How do you view the popular vote?

[hefdaddy42]

Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.

You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.

I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

[jsbru]

I didn't say only 50%, I said more than 50%.

It's not 100%, because economics are not all a "make the pie larger" kind of game.  The pie is getting larger, but due to class warfare, the rich are seizing almost all those extra pieces of pie.

[Stadler]

In general, though, Democrats' actual agenda is far closer to the latter.  Obamacare is a major boost for healthcare for those in poverty--no matter what your race, even though a lot of Republican governors blocked the Medicaid expansion portion of the law in their own states just to smite Obama and deny him a political victory at the expense of the lives of their own citizens.  Obama's new overtime rule (that is currently being blocked by conservative judges) is a huge boost for low-end salaried employees (lower-middle class).

Uh, as usual, half the story.  It wasn't entirely to "smite" Obama, even though it had that effect.   

Almost every major policy Obama has advanced has gone to help poor and working-class people, Republicans have opposed him every step of the way, and yet we have a large bloc of working-class people convinced that he's some tyrannical dictator just waiting to take their rights away.

So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?  Since when is "helping" equivalent to "just giving people shit"?    You erroneously - and lamely, and partisanly - attribute this to the most vile of Republican motives, but the reality is far from that.  It's as much, if not more, because the so-called "advancements" are stop-gaps that address, temporarily, the symptoms, but ignore the underlying problem, and in come cases (like the deficit for one, like some aspects of the ACA for another) exacerbate the underlying problem. 

I do blame this mainly on a steady stream of reality-free propaganda being targeted at certain groups of working-class voters through AM Radio, fake news on Facebook, and various websites (including Steve Bannon's Breitbart).  We're now getting to the point where some isolated red areas are just culturally divorced from fact and what is really going on with this world that it's becoming a danger to our democracy and a danger to civil society.  They think our own democratically-elected government is the enemy, and they're told to buy a lot of guns.  I think we're less than 10 years away from electing a true Nazi as President (Trump's semi-fascist campaign has plowed the road), or some sort of civil war or something.

Okay.  Sure.  As if the "Blue Ocean" of California is SOOOOOO in touch with the rest of the country.  Right.   Ironically, the Left likes to target the "rich" as evil, and focused almost their entire energy on the "top 1%", but it was a fake enemy, and largely, it was, if not the 1%, then the 10%, that was largely driving this message.

I am really actually shocked at the degree to which we'll argue "THEY NEED TO BE HEARD!" when it's a message we agree with, but as soon as that message starts to diverge from our precious, deeply-held beliefs, it's "TERRIFYING!" and "NAZI!".   

[jsbru]

Other than a few fringe nutjobs, the right and conservatives in general are not fascist, not racist, and they would never put up with a totalitarian dictatorship.  That very possibility is why the 2nd amendment is so important to uphold.  Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.  Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.

Yeah, gun sales under Obama were at like record levels.  All Democrats have proposed lately are banning some assault weapons that have no reasonable basis in self-defense or hunting, and implement stuff like tougher background checks--which most gun owners even support.

As far as politically correct propaganda, Trump's the first nominee in recent history to use openly racist campaign rhetoric, and CNN gave him months of free air time.

[jsbru]

So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

As for why employment hasn't cured poverty for a lot of our citizens, you should ask the party that attacks unions and refuses to allow a raise in the minimum wage, refuses to raise the minimum salary for overtime exemption, and refuses the expansion of Medicaid.

As for wealth consolidation at the top--that's the natural order of any largely low-tax market economy.  And we have a global market economy now that--for the major players at least that have the legal resources to dodge taxes--is relatively low tax.  It's been trending this way for 40 years now, and Obama can't do enough to stop it.

I've read plenty of libertarian political and economic philosophy, so I have a grasp of both sides.  I highly suggest you take some time to read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.  I'm almost certain you'd find it fascinating.

[Stadler]

It's just like saying that you're privileged to be born in America. It DOESN'T mean that America caused all the ills that other countries are experiencing. It just means there are certain things you don't have to worry about, because you are American. It doesn't mean that your life is great, or even particularly good. It just acknowledges that being American affords you certain benefits.

Just philosophically, how did we get there?  It's only been 200 some-odd years since we were begging France for a loan, and about 225 since we told the richest, most powerful empire on the planet to fuck off rightly.   

I know you well enough - and respect you well enough - that I don't think YOU PERSONALLY are being disingenuous, but the argument is, because admitting that there might be SOME advantage doesn't stop there.   Once you remove the global aspect of it, and introduce national race (meaning, the race profile of our nation), the admission of the advantage implies that something must be done about it, and more importantly, that the so-called "advantaged" have to willingly, proactively, and potentially damagingly, relinquish that advantage. 

It's a complicated problem, and perhaps democrats have done a bad job in giving the impression that they only care about ONE variable.

It's not a problem that is exclusive of the Left.  ALL politics is reduced to one variable.  Trump ran an entire campaign on not just one variable, but one ASPECT of that variable ("I'm building a wall.").   

Maybe it NEEDS to be local. We are not going to get that from Washington, no matter who is President. Regardless, I'd like to move beyond the phoney discussion our politicians promote (should we or shouldn't we have it!) into a more practical one - WHAT is the problem we are experiencing, WHO is going to take care of it, and HOW?

Well, again philosophically, isn't that REALLY the crux of the matter?  Isn't that REALLY the heart of the problem?  Do we expect a national government - tasked with protecting 325,000,000 people spread across 3,790,000 square miles - to speak eloquently and equally for EVERY person, black or white, from Point Barrow, Alaska to Ballast Key, Florida?  It's not rational.  THAT is the real message of this election, even if it is poorly articulated, and perhaps not really intended.   

The rich liberal in California does not speak for the poor conservative in Michigan, or western Pennsylvania.  (Interestingly, the argument against my "terrifying" comment is exactly the opposite of the argument FOR the popular vote.  How nice of me to bring this back on topic. ). 

[Stadler]

Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.

You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

When?  Where?  And if you're talking about Trump, why did so many people that voted for OBAMA in '08 and '12 vote for Trump?   I don't agree with the "terrifying" argument, though I do understand it, and it's based on this faulty logic.  Plenty of Democrats didn't see it that way, and either decided to vote for Trump, or that if they couldn't vote for Hillary and weren't going to vote at all.

I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

I can't speak for the roundup (I didn't even know it was even on the table), but just go to Chris Murphy's website.  He's the junior Senator from Connecticut who has wasted not one single moment to prostitute and whore out those poor families from Sandy Hook in his ridiculous and unfounded zeal to do exactly what you're saying "no one on the Left has ever done".  What about Washington DC?  What about New York City?  See this:  https://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/  that names both Bloomberg (calling him a "zealot" on the issue) and Cuomo.   That's not disarming?

[Stadler]

I didn't say only 50%, I said more than 50%.

It's not 100%, because economics are not all a "make the pie larger" kind of game.  The pie is getting larger, but due to class warfare, the rich are seizing almost all those extra pieces of pie.

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you let me down.  You're not interested then in issues that we can build consensus on, but rather that we can take sides on. 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

And the gun companies in bed with the right, probably saw astronomical profits from that line of crap getting pushed on the public.  Brilliantly played, really.

[Stadler]

So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

As for why employment hasn't cured poverty for a lot of our citizens, you should ask the party that attacks unions and refuses to allow a raise in the minimum wage, refuses to raise the minimum salary for overtime exemption, and refuses the expansion of Medicaid.

As for wealth consolidation at the top--that's the natural order of any largely low-tax market economy.  And we have a global market economy now that--for the major players at least that have the legal resources to dodge taxes--is relatively low tax.  It's been trending this way for 40 years now, and Obama can't do enough to stop it.

I've read plenty of libertarian political and economic philosophy, so I have a grasp of both sides.  I highly suggest you take some time to read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.  I'm almost certain you'd find it fascinating.

I feel like "Factcheck.org" when you post. Swear to god.   

"Unemployment levels" are not a "record lows" right now.  Both the reported and "real" numbers are barely back to where they were before Obama trashed the economy, and still above the levels that were typical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations (the latter where the TRUE "record lows" occurred). 

Unions are great for certain applications - worker safety, wages - WHEN NO REGULATION EXISTS TO PROTECT THEM.   That's not the case in the United States circa 2016.   I work for a major U.S. manufacturer, and across the board, our NON-UNION plants have higher wages, more productivity and are safer.  The choice you paint is a false choice, and the despised Republicans know this:  it's not between "current low rates and a shit ton of poverty and higher union wages and no poverty".   It's "current low rates and a shit ton of poverty and even MORE jobs and corporations moving overseas".   

You may be aware of this stuff but you make some key errors.   You have to look at it consistently across the board; you can't look at it from a state or national level when it comes to COGS, and globally when it comes to market, or vice versa.   What most - including the Right - don't realize is that we're not seeing a "decrease in American ingenuity" or "a decrease in American quality" or any of those things.  It's not Obama's fault (except to the extent that he doesn't know what the problem is - he doesn't - and puts his politics and legacy ahead of the well-being of the country - he does).    trump thinks it's bad for Americans to be buying Chinese products. How the fuck do you think it feels like to be Russia? Or Brasil?  Or any of those other countries that want to be prosperous and want to play on the global stage but are forced to buy American shit?    We are, like it or not, a global marketplace.    If we're going to use Bernie'e "we're the only first-world nation without healthcare!" argument, then we need to be apples-to-apples on all of it.  We need to look at the global MARKETPLACE, the global WAGE LEVEL, the global TAXATION LEVEL, the global SECURITY LEVEL (and cost), and none of those are consistent either.     

You have a bunch of facts that look real neat on their own, but don't add up.  As I will take your advice to reacquaint myself with that book, and you might take the advice of seeing the bigger picture. 

[bosk1]

So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

...

...   

"Unemployment levels" are not a "record lows" right now.  Both the reported and "real" numbers are barely back to where they were before Obama trashed the economy, and still above the levels that were typical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations (the latter where the TRUE "record lows" occurred). 

...

Not only that, but (speaking as a labor and employment lawyer here) "unemployment levels" is a stupid, meaningless statistic.  I say that because there is not a direct correlation to what is really important, which is employment rates.  Actually employment rates are low--abysmally so.  And since unemployment rate statistics are only based on the number of unemployment benefits claims filed, they don't tell you the whole story when people are out of work so long they cannot file for unemployment, or are so discouraged by the system that they do not file for unemployment.

[7th]

So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

...

...   

"Unemployment levels" are not a "record lows" right now.  Both the reported and "real" numbers are barely back to where they were before Obama trashed the economy, and still above the levels that were typical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations (the latter where the TRUE "record lows" occurred). 

...

Not only that, but (speaking as a labor and employment lawyer here) "unemployment levels" is a stupid, meaningless statistic.  I say that because there is not a direct correlation to what is really important, which is employment rates.  Actually employment rates are low--abysmally so.  And since unemployment rate statistics are only based on the number of unemployment benefits claims filed, they don't tell you the whole story when people are out of work so long they cannot file for unemployment, or are so discouraged by the system that they do not file for unemployment.

This +1 on employment rates vs unemployment claims.  It makes me wince when politicians cite unemployment claims statistics as performance indicators on employment.  So many people are out of work, beyond eligibility for benefits, and are written off as "unemployable" or not seeking work.  When I here politicians do this, I immediately file them in the con artist file - Obama is a top offender of telling this lie to the nation.   

[hefdaddy42]

Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.

You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

When?  Where?

Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

And if you're talking about Trump, why did so many people that voted for OBAMA in '08 and '12 vote for Trump?

Because they underestimated the capacity for harm in a Trump presidency. 

I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

I can't speak for the roundup (I didn't even know it was even on the table), but just go to Chris Murphy's website.  He's the junior Senator from Connecticut who has wasted not one single moment to prostitute and whore out those poor families from Sandy Hook in his ridiculous and unfounded zeal to do exactly what you're saying "no one on the Left has ever done".  What about Washington DC?  What about New York City?  See this:  https://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/  that names both Bloomberg (calling him a "zealot" on the issue) and Cuomo.   That's not disarming?

All of those are, essentially, local laws.  Some have been overturned through the courts, and some are being litigated now.  That's what happens in our system.  If a law is passed, it can be challenged, or overturned.  That's the process that we have.

I was talking about on a national level.  Notwithstanding any real fringe nut jobs of which I am not aware, no one on a national level on the left has espoused (that I have seen or heard) a plan to disarm the general population. 

[jsbru]

I feel like "Factcheck.org" when you post. Swear to god.   

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-jobless-claims-rose-last-week-from-multi-decade-low-1479908061

[jammindude]

Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

[jsbru]

Not only that, but (speaking as a labor and employment lawyer here) "unemployment levels" is a stupid, meaningless statistic.  I say that because there is not a direct correlation to what is really important, which is employment rates.  Actually employment rates are low--abysmally so.  And since unemployment rate statistics are only based on the number of unemployment benefits claims filed, they don't tell you the whole story when people are out of work so long they cannot file for unemployment, or are so discouraged by the system that they do not file for unemployment.

As a labor and employment lawyer myself (albeit on the plaintiff's side, as you might have guessed), the point needs to be made that labor force participation rate decreases are not necessarily caused by a weak job market.

I give to you as a source, the bona fide, Koch-brothers certified, libertarian think-tank, AEI:
https://www.aei.org/publication/why-the-labor-force-participation-rate-may-not-rise-anytime-soon/

— Between 2000 and 2014, the participation rate fell by 4.5% points, from 67.1% to 62.6%. The aging of the population accounted for a 1.8% point decline in the participation rate, the increase in the in-education rate for 16 to 20 year olds also reduced the participation rate by 1.8% points, while the increase in the in-education rate for 21 to 25 year olds reduced it by an additional 0.6% points. Finally, the increase in the disability rate accounts for 1.2% points of the decline in the participation rate. All of these are long-term structural trends that began well before the 2008/2009 recession.

— Not for the first time, the labor force participation rate has undershot our expectations over the past year. Based on the household survey micro data, the reasons were (1) a faster-than-expected increase in the retired share of the population and, to a lesser extent, (2) a jump in the number of prime-age individuals who report that they do not want jobs. These forces have overwhelmed a decline in the discouraged worker share and a broadly flat profile for those out of the workforce for schooling and disability.

The decline seems to be almost completely caused by good or neutral factors (people going to school longer, people retiring earlier).  Only potential negative is the increase in the disability rate, but that's not necessarily a sign of economic desperation.

[7th]

Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

The same could be said about Obama and especially Hillary Clinton.  People throw the word around, but it is a complex word that has been recently redefined to mean "extreme right wing", while simultaneously carrying forward things like interventionist economics and protectionist policy - things that both Obama and Trump are guilty of promoting.  I agree with the scholars who have recognized that fascism is what you find at both ends of the political spectrum.  Obama is way further left than Trump is right on that spectrum so calling Trump a fascist but giving Obama a pass smells of the same "lets call everyone racists and sexists to defame them in the public eye" kind of dirty pool.  Often, when the word fascist is used images of Nazi Germany pop into the mind, but Hitler was a proponent of "Nazism".  If you want to see examples of fascism in practice you have to look at pre WWII Italy and Japan, or today's Iran. 

[jsbru]

I agree, Trump's flavor of semi-fascism reminds me more of 1920s Italy than 1930s Germany.

I know it's a word thrown around with not much respect for its true meaning, and like anything in political philosophy, it's defining a sort of nebulous concept, so even political philosophers will disagree as to what is "fascism."

I think the most common definition is the melding of populist economics (which are actually probably best described as left-wing) with strident right-wing/nationalist social policy (anti-civil rights, anti-immigrant, authoritarian, etc.).  In a way, it's the theoretical polar opposite of a libertarian, which are left-wing on social policy but right-wing on economics.

But even that definition does not go far enough.  I think for it to be typically fascist, you have to have the extra element of the power merger between private wealth and government in a fashion that the government uses its authoritarian powers to enrich private enterprise at the expense of the public coffers.  The result is corporate handouts funded by high government debt.

This last element is what differentiates fascist-populist economic policy from progressive-populist economic policy.  Because while government spending usually decreases economic inequality by redistributing capital in the form of paying jobs for the people (a very socialist goal), a fascist government will do the same thing, except for the purposes of purchasing political support from both the economic elites and its lower-level supporters.  All while the public's civil rights and right to dissent are stripped away, and the government coffers are bankrupt.  Bankrupting the government coffers is actually a right-wing strategy, because they prefer a crippled government that has no power to fight the interests of entrenched wealth.

That's why you see Republican administrations actually running UP government deficits, and Democratic administrations decreasing it.

[hefdaddy42]

Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

The same could be said about Obama and especially Hillary Clinton.

Not really.

People throw the word around, but it is a complex word that has been recently redefined to mean "extreme right wing", while simultaneously carrying forward things like interventionist economics and protectionist policy - things that both Obama and Trump are guilty of promoting.  I agree with the scholars who have recognized that fascism is what you find at both ends of the political spectrum.  Obama is way further left than Trump is right on that spectrum so calling Trump a fascist but giving Obama a pass smells of the same "lets call everyone racists and sexists to defame them in the public eye" kind of dirty pool.

Not really.

Often, when the word fascist is used images of Nazi Germany pop into the mind, but Hitler was a proponent of "Nazism".  If you want to see examples of fascism in practice you have to look at pre WWII Italy and Japan, or today's Iran.

Yeah, that's why I didn't use the word "Nazi".

[jsbru]

And I just want to add, Trumps economic proposals are more than 50% of the reason why I call his campaign (so far, it has just been campaign rhetoric) "fascist."  The anti-immigrant, anti-minority, nationalist, authoritarian rhetoric really isn't even the major reason.

His proposal to institute massive tax cuts for the rich while simultaneously implementing a $1 Trillion federal spending program will achieve a very fascist goal: seriously bankrupting the federal government in order to buy political support.  When you couple this with trade protectionism, it's pretty much a boilerplate fascist agenda on the economic side of things.  If he does get his $1 Trillion spending program through, the jobs will almost certainly be via private contractors (so the corporate elite can skim most of the money off the top) with low pay and very few civil rights protections...mark my words.

[jsbru]

Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

How much do these pay?  I think I'd rather do this than be a worker's rights attorney, especially in this political environment.

[7th]

And I just want to add, Trumps economic proposals are more than 50% of the reason why I call his campaign (so far, it has just been campaign rhetoric) "fascist."  The anti-immigrant, anti-minority, nationalist, authoritarian rhetoric really isn't even the major reason.

Funny, I haven't heard him say anything anti-(Legal)-immigrant, anti-(Law Abiding)-minority.  Nationalist (patriotic), yes, and he can be somewhat authoritarian, but the nation needs a boss so I give him a pass for now.  I'll take his outwardly bullish style over Obama's speak softly and carry an executive order pen style.

Quick question because I truly appreciate your level-headed and intellectually grounded posts.  How do you feel about Obama's releasing of many drug criminals out of prison?  Especially with his close ties to the Chicago cartel networks?  Do you subscribe to the idea that these people got bad raps and deserve release, or do you think there is favor making and cronyism at play?

[jsbru]

Quick question because I truly appreciate your level-headed and intellectually grounded posts.  How do you feel about Obama's releasing of many drug criminals out of prison?  Especially with his close ties to the Chicago cartel networks? Do you subscribe to the idea that these people got bad raps and deserve release, or do you think there is favor making and cronyism at play?

This is the first time I've ever heard that accusation, and I debate with anti-Obama people often.  I tried googling it, but found no credible evidence.

I think his pardoning of people for drug crimes reflects his belief that people shouldn't be locked up for decades for something that most liberals and even most on the libertarian-right don't think should be a jailable offense, and in some cases, even shouldn't be against the law.

Also, basically all of his commutations have been screened to include only non-violent offenders with good behavior in prison.  So that would rule out people suspected of belonging to a cartel.  He's supposedly commuted something like 774 people so far, so I can't possibly know the details about all of them.

[7th]

Quick question because I truly appreciate your level-headed and intellectually grounded posts.  How do you feel about Obama's releasing of many drug criminals out of prison?  Especially with his close ties to the Chicago cartel networks? Do you subscribe to the idea that these people got bad raps and deserve release, or do you think there is favor making and cronyism at play?

This is the first time I've ever heard that accusation, and I debate with anti-Obama people often.  I tried googling it, but found no credible evidence.

I think his pardoning of people for drug crimes reflects his belief that people shouldn't be locked up for decades for something that most liberals and even most on the libertarian-right don't think should be a jailable offense, and in some cases, even shouldn't be against the law.

Also, basically all of his commutations have been screened to include only non-violent offenders with good behavior in prison.  So that would rule out people suspected of belonging to a cartel.  He's supposedly commuted something like 774 people so far, so I can't possibly know the details about all of them.

Sounds like you are on the side that thinks Obama is just being a nice guy.  I hope you are correct, but think about that a bit.  Why drug and gun traffickers?  Why more than all 11 past presidents combined?  Over 800!  Why did Obama use US dollars to build massive infrastructure in Afghanistan, pay Iran billions, while doing everything in his power to make drug trafficking into the USA easier - leading to cheap smack all over the USA?  Couple the answers to these questions with his ties to Blago, Rezko, Emmanuel, and the subsequent rise of Chicago as the nations largest drug trafficking hub in parallel with his rise to power and you have pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that Obama is well connected to the drug world.     

[jsbru]

Probably because they investigated each case, and thought that they had served enough time?  A lot of the people commuted were serving life sentences or something like 20 year sentences for drug possession.  If you possess drugs anywhere in the same vicinity as a gun, you automatically get hit with federal gun charges, too.  I mean, I'm okay with these people going to jail for a bit, but 20 years to life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

They supposedly screened them for stuff like connections to gangs and violence.  Again, I haven't seen any credible evidence from non-right-wing media to back up the fact that any of these people had ties to drug or gun trafficking rings like you assert.

This country has a greater percentage of its population in prison than the USSR did during its Lenninist heyday.  We're pretty draconian about punishment here already.  Our drug and gun sentences are longer than any other country's, save for places like Singapore.  It doesn't seem to be helping.  Not to mention, this whole prison-industrial complex is dozens of times more costly per person to taxpayers than stuff like welfare.  It costs over $30,000 per year to keep someone in prison.

As for handing Iran cash, that story's been well-covered and investigated.  It was part of a multi-faceted deal that most people think is going to work out in America's favor:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-treasury-says-17-billion-transfer-to-iran-was-all-cash/2016/09/06/e9918216-7499-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

Anything beyond that seems to be your typical right-wing conspiracy theory.

[7th]

Probably because they investigated each case, and thought that they had served enough time?  A lot of the people commuted were serving life sentences or something like 20 year sentences for drug possession.  If you possess drugs anywhere in the same vicinity as a gun, you automatically get hit with federal gun charges, too.  I mean, I'm okay with these people going to jail for a bit, but 20 years to life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

They supposedly screened them for stuff like connections to gangs and violence.  Again, I haven't seen any credible evidence from non-right-wing media to back up the fact that any of these people had ties to drug or gun trafficking rings like you assert.

This country has a greater percentage of its population in prison than the USSR did during its Lenninist heyday.  We're pretty draconian about punishment here already.  Our drug and gun sentences are longer than any other country's, save for places like Singapore.  It doesn't seem to be helping.  Not to mention, this whole prison-industrial complex is dozens of times more costly per person to taxpayers than stuff like welfare.  It costs over $30,000 per year to keep someone in prison.

As for handing Iran cash, that story's been well-covered and investigated.  It was part of a multi-faceted deal that most people think is going to work out in America's favor:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-treasury-says-17-billion-transfer-to-iran-was-all-cash/2016/09/06/e9918216-7499-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

Anything beyond that seems to be your typical right-wing conspiracy theory.

I can accept that as all very rational and plausible.  The part I do take exception with is the idea that right-wing media is somehow less credible than left-wing media.  Sure, I'm not going to take Alex Jones seriously, nor am I going to take Al Sharpton seriously.  Grant Trump one little victory (yes I am a rush fan!) and that is he blew the lid off of the media circus, beat them at their own game, and basically verified that bias is very real on both sides.   

[7th]

Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

Yo Jammin, I think you'd have a pool of skilled labor in Seattle if you'd get young people off the fucking bong nipple and into apprentice and training programs.

[jammindude]

Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

How much do these pay?  I think I'd rather do this than be a worker's rights attorney, especially in this political environment.

Union Journeymen (a 5 year program) by contract make just under $47/hr with totally 100% paid, zero out of pocket benefits....and its a GREAT benefit package.   Totally green apprentices start off at "no less than" $18.50, and get full benefits after a certain amount of hours (which slips my mind at the moment).    You have to go to school.  Its free, but you dont get paid for it.   During the school year, you work 4 days a week and go to school for one.   Each year, you go up the pay scale.   From the bottom it goes up to 30%, then 40%, then 60% of journeyman wage.  There's also a retirement pension which pays out 100% if you've worked at least 30,000 hours (although they are currently trying to raise that to keep it funded.....it wouldn't really effect a new kid too much, but for a few of us who came in late and thought we were getting close, the carrot just moved further away)

[Stadler]

Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.

You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

When?  Where?

Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

I don't "know" that at all.  I do know that what some are INTERPRETING Trump to be saying - or in some cases, falsely accusing him of saying - are fascist or fascist-leaning.   That's very different, and what I've been trying to tell JoeBros. for a while now.

Because they underestimated the capacity for harm in a Trump presidency. 

Here's something that amazes me:   I'm in a discussion abuot "white privilege" now, and I've been told several times that I'm incapable of FULLY understanding the plight of the black person (because I'm white), the gay person (because I'm straight.  Except for that one time in college, but I had been drinking), or the woman person (because I have a small, but entirely adequate and still working for the most part penis) and yet, we're REALLY quick to call the other person in Michigan or wherever incapable of making a sound decision.

All of those are, essentially, local laws.  Some have been overturned through the courts, and some are being litigated now.  That's what happens in our system.  If a law is passed, it can be challenged, or overturned.  That's the process that we have.

I was talking about on a national level.  Notwithstanding any real fringe nut jobs of which I am not aware, no one on a national level on the left has espoused (that I have seen or heard) a plan to disarm the general population.

Brady Bill?   

[hefdaddy42]

And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?

[Stadler]

I dunno.  It certainly cut down the list of possible weapons they could own.  Baby steps, right? 

[bosk1]

And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?

  I'm not even sure how this is a valid question.  Seriously.  It's like asking what part of a state's traffic laws provide for regulating driving.

[hefdaddy42]

And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?

  I'm not even sure how this is a valid question.  Seriously.  It's like asking what part of a state's traffic laws provide for regulating driving.

I wasn't talking about REGULATING.  I was talking specifically about DISARMING, which is the thrust of this conversation.

The Brady Bill instituted background checks for buying firearms from dealers, and prohibited certain persons from shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with disarming citizens of weapons they already owned.

[Stadler]

And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?

  I'm not even sure how this is a valid question.  Seriously.  It's like asking what part of a state's traffic laws provide for regulating driving.

I wasn't talking about REGULATING.  I was talking specifically about DISARMING, which is the thrust of this conversation.

The Brady Bill instituted background checks for buying firearms from dealers, and prohibited certain persons from shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with disarming citizens of weapons they already owned.

Okay, so now the question is changing; that's not how I understood your initial request.  I'm not sure any national politician as EXPLICITLY asked, in a sponsored bill, that all citizens relinquish the guns they currently own (though I've shown that it HAS happened on the local level).   But there are people that mistakenly believe that it worked in Australia (I've already posted here data showing conclusively that that was not the case, and in fact gun and violent crimes went UP in the five to ten years after, and only started coming down when OTHER measures went into effect, and is now only slightly below that level before the ban).  Chris Murphy would implement that in a heartbeat if it was at all politically tenable.  But with over 100 measures that were presented to Congress and shot right down in the last six years, it's the same problem in reverse; why would any politician introduce a bill that is orders of magnitude more radical than the 100 before it that died a not-so-slow, not-so-painless death?

[hefdaddy42]

Okay, so now the question is changing; that's not how I understood your initial request.

Not sure why. Here is where it came up (top of the page)

Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.

I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

And I have been consistent the entire time.

There will never, ever be a national roundup of firearms.  Even if some politicians might fantasize about it in their wet dreams, it will never happen.  And it will never be a platform point of the Democratic party.  The only time such a thing is ever mentioned on a national level is when people on the right (usually conspiracy nuts) talk about it as a possibility in order to scare/rouse up the rabble.