dont you think b4 we start handing out MORE entitlements, immigration and border issues need to be addressed? IMO the liberal way of thinking is. Promise things like free healthcare free school and have others pay for it. And ignore immigration issues, changing or Swinging the voting demographic by drawing in the have nots! Making the poor more poor by taxing them to where they have to vote democratic, furthering the welfare state. Government loves More Governent. If we can all agree that We all want less intrusion and less Governent in our lives how is voting for the party who wants to EXPAND Government making things better.

Pretty funny how Trump has been played out as the crazy person that will make things worse but in reality Sanders and Hillary are the True poisoned pill.

Well no ****.... How many people did it take not voting in Florida for Bush vs Gore? Hanging chads was what it was down to.

Nice cherry pick John. Your fact check states that her ardent supporters brought it up. Ok... We all know that if your ardent supporters did it, then she is clean in the whole thing. uh huh..... No one who is close to a presidential candidate (especially one who has a whole list of people who die around her) says a word unless it is vetted. period.

I've never voted for an ardent supporter. But one thing for sure, the idiots went for it hook, line, and sinker, and carried the banner for years.

The border issue isn't hardly even relevant to the bigger issues we face. The trade deficit is far more damaging. The education and HC issue also needs to include price controls. Get rid of IRS rules giving out tax deductions for HI and pensions, and get rid of loans to students that can't be relieved in bankruptcy. Then you will see the true effects of socialism policy that conservatives have no problem with. Apparently the population needs a reset on their thought processes so they can understand the true effects of economic policy that is discriminatory, instead of just thinking welfare to others is the problem. Which is the conservative mindset.

John, are you also anti tax deferral on individual retirement savings (i.e. IRA/401k/Roth)? Or to say another way, pro capital gains tax for the working man's savings?

If you live in the center of the country. I can understand that you don't think illegal immigration is a problem. But for the rest of us that live in a state that borders Mexico they will tell you different.

It's all govt welfare and a distortion of the economy. The common man putting money into wall street because the govt is chipping in and limiting the investment options is fueling big salaries for executives. You have to realize that I'm not saying that it's all bad. But the idea that those guys making millions did it all themselves is a false notion, and can be proved by eliminating deductions. Anytime the govt distorts the economy with welfare, then it needs to control the unintended consequences of it's actions.

In addition the rules are discriminatory and written for the benefit of wall street.. When my employer stopped contributing the 401k matching because of a downturn, I told them I was quitting on Friday and they could rehire me on Monday because that was the only way to rollover a 401K into an IRA (by quitting). The 401K had fees an the IRA doesn't. One they heard my reasoning they closed the 401K so everyone could do that. There is no reason to force people to quit to rollover except for the benefit of wall street. Also different retirement plans have different contribution limits. This is the same BS as HI deductions. The rules aren't for the benefit of the general public. They are to benefit industry.

I get why you say that, but it's not a huge economic problem for the country. The idea that immigration has to be settled before fixing anything else is dumb. You don't hold others issues hostage because of immigration.

But doesn't that assume that the capital gains tax is "perfect" in the first place? I mean doesn't the existence of the tax also distort the economy?

I understand what you are saying about HI deduction as a deduction from income. I guess I'm speaking more about the idea of a Roth (no income deduction) or an over-the-income-limit IRA contribution (again, no income deduction), where the investor IS taxed on the income, but is not taxed on the income generated from the income he prudently saves.

It bugs me to no end that I get taxed on my savings (that I saved and didn't spend) while my neighbor down the street who has financed his lifestyle through a HELOC is being encouraged (from a tax perspective) into being heavily leveraged.

Govt has to collect tax to operate. What distorts the economy is when the govt decides to donate part of the tax to a market sector. I believe that capital gains should be taxed as normal earnings. IOW, no such thing as capital gains tax. Maybe even fica should be added.

IMO, Earnings should be taxed no matter where they came from.

You don't get taxed on savings. You get taxed on earnings.

But my real point here isn't that people shouldn't necessarily get tax relief on savings or retirement income. But that if that savings is forced into a restricted market, then that market is distorted. For example, I have money in a IRA or 401K and can't use it to invest in real estate. So I virtually have little option but to invest in wall street. I understand the restriction is so that the govt can force you not to blow your money. But it creates a false market where wall street benefits and executive salaries go up.

And yeah it's discriminatory. Funny how conservatives are ok with govt protecting the individual from himself, but freak at the govt restricting business. And get this... There is a restriction on multiple buys/sells in a trading account (i.e. day trading) unless you have $25K in your account. I can't of a single reason why this should be. I'm guessing it's to protect the small fry from himself. But the trade limitation hit my buddy when he was in and couldn't get out. That caused him to lose money. If you are going to restrict then it should be buying, not selling. So the rules did exactly the opposite of you would assume they were intended. They should never restrict getting out.

John, you are still assuming that all taxes as they exist right now are inherently perfect and that every deduction or exception is inherently flawed. If deductions create market distortions, don't taxes do the same thing?

If I am taxed on income and taxed on my savings' income if I decide to save my income, but I'm not taxed for consumption, then doesn't that tax incentivize spending and discourage saving?

Why tax income at all? Why not tax consumption?

No, I'm not assuming taxes are perfect. I'm saying that when the govt donates money it should receive in taxes, then it inflates the market sector it's donating to. You have to start with the assumption that the govt needs tax money. How much is a separate issue. When you donate tax money that someone owes into a market sector for their benefit, then somebody else that doesn't get that benefit has to pay extra. That usually exposes the flawed argument with people who think that because the govt wastes money their tax deduction is deserved anyway.

You have to look at the fundamental principals. First you recognize that taxes must be paid. Then you recognize that anyone who gets any deduction is putting that share of the burden on others who don't get it. After that it's a debate about what's fair. I'm not saying all deductions are bad. I'm saying deductions that target a market sector cause inflation in that market. A deduction for children or a dependent spouse that doesn't make money doesn't target a specific market. A progressive tax schedule takes into account that the people who make the most benefit the most from policy designed to keep the economy healthy. A poor person has to pay for transportation to get to work, but gets no business deduction for that, but a CEO who flies on a private jet instead of a commercial airliner does. And if you try to mess with that, you can rest assured that complaints of destroying the private jet industry will come up. There is no reason why the govt should subsidize the private jet industry unless it's allowed to influence or limit it in some fashion. Quid pro quo

Taxing consumption is considered to hurt the lower incomes the most. And it would immediately destroy wall street, which the govt can't afford to do since govt has so many defined benefit pensions in the market. Also a consumption tax would immediately have the effect of curtailing consumption (a good thing, yet a bad thing). Problems are difficult because solutions are double edged swords. You can't just say "this is not fair, right, sustainable, or influences things in a bad way" and then eliminate it to solve the problem. Because change has to be measured and controlled in order to establish the correct course of action.

Saving money is a matter of personal security. If you don't save, then eventually you are going to be poor. You shouldn't need more incentive than that. If a person spends his money he's helping the economy, and he's hurting himself. We don't need to make everyone equal. But we do need to make sure that people aren't too impoverished or have no access to HC. Raising the minimum wage is something that needs to be done. It will help the poor significantly because the idea that it's a zero sum game and price increases will erase the gains is easily mathematically provably wrong.

I would love for you to prove that raising the minimum wage does not hurt the middle class. My buying power will be reduced accordingly. Prices never drop with more money in the economy. Depending on the product, their will be more competition thus higher prices. For businesses on a margin, they will not last. If a business is based on volume, then it has to raise prices to make up the wages because their margin is low. Even Jerry Brown the governor of kalifornia said it was bad for business but a morel thing to do.

Maybe the unintended consequence will be all the fast food places will close down and that will reduce pressure on supermarket food supplies. I eat out a lot and it is about to stop. I just paid $15 for a turkey burger and diet soda at Chilli's. Getting crazy.

I didn't say it wouldn't hurt the middle class. I said it wouldn't zero sum out for minimum wage earners. The bottom line is that most minimum wage jobs are not where most income goes. Minimum wage employers need housing, utilities, transportation, health and maybe auto insurance, and groceries. None of those are primarily served by minimum wage employees except perhaps groceries. And the cheapest grocery store in town (Aldi) pays a starting wage of about $11/hr. I don't buy hardly anything I can think of from minimum wage employees. That's because the service industry is generally an optional need.

So what if you eat out a lot. Change your habits if that's a problem. Yes, higher prices will put pressure on minimum wage jobs, but there is still no cheaper place to find labor. If any of those places could raise prices, then they would. They don't need a reason to raise prices. But they don't because it's the quickest way to lose business. If wages go up the first place it will put pressure is on the top and unnecessary expenses. People are lazy. They will pay the prices when they rise. But those at the bottom who have to actually maintain a strict budget on minimum wage will benefit the most. And that's the point.

Roth contributions come from earnings after you pay taxes. There is not "tax deferral" on that type of account.

Didn't I say FL was a "toss-up"?

So do you think a wall is going to solve those issues? The only way any "border issue" can possibly be significantly resolved is if the US adopts a "You Cross, We Shoot" policy. Are you advocating that?

Another thing that you need to re-examine is your belief that the Democrats are the party wanting to "EXPAND Government". The GOP, particularly here in the bible belt, is on a full-out-assault on telling us what religion we need to follow and who we need to discriminate against because of these religious beliefs. Here in TN, lawmakers just approved a bill to make the bible the Official State Book. And law after law is being voted on (and passed) that makes the lives of gay people more difficult. So please excuse me if I say you, or any other Republican/Conservative, that states the GOP is for a smaller government is full of crap and gullible as a toddler.

Absolutely. Until somebody invents the ladder and rope. I wonder if I can get a patent on that?

John; I can tell from that one statement you have zero clue!!!! So I will break it down for you like a "Boat Owner" which I'm 99% sure you don't own a boat!
If you have a leak no mater how small it can create a HUGE issue. You sound like your the type of guy( if you did own a boat) you would be worried about why your stereo will not remember your stations all "WHILE YOUR BOAT IS SINKING"

I know it's easy for you and other liberals to dismiss holes in our current immigration policy, but it's more about the point. Fix the holes in your boat first!!!!! And then take on the other issues, like trade and other gripes you mention "all valid points" FACT the more freebies and entitelments this country can offer the more people wanna come here. Yes let's make Utopia. But first let's build a big ass fence! Common sense! My brother have a sip

I own a boat with no stereo. So I guess you being 99% sure of something doesn't really mean much.

You are as delusional as a person could be. I am amazed at the people that are sold on this wall idea. You do realize that there is a giant lake and hundreds of miles of rivers along the border with Texas. There is also rugged terrain along the New Mexico/Mexico border. After Trump satisfies you with the wall he's promising to make your ******* grow another 4 inches.

From Barron's writer John Kimelman in their Apr 4th publication "Trumps policies could add 10 Trillion to the deficit in the next decade"

Surprising to me

John: You own a boat with NO stereo? I can only imagine how much fun a day on the water is on "your boat" BTW this boat your claiming it doesn't happen to belong to some one else like your mom or your dad? :) :)

Ok all kidding aside! I seriously have never seen or heard of a boat with out some sort of stereo or sound system.

Back to the subject. This Wall your talking about. I think when trump talks about a wall and people like myself want or support "a Wall" for some like me it's a figure of speech. I look at it as a sign at doing something about our current border policy. Hell a Big A$$ Wall is not going to do anything if people tunnel under it as they have been ( look at the tunnel El Chappo had) how is a big expencieve wall going to combat a giant tunnel going right under it. The bigger picture here fix the holes letting in water and stop sinking and then move on. Your trade gap issue yes that also a hole that needs to be fixed just as important if not more then our illegal immigration issue.

I had a great time the night before last letting my 3 yr old grandson drive the boat around on the lake where I own my home. We had a great time. After that we took a kayak out and paddled around till dark. I guess fun is where you put your priorities.

I'm curious as to why you think I need my parents to have a boat. Heck, I paid out $300K cash in my divorce in 2002. All earned on my own.

^John it was toung and cheek^ I'm glad you were able to do well in your divorce, most people i come across here in california are flat broke after a divorse. I was told the average person looses 70% of their net worth in a divorse. Kinda ironic we are talking about (hand outs and entitlements) and the subject of divorce comes up! LOL :)

I was lucky because I could settle it for cash and a split of the retirements accounts. It did cost me about 65% of my net worth at the time. But still better than lifetime alimony. Plus I got custody of my then 11 and 16 year old daughters.

Seriously? YES, I am advocating a "you cross we shoot". Also, if you think Democrats are for small federal government, you need a better education.

Oh, and the socialist on here talking about the illegal immigrants not being a problem... What about the drug smuggling associated with an unprotected border? Literally TONS of methamphetamine and heroine cross our border and the ramifications are endless.

Wow, that would ALMOST top Obama's 10 trillion in 8 years... but wait.... that's just normal according to the liberals here... not anything different from the average debt by the average citizen. Obama hasn't had one year with anything close to a balanced budget.

IF they get caught, they're held for a few days and deported in most cases. Some get caught again within a week.

^^^^^ Exactley^^^^^^
Please tell me HOW the libs see this as OK. how come both party's are not united on this issue.???? Obama last week took the position of, everything is fine and Trumps and Cruze's views on the border were "ALARMING" yup that's right our current POTS some how thinks things are fine at the border. Obama even went as far as saying "if we built a wall and stopped money transfers from the US to Mexico it would further to crash Mexicos economy, and this would cause MORE to come rushing to the US!!!!!l"

Yup that's our current presidents view on the border and illegal imagration. We can't stop them so just let them keep coming! Wow!

A few billionaires getting together to find a way to block Trump (and possibly Clinton too)?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...president.html

Trump is scary because you don't really know what you are getting.

But, I will vote for Mickey Mouse before I vote for a democrat......especially Clinton or Sanders

Rubio was the best one for the job......arg

I wish guys like you could learn to read. I said it's not a "major economic problem" I didn't say it should be ignored. I went on to say that the major economic problems we are facing should not be held hostage by the "fix immigration before all else" crowd.

BTW, why didn't you call me a capitalist? I am only socialist on those essential things that need to be addressed in that manner. But I am capitalist on the rest, which is IMO more capitalist then socialist. Of course I think I know the reason why. It's because you apparently can't read and need some dumba$$ talking head on tv to tell you what to think.

Fly you MAY be correct in saying . "It's not a major economic problem" none the less it's a cancer that NEEDS to be addressed. The problem
With the liberal socialist agenda is that they think they know better then the Majority. The people say (insert your issue here ) is a problem! and the libs say "not so much"
The people clearly say that welfare and other entitlements and border issues are a problem!!! And we would like them addressed. And like a good Lib you and the POTS follow the party line and say NOPE not a issue! And Washington wonders why "we the people" hate them!

Grant, putting all your ridiculous "lib" talk and rambling nonsense aside, you do realize that our entire system of government was founded upon protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority right?

Oh my... somebody have their panties in a wad? You do have one thing correct though when you claim we are having major economic problems. The current administration is running us in the dirt. 10 trillion in additional debt and not one balanced budget. I'm happy we agree.

The thing is a majority is usually too poorly informed to know what is a problem and what isn't or indeed how to fix it. It is the job of the elected to get informed and do the best for the constituents, even if its not what they want. At the end of the term the constituents get to throw them out or keep them on depending how what sort of job they do. That's the way democracy works. Governance by referenda is not implemented anywhere and would probably be a disaster if it was.

Somebody forgot to tell Grant the majority is how our current politicians got into office.

...and continue to stay in there even though they have an 11% approval rating. People are too stubborn to vote for the other party even though they know the person they voted in there right now is doing a terrible job that they disapprove of.

Ralph: I agree with what your saying. Because I do believe government decides when to listen and take action and when to stonewall. Bottom line If the People are to stupid to vote then don't let them vote! But you can't pick and choose when people are being smart and there issues matter and then decide "o these people are being stupid" and their vote or wishes need to be ignored.

Oh please. The administrations the past several presidencies are culpable for "running us in the dirt" just as much as the current administration. I guess when we got all war happy after 9/11 you missed the memo that we do have to pay for them. But keep convincing yourself it's all Obama's fault.

Quick question (and no I'm not the Internet Spell Police). Do you think if an open-minded person looked at your posts, you would be deemed "smart" enough to vote?

Jeremy; is that your way of discounting my point? (Spelling) I knew your arguments were always a bit slanted but come on! You can do better then spelling! I love how your #1 go to" point is always (Bush's Fault)

Grant, if this is what "the majority" really feel then why have republican presidential candidates lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections? (remember, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but won the presidency by virtue of the electoral college). Only in 2004 was "the majority" actually the biggest group of voters.

Regarding entitlements, which ones do you suggest cutting, and how much of a difference do you think those cuts will make to the federal budget?

Shawn: as far as what handout programs should stop. Well let's start with This mornings headlines. And seeing we were just talking about it. On the news just this morning reads "Illegal immigrant children to receive FULL health care benefits". So you come across the border in the middle of the night illegally and we now have to pay for you and your kids?


But wait the libs will tell us all "Illegal Imagration is not a big deal and we don't need a wall!!!! LOL. "O and is it ok to call them
Illegal immigrants? or must we refer to them as "undocumented" we wouldn't want to offend anyone.

can you post a link to that story grant? I think you and I probably utilize different news outlets, because I don't see that headline in my frequented sites.

Anyone know how the wall that is in SE Arizona is working?
http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/

I'm not criticizing your spelling. But you are the one that implied some people aren't "smart enough" to vote. Would your spelling pass your hypothetical "Smart enough to vote" test?

He (and many others) believe that this country is in debt due to welfare. A bloated defense budget and a half a trillion dollar a year trade deficit mean nothing.

It would really be nice when people make those federal spending pie charts that they would take SS out. SS is funded by FICA contributions and the trust fund is not in the red. Therefore it makes no sense when people are trying to see where the spending is going that they include SS. Also medicare fits in that category somewhat as well. I've never heard of a medicare trust fund so it may make sense to include current medicare spending that is above what's pulled in from FICA. If you take those out, then the defense budget would look massive in terms of spending. Everything else pales in comparison.

edit: did a quick google and there is a medicare trust fund that is also not in the red. So take that out of the spending chart as well.

Everybody gets to vote, even dum dums. Taking the vote away from anyone is a slippery slope and not even remotely close to democratic principals.


Yes, you can pick and choose. You have too. If you are in power, you must be smarter and more informed than the people who put you there. Sometimes that means you tell them no even if they want it. Like a parent and child. We get to judge how they do at the end of the term and give them another go if they prove to do a good job.

Shawn; the Obama quote I was taking about came across on CBS news

The only story even remotely close to what Grant is mentioning is a Medi-Cal expansion to cover all kids in CA regardless of immigration status. Even though this is a CA state program and is covering kids specifically NOT covered by Obamacare, somehow this is also Obama's fault - classic!

Wes: remember this speech. Obama gave it saying illegal immigrants would NOT receive free healthcare. It was the state of the Nation speech . Obama lied to congress and the American public,

http://youtu.be/Lgq5KKi5wuQ

He was called a liar! During the speech And the person who called him a liar was ridiculed, well I guess he was 100% correct. Obama did LIE! So I guess in your sarcastic comment "it's all Obamas fault" is 100% correct.

Grant, with all due respect what the f*** are you talking about? You're not making any sense. You do realize that Obama doesn't have any control over California state programs right? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and construe your post in some way that even makes a shred of sense but I can't - can you clarify how Medi-cal (CA state program) deciding to do something this week has anything to do with a speech given by Obama years ago about a federal program (by the way did you mean state of the Union?)

Wes, The Obama's federal position is based on the fact that he knows the states will allow illegals to get benefits. He can truthfully say that the federal programs will not allow it. He knew the states like California would. Just like motor voting bills and allowing illegals to get drivers licenses are two different things except smart people know that it will allow illegals to vote in certain areas where election leaders will not scrub the databases. It is all part of the same effort.

The reason the democrats are ok with illegals is there out right position of no borders. Just look at the leftist websites. The answer is there. The first thing the World Workers Party and the Communist Party wants, is no borders. The democrat positions match perfectly. Heck a socialist who vacationed in the former Soviet Union is nearly a leading presidential candidate. The democrat party has jumped the shark.

We can go on to talk about the other lesser known support where they support the actions against the police. They have blood on their hands. I wonder why Obama said he wanted a police for to rival that of the military? He did not mean the actual city police. He wants a police force he can use against the people but first he has to try and destroy the local police forces and that is what his BLM and other front groups are for. Very similar play book to 1930's Europe.

Delta, if you are going to argue FOR "constitutionalists" then isn't this really beyond the reach of the President? If a state decides to give benefits to illegal aliens, isn't that a "states rights" issue?

More telling, if benefits to illegal immigrants is such a pressing issue, as you and Grant suggest, and if the states on the borders are the most adversely impacted, why in the heck is a state government making benefits available to illegal immigrants if in fact "the majority" don't want the state to provide for these benefits? Seems like either "the majority" isn't a majority in California on election day, or the pols in office are on a personal suicide mission? Which is the more logical explanation?

LOL yeah, the BLM sure seemed formidable in those last two standoffs with tax dodging welfare farmers (packed up and drove away during Bundy I when the lunatic fringe showed up, and with Bundy II, picked papa bundy up at the airport, and Jr. Bundy up while strapped on a suicide mission). Puh-lease.

Your reply does not mean anything. The argument is not about states rights. It is if the president was lying. If the people knew the intention was to give illegals benefits, it would have been even harder to sell in congress. As it was, it somehow made it with the narrowest of margins.

Funny you should bring up the majority angle. In 1994 we voted for prop 187 which made it illegal to give illegals state benefits. It passed with almost 59% of the vote. The only counties that had a majority no vote was the ones by San Fran and San Jose. The prop was overturned in court in 1999 and the democrat governor Gray Davis stopped the appeals once he got the answer he was looking for. Also, Gray Davis was caught on tape (and I heard the tape) in Mexico speaking with the leadership in a address stating the goal was one great region again with California and Mexico.

The State is on a liberal suicide mission.





uh....Black lives matter. If you are going to rant, do it with the proper context.

Delta, if president says "we won't do X" and your state goes and does X, without the involvement of the federal government, did the president lie? That seems to be the argument.

Re black lives matter, I'm unaware of protesters being armed and sworn as peace officers for the national police force? Are you sure you aren't confusing this with the S1Ws?

I will have to disagree with that statement. All last administrations combined prior to Obama, the US was in 10.6 trillion of debt. Now, eight years later we are almost 20 trillion in debt. You will blame something or someone else but it's their job... at least part of it. Do I think 10.6 trillion is OK? Nope. But it's a lot better than 20 trillion.

Bush had a budget surplus entering office and exits with the highest budget deficit ever and it's Obama's fault. That's the logic of someone who knows nothing about the economy and how things work. Obama wasn't elected because he campaigned to put the country on an austerity program and drive the economy into dire straits. He was elected to do just the opposite. And that he did. Along with reducing the budget deficit at the same time. Of course reducing it wasn't that hard since the previous republican president drove it sky high into uncharted territory.

Yes, it is a lie. He knew that it would not pass the federal level if people believed it could be given to illegals. Are you happy that illegals are getting tax benefits?

Two different contexts again on the BLM issue. BLM is a group that is supported in your name as a democrat. They have been behind burning down cities in democrats names. There has been numerous murders and other attacks on police officers in the democrats name. I hold democrats responsible for this as I have not heard any from the president on down denounce these groups. The reason they will not renounce them is because they are behind them.

The national police force was a comment Obama made early on. The way it works, is you destabilize the country by attacking the legitimate local police forces (BLM and other front groups) and then eventually placing your federalized police force into place. You ever wonder why some of these obscure federal agencies that you would not think of having a police presences are buying a billion rounds of ammo? Maybe a little conspiracy theorist, but we are repeating the 60's radicalism only this time the players control the white house.

People don't generally denounce illegal acts like murder because they are universally known to be wrong and denouncing them is redundant. OTOH if the govt is murdering people and getting away with it, then you have people publicly protesting the acts because it's not illegal or universally known to be wrong. One example is war. Another is police officers killing and maiming people then having the investigating body dismissing it as warranted. That is where the bone of contention lies. When someone murders a police officer no one expects an investigating committee to let them off or rule that it's warranted. Those cases go right to trial. However there of lots of deaths at the hands of officers that never get close to a trail. And it's believed that some of those deaths were not warranted.

This whole tin hat crap about Obama getting rid of the police is really off the deep end.

But Delta your statement completely flies in the face of any state having any say over what it does with its own tax dollars. The feds don't have the power to restrict what states do with their own tax dollars. If your state wants to spend its own money on bullet trains, liposuction and cadillac healthcare plans for illegal immigrants, that's not Obama's fault (as if Obama could just decree that California use its own money to do such a thing in the first place).

So you have evidence that there is a nationwide conspiracy, lead from the top down by the democratic party, to murder police and burn cities, which anyone who has ever registered as a democrat is in on and complicit with? Please share!

Ok now that the Subject has changed to BLM movement, I loved how Bill Clinton had to back pedal (for Hillary) to the BLM Movement , After telling the BLM protesters that they were Defending the lives of the Blacks that killed other Black's that BLM said Mattered !!!!!!

I thought Yes! Bil;l that's very true & thanks for pointing that out. Well I guess that didn't go over very well Hillary She had to remind Bill that she was running for President and she needs to be as Black as she can during the election cycle and verbally sparing or disagreeing with BLM in any way is as "UN or Anti-Black as you can get!

Apparently the Feds do have the power because the 9th circuit was the one who shot down california prop 187 as unconstitutional.

I think you are missing the point. The federal leader sold the bill as illegals would not be able to get benefits. Period. No argument can be made that he sold it. On the other hand, he knows at the state level they can allow it. He knew it and the people arguing against it knew it. The state just needed a federal mandate to put the system in place. See how that works? Beyond that, I can not explain it any clearer to you.



You want a conspiracy? Why is that group allowed to still be in action? You really think burning down a couple of cities without any arrests is not a conspiracy? BLM, the New Black Panthers and people like Louis Farakan calling for cops murders in open national news formats and the president and any democrat leader is silent on it?

Hell, we even have John on this thread arguing that cops more of less get away with murder while others don't. Sounds like justification speak to me. This is where middle America is going to have a real hard time with democrats.

You are sounding kookier by the day. A "federal police force"? That's straight out of the Glen Beck/Alex Jones playbook. I have a question. If Obama has such a grand plan in the works, WTF is he waiting on as far as instilling this police force? He has roughly eight months left in office. BLM is allowed to "still be in action" just as skinheads, the KKK, the guys that took over the national park office in OR, etc. are "allowed to still be in action". Ice T sung "Cop Killer" 20 years ago, but last time I checked, people still have 1st Amendment rights in this country. Sheesh, I guess you utopia of America is a country of a bunch of mindless robots that all think alike. And some cops do "get away with murder" in this country. Police corruption is nothing new. It's been happening since police forces were founded in this country.

Do you understand how the debt continues to compound? Do you understand that we pay interest on earlier debt? Do you know what the interest is on 10.6 trillion dollars? A couple of trillion dollars of debt under Obama's watch is due to the Iraqi/Afghan wars. When you go around the globe, wage wars, and put the bill on a credit card, it should not be shocking when the payment comes due. That's one problem I had with Obama; he should've ended those wars immediately after taking office. And if you were truly concerned with the national debt, you would have applauded him ending them.

And I thought only liberals and Democrats thought Obama was god. But Delta seems to believe that Obama is omnipotent.

Jeremy, you can ignore the gorilla - he's made it clear in earlier posts he's not concerned with things like "facts" or "math."

Rod, you are an intelligent guy so I guess you're joking around regarding the mandate which has nothing to do with Medi-cal's decision. Kinda like how you used to call me a hypocrite for supporting gay rights while not participating in gay sex acts.

....and hasn't had one balanced budget. The economy sucks...just look at the Fed's intrest rate and the workforce participation rate.

Absolutely which is why we need to get out of debt. I will also agree that causing instability in the middle east is just screwing things up more. Look at Libya.

Dude, I post facts. You post dueshbag personal slander.

Republicans have never had a balanced budget. The only balanced budget has been under a Democrat,

You've got sand in your VG and don't know what's causing it.

I think the GOP has finally figured out that if they just don't prepare a budget then they can't be challenged for preparing an unbalanced one.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-budget-221859

Sorry I know that I'm the idiot here who can't seem to spell or construct a proper sentence. But I find this very funny. Rod calling Wes out! :) :) :)

Sorry for laughing so hard but I think it's a very funny point. I can here the debate now! "Well if you think it's SO GREAT they why don't you do it""""" LOL LOL LOL just when you thought W/W could not deliver!!!

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...31e8506216.jpg

Pretty clear who the winner (biggest loser) is to me......

Oh, as a follow up... I'm not cheerleading for Republicans either. I'm not saying here, "my guy is better than your guy". I'm just pointing out the facts. I hope the next administration takes it seriously before we look like the Italians.