Trump has solidified his support in the Senate, the Rino politicians like Flake and McCain are gone, and Republicans now hold a solid majority that cannot be compromised by a rogue vote.
The Democrats have taken control of the house, so all investigations, budgets, and lawmaking will be under their control. What will they do with that power?
Democrats can spend their time investigating, instigating, and delaying anything Trump tries to accomplish. Healthcare reform is now dead, the Wall is now dead, nothing of benefit for the American people will get done in the next two years as political grandstanding will commence enroute to the 2020 elections.
Florida will remain under Republican control, Ohio will remain under Republican control, two states that will decide the 2020 election more than any others.
How wise do you think the Democrats in the House will be... will they go for Impeachment or will they go for the win in 2020?
Ah,but the gross tide of liberal policy making will still be some years away.
To answer the question.....they'll go for victory in 2020.
It would be wise for the the Democrats to avoid using impeachment in a partisan fashion, but use their power to moderate the Trump agenda and his proposals.
With the congress no longer dominated by the GOP, that removes Trump's carte Blanche and that is good enough for me now. We are certainly working to make Trump a one term president in the way Mc Connell intimidated Obama during his first term.
It was exciting to see that arrogant Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin have his head handed to him last night....
not sure if I'd call a victory by 1% of the vote, a "head handing" but nevertheless it's still a win for your side. I'm hearing that they are going to have a recount due to "damaged ballots" - not sure what that refers to, but seems like a waste of money.
The difference between the Senate race and that of the Governor of Florida is less than 1/2 of a percent, a recall is mandated and I certainly insist upon it, RJ. I live here and I am watching intently for any improprieties.
Just my gut feeling...I think they have gone too far to turn back. Actually, I don't think they have the sense to turn back. One only has to look at their history. Yes, they will continue their hysterical rhetoric, maybe even shift into overdrive. Will they stop president Trump from accomplishing more of his agenda? No, they won't. Will they have a chance in 2020 of taking the WH, no they won't. So, will they go for impeachment, yes they will. However, Trump now has the Senate, and the fact is to impeach they need 2/3 of the Senate to impeach him. Will, they ever get 2/3 of the vote to impeach Trump, no they won't. Not sure why some of the pundits don't bring this up? ( Being sarcastic..)
It appears many are under the opinion Trump may be stymied by a Congress that blocks whatever he proposes. One must just think beyond Congress and their approval. Would it not be a great accomplishment to see North Korea denuclearize? Would it not be wonderful to have our trade wars behind us, coming up the winner. And yes, Trump promised to improve our immigration laws, perhaps he will. I would think another conservative judge on the Supreme Court would be a nice feather inTrump's hat. So, will the Dems owning the House and having the power of Congress gain them the presidency in 2020? I very much doubt it.
You should be thrilled by the election outcome because it means Trump will be re-elected in 2020. Here's what's going to happen. The Democrats will be painted as obstructionists, which they will be. Trump will malign them and everyone will believe it. Lacking any coherent message, the Dems will enter the 2020 election with nothing. They will be handily defeated.
That's my guess. They simply can't counter Trump's powerful ability to control the media. They will flail with their anti-Trumpism and go nowhere.
Democrats will focus on protecting health care, Medicare, and Social Security; getting consensus on an infrastructure bill; lowering the cost of prescription drugs; and last but not least, oversight of a corrupt administration. Impeachment will not be on the table unless it becomes a bipartisan endeavor.
A reason to celebrate: a record number of women in both houses, mostly Democrats.
Last comment: Gillum came very close becoming the first black Governor of Florida. That is real progress and we'll keep on working!
Beto O'Rourke, a man with a spirit dear to my heart within the Dark Star known as Texas almost removed the unlikable Ted Cruz. The fact that a Democrat came so close in crimson red Texas may be a harbinger for better things to come
Yes! And Abrams in Georgia is hanging on by a thtead. These are all positive signs for the future.
Also, if you look at total votes cast in the Senate races, Democrats won handily. That bodes well for 2020.
I would hope that depends on the candidate that they put forward and the platform they present.
I think you hit on the key there, he was a far more charismatic fellow than Cruz could ever hope to be.
The fact that a warchest of cash was given over to his campaign from outside the state didn't hurt either.
Texas will end up going liberal. The state is (sadly) moving towards an urban environment for most of it's people, and with that comes liberalism and a dependency on government. It may take a few years, but Texas will no longer be the place of ranches and farmers; it will be just another concrete jungle.
I hear you Ken, but lets not forget that the GOP uses the same techniques, so no one is innocent here. We will turn Texas blue, yet!!!
That I do not doubt. Texas is joining the states with giant concrete rat mazes for it's people, and with that comes the color of sadness and despair.
Ever wonder why rural areas don't go blue? Why is it only those steel and concrete jungles with their masses of humanity living like bacteria on a petri dish that turn blue?
"Money is the root of all evil" - is it because they are so much richer relative to rural dwellers? Is it that innate desire to control others that we all have, but rural people don't display? Is it because they're too lazy to take responsibility for themselves? Is it because they've lost all sense of morality and require a government committee to declare right from wrong?
Why is it only giant cities that typically go blue? An interesting question.
Interesting question, but what choice do people have? This is far from an agrarian economy. People have to go where the jobs are. Who remains in the vast wilderness these days? The younger people have to go to the cities to earn their way. So you basically have older retired people that have the luxury of living in the open spaces. Because they are older and set in a pattern, they are going to lean more conservative than most.
People who work in cities and urban environments are not lazy, but it is not "American Gothic". Everybody is busy, outside of the welfare stereotype, people work hard in these "urban" environment to support themselves and their families.
What morality? This is a complex world with complex problems and the America that you reminisce about simply no longer exists. In the face of the modern world, it cannot.
People in urban areas know that they have coexist to make it work. In Denver, I was not allowed to water my lawn on certain days, burn wood on other days, and have to obtain a "clean air" emissions tag for my car. We all simply could not do what we wanted or we would all exacerbate commonly shared problems. Who has to worry about that in Burlington, Colorado or Boise Idaho?
Rural people have prerogatives that Urban people don't have nor understand and appreciate. I have lived in both environments. This a cultural and political difference.
I agree with you. I have lived in large cities and very small communities. I prefer rural life. My other relatives wouldn't stay out to where I live because they don't want to be in any place but an urban environment. Rural communities and urban communities tend to look at things a bit different. The rural people I know believe in being independent. The urban people seem to have a sense of "we're all in this together...all for one and one for all." You are right about the cultural and political differences.
Mike, to be honest with you I preferred the life outside the city, crowds, noise, rules about everything, etc. If it were not for my wife's preferences, I would live in just such a place, now that I need not be concerned about being gainfully employed there. But, we are semi-rural, we have deer in the area, while the Walmart is 15 minutes away.
Didn't ask why they live there - the question was why only large urban settings go blue.
"Everybody is busy, outside of the welfare stereotype, people work hard in these "urban" environment to support themselves and their families. "
I understand that. But I was thinking more about 2 earner parents where kids have no real upbringing. There are far more requirements to living than simply providing food and a roof, and city dwellers typically delegate those to government.
"What morality? This is a complex world with complex problems and the America that you reminisce about simply no longer exists. In the face of the modern world, it cannot."
Again, I gave no judgements as to the morality of either people. Only that city dwellers do not typically make their own; they require a committee in the bowels of City Hall to do it for them.
"In Denver, I was not allowed to water my lawn on certain days, burn wood on other days, and have to obtain a "clean air" emissions tag for my car."
LOL Boise area has irrigation canals from the 1800's for water, so irrigation is seldom a problem. But I can't burn anytime in city limits and require an emissions inspection as well (even got a notice to get one for my Chevy Volt - an electric car )
"Rural people have prerogatives that Urban people don't have nor understand and appreciate. I have lived in both environments."
This, I think, is the root of the question...but what are those prerogatives (from both) that the other does not have. That is what I'm asking - what is different about the two that causes cities to go blue, but not towns, villages or farms? Is it because the city has too many people, too close together, to get along without a giant set of laws covering everything imaginable? Is that the #1 priority in the city - simply to get along with each other when crammed too close together, while the smaller town doesn't need that at all?
I really wonder about that one. Example: I haven't lived in a lot of different communities, but have noted that all the new ones in cities (Boise area) have HOA's. And one huge one in Va. did as well. As the city grew, people wanted more and more to control their neighbors and HOA's took over. Small towns, on the other hand, don't have them at all. People crowded too close together to get along without the law making rules.
People crowded too close together to get along without the law making rules....
Well in most cities there are ordinances. There a couple, one dealing with noise past 10pm for one, that had to become an ordinance because people living in close proximity were rude and inconsiderate with stereo equipment. You need a city ordinance requiring people to leash their dogs, otherwise people in close proximity could get hurt.
People that live in rural areas a mile apart do not need such rules. By the way, I hate HCAs. Rural Hawaii allowed people to build rock walls surrounding their homes and property, try that in your standard subdivision.
Libs support rules and regs because people could not coexist without ordinances defining behavior that would be irrelevant in most Idaho counties, just as one example. In big cities the rules are necessary.
The idea of collective fate is part and parcel of Democratic ideas.
Well, they are in small towns, too. But it is the big cities that have 5 times as many. Does that build into using government for everything possible? Is it that plethora of laws (most of which should not be necessary, but often are) that becomes the entitlement society, with no responsibility for self? Those ARE the two primary objectives of the blue community - is it the result of so many people that they cannot live in harmony without hard and fast rules building into government controlling everything?
nobody is talking about using government for everything possible. But what conservatives like to refer to as common sense, is not so common and depending on your point of view not universally sensible.
I am not for mandating serving sizes for soda pop. Why are seat belts required? is their a societal cost associated with fatalities on the road? Are the insurance rates for all of us affected by the negligence of a few? We are all interconnected and co-dependent in ways conservatives do not realize. So, my rights end where your nose begins.
Entitlement society? The left and its perspective is not solely defined by welfare and entitlement spending. We all pay in to keep the 'system' operational. That includes the inspection of the meat that you buy, the safety of which you take for granted all the way down to the functionality of the traffic signals on your way to work. That is just the way that it is. The alternative to Government is Anarchy and who is interested in that? Paying taxes to support schools for children that I don't have, or paying for weapons systems of a bloated military complex that I don't support. The GOP has its own sacred cows when it comes to being generous with our tax dollars, but I will always support the needs of people before defense contractors any day.
Yes, we live in an era where conservatives want to deregulate everything, allowing crooks a free hand to use superior knowledge to steal from people blindly, i.e. Wall Street gamblers stealing family nest eggs at the speed of light. No, it is being made apparent that people cannot live without hard and fast rules in the form of law or city ordinance. The country mouse is at a loss as to how the city mouse lives in such a straight jacket. In Metro LA, over 10 million, that is a lot people and that means that everybody just simply cannot do what they want. Because there are more people to step on more toes, impartial ordinances are created to define who has the right of way to do whatever. If you want the elbow room, go to those open spaces where you are not fenced in, as long, of course, that you have the means to support yourself while there.
Well, what is your take on the question, then? Why are big cities nearly universally blue and rural areas nearly universally red? What is the difference?
Simply saying "different prerogatives" isn't much of an answer, at least without identifying what those differences are.
I still think it is in largely the self sufficiency of rural people vs the dependency of urban dwellers. And I don't mean just dependency on entitlements. City people don't do things for themselves; they hire it all done.
A simplistic viewpoint, but it seems a starting point to me, and I really can't come up with anything else.
"City people don't do things for themselves; they hire it all done."
Huh? Really? LOL..not around these parts. I works on my own car, my own home, and I gots me my own edumucation, lol. Yes a generalization that MAY hold true in some areas.
If we are generalizing, why don't we get to the reality..there's more diversity in cities. Often times, non-whites don't seem to vote red.
Then we have this: "Those who live in rural communities tend to be older (with an average age of 51 years, versus 46 in urban communities) and less educated (20 percent with a bachelor’s degree versus 29 percent in urban communities)."
https://citiesspeak.org/2018/09/27/urba … e-numbers/
It's not that complicated. Younger folks live where the jobs are.
"Huh? Really? LOL..not around these parts. I works on my own car, my own home"
Then I would assume you do not live in a high rise apartment complex in the heart of the city, but in suburbia...closer to town living. An apartment dweller will not paint their home, will not repair their home, will not work on their car, etc. They don't supply a security system, they don't have a neighborhood watch. And in LA, NYC, Seattle, Houston, etc. that's exactly where they live. There are virtually no free standing home communities in the heart of those giant cities, and what there are, are owned by the ultra rich (no one else can afford it) who hire everything done. A generality, yes, but as far as I can see, a pretty good one.
"If we are generalizing, why don't we get to the reality..there's more diversity in cities."
True, and perhaps that's a problem. Notwithstanding the dig against caucasians, smaller towns of every color vote conservative. Black or white, they go Republican. So does the mixture somehow drive liberalism?
Age may play a part; certainly the older one gets the less they want to see what they built over a lifetime given to someone else. Could be, but I have to question whether the difference in age is sufficient to drive what we see. I would have expected a few cities to go red, for instance, just as statistical anomalies if nothing else. Same thing for education - the difference of 9 % seems insufficient to produce the huge variation in voting habits.
Sorry, that I cannot see the rural and the city dweller as two different species. It is all nurture not nature. As "Hard Sun" says, everybody has to do things for themselves. Rural people are self-sufficient only because they have to be, as services routinely available in urban areas are not so easily found.
Nothing special about that. Younger people 18-29 lean Democratic or Liberal, how many of them can afford to live in the countryside? Where do you get this idea that city people are dependent on entitlements? Last time I checked they are as gainfully employed as anyone else. Do not use the exception of those on the welfare rolls to paint all liberals.
The constituency that you speak of is a dying one. What else could it be? The only possible exception will be the telework concept where it may be possible for rural dwellers to be employed. But that is not something that I will bank on in any universal way, anytime soon.
The demographic of the rural dweller are generally elderly anglo people. They cling to ideals and concepts that are fast going away. If you found a 25 year old living in the country or a small town, do you think that they would vote like their parents or grandparents?
It is as you noted about Texas, the forces that are changing the influence of the rural areas are taking hold here. The megalopolis' of Dallas, Houston, El Paso, San Antonio, the sheer volume of people will change the current political allegiance of the state because city dwellers have to exist and act in coordinated ways to facilitate co-existence of all and that is more in tune with Democrat Party thinking than that of the Republicans. Anybody moving to the city must grapple with that reality, even the older ones from a rural background.
So that is the difference why urban areas are blue and rural areas red. City people have to take a different attitude, which might sound like dependence to you, but in fact is cooperation. That sort of thinking is more consistent with Democrats than Republicans. People have to think differently to survive in their relative environments. That is why there is "identity politics" that you mention in regards to ethnic voting patterns. We are all creatures of our respective environments and cannot be expected to see things in the same way.
This is an excellent analysis. One can find books on this subject that go in depth on the points you mentioned and more. I would say the biggest influence on political leanings of urban folks versus rural is daily exposure to vastly different cultures and ideas. This exposure happens in every facet of a city dweller's life: at work or school, while choosing from a variety of cuisines (I chose Moroccan on my last visit to Portland), when riding the city trolley, at the comedy club or theater, while visiting the doctor, or stopping to grab a coffee or coke at the local convenience store, diversity is everywhere.
Exposure to and familiarity with a variety of cultures and ideas leads to the realization that we are more similar than different. It leads to empathy and compassion for those in different, more challenging circumstances than our own.
That empathy results in different priorities for humanity and different views on how people should be treated.
I've lived in both urban and rural environmen ts. I was surrounded by good people in both environments. Rural folks are more suspicious of someone who is different from them because they live in a very homogeneous environment and are hyper aware of differences. Urban folks are more likely to either not notice or just shrug and move on. This basic difference in outlook has implications for a host of political views, from immigration laws to how to deal with poverty to where tax dollars should be spent.
To be clear, while I personally believe that daily exposure to different cultures and ideas is a good thing, I am in no way implying that urban folks are somehow better or more right than rural folks. We need a balance of both outlooks. Healthy suspicion of others can be helpful for protecting ourselves and our families from harm.
You may have something here - certainly big city people have far more contact with other cultures, races, etc. I'm not sure that the atmosphere of a giant "ant hill" of people, where one does not know their close neighbors, will translate into compassion, though. On that, it seems to me that the wide but close circle of friends/neighbors of the rural town would be higher. On the flip side, when the Jewish church is shot up (that the small town doesn't even have) the whole city mourns.
You may have a part of it here.
Thanks, Panther, your points bring out another dimension of the differences between city and urban dwellers.
I don't want to imply that one is better than the other, but I have more affinity politically with one over the other.
Exposure to diverse people concepts and ideas with generally higher levels of education encourage tolerance and acceptance. Being inclusive rather than exclusive is a Democratic Party ideal.
What you are seeing in Oregon and what occurs in the rest of the nation is an ongoing process, where we all must grow or atrophy. The fears of conservatives regarding what has to be inevitable are understandable.
Yes, one definition of conservative is one who prefers the status quo. Change is feared and resisted. I serve on the Planning Commission in my little town (pop. about 5300, voted close to 70% for Trump). We were considering a conditional use permit for a 27-unit development. People turned out against it, fearing it would increase traffic (it would, but so.little that all streets would maintain an "A" level of service), and bring in more people (yes, developments do that and we have an affordable housing shortage in our area). The developer is improving adjacent streets to include sidewalks and proper drainage. That is a good thing that would not occur any time soon if left to the city due to.lack of funds. All in all, it is a win for our community but anything new is feared and to be resisted by most people.
If you don't grow, you stagnate. This is true for people, for businesses, for towns, and for organized societies.
This development will go in, they will get new neighbors who are very much like their current neighbors, the streets will be improved, and they will forget how they thought it would be terrible for our town.
This is how growth happens. Some will always kick and scream their way through it. We must not let them completely derail it or we will stagnate and die. We have already fallen far behind most civilized countries in transportation and infrastructure, health care for our people, and education.
Good discussion. If you don't mind me asking, Prettypanther, what do you think about chickens in cities? Have you run into this in the Planning Commission? I think the city council handles such ordinances here for the most part, at least I know they do for chickens. Appreciate your thoughts on this.
Our town allows chickens within the city limits. I'd have to check to be sure, but I believe up to four are allowed. I am in favor of it. I would even be in favor of allowing small-breed diary goats (2 per household), but I've been accused of being a hippie at heart.
Ha ha, my wife wants a pygmy goat so bad. She was raised by a die-hard hippy, but no dice in town. We are in one of the only cities or towns around Indiana with no chickens allowed. I think most of them allow like four to six, which seems reasonable. We couldn't get enough city council members of either party behind legal chickens here...weird. We have five of them anyway...rebels, lol. Thanks.
I would advise her to get two. Goats do not like to be alone and a single goat will drive you insane crying for attention. If you've watched goat videos, you know what I mean, lol.
LOL For many years there was a dairy farm, maybe 50 head of cattle, a couple of blocks from me, well within city limits. Horses are very common.
A result of cities expanding their city limits in the search for more tax dollars, annexing farms for the property tax and the right to apply zoning restrictions.
Lived in a poor county in Virginia when a major amusement park (Kings Dominion, Doswell, Va.) came calling. The county didn't want the traffic and problems, so this major tourist attraction moved a mile down the road to an adjacent county. Now the first choice has the traffic and other problems, but not the tax income.
Many people don't like change very much, but it is a fact of life. Key is to manage it and make it work, not try and deny it.
Now if they could only do something about the traffic a new freeway interchanged produced on the street along my subdivision. Between that interchange just a mile away and the 20+ new businesses (and a Costco coming soon), I often can't get out of the subdivision without winding around to the back side.
I don't know how your state works, but here in Oregon if traffic increases above the level a particular type of street is designed to carry, something will be done. Residential streets are not designed to carry traffic at the same level as an arterial street, for example. You might check to see if your street has been monitored recently for traffic levels.
Oh, they've made it 4 lane from the freeway to about a mile the other side of me. They actually did that before the traffic became really objectionable and it helped for a while, so they correctly predicted what would happen and took what steps they could.
Problem is that that street went from a quiet, low traffic city street (west side was all farmland just 10 years ago) to a major city artery with the advent of the interchange. The side streets, the residential areas, the businesses - these kinds of things make it impossible for it to actually be a major artery. It just carries the traffic, without the necessary controls on access to it.
This bedroom town of about 100,000 has three freeway interchanges off the 6 lane freeway...interchanges that also feed through to two other towns plus the adjoining city of a quarter million. One of those interchanges feeds that most traveled city intersection in the state of Idaho.
According to Forbes, the Boise metropolitan area, which includes my suburban town of Meridian, is the #1 fastest growing city in the country. When I bought my home there wasn't another building within a half mile in any direction and then just a lone farm house; now it's wall to wall homes and businesses for miles every direction. I have 4 (four!) WalMart supercenters within a 4 mile radius; one each north, south, east and west.
And the traffic on Ten Mile Road is one result. My county actually has an amazing highway dept. and does a terrific job. They just cannot keep up with that kind of growth rate.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthash … a2ac177feb
"Nothing special about that. Younger people 18-29 lean Democratic or Liberal, how many of them can afford to live in the countryside?"
Quite a few, actually. Of course, what is "rural" and what is "urban"? In the question, "urban" refers to the megalopolis cities; Houston, NYC, LA, Seattle, Atlanta, etc. Smaller cities at well under a million people vote red and are thus "rural". My city of Boise, Id. has the worlds second largest producer of memory chips here. It has a HP manufacturing plant. It makes diesel locomotives. It has several colleges and universities. It is noted for solar power research. It is headquarters for several international companies. And of course it farms. Lots of opportunity for the young.
In that scenario, your age isn't going to be nearly so apparent, for young people do just fine in those smaller cities (as opposed to small towns or villages)...and the city still votes red.
"The demographic of the rural dweller are generally elderly anglo people."
Tell that to the populations of Louisiana, Alabama, the Carolina's, Georgia, etc. You're trying to say only "anglo's" vote red, but that is plainly false - a small community will nearly always go red regardless of it's color.
It's interesting that you label it as "cooperation"...in the areas where it requires a law and a very high police presence to induce that "cooperation". Rural areas, on the other hand, seem to get along at least as well (cooperate with each other), but without that myriad of laws and cops. Not sure, then, that "cooperation" is the proper terminology; perhaps "control" fits better? City dwellers require "control" by the law while rural people don't?
Or, rather than "cooperation" does it come down to "protection"? Certainly crime rates in huge cities are much higher than rural ones (both in crime per capita and total crimes committed); do city dwellers enact all those laws to protect themselves and rural people don't find the need? Or do rural folk take it on themselves for that protection rather than give the task to cops and laws?
Tell that to the populations of Louisiana, Alabama, the Carolina's, Georgia, etc. You're trying to say only "anglo's" vote red, but that is plainly false - a small community will nearly always go red regardless of it's color.
That is not true, Wilderness. There are many blacks that live in rural areas in the south, no one is hugging the GOP style of conservatism, otherwise there would be a lot more blacks voting for Republicans in the region than there currently are.
Got interrupted, will return.
I agree Wilderness, that is an interesting question. It would probably be a good thread topic.
So theorize! Give with a talking point for discussion - most of what has been given has concerned who lives in cities, not why they vote blue. Give us a thought on the "whys" of rural vs urban voting habits to discuss.
Okay bud, here's a thought - It's all about individual responsibility.
Here's my explanation: Why Do Metropolitan Areas Usually Vote Blue And Rural Areas Vote Red?
*didn't want to be a party to you and Cred's hijacking of the thread. ;-)
I voted against him. I don't know a single Hispanic in Texas who did vote for him. Mexican Americans don't appreciate being played for fools by someone who may as well be a white Obama.
I am not as optimistic about the Democrat House as you are PrettyPanther. I see a Democrat version of the Republican Obstructionism in the Obama years as a more likely outcome.
But, like you, I am glad to see the record number of women legislator wins - regardless of their party affiliation.
We can hope for better, but you might be right.
Edit: First election ever where white men were not the majority of Democratic candidates for the House.
I fully agree. I highly doubt that the election of Trump has taught anyone anything - partisanship has grown, not dropped. Congress just became a cement block, unable to do anything at all.
I see immigration reform as dead, any form of health care change as dead and very little infrastructure work being done. Pelosi touts that Democrats will be bi-partisan and work to accomplish things, but the only thing she will work on is to disable anything that the white house supports, whether needed or not.
I see the situation as improved actually.
In the Senate, they now have a legitimate Majority, which they did not have the last two years, as we saw when McCain torpedoed efforts at healthcare reform and Flake almost torpedoed the Cavanaugh vote.
When you have Republicans like those two, that are nothing more than 'establishment' politicians who have no loyalty to the party or their constituents who put them there, you don't have a majority.
It was the same with the House, those Republicans that resigned or lost last night spent more time obstructing than getting things done.
So let the Dems have it, lets see where they take things... I can tell you what all the moderates and independents DON'T want to see the Democrats wasting their time on during the next two years... Impeachments and Investigations.
I hope the Democrats use their win to do better, and not to be obstructionists. At the least maybe they can compromise on infrastructure, that's pretty neutral. And the people spoke loudly about health care being their main concern. Obstructionism wastes everyone's time, we saw 8 yrs. of it when the R's never expected Obama to win the 2nd term.
Bravo for all the women, both parties. It's about time! It's been a white man's country for, well, always. And these women were so qualified. At least our governing people are finally beginning to look like the ones who they represent. Too many older men who held offices for many terms got complacent.
Lets see if the leadership in the House improves under the guidance of Pelosi, Waters, and their sisterhood.
Or will it just be more of a circus, a fiasco, where the only thing they prove is that they can be as equally corrupt and callous to the needs of our citizens as any man.
I think it will be a predictable two years Jean. There will be no "neutral" issues, even infrastructure. I can be hopeful I am wrong, but not optimistically so.
I don't trust Republicans and I do not want them to freely legislate solely without some sort of restraint.
PP, Do you have any idea of the agenda Gillim was proposing? He would have destroyed Florida like Hugo Chavez destroyed Venezuela. You really should rethink identity politics.
Medicare expansion via ACA. That hasn't destroyed my state or any other state that I'm aware of.
He is pro-science, supporting basing decisions about how to deal with climate change on available science instead of politics. Would that destroy Florida?
He wanted to shift more money to education. I guess that would really destroy Florida, eh?
As for identity politics I don't know what you're talking about. Noting and being happy for greater diversity in government should be pretty universal I would think. Are you opposed to diversity in government?
And please don't accuse me of supporting a candidate because they are black, female, purple, or teptile. I support candidates based on their positions. It so happens that I closely align with Democratic policies and it so happens that Democrats fielded a diverse group of candidates in the midterms. I am pleased. Why would anyone not be pleased about that?
Credence , Prettypanther , Could have saved a lot of space and just said "YEEaaa! For free Stuff !"
Yeah, I know, that caravan is a greater threat than losing your health care, Medicare, or SS or not being able to afford your meds.
That irrational fear mongering only works on people like you, Ed. The rest of us realize what issues truly affect our daily lives and long-term well being.
Including the youngest woman to Congress, first muslim women to congress, first native american women to congress. Plus a number of "first woman to" from different states.
Also, the first openly gay man governor.
A celebration indeed.
Will be a great day when we no longer break things down into black, white, man, woman, muslim, jew, etc. I probably won't live long enough to see that day, but it sure would be nice.
I guess politics in America wouldn't be able to exist without such efforts to divide.
My thoughts exactly. When issues and philosophy are more important than gender it will be a great day.
Sadly, I highly doubt that either of us will see that day.
Lol, you two will not recognize that systemic power entrenched in one demographic must be consciously pushed against. An inert object stays inert....
I went through Affirmative Action, with it's government sponsored and required racism.
You may like voting for a specific sex, race or religion rather than a philosophy or issue; I find it a travesty.
I like seeing women and minorities win office as it just seems correct. I mean ,not that long ago these groups could not even vote. At the same time, I'm not big on affirmative action either. I vote for who I think is the best man or woman for the job, whether white, brown, etc. It's just starting to look like many of these old white guys lost their mojo when other groups started moving in. It SHOULD make for better candidates all the way around.
I like seeing both the numbers running, and the numbers winning. It indicates a change in our society of how we view women, IMO. My only concern is the insinuation that a woman won...because she is a woman, for that indicates nothing but additional division.
Now if we could only extend the same attitudes to religion...
Right...like an atheist President...that's not happening anytime soon no matter how qualified he or she may be.
There was no such insinuation, except in your imagination.
Well, that was a leap. I don't vote for a specific sex, race or religion and your making that leap when I said no such thing shows you're not interested in a real discussion but an ideological showdown.
It is a travesty, this is what politics has become... and I think it is a deliberate thing fostered by the media, the politicians, and even many of our 'higher learning' institutions.
I don't think our current politicians try to address the issues with real solutions or platforms near as much as they try to slander the other side as racist, sexist, etc. and the media is no different.
I would love to listen to JFK give a speech rather than listen to Trump argue with the media... the reporters ask him the most infantile or loaded questions and he responds in kind, as if they were all kids on a playground arguing over something stupid.
But our politics are where they are, because the politicians no longer served the people.. .they serve corporations, they serve special interests, they serve international interests over the American people.
And that's how we get Trump, because instead of stomaching someone we knew was corrupt and was willing to sell out the American people, enough Americans chose the alternative, no matter how abrasive and obtuse he can be.
Some Americans chose an abrasive guy who sells out the American people to make a buck on a daily basis through violations of the emoluments clause, dividing our country on purpose, etc etc. Most Americans still don't support Trump..just look at the raw numbers of Tuesday's elections.
You do realize that every president with a single share of stock in a single internationally operating company has also violated that clause?
I would contend the people don't care about that either way, what they care about is their lives being improved, their kids having opportunity, and being able to walk throughout the neighborhood in safety.
Russian Collusion, Tax Returns, this crud only matters to the D.C. elites and the idiotic media that lives and breaths such stupidity.
If in two years, the average wage for 'blue collar' workers in America is $14.00 an hour and unemployment is at 3.9% and yet prior to 2016 the average wage for them was $9.00 an hour and unemployment was twice that with no let up in sight... that should be what matters most, not whether the idiots that want to see his taxes have gotten them or not.
Why is it always white men bent out of shape about identity politics and women and minorities winning office and people celebrating that?
Couldn't really say. Maybe because women and minorities see society as "groups" more than white men do? Because they identify with one (or more) groups more than white men do - white men are more blind to that sort of thing than women and minorities are, and don't care what group a person identifies with?
Oh, right. Except when they are hiring. All data suggests that is when it makes a huge difference to white men.
Seriously, I would laugh at your comment if it weren’t so sad.
Well, frankly, it was intended as a sarcastic retort to an obnoxious post.
But, as a white male myself, it does sadden me to see cheering when a specific sub-group of Americans wins a seat. When people are happy that a woman, for instance, is elected - without regard to her political or philosophical stance, without caring what she stands for or will fight for, only that she is female - it says something sad about our society. Sex, race, assumed gender, sexual orientation, age - none of these things should matter at all, and it is sad that they do matter to so many people.
And it makes no difference whether those people are white male, black female, purple transgender or green and gay - it is still sad.
Sure, easy to say when you’re a white male. If you’re one of these other groups, you have probably experienced years of discrimination, so not so easy to just forget and try to hope everyone is just going to be fair suddenly.
Let me just use one easy example - equal pay for equal work. Still doesn’t exist. Women make what, 73 cents for each dollar a man makes? Blacks and black women make even less.
I am happy for you that you are so noble in your outlook. I only wish others were the same.
"Women make what, 73 cents for each dollar a man makes?"
Check your figures again: women make around 95 cents on the dollar that men do for the same work. Still not perfect, but a far, far cry from that 73 cents. Of course if you declare that jobs are "similar" because it promotes that false-to-fact myth, the story is quite different; you could as easily show that women make 50 cents per dollar. Or about any figure you might choose. Or if you add up all the jobs in the country for both men and women, neglecting to mention that women tend to congregate in lower paying jobs...as a choice not a requirement...you can come up with that ridiculous figure.
So let me get this straight, women are really at fault for lower pay because they choose lower paying jobs?
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
http://content.time.com/time/business/a … 74,00.html
Reality... in the past men made more than women.
Now and in the future, women make more than men and this trend will continue... sorry guys, unless you are in a field women don't want to work, you are out of luck.
Did you watch the video? When a large majority of college students working towards a high paying job are male, who would you blame for women taking lower paid work? And vice versa for students enrolled in courses aimed at low paying jobs?
Ah, but it is an effort to include, not divide.
No you won't live long enough and I won't either.
We are already divided, it is not broken down by race but by policies of one party verses the other. The conservative, white dominated party, Republicans want to maintain the status quo, that keep whites, generally in the drivers seat. I, as the underdog, am duty bound to break up that power and influence. Of course, you are going to resist, it is natural.
For example, black families earn ON AVERAGE $57.30 for every $100.00 in income from white families according to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey as part of a 2017 NYT article. For every $100.00 in white family wealth, black families hold $5.04.
When that disparity ceases to be as stark, perhaps we would get on board with the Status Quo as well. In the meantime, we agitate for continued changes, as we must. When it comes to the GOP and their policies, not even income is a much a determinant for how 'blacks" will vote. Oprah will vote the same as the poorest inner city resident.
Since the founding of this republic OUR existence centers around agitation for change, and when I look at the political allegiance of other ethnic groups, I see much of that there as well. The vast majority of our folks simply cannot vote for your candidates, no more than chickens will vote for Colonel Sanders, regardless of candidates in blackface or whatever spin the GOP chooses to use.
But not to worry, the demographic game changer may not be so significant because we know that in America money and power can compensate for greater numbers. This is why without any major upheavals the Anglo based system will be safe through this century at a minimum.
Identity politics is alive and well in the Democrat party. Just focus on gender, race, age etc. Completely forget who will do the best job. That doesn't appear to be important.
What BS , come on people . Look at the conciliatory conversations here yesterday and last night I was almost sickened by the syrupy sweetness of the left ," .......compromises , cross the aisle , bi-partisan ,........ please ! The left in America fully admitted their intentions for America in the last four years and in doing so have revealed their hatred of all things American , AND you wonder why the movement of true Americans elected Trump ?
The outsider Trump has suffered no less than a tyrannical political obstruction from the left , actual violence against his following , a maniacal news media so twisted in integrity as to render free speech all but useless , death threats , powdered substances in their mail ,
all but ignored by the media ,and now the leftists here swing towards a conciliatory stance as they realize their blue Tsunami was but a purple puddle of ideological manure ?
Trump will continue his policies towards the glow in the sky of that which America should be and away from what Venezuela was .
In spite of the liberal christmas list of entitlements , The present liberal scare tactics of ending SS , welfare , abortions and medicare /caid is so lame as to make the stanchest conservatives laugh .
He who thinks democrats will NOW focus on a platform is funny , full on Obstruction is the game of the day , make no mistake . BUT watch as Trump laughs at P.C.pick up lines and continues his quest towards the strengths of nationalism instead of OWO , towards a thriving economy and not Obamastagnation , towards "jobs and not mobs".
I think President Donald Trump and the Republicans had a good night.
1. There was no blue wave. That was talked about for months and months and didn't happen.
2. Republicans lost the house. Not surprising. 43 Republican congressmen retired. It is a common thing to happen in the mid term elections. During Obama's first mid term the Democrats lost over 60 seats in the Congress and lost the Senate.
3. Republicans increased their control in the Senate This is huge. There is now nothing the Democrats can do to stop appointment of judges on the federal level. This will have an impact for many years.
4. Now the Democratic controlled Congress can be blamed for obstructing. Great.
5. Almost all of the places where President Donald Trump campaigned the candidates won. This is huge for the national election in 2020.
6. Impeachment? Ho hum. Even if the Congress the votes to impeach, President Donald Trump will be put on trial in the Senate. It won't go anywhere and will make the Democrats look pretty pathetic.
So, all in all, a good night for Republicans.
In REALITY, we did experience a Blue Wave where congress was flipped from Red to BLUE by 28 seats which means we now thank God have a CHECK on the oval office insanity but don't worry right wingers, Donald can still continue to do serious damage to the USA but now at least the DEMS can mitigate it:
In REALITY, we did experience a Red Wall where the senate in which the Senate was preserved, which means we thank God will have a CHECK on the leftist agenda of the House. It's unlikely, left wingers, that the leftist agenda can do serious damage to the USA while the Senate is still Red.
In reality, 43 Republican congressman retired. Since historic statistics have shown that incumbents win over 96 percent of the time, if these RINOs and never-trumpers would have stayed and run for office, add 43 seats to the Republicans. They would have easily maintained control of the house. So, it was a good night.
Good point. Probably would have maintained the majority.
But it wasn't worth much when they weren't really Conservatives or willing to do what the people voted them there to do.
That is true. But it is a bit disconcerting to see who will be heading up the different committees. Maxine Waters? Could be trouble.
I suspect that it will be.
When you put the criminally insane in charge, its not likely that good will come out of it.
But I suspect this was planned for, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Even more interestingly, we will see how America reacts to it in 2020.
The Democrats have a golden opportunity to turn things their way. This means they will screw it up in a major way. I imagine the approval rating of the Congress will plummet to levels even lower than under Obama. This may prove to be a huge benefit for President Donald Trump when he runs for reelection in 2020.
If the Democrats show restraint, accomplish something they can hang their hat on (Infrastructure, Healthcare) and leave Trump to his tweets not responding in kind, they likely would have the 'blue wave' they seek if they produce a solid Presidential hopeful in 2020.
I find it hard to believe that the likes of Pelosi and Waters will play it this wisely, bide their time, and forget all about investigating and impeaching.
I believe they will try to one-up Trump, create a very hostile and public debate with him. Try to 'dress him down' in the political and public arena, while at the same time failing to get anything positive done.
Should this prove out, that the Democrats can't control themselves and prove over the next two years to care only about tearing down Trump, I doubt the majority of American people will respond favorably to it in 2020.
In 2017 and 2018 the emphasis was on the Republicans to get things done for the people, they deliberately failed at it. McCain went against his promises, killing the reform. And the Republicans in the House (Ryan and the rest) chose to resign, rather than accomplish more for the people.
They showed what they really were, corporate bought hacks or worse. And now those obstructionists are out of office.
Hopefully these long tenured Democrats (Pelosi, Waters, etc.) show their true colors, show who they really work for, and by exposing themselves they too, get tossed out of Congress or are forced to resign. Then maybe we will finally have enough people in there willing to work for the best interests of the people rather than working for their own profit.
His increase in taxes would drive many companies and people away from the state. That would decrease the tax revenue, but the tax obligations would remain. Florida would become California II. Lots of resources, but extremely unattractive to companies. Florida has no state income tax, he suggested they have a state income tax. If you don't learn from Venezuela, you will become Venezuela or California.
Read how California is being taxed into oblivion.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb … 3f1a136bdb
I.stopped reading when the author referred to California as "impoverished." California currently has a budget surplus and is on track to have billions in savings for use in future recessions.
Even if Gillum were to win on recount here in Florida, the Republican legislature would keep him in check, so he wouldn't get the 40% tax increase he so dearly wants to impose. That balance could change over the next 4 years however.
How about from the Orange County Register? In California, the rich are very rich and the poor are very poor.
"These struggles are systemic, and California’s ruling political class, relishing the privileges of one-party rule, don’t have a workable program for solving them. Ambitious and comfortable, they’re convinced they’ve created a sort of paradise outside the reach of President Trump and the sorts of people who put him in office. But the dreams are running on unsustainable and unreliable gains among an elite that’s already looking well beyond Sacramento — toward Washington, D.C. — for its next trillion dollars. When the inevitable downturn comes, whether from outside forces or irresponsible bloat in the state, California’s big economy will face a hard fall."
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/06/05/h … es-a-fall/
I am certainly no expert on California's economy, but I am not surprised there would be a huge divide between the rich and the poor, since that divide exists nationwide despite that booming economy Trump takes credit for. It might even be more pronounced in California, I don't know. But you can't deny that Jerry Brown balanced the budget and left the California economy in significantly better shape than it was eight years ago when Schwarrzenegger left.
I have a friend who lives in Orange County California. He works in the finance field. My friend believes there is a huge recession coming to California and there is not a financial structure in place that can absorb it. Remember that Venezuela was at one time a very wealthy country. They have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Socialism, taking money from wealthy people and companies ruined it. They quickly learned that wealthy companies and people go to where they can make money. I'm glad the same won't happen to Florida.
Here's an older but good story that showcases why so many people live in the cities these days. I can afford an urban farm but these family "owned" corporate farms make it hard to make a living solely on farming these days.
We still hunt, fish, etc., at our parents' homes as the old folks live in the country cause they don't have to work anymore. Hell, it's easier to keep a strain clean in town also. Then you have the "no drift zones" which are laughable. I'd rather drink city water than from the country wells. That's saying something...a little less atrazine in city water generally. I don't drink either at this point though.
People of all mentalities living in the cities and in the countryside when it comes down to it.
City zoning laws, etc. definitely get on my nerves, but there's trade offs for sure. The county governments come snooping around properties in the country around here too. No matter whether their "small government" Republicans or Democrats.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/113 … t-football
"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Gotta love checks n balances
Maybe you should ask the judge that, or look deeper into his ruling. I do love check n balances..our forefathers put them there for a reason. I though I put this on the "invasion" thread.
I think this is headed to a Supreme Court ruling.
That could happen as early as this spring.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/jus … ng-n921686
It does seem likely. No matter the outcome, I'm glad to see the system still being used. The temporary move shows Trump he still has to answer to some people whether he likes it or not.
It will be interesting to see what rationalizations are created to prove that a president cannot cancel future requirements of a past president's Executive Order. Could put a whole different outlook on EO's.
But no, it does not show Trump has to answer to "some people": it shows that some people will use the courts as nothing but a political tool to get their way.
I know you're not a federal judge and I'm sure you thought the same way when Obama actions were reversed. We should just hand it all over to Trump. He has all the answers, lol. Screw the Constitution
You seem to be ignoring that Trump's whole purpose with messing with DACA is to get Congress to do it's job and produce a decent policy/laws for immigration. Yes?
Given that, and that the whole DACA thing was illegal from the start (no President has the right to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens) it is all quite reasonable. Still a screaming point for liberals that don't want to do their job, but reasonable.
I seem to be stating I'm glad we have checks and balances...nothing more and nothing less. Here we go again.
And I seem to be stating that it will be interesting to hear the rationalization. Not that "We should just hand it all over to Trump. He has all the answers, lol. Screw the Constitution"
Yep - here we go again.
It is detrimental if it is merely for political grandstanding and delaying, Judge's aren't supposed to be political agents of change, they are supposed to be enforcers of the laws... they aren't put there to change law but to ensure that the law is upheld.
I could not agree more. Unfortunately, with the powers of judicial expansion, judges legislate from the bench. I am not sure what steps need to be taken to curb that behavior. This is a new power for judges to exercise if they do not like the laws enacted by Congress or the states. What can be done? Whoever is put in those seats will run the country with the gavel. How is that even a thing?
Good point, what is to be done.
Congress could pass a law attempting to limit their ability to 'legislate from the bench', put punishments and even permanent barring from the bench, for those deemed to have pushed their politics ahead of duty, jurisprudence, adhering to the limits of their authority.
California's 9th Ct is a good example of a body that 'legislates from the bench' which is constantly overturned. Any judge or group of judges that is overturned more than 75% of the time (which the 9th is) should be barred from holding those positions, for life, if only to cut down on the needless costs and burdens they put on our judicial system.
As I understand it, the ninth circuit is overturned something like 75% of the time, on cases reviewed by SCOTUS. As SCOTUS only looks a small fraction of the total number of cases, and only at cases that they think bear review, that 75% is very misleading.
Not that I don't think the ninth circuit is not legislating from the bench - it most definitely is - but fair is fair, and giving the impression that 75% of their decisions are overturned is not reasonable.
Excellent response, wilderness. Accurate and fair.
I do understand the point you are making, however:
" The San Francisco-based court has frequently been the most reversed among the circuit courts, with one term in the mid-1990s seeing 27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the high court."
That is a pretty clear cut sentence. One year they made 28 decisions, and 27 of those decisions were overturned.
I admit I don't know if that quote is miswritten, neglecting to mention 28 APPEALED decisions, but I do know with a turnover rate like that, almost ALL decisions they make must likely be appealed, which leads me to believe that 75% is fairly accurate... the 9th does not uphold the Law, it tries to Legislate from the bench.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti … sed_appeal
Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association.
“No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling,” South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said in a statement. “The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible.”
Gowdy went on to say that it “seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the commander in chief. There is a reason we elect the commander in chief and do not elect federal judges."
"Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association."
That was my point; that the SCOTUS does not review any but cases they find questionable. And if they think there is cause then, upon review, they do indeed find cause to overrule in 8 out of 10 cases they review. But that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that 8 out of 10 cases heard by the ninth court are overruled.
Don't misunderstand; it is my considered opinion that, of all the courts in the nation, the ninth circuit is most guilty of legislating from the bench and of making decisions based on party politics and liberal morality rather than law. There can be very little doubt of that and I do not doubt at all that if SCOTUS reviews a ninth circuit case then it will be reversed 75% of the time. If it is reviewed or appealed.
It's just that they don't do it in 8 of 10 cases they hear. Your link suggests, without actually saying it, that SCOTUS reviews every decision by every circuit court, but that is patently false.
You forced me to go look it up. And what I found forces me to agree with you.
They see roughly 6,000 cases a year or more, and less than 0.2 percent are overturned by the Supreme Court.
Depending on the year, they have been overturned 86%, 88.9%, the lowest I can find is 80%, and the numbers range from 9 to 24 cases.
I've never heard someone with right-leaning views complain that a right-leaning legal decision is "legislating from the bench". Is that coincidence?
Or is it more likely that right-leaning commentators are using the phrase "legislating from the bench" as a way to attack those in the judiciary who disagree with their political views? Is the criticism of the 9th circuit really objective?
The 6th Circuit had an 87% average reversal rate between 2010-15(1). So by the standard you have used, the 6th circuit is objectively worse when it comes to "legislating from the bench" than the 9th.
If this criticism were based on objective criteria, I'd expect to see right-wing commentators criticizing the 6th circuit just as much, if not more, than the 9th. I've seen no such thing. Why might that be the case?
The composition of the circuits may shed some light on it:
70% of judges on the 6th circuit were appointed by Republican presidents(2).
Only 49% of judges on the 9th circuit were appointed by Republican presidents(3).
So to some commentators, a 79% average reversal rate from a circuit with a slight majority of left or centre-leaning judges equates to "legislating from the bench". But an 87% average reversal rate from a circuit with a probable majority of right-leaning judges is fine(4).
That doesn't strike me as an objective criticism. It strikes me as a subjective, partisan one. That's why this criticism doesn't ring true for me. It's strikes me as an attempt by a certain section of right-wing commentators (including Trump) to disguise their outrageous partisan attacks on the judiciary as legitimate criticism.
(1)(4)https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -close-80/
(2) https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_C … th_Circuit
(3) https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_C … th_Circuit
"That doesn't strike me as an objective criticism. It strikes me as a subjective, partisan one. That's why this criticism doesn't ring true for me. It's strikes me as an attempt by a certain section of right-wing commentators (including Trump) to disguise their outrageous partisan attacks on the judiciary as legitimate criticism"
Funny, Don, I sort of see it this way as well......
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Now that the Trumplicans in the Senate abdicated on their duty to hold a fair trial and voted to let Donald Trump remain in office, did that mark the end of our democracy as we know it?Consider:1. There isn't a thing a president can do that will warrant removal if the Senate is made up of a...
by Sharlee 4 days ago
Well, recently I was accused of not addressing Trump's news current or past. Here is a current report that involves Trump, and Democratic representatives. So, here is the most current media report I could find that involves Trump. Wonder how many that appreciate a good Trump bit of news...
by Scott Belford 19 months ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
by savvydating 2 weeks ago
Did you find it inspirational?
by Ken Burgess 2 years ago
The Democrats could have done one of two things after 2018 put them in charge of the House. They could have taken the high road, looked to 2020, got behind the fresh new ideas and new faces the presented themselves for nomination.They could have used their platform to support the changes people...
by Readmikenow 14 months ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|