sizable fine for discriminatory policies that Donald Trump actually or tacitly approved. It rejects without justification the personal experiences published by a number of Trump associates.
               
               I can only conclude that you don't seem to know enough about the actual evidence to judge its validity. I think you should analyze the underlying evidence from Trump's public life, in addition to all of the examples listed in my post, before you tell me what the facts do or do not prove. And, let's not forget Pres. Trump said publicly that the Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists marching and chanting racist and anti-semetic slogans in Charlottesville included “very fine people."
               
               I found it interesting to see you use benign general terms when referring to Trump's dislike for blacks:
                   "The closest you come is the (alleged)
                   comment that he dislikes blacks counting his
                   money given without context, time, location or
                   listener."
               ... while at the same time you were conveniently ignoring his blatantly racist comments:
                   "I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s
                   probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in
                       Blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something
                   they can control." {2}
               
               A very convenient omission!
               
               Well, my friend (and I say that sincerely), until the unsupported rationalizations are replaced with some relevant facts that actually mitigate the numerous racist events in Pres. Trump's past, I will stand by my original claim that the documented evidence found in the public record confirms that Mr. Trump has created his racist baggage with his own words and deeds.
               
               {1} http://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-trumps … ked-blacks
               {2} https://www.afro.com/trump-words-laziness-trait-blacks/

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey Quill, it seems Trump supporters are blind to his many faults. Being a racist is simply one of them...

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Ridiculous, I am not a Trump suporter and I did not vote for him but I will defend him if he is attscked wrongly. Trump is no racist, period. Our country did not elect a racist, after 2 years of primary and 17 member field of debates...and vetting.
                     If you believe that, you are bordering on insanity.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Are we to believe that you have medical or academic credentials that qualify you to diagnose insanity?
                        
                        Just 13 months ago, 1000 potential US voters were asked "Do you think Donald Trump is a racist?" Forty-four percent (44%) replied YES! In fact, seven percent (7%) also said that they were Trump supporters. {1}
                        
                        Your post reveals 1) a need to learn a lot more about President Trump's unsavory reputation as a racist and 2) an acute ignorance about mental health.
                        
                        {1} http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/ … ables.pdf, Table Q27, Page 160.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           My insanity comment was not meant to be a medical diagnosis. It is a commentary on where some of the people on the left are doing... it was Einstein who said definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome...

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Ah, I understand! You are telling us that we should not try to comprehend anything you say here because you reserve the right to change all the normal definitions of the words you use.
                              
                              Okay. We get your message:
                              
                              When Albert Einstein defined insanity, he meant the kind of insanity where  adults in Congress actually voted more than 50 different times to repeal, defund, or delay Obamacare and failed every time. Gotcha!
                              

                              replyreport
                              1. 77

                                 jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 I called out the GOP congress when they failed to do what they promised...especially John McCain who I believed along with some other senators and congressmen who have been in Washington too long.
                                 As a voter, what else can we do? We were told one thing and when we voted for them. They went ahead and did just the opposite. It is not our problem but part of the Washington swamp that needs to be drained.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Hi jackclee, there seems to be a lot of controversy  over this latest repeal bill. From what little I have been able to glean - it is not a bill that fixes or  offers improvements to Obamacare. Its only attribute, (for Republicans and Trump supporters), is that can be said to repeal Obamacare in essence, but does little else than punish states that used Obamacare structures to expand their Medicaid programs. It doesn't even return our healthcare insurance issue to a pre-Obamacare state.
                                    
                                    Do you have information otherwise, or do you support any bill that repeals Obamacare - whether it is a good bill or bad? If the expanded Medicaid programs of Obamacare are a bad thing, why do you support a simple redistribution of Federal contributions for that same bad deal?
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 77

                                       jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       At this stage, it is too late to do any major reform IMHO. However, the GOP needs to keep their word of repeal and replace of ACA if they are to survive the next election. I wished John McCain understood that. Passing a bad bill is not the worst thing. There are many details that can be tweaked once a bill is passed, just like Obamacare was modified so many times...and exemptions issues...

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hi jackclee, If I understand you perspective correctly, you want Obamacare repealed first, and any fix or corrective legislation is secondary. As in you would be satisfied with the complete repeal, without any fixes, returning us to the healthcare insurance scenario we had before Obamacare was passed. Is that correct?
                                          
                                          First, I am not an Obamacare proponent, but, since its passage, I think that as a nation, we have reached a point where some kind of national healthcare program is mandated.
                                          
                                          Are you accepting of a complete repeal which would cause the millions of folks that now have healthcare insurance through the expanded Medicaid programs and Federal subsidy programs to lose their coverage? Can you see the political and social upheaval that such an action would cause?
                                          
                                          Even if you can't agree with the way these folks got their coverage, are you OK with a bare repeal that would take it away?
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             Yes, and I will explain why. The ACA was never designed to last because it was financially unsustainable.
                                             After 10 years, the plan will fail and it would be up the federal government to bail it out. Hence a single payer. I rather face the music now and fix what little can be fixed. The details will be worked out later by the secretary of HHS down the road...
                                             The million of people being covered by ACA do not have a great coverage with high cost and high deductibles which many cannot afford or pay...we are subsidizing most of them...
                                             My believe is that increased competition will be the only way to bring the cost down.

                                             report
                                 2. 70

                                    Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    John McCain does not represent you. You are not a member of his constituency. He represents the people of Arizona. Who are you to say he has been in Washington too long? That is a decision only the voters of Arizona should make.
                                    
                                    John McCain is listening to the people of his state and to the majority of the American people which is more than can be said for you and the Congressional opponents of Obamacare. Arizona's Republican governor praised Senator McCain for doing what was best for Arizona:"Republican Gov. Doug Ducey says he is disappointed Congress was recessing without a health care solution. But he agreed with McCain that the proposed bill was not right for Arizona." {1}
                                    
                                    Senator McCain's vote was not only in the best interest of his state but it also was in accord with the will and the wishes of the majority of Americans. Most Americans who participated in last week's ABC News/Washington Post poll said they preferred the existing Obamacare law 56 to 33% over the Graham-Cassidy bill. Furthermore, 42% of that group said that they "strongly" prefer it which was about twice the number who "strongly" preferred the GOP plan. Study after study is showing that the American people are not in favor of a total repeal of the ACA!
                                    
                                    "The result is similar to public views on the previous GOP repeal-and-replace effort, which failed in July. Americans preferred Obamacare to that plan by 50-24 percent, again with a 20-point advantage for the current law in strong sentiment." {2}
                                    
                                    John McCain is listening to the voices of the people and I think that is admirable!
                                    
                                    {1} https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … ealth-bill
                                    {2} http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten … thCare.pdf

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Just curious, but...in your opinion is John McCains primary duty to the United States of America or to the state of Arizona?  Is it his duty to support the "wishes of the people" (in general, or those of Arizona, either one) or the needs of the United States?  When they are in conflict, which one has priority?  I guess what I'm asking here is do you feel that a politicians primary purpose is to parrot what the people want or is it to carefully consider the facts and data the people don't have, understand or ignore and do what he believes is in the best interests of the country?

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          A Senator's responsibility is first to his constituents who voted for him based on his stated policies. Based on our Constitution, a Senator in general is suppose to represent all of America, because he is suppose to be more thoughtful on matters of national importance, which is why it is a 6 year term.
                                          In this case, McCain lied to his voters to get elected. IMHO

                                          report
                                          1. 89

                                             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             "A Senator's responsibility is first to his constituents who voted for him "
                                             
                                             Personally, I would disagree with that.  I feel that a congressman or woman's first duty is to the country.  They are elected on the general principles they espouse, but their duty is to the country, not the state.  When it is to the state we get the pork barrel spending we see so much of, which is NOT in the best interests of the country.  We see military bases put where the powerful politicians want them, for the money it brings their state, instead of where the military (country) wants or needs them.  The list is endless of such activities.
                                             
                                             In a like vein, a politicians duty is not to simply parrot the wishes of their constituents, or even the people in general, but to govern and lead the country the best they can.  In my very limited experience in politics I saw far too many people that had no interest in the needs or good of the community, but were only interested in what they could get from it, and hang the needs of the group and, all too often, the laws that we operated under.  When there is conflict between the people's wishes and the needs of the country, the country takes priority.

                                             report
                                             1. 82

                                                GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                Hi Wilderness, It seems like you changed horses midstream, or else I just didn't understand, or, it could just be a matter of semantics.
                                                
                                                I disagree with your leading paragraph, but agree with your ending one, so maybe it is just semantics. My thought is that a Senator or Congressman's first responsibility is to their constituents. as in every legislative decision they make should be first considered with the wishes of their constituents in mind. My thinking is that it is their final obligation to put the country first - after considering their constituent demands. I believe that perspective allows them to shape their "national interest" decisions as closely as possible with their constituent's desires.
                                                
                                                In the end it appears we are saying the same thing, but your response seems to diminish a representative's responsibilities to their  electors.
                                                
                                                GA

                                                report
                                             2. 70

                                                Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                Hi guys. I hope you don't mind if I reply to both of you at the same time.
                                                
                                                Jack, your post managed to contradict itself within the first two sentences: "A Senator's responsibility is first to his constituents," followed immediately with, "a Senator in general is suppose to represent all of America."
                                                I think that you created both of these claims in your own mind and cannot produce a single authority that supports either one of them.
                                                
                                                Given that none of the opinions found the in the quoted posts are supported by any authority, one has to wonder why the US Constitution Article 1 and the Senators' oath of office were not mentioned.
                                                
                                                "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." {1}
                                                
                                                This is the oath of office taken by all US Senators and it includes their primary duty and purpose under the Constitution which is to faithfully discharge the duties of their office.
                                                
                                                What are the duties of their office? Well, I am glad that you asked!
                                                
                                                Most of them are listed in Article 1, Section 8, which concludes "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
                                                
                                                I'm sorry, fellows, but I don't see anything that resembles the political fantasies you  both are tossing about. Perhaps one of you would point out to us where the Constitution imposes an obligation on a Senator to put the interests of the federal government (i.e. the country) before  the interests of his state (and constituents) or vice versa. As I read the Constitution, a Sanator is sworn to support and defend the Constitution and to perform the duties of his office. I find nothing in the Constitution that is meant to affect a Senator's vote in ANY way on ANY subject!
                                                
                                                There are no constitutional restraints placed on a US Senator's voting judgment, but there are many practical consequences that exist in our political world. The original Constitution called for Senators to be elected by each respective state legislature. Under that arrangement state politics had enormous influence over sitting senators. The 17th  Amendment (1913) shifted the election process to the people in each state. Therefore, in practice, Senators know they have to consider their state constituents' views if they hope to be reelected but they are under no obligation to do so.
                                                
                                                
                                                
                                                The answer is simply. Politicians' primary purpose is to support and defend the Constitution and to exercise the powers granted to them to the best of their ability. My remarks about Senator McCain's vote included two factual observations: his vote was in tune with a majority of Americans today and his vote was also in the best interest of his home state. I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that his vote was supposed to comply with either or both of those criteria. Just the same, I found his vote admirable as well as popular.
                                                
                                                Thanks for inviting me into your imaginary political world in which reality  is replaced with irrational conjecture about purpose. I think I'll decline. I prefer to  discuss the real-world and leave the unsupported political opinions to others.  I will say, however, that the question you asked me is logically flawed. "Parroting the people" and doing what is in "the best interests of the country" are not opposite and equal choices. In fact, they are not even the only choices, nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive! Both, either together, individually, or in tandem with any number of other possible  factors may have an impact on a politician's vote. Under the rules of our Republic, elected officials get to freely exercise their judgment in their way, not your way. If voters are unhappy, they can  express their displeasure by hiring someone else in he next election cycle.
                                                
                                                I have to go. It is great to have your inputs, guys. Here's hoping you have a great night.
                                                
                                                {1} https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi … Office.htm

                                                report
                                                1. 89

                                                   wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Quill, I don't think my question was phrased properly - at least you don't seem to understand what I meant to ask. 
                                                   
                                                   No, the people's will and the needs of the country are not always mutually exclusive, but sometimes they are.  As an example, using McCain and the people's wishes for ACA: assume that McCain is convinced that continuing the ACA will bankrupt the country, collapse the economy and cause a major depression.  Given that assumption, and your claim that a majority of the people want ACA, where does McCain's duty lie?  To vote for a continuation of a law that will cause great harm to the country and it's people, or to disregard the people's uninformed wishes and vote to end it?  Should he parrot the people or, using his superior information, do what they do not want?
                                                   
                                                   And secondly, are such things as pork barrel spending a part of his duty?  It is constitutional, it is legal, but is it his job to supply his state with what it wants at the cost of the nation?
                                                   
                                                   IMO, a senator's primary duty is to run the country along the lines of what his constituency wants, but always tempered with his additional data, information and consideration.  He is NOT just a voice of the people; he is part of the management team, tasked first and foremost with fulfilling the needs of the nation.  We "hire" him because we don't want the enormous task of keeping ourselves informed, to take that away from us in the same manner that middle management is used to lessen the load on upper management. 
                                                   
                                                   I didn't ask what his legal job was; I asked where, in your opinion, his primary duty lies; to the country or to the demands of his constituents, for the people are uninformed and the majority aren't interested in the nation's needs.  Only in what they want.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 70

                                                      Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Good evening, Wilderness. I hope that you and the family are all doing well.
                                                      
                                                      You changed your question a little the second time around, so I will repeat the latest version here so we can focus on what you actually asked:
                                                      "using McCain and the people's wishes for ACA: assume that McCain is convinced that continuing the ACA will bankrupt the country, collapse the economy and cause a major depression.  Given that assumption, and your claim that a majority of the people want ACA, where does McCain's duty lie?  To vote for a continuation of a law that will cause great harm to the country and it's people, or to disregard the people's uninformed wishes and vote to end it?  Should he parrot the people or, using his superior information, do what they do not want?"
                                                      
                                                      The essence of your question is this: does a sitting US Senator have a duty to vote on the basis of what is behind door "A" or door "B"?
                                                      
                                                      What is actually behind door "A" or door "B" is not really important in this discussion for two reasons. First, the two choices fabricated for the question do not represent the myriad of complex factors Senator McCain had to consider before voting. Secondly, the two choices fabricated for the question are tainted with exaggerations, misinformation, and biased wording. To be specific, the ACA is depicted as bankrupting the country, collapsing the economy, and causing a depression. In contrast, the people are depicted as uninformed and having inferior information.
                                                      
                                                      Okay, after stripping away the bias and deception, we can now consider the basic issue: Does a sitting US Senator have a duty to vote on the basis of what is behind door "A" or door "B"? I should point out that the question uses the word "duty." This means that choice "A" or choice "B" must be so compelling that it strips away a US senator's constitutional prerogative to exercise his own judgment.
                                                      
                                                      Finally, you base your question on the premise that there are two different US Senators. "I didn't ask what his legal job was; I asked where, in your opinion, his primary duty lies"
                                                      
                                                      All US Senators serving in the real world have the same legal constitutional job description that includes all duties, primary and otherwise. They have no primary duties beyond what is required by the Constitution of the United States of America or by the rules of the United States Senate! But you do mention some other separate primary duty, one that is not a "legal" duty nor one that exists in the real world. That primary duty, therefore, is not part of the real world and only exist in an imaginary world. Anyone who claims a US Senator has primary duties that are not contained in the Constitution has the obligation to support that claim with some constitutional, legal, academic, historic, or other applicable, relevant authority.
                                                      
                                                      Since the question does not apply to US Senators in the real world and can only be applied on a theoretical level to an imaginary US Senator, my opinion, your opinion, or anyone's opinion is irrelevant.
                                                      
                                                      As a result, I will stand by my prior statement "Thanks for inviting me into your imaginary political world in which reality is replaced with irrational conjecture about purpose. I think I'll decline. I prefer to discuss the real-world..."
                                                      
                                                      I hope all is well where you are, Wilderness. It is sad to watch the summer slip away.
                                                      

                                                      report
                                                      1. 77

                                                         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                         In the real world, taxes are paid, people are loosing job opportunities, medical insurance costs are rising, deductibles are higher and government subsidies are increasing our debt...
                                                         In the real world, policies matter. It is not fantasy...
                                                         This whole debate centers on the role of government with relations to healthcare in the US. Do we want a government mandated system or a private competitive system?
                                                         
                                                         The biggest problem with the ACA currently is the following, IMHO,
                                                         The 30 hour limit work week which forces many small employers to hire P/T workers to avoid the health coverage mandate.
                                                         The expansion of medicaid coverage and subsidies to the uninsured covering 20 million people which is unfunded liabilities after 10 years.
                                                         The failure of the State Health exchanges which are going broke...
                                                         The allowance of people to skip buying insurance until they get sick...
                                                         All these are contributing to the finacial problems looming...

                                                         report
                                                      2. 89

                                                         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Good Morning, Quill. 
                                                         
                                                         If you feel that I changed the parameters of the question, I apologize again.  It was not intentional to change anything, only clarify what is being misunderstood.
                                                         
                                                         Although you still don't seem to want to answer the real question, if I dig through your long post there is a single gem: "This means that choice "A" or choice "B" must be so compelling that it strips away a US senator's constitutional prerogative to exercise his own judgment."  This seems to me to be saying that a legislator is expected to exercise their own judgement rather than simply pass along the wishes of his constituency, which is what was being asked.  And, if I might be so bold as to extend the statement a little bit, that he should use judgement rather than "parrot" the wishes of uninformed people that have hired an employee to understand and be knowledgeable about a subject rather than putting forth the effort to do it themselves.
                                                         
                                                         That little bit about exercising his own judgement, specifically when his constituency wishes something else, was the topic of the question.  While you've still sidestepped and didn't give your opinion, you've gotten a lot closer.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 70

                                                            Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                            Hi Wilderness,
                                                            
                                                            If you are now saying...
                                                            
                                                            US senators are always free to exercise their own judgment when voting,
                                                            
                                                            US senators are not obligated to adhere to any duties not found in the Constitution or the law, and
                                                            
                                                            US senators do not have a primary duty to always put the federal government/country first before their state/constituents,
                                                            
                                                            then yes, I do see some progress.
                                                            
                                                            Be good, be careful, and pursue the truth!
                                                            

                                                            report
                                                            1. 89

                                                               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                               Somewhat.
                                                               
                                                               Senators should always exhibit judgement when voting.  Specifically, their judgement is to be used rather than the wishes of their constituents when the two do not align.  IMO
                                                               
                                                               But senators DO have a duty to put the nation before their state.  They are not there to garner bennies and goodies for their state with the cost (financial or otherwise) borne by other states; they are there to run the country.  Call it primary, call it secondary or tertiary, but their task is to govern the country and make decisions that the rest of us aren't qualified to make.  As an example, I hold out the location of military bases.  When the military and the nation needs it in Iowa, the Utah senator has no business insisting it be in Utah so his constituents will benefit financially while the defense of the country suffers or national costs for it rise.  And vice versa; my own state and county has debated getting F35's into the area.  Some want it, some don't, (it brings money but it's noisy) but neither wish should be a guiding factor to my senator.  Just the needs of the nation.
                                                               
                                                               But the question was directed at you; what your opinions are.  Not what the constitution says - that's a legal matter and what I'm asking is not addressed, at least not in the quotations you provided.  Perhaps it can be better stated with the question of where a legislators loyalties lie - to the nation or to the people that elected him.  Or even, I suppose, to the PAC's that provided money to win his election.

                                                               report
                                       2. 79

                                          Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          It is both Wilderness, what YOU think is best for the nation is not shared universally. I don't support politicians who choose to ignore me or the majority the constuency he or she may serve, just to play 'party games" which you always say that you are opposed to in principle. But, is there an exception to your general opposition when its come to the inane concepts of the right wing of American politics?

                                          report
                                          1. 89

                                             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             A little confused here.  The question(s) were which should have priority to a politician; (1)the state or the nation, and (2) the wants of the people vs the needs of the nation.  And my opinion is that the nation should come first.
                                             
                                             If that's confusing: Should federal $$ pay for a new library in Arizona, for Arizona natives, or should it be used to fix a bridge on a national highway or fund research into cancer cures.  Or, if the majority of the people desire "free" medical care and the politician feels that the proposal under consideration will cause bankruptcy and a depression in 3 years, should he vote for it anyway because a majority want it.
                                             
                                             Where party games comes in I'm not sure for vanishingly few of them are satisfying the needs of the nation, the people or the home state of the politician!  The question had nothing to do with what I think the country needs; it concerns the primary duty of a congressman in DC.

                                             report
               2. 89

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  "It's the underlying evidence from those lawsuits that contributed to Donald Trump's reputation as a racist."
                  
                  But failed to provide enough evidence for a conviction.  The part you're ignoring.  Although I DO freely admit that you didn't claim racism, but only the perception of racism, which is a completely different thing. 
                  
                  "First, the lawsuits brought against Donald Trump allege violations of the Fair Housing Act which requires that employers be responsible for the actions of their subordinates."
                  
                  But here again is the lack of any proof.  Just allegations that could not stand the light of a courtroom, for there were no convictions of Donald Trump.
                  
                  "I can only conclude that you don't seem to know enough about the actual evidence to judge its validity."
                  
                  That's true - I don't.  I'm not particularly interested in discrimination cases that never resulted in a "guilty" verdict and that were, in some cases, decades old. 
                  
                  "I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s
                      probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in
                          Blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something
                      they can control."
                  
                  And that statement is the only thing showing racism out of all the "evidence" you presented.  All the rest of it is but allegations that were never proven to be true...according to you.  Keep in mind here that I took exception to the "evidence" being presented; not to Trump being at least somewhat racist.  You presented allegations of wrong doing as evidence of a crime, and continue to do so here.  The statement "It rejects without justification the personal experiences published by a number of Trump associates.", for instance, proves that some people have said bad things about Trump.  It does not say that those things happened; employees and partners have for millenia said bad things about employers and partners.  Some of which have been true and some of which have not.

                  replyreport
         3. 82

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Quill, I think you are right, circumstantially, there is a lot of stuff that could paint  Pres. Trump as a racist. But, if one were of a contrary opinion, couldn't it be just as circumstantially stated that what you have presented could also be called inconclusive and speculative?
            
            The discrimination suits were settled. So beyond the lack of proof of quilt, there is also the possibility that the discriminatory acts were economically motivated, rather than racial superiority being the motivator. Meaning there was no racism involved?
            
            Couldn't the same be said for your points about the casino fine and the "money counter' statement, that they also have alternate explanations - he didn't/doesn't like blacks, but where is the "they are inferior" aspect?
            
            Yep, now I run head-on into the worst; "... laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control." I ain't quite the contortionist needed to get around this one, but... is there any credibility to the thought that it might be a generational thing? Like Jimmy the Greek's, Don Imus', and that famous sports newscaster, Howard Cosell's, statements that are so dumb they are almost too dumb to be intentionally be purposely racist?
            
            As to the David Duke thing... well... I hope you have noticed that I have avoided Trump praise or criticism threads. I think this one is a better fit to those parameters than the ones about racism.
            
            Unfortunately, for me, I must once again state that I am neither supporting nor arguing the point of whether or not Pres. Trump is a racist, I am only arguing that the declarations that he is are not as substantial as those making them think they are.
            
            ps. I would like to see more of your participation in these forums Quill. Your input has been missed. Perhaps if you modified your selection criteria? Hmm...
            
            GA

            replyreport
3. 73

   Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

   1. If not one Non white race predominantly voted for Trump. Do they
   Sense racism from Trump or do you believe Trump has not one rasist bone in this body
   2. If many courts fine him for racism and  he has accomplished world record lawsuite winnings. Is that a clue Trump is a racist.
   3. Many Trumps voting rallies were 95% white and kicked out some black Trump supporters. Could that mean Trump is a racist.
   4. If predominately KKK and white supremacist come out to every Trump speech in record numbers. Could that be somethings Trump says that keeps attracting them.
   
   Lets face it folks. If Donald acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, he is a sitting duck.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Do they Sense racism from Trump or do you believe Trump has not one rasist bone in this body"
      
      How about other options?  Do they falsely perceive rasism where there isn't any?  Have they listened to too many lies from liberal media?  Do they typically vote the liberal ticket?  I'm sure you can come up with a dozen more reasons not to vote for Trump, Republicans or conservatives. 
      
      "If many courts fine him for racism"
      
      Link to even a few courts that found Donald Trump (as opposed to a business he owns or is a stockholder in) guilty of racism?
      
      "Many Trumps voting rallies were 95% white and kicked out some black Trump supporters.  Could that mean Trump is a racist."
      
      Hard to understand how the actions of others means Trump is racist.  Could you explain that process a little better?
      
      "Lets face it folks. If Donald acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, he is a sitting duck."
      
      And if you draw unwarranted conclusions it means you draw unwarranted conclusions, all while promoting them as a duck.  Nothing, in other words.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Why are these beauties picking on poor Trump?
         
         Never seen an America rap sheet of racism and bigoted like Trump in high office. His father was arrested at a KKK riot. Quill had a rap sheet and it gose on and on of many cases. In an over white justice and political system,  how do you get any racism charge to stick. Having a serious mobster background and mobster lawyers can work for you too. Meaning anybody can become a President, if your mean enough.
         
         I Don't know if racism is as worst than rape. I do know racism is a far more widespread problem.
         
         Donald Trump has shown himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, anti-choice, a denier of climate change and most of all, he has shown himself to be above the law.  Trump said,  Bush was the worst president ever. Well Trump pretty well got the same kind electoral non- democratic votes. Who did not predominantly vote for Trump like gender, race and all other religions. That shows how much bigoted and racist the conservative  party really is.

         replyreport
4. 77

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   I really appreciate your detailed lesson on the Constitution and the role of Senators. However, I have to challenge you on Senator McCain. He campaigned on repealing ACA. Therefore, he lied to get elected. He played the people and voted otherwise. He has cancer and is quite old and most likely will not run again. He single handedly, upset the whole process where in 3 election cycles, American people voted for a Majority GOP house, a majority GOP Senate and the White House and yet could not get the bill repealed as they wished. What does that tell you about this man? He is a disgrace and should be kicked out of the GOP party in shame.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hello, Jack.
      
      When I first read your claim that Senator McCain upset the whole process of repealing the ACA "single handedly," I could not believe my eyes. I began to wonder if you have sources that feed these lies to you or you just make them up as you go along. Senator McCain was always in the company of other widely respected Republicans and he NEVER acted single handedly!
      
      On July 25, 2017, the following Republican senators voted against the repeal of the  ACA:
      Susan Collins, Me.   
      Lisa Murkowski, Alaska   
      Dean Heller, Nev.   
      Bob Corker, Tenn.   
      Tom Cotton, Ark.   
      Lindsey Graham, S.C.   
      Mike Lee, Utah   
      Jerry Moran, Kan.   
      Rand Paul, Ky.   
      {1}
      
      On July 26, 2017, the following Republican senators voted against the repeal of the ACA:
      Lamar Alexander, Tenn.
      Shelley Moore Capito, W.Va.
      Susan Collins, Maine
      Dean Heller, Nev.
      John McCain, Ariz.
      Lisa Murkowski, Alaska and
      Rob Portman, Ohio. {2}
      
      On July 28, 2017, the following Republican senators voted against the "skinny repeal" of the ACA:
      Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
      Susan Collins, Maine and
      John McCain, Ariz.. {3}
      
      And finally, on September 25, 2017, the following Republican senators announced publicly that they would either vote against the Graham-Cassidy bill or could not accept it as written:
      Susan Collins, Maine
      John McCain, Ariz.
      Rand Paul, Ky
      Ted Cruz, Texas.
      {4}
      
      So, Jack, I think you need to provide a few factual links that show us how the evil Senator McCain acted single-handedly.
      
      {1} https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … acare.html
      {2}
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 … epeal.html
      {3} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sen … 2c4a8bf981
      {4} http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/ … index.html

      replyreport
      1. 77

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         He was the critical vote that allowed the repeal and replace bill to die in the Senate.
         As I recalled, he came back to DC after his cancer diagnosis and voted for moving the debate forward...providing the 50 vote needed and VP Pence broke the tie. Seeming like the hero coming the last minute to save the day... A few days later, when the actual vote came up, he voted against the bill, so the whole thing was a sham. He knew all along he was going to vote it down... that is why I say he is a lliar. I dom't use that word lightly. He lied to his constituents when he was running for re-election to get elected and then voted against the very thing he promised.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Quilligrapherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Greetings, Jack. It is good to have a chance to chat with you once again.
            
            You seem to be ignoring that you posted a false statement in this forum. You claimed that Senator McCain "single handedly, upset the whole process" of repealing Obamacare. Following examples of verifiable evidence that John McCain never acted single-handedly, your next post ignores your failure to provide factual information to demonstrate how Senator McCain acted single-handedly, meaning all alone.
            
            In fact, the opening sentence of your last post is another false statement: "He was the critical vote that allowed the repeal and replace bill to die in the Senate." How ironic, after making two false statements, you then call Senator McCain a "liar," also without providing any supporting evidence. Perhaps you've never heard the adage "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" or perhaps you just choose to ignore it.
            
            In every one of the most recent repeal failures, Senator McCain's vote was only one vote among many. Any rationale that attempts to make him singularly responsible is delusional. Similar to the GOP's failure to repeal Obamacare, your posts have failed to provide any facts that support the false claims that he was responsible "single-handedly" or that his vote was more critical than all the other critical Republican votes opposed to repeal.
            
            Finally, it is interesting to note how the justification for calling Senator McCain a "liar" is a claim that you knew in advance what he was going to do. "He knew all along he was going to vote it down... that is why I say he is a lliar." You base your belief that he is a liar on knowledge you did not have. One form of irrational thinking, my friend, is believing something is true even when you can't prove it is true!
            
            I encourage everyone to test their opinions against facts that exist in the real world. Too often there is a chasm between what we know and what we think we know. Unless you can add facts to support your claims, we will just have to conclude they are falsehoods spawned by an overzealous political imagination.
            
            I sincerely hope that today and the coming weekend are especially pleasant.
            

            replyreport
            1. 77

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I stand by my assessment on Senator McCain. The liar charge is in reference to the fact that he campaigned on getting reelected to the Senate on repealing of ACA. You can look it up. There are videos out there. He then voted against the repeal every chance he gets and offered no solutions of his own...
               Where is his bill to repeal ACA?

               replyreport