Donald Trump General Discussion thread

"Stable genius" Donald Trump votes another person off the island. Looking at Session's nervous face, he might well be next.

@willpayton: lol

Thank you for your thorough response. I've commented on yours above and will provide mine below.

Good Trump

1) Progress against ISIS. Although he certainly didn't do it alone or start the mission, whilst he was president the results did speed up and he deserves some credit for it.

2) Rolling back of regulations: Some of the regulations that he rolled back I completely agree with, I'll touch on the ones I don't in the bad list.

3) Trade-market: Again he may not of laid the foundation but he has certainly kept the momentum going and deserves some credit for it.

4) Pulling out of TPP: I wish my country Australia would also pull out of it.

5) Unemployment rate: Again he may not of laid the foundation but he has certainly kept the momentum going and deserves some credit for it.

Bad Trump

1) Political and socioeconomic polarisation: Trump constantly personally attacks anyone who does not agree with him, encourages his support base to dismiss anything in the media against him as fake news and generally attempts to demonise and erode public trust in anything he views as a threat (the media, FBI, the intelligence community etc). This combined with the myriad of divisive crap he has said in regards to race, gender, religion has left the vast majority of people in the country either hating him or loving him and hating/disliking each other as a result. He has also made no attempt at Bipartisanship, further reinforcing the divide.

2) Impact on the international stage: Trump off the top of my head has strained relationships with Australia, Germany, England, China, Puerto Rico and the entire UN. This has been through a combination of Trump not always having a "think before I act" part of his brain, attempting to impose tariffs and potentially starting a trade-war and pulling out the Paris Climate Change agreements. Speaking of which if you believe the scientific consensus that we need to act on Climate Change immediately, then pulling out of the Paris Climate Change and doing nothing is the WORST possible thing Trump could of done to address this. If you/Trump thought the measures agreed to were not enough to generate the required change in CO2/temperature, then you should be committing MORE to it not less.

3) The people he has hired for key positions: This includes Bannon, Scott Pruitt, Betsy Devos, Steven Mnuchin, Andrew Puzder, Michael Flynn and many more I'm forgetting.

4) Tax cut: Historically more often then not trickle down economics doesn't work. Also the fact that vast majority of the tax-cut goes to the top 1% and that Trump hasn't explained what cuts will be made to prevent this adding to the deficit.

5) The constant lying: Trump lies more then any person I have ever seen, met or heard about. IMO it's due to a combination of his arrogance (Example: lying about the size of your crowd), inability to admit when he is wrong or receive criticism and being completely out of his depth. This mixed with his ingrained narcissism has made him the worst liar of all time IMO.

@just_sayin:

1) Not directly, but they are taking a lot of manufacturer donations, including some thats part of the price for each weapon sold, with some reports saying that in 2013 the NRA had received between 20 and 50 million dollars over the previous 8 years in manufacturer donations. Say what you want, but advocating for liberties for something while taking money from the ones who'd profit the most reeks more than a little.

2) You are 'But-Democrats' and before that it was 'But her emails', give me a break, if you are going to claim you or the GOP are somehow the moral guardians of America, it would help if you actually had some. I would get you if you were actually talking from a moral high ground, but right now you are just standing in a ditch throwing mud over into another ditch thats just not as deep as your own.

3) And you still aren't telling me where these 1000$ income increase actually land, are we talking about 1000$ extra for spaceman Carson? Or someone further down the pay ladder?

4) Anndd...?

5) Which should serve as good motivation for people to get a proper education or a proper set of skills so they can get and maintain a job. Seriously, the only real way you can combat the influx of uneducated immigrants in terms of jobs is not to take the low road and try and compete on their wagers, it's by being better at the job than them and ofc finding an employer who wants to honour that.

It also happens where I live, it's just called 'pay dumping' and unions will not have it because it completely undermines the rights and systems they have painstakingly fought for over the course of a century. Extremely low minimum wagers benefits no one but the employers.

6) Yes and it is done so because city planning is not some wild west area where you can just put your multi-storey office block in the middle of a suburban residential area. City living is expensive, thats a reality across the world, if you can't afford to live in the big cities, how about trying your luck in smaller towns further away and maybe even get something nicer to live in for the same money?

'White washing'? Dude, sorry, but your own previous graphs show that the white population of SF has not actually gone up... what has gone up is the amount of people of chinese and mexican heritage while black folks have moved out... or should I say poor people with bad education have moved out of an expensive city?

7) No, that's an excuse to maintain a ridiculously low minimum wage, or slave wagers, so you can keep having a cheap workforce thats easy to replace if it starts causing problems.The goal should be to reward people who are skilled and productive enough to earn it, and thus encourage others to also join the band wagon... but then again this is should be the product of the work of unions, who in the US are traditionally kinda weak, undermined by lawmakers (especially by the rich man's party of the GOP), and ofc undermined by, as you say, illegal immigrants who dont care about unions, rights or anything like that as long as they find someone who will employ them.

See in order to raise the standard, there need to be labour laws, there needs to be real consequences for employers who break the laws and ofc there needs to be enforcement of those laws rather than let employers be kings of their own nations.

8) For at least the last 50 years, those 'benefits' as you call them, has also intentionally kept them locked down as an underpaid and mistreated underclass with little hope of breaking the social heritage. Poor, uneducated, troubled parents will very likely have children who end up in the same kind of problems.

If you oppose raising the minimum wage of workers, then you clearly are not interested in the well-being of those workers... you are just looking at unemployment statistics.

Because they hope to be able to gerrymander districts to fit their needs, just like they did in Pennsylvania and a lot of other places. And the end goal is to create a set class system where Republicans are rich and in charge and there is an impoverished underclass they can rely on to do all the manual labour.

The Democrats keep asking for money to fix problems, because they know and understand, like any businessman will tell you, a problem can be invested out of existence given time and money. Investments require additional money, not budget cuts. Take the US's infrastructure as an example... throughout the US there are endless miles of badly maintained roads, rails, bridges and dams. All of these things have gotten to this state because people have not been willing to maintain them properly (which requires money), and as a result there is now a lot of infrastructure that needs even more money to fix... or do like Huston and cross your fingers and hope that badly maintained dam of theirs doesn't burst the next time a hurricane passes by. Likewise, Obamacare was an investment in public health, but the GOP ofc sabotaged it so now it wont work as intended.

@willpayton said:

@just_sayin said:

@outside_85 said:

8) Republicans have supported policies that benefit poor African Americans for many decades

Yes, that's why the KKK supports the Republican Party and supported Trump... because Republicans love poor African Americans so much.

That must also be why Republicans pass racist laws to disinfranchise blacks and other minorities, and say things like that America was great when we had slavery and that blacks were better off back when they were slaves than they are today.

Hey Will! First a quick aside. The only political party that got into bed, under the white sheets, with the KKK was the Democrat party. While Republicans were literally being killed for helping slaves, Democrats were renaming their conventions "Klan bakes" in honor of their besties. So tell me, when is the Democrat Party going to pay African Americans reparations? If anyone owes them, then it is surely the Democrat party, who used government power to keep blacks from voting, out of white schools, preventing them from owning guns, preventing them from owning land, etc. I personally believe that the Democrat party owes them a lot more than a Hallmark card that says "Sorry, about hanging your great grandpappy!"

Will, this post is so not you. I am disappointed because I know you can do better. This isn't even a bogus ad hominem argument. This is a proxy ad hominem argument. You are trying to discredit the beliefs of Republicans because of the Klan? That's like saying that Robert Downey Jr. is responsible for the actions of one of his fans. I love how Reagan responded to this argument. He was attacked by the media who were asking about what it said about Republicans when the KKK endorsed him. His response was "They may have endorsed me, but I did not endorse them."

The Paris Climate Accords are a sham. Their purpose is for virtue signaling, nothing more. Some countries "committed" to doing what they already where doing (China). Others committed to doing less than what they were doing (India). And some said they would think about doing something but would not commit to doing anything. The US "commitment" was the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Does this sound like a good deal to you? According to multiple reviews of the plan it would have cost between a half million and million jobs, Cost Trillions in govt costs, and cost over 2 Trillion in lost GDP. And what would we get for this? According to the EPA's own records it would have a projected impact of .001 degree Celsius. The instruments used to measure global temperature change can't even measure something accurately that small. So after all that money spent and people without jobs, we won't know if it even worked.

Did you ever ask why the goal of the Paris Climate Accords wasn't to stop the warming altogether? Because it can't. The technology to do this isn't there yet. That's why every country's plan is back loaded and has a big TBD beside it. Otherwise, there would be things like "details" in the plans. Do you know where the biggest reductions in CO2 emissions has come from? Not the government. But from the private sector. The advances in fracking have greatly reduced the need for coal - thereby reducing harmful emissions. Science and Technology, not government, is what will fix this problem.

Your approach of wasting trillions of dollars for little to no temperature change seems foolish to me. Imagine you have to build a building. The heavy equipment needed to do the job has not arrived yet. You could wait and start when you have the equipment or you could begin now. This means you will have to hire extra laborers and that the work they do will be a miniscule part in completing the task and even some of what they do will need to be undone when the big equipment arrives. You choose to spend more because you believe it will let you finish the job sooner. The guy across the street is also building a building. He doesn't start until the equipment shows up two weeks later. You do finish before him. But you both finish the same day. Who was dumb and who was smarter?

I am all for options that will work and make financial sense. I just don't think that poor people should have to suffer needlessly for .001 degree Celsius. It is projected that it will take about 20% away from the take home pay of the poorest US citizens to cover the increased energy and transportation costs if we follow the CPP. While these poor people are freezing in the cold of night because they can't afford to pay their electric bill, they can at least take comfort in knowing that the temperature is maybe, possibly, uncertainly .001 degree Celsius less than it would have been if they could afford electricity.

Tax cuts have ALWAYS increased federal revenues in the US.

As for "the rich," higher-income taxpayers paid more — repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates.

That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.

More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"

The amount of the tax revenue increase has not always kept up with spending increases.

@outside_85:

1) Not directly, but they are taking a lot of manufacturer donations, including some thats part of the price for each weapon sold, with some reports saying that in 2013 the NRA had received between 20 and 50 million dollars over the previous 8 years in manufacturer donations. Say what you want, but advocating for liberties for something while taking money from the ones who'd profit the most reeks more than a little.

Wait, doesn't Planned Parenthood claim to be defending "liberties" while it holds it hands out for the abortion money? Again, the NRA sells t-shirts and mugs (see for yourself), not guns. Unlike Planned Parenthood, which kills unborn black babies, the NRA does not receive government funding.

2) You are 'But-Democrats' and before that it was 'But her emails', give me a break, if you are going to claim you or the GOP are somehow the moral guardians of America, it would help if you actually had some. I would get you if you were actually talking from a moral high ground, but right now you are just standing in a ditch throwing mud over into another ditch thats just not as deep as your own.

I don't claim that Republicans are morally perfect. I can respect that you have a different "set" of morals. I just observed that when it comes to killing newborn abortion survivor black babies, the Republicans will generally let them live. Letting newborn babies live is on my personal "moral" checklist.

3) And you still aren't telling me where these 1000$ income increase actually land, are we talking about 1000$ extra for spaceman Carson? Or someone further down the pay ladder?

Honestly don't know. Would have to dig down into the minutiae to see.

5) Which should serve as good motivation for people to get a proper education or a proper set of skills so they can get and maintain a job. Seriously, the only real way you can combat the influx of uneducated immigrants in terms of jobs is not to take the low road and try and compete on their wagers, it's by being better at the job than them and ofc finding an employer who wants to honour that.

It also happens where I live, it's just called 'pay dumping' and unions will not have it because it completely undermines the rights and systems they have painstakingly fought for over the course of a century. Extremely low minimum wagers benefits no one but the employers.

You miss the obvious point. Unlawful entrants, while a net benefit for the country, in the marketplace depress wages and job opportunities for the poorest of legal workers, especially for poor African Americans. Many inner city African Americans have few skills. When the minimum wage is set by the government at a rate that is higher than what it would be in the marketplace, it means that some workers will not have sufficient skills and abilities to make a profit for the employer at the government set rate. This means they will either not be hired, be fired, or have their hours reduced so that the employers costs are reduced.

The correct minimum wage is $0. While minimum wage laws certainly help some, they create a gap that those with low skills and who are not very productive fall through. The minimum wage serves as a barrier, rather than a benefit, for those with poor skills. This has been demonstrated in Seattle, Ontario, Washington DC, etc, etc, where when the transition to $15 minimum wage laws began, minimum wage jobs decreased and the average incomes of minimum wage employees actually decreased. That didn't help poor people - it hurt them.

Yes and it is done so because city planning is not some wild west area where you can just put your multi-storey office block in the middle of a suburban residential area. City living is expensive, thats a reality across the world, if you can't afford to live in the big cities, how about trying your luck in smaller towns further away and maybe even get something nicer to live in for the same money?

'White washing'? Dude, sorry, but your own previous graphs show that the white population of SF has not actually gone up... what has gone up is the amount of people of chinese and mexican heritage while black folks have moved out... or should I say poor people with bad education have moved out of an expensive city?

You have ignored the obvious problem with what you are saying. Housing was affordable until progressive policies were implemented. In 1970, housing in SF only cost 23 percent of the average person's income. The number of African Americans has been cut by more than half in SF. Now you must have an income in excess of $300,000 to live there. Regulations that require a full acre for a single family dwelling while most homes fit on less than 1/4 acre increases land costs. Policies that restrict apartment building heights from 20 stories to 10 stories, means that the amount of land to house the original amount of people doubles. Less availability results in higher costs. Are you seriously arguing that it is a good thing that African Americans have been driven from their own city? You are defending Progressive gentrification policies?

8) For at least the last 50 years, those 'benefits' as you call them, has also intentionally kept them locked down as an underpaid and mistreated underclass with little hope of breaking the social heritage. Poor, uneducated, troubled parents will very likely have children who end up in the same kind of problems.

If you oppose raising the minimum wage of workers, then you clearly are not interested in the well-being of those workers... you are just looking at unemployment statistics.

Hey, yelling "raise the minimum wage" sounds great. It virtue signals you care. But the reality is that it negatively impacts those at the very bottom of the job market. It seems to me that you are the one who may not care, because you do not care what the results of progressive policies will be and instead only care that you are viewed as "caring".

Because they hope to be able to gerrymander districts to fit their needs, just like they did in Pennsylvania and a lot of other places. And the end goal is to create a set class system where Republicans are rich and in charge and there is an impoverished underclass they can rely on to do all the manual labour.

The Democrats keep asking for money to fix problems, because they know and understand, like any businessman will tell you, a problem can be invested out of existence given time and money. Investments require additional money, not budget cuts. Take the US's infrastructure as an example... throughout the US there are endless miles of badly maintained roads, rails, bridges and dams. All of these things have gotten to this state because people have not been willing to maintain them properly (which requires money), and as a result there is now a lot of infrastructure that needs even more money to fix... or do like Huston and cross your fingers and hope that badly maintained dam of theirs doesn't burst the next time a hurricane passes by. Likewise, Obamacare was an investment in public health, but the GOP ofc sabotaged it so now it wont work as intended.

Lots of fake news there. Both parties gerrymander. I lived next to the mother of all gerrymandered districts in NC when the Democrats created a district that covered 11 counties and 200 miles of interstate from Winston-Salem to Charlotte.

In DC, voucher schools do a better job than public schools of educating inner city children and receive a maximum $8000 per child, while public schools spend around $30,000 for a worse education. More money is not always the answer, especially if that money is going to be spent on methods that have failed for 50+ years.

Obamacare has been a failure from the start. Don't pin the blame on Republicans who warned you that would happen.

@just_sayin said:

@willpayton said:

@just_sayin said:

@outside_85 said:

8) Republicans have supported policies that benefit poor African Americans for many decades

Yes, that's why the KKK supports the Republican Party and supported Trump... because Republicans love poor African Americans so much.

That must also be why Republicans pass racist laws to disinfranchise blacks and other minorities, and say things like that America was great when we had slavery and that blacks were better off back when they were slaves than they are today.

Hey Will! First a quick aside. The only political party that got into bed, under the white sheets, with the KKK was the Democrat party.

Ding! Dong! This is your hourly reminder that it is 2018 and not 1945 and everyone who was a politician back then are dead.

@outside_85 said:

@just_sayin said:

@willpayton said:

@just_sayin said:

@outside_85 said:

8) Republicans have supported policies that benefit poor African Americans for many decades

Yes, that's why the KKK supports the Republican Party and supported Trump... because Republicans love poor African Americans so much.

That must also be why Republicans pass racist laws to disinfranchise blacks and other minorities, and say things like that America was great when we had slavery and that blacks were better off back when they were slaves than they are today.

Hey Will! First a quick aside. The only political party that got into bed, under the white sheets, with the KKK was the Democrat party.

Ding! Dong! This is your hourly reminder that it is 2018 and not 1945 and everyone who was a politician back then are dead.

The Democrats don't support the policies of the KKK anymore? Wow, when did that happen? You'd think there would have been a national press release or public apology from the Democrat Party at least. Do you know if there was one? Google "Sorry for lynching your great grandpappy." and see if it comes up. I'll save you the time. Congress has issued an apology but the DNC never has. Since we don't have an apology, do we have a gesture that shows they acknowledge their evilness and repentance - like reparations maybe? Nope. No reparations. No apology. Not even a Hallmark card that says "Sorry for lynching your great grandpappy".

Well, if Democrats had changed their evil ways then they would ...

1) No longer keep poor black children from going to good schools where white kids go (nope, still keeping black kids chained to failing schools and out of private ones).

2) No longer try to take away black people's right to own a gun (nope, still doing that one too).

3) Respect the property rights of black people (nope, progressive officials are tearing down black neighborhoods as fast as they can all over the US).

4) Support policies that help low skilled African American workers (definitely a nope on this one - with $15 minimum wage laws and supporting Illegal Immigration, the DNC has cost African American workers millions of jobs).

5) Protect the lives of cute unborn black babies ....

The rhetoric may have changed, but it still seems like the DNC policies are hurting African Americans to me.

Seems to me you haven't realized the GOP is now the party of Confederate policies, clan-members and slave owners, since they are the only ones fighting for their memory and legacy. Also they are the party of Nixon and Trump, so basically it's like if Mos Eisly was a political party.

Now, I'm all for tearing down statues of dead Democrats, or live Democrats for that matter, but I do think you have imposed your cultural views upon many of those from the south. You are disrespecting their culture and imposing your own cultural interpretation of it upon them. You assume that symbols like the rebel flag mean they support racism, when it has more to do with southern pride. The confederate statues are of men who did more than just fight in war. Again, you are selectively imposing your cultural interpretations of their symbols upon them.

Did you know that Manhattan had a large slave population? Its not in the tour guides. In 1770 there were over 19,000 slaves in New York, most bought and purchased on Wall Street in Manhattan. New York City had so many slaves that today it boasts the largest colonial slave cemetery in the United States. It is estimated that over 1/3 of all manual labor in the city at that time was done by African Americans. Streets, buildings, waterways all made by slaves. Any plans to tear Wall Street down?

Yeah, I do... because that's what the Confederacy was formed on, the ability to keep black people as slaves. It doesn't matter what these other people think it means, it was literally page 1 in the Confederate answer to the constitution. Imagine if someone went around waving a big swastika-branded flag yelling about how it represents freedom for him... you'd still call him a nazi. Plus not to mention the Confederate battle flag is littlerally the most anti-US flag that exists as it's the only banner representing a faction that wanted to destroy the US as we know it.

That would be a good idea, since Trump and the GOP has let them off the leash again, it will only be a matter of time before they ram the economy into the ground again.

@black3stpanth3r:

Man Who had Sex with Obama After Cocaine Party in Limousine Upset with Stormy Daniels Coverage

Mr Sinclair, who claims he had cocaine induced sex with Barrack Obama in a limousine in 1999, is upset with all the media coverage that Stormy Daniels is getting in the media. He points out that she has provided no concrete evidence.

Context does matter, like how out of nowhere more statues of Confederate were place during Jim Crow Law and the civil right movement, that seem to imply it was put there for racial motivation than pride in their southern route.

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage_splc.pdf pg 12-13

There plenty more to back this up also with the time of the statues placement, and some rather "colorful speeches".

To think that the symbol is totally innocent and not used for any racial intent is as ignorant as saying all Confederate were evil Racist.

And another day in the Trump economy, Dow Jones down 425 points today and China threatening retaliation in Trump's trade war.

Yeah Trump!

@jgames: You are so right. Context matters. That's why I disagree with what you said.

Now I'm all for destroying statues of Democrats, but I disagree with your reasoning.

You employed what Thomas Sowell calls the intertemporal abstraction argument. That's when you take what someone in the past did or belived and impute that to someone else.

Do you really think that the people alive today want to keep confederate statues because they support racism and slavery? I sincerely doubt that is their reason. Your argument is that people today have the same motives that people who lived more than a half century ago did regarding the statues.

Wouldn't be a day in Trump-land with a new face coming into the White House or an old one leaving it.

In this case... it's John Bolton coming aboard to replace McMasters as national security advisor. And with the upcoming meeting with North Korea... war is now almost assured.

@just_sayin: Comrade you are an inspiration to me. I would also like to earn side money trolling online for the benefit of the motherland. Can you tell me how many Rubles you are make per post? Or is per word? Do you get bonuses per special word like "Democrat" and "racist"? If so I think you are be swimming in cash by now! :-) I know you say earlier you just ask for Bitcoin, but honesly thats too risky. I'd prefer either straight up Rubles or converted to Capitalist Dollars.

Thanks you in advance, and yeah Trump!

@black3stpanth3r: I know it's 4:20 and you are on your "lunch" break. Just wanted you to know I left you a message about a guy who had sex with Obama who is upset about about all the Stormy Daniels coverage. I have set you up and I'm expecting some great "but Obama" one liners from you.

Bolton is one of the worst people to put into that job... which is kind of the way Trump does things. Nothing good will come of this. The more Trump gets rid of the competent people in the administration, or they quit out of frustration and disgust, the most this becomes like the Nixon White House... and we know how that ended.

Mueller cant finish his investigation soon enough. I'm looking forward to the shitstorm when his findings are released.

Maybe thats Trumps plan... like how you fend off a polarbear by throwing clothes at it one piece at a time in some vague hope your smelly sock socks sedate it before you die of cold.

@just_sayin: @outside_85: @willpayton: Bolton more then any other of Trump's appointments has me genuinely terrified. That man should not be any where near a position of power, especially one involving the military/defence.

It's a sad day when North Korea's leadership seems to be acting more like adults than the U.S. President and administration. Trump + Bolton is not a good equation. Just wait until something violent and dangerous happens in the world and these two are the ones in charge of our response. I shudder to think about it.

@cyborgzod:

^This, I could have sworn he was trolling too, these Ruskie troll's are everywhere, social media beware.

@just_sayin: Hey , I just now saw your message, that looks more like a tabloid story than anything else, is there any proof of this, or should I just take your word for it? Is there any NDA agreements using pseudonyms that weren't signed? Was there any Hush money paid using official campaign channels? Any lie detector test's taken or 60 minute interviews?

Trump is not the best but he is certainly not as bad as the media portrays. Many of his alleged "racist" remarks here are misquotes that leave out parts of his sentence or what he was referring to.

The KKK was formed as the military branch of the Democratic Party, and was infamous not only for targeting African Americans, but also for targeting conservative Republicans, whom they called "n#gger lovers." The KKK was formed and comprised entirely of Democrats. The Jim Crow Laws were established and notably enforced by Democrats.

One of the top bills Democrats constantly blocked was one that would grant African Americans the right to bear arms, and thus be able to defend themselves from racists. Ida B. Wells was a black journalist who fought for African American rights far before Rosa Parks. So why haven't we heard of her? Ida B. Wells was a registered Republican, who advocated for gun rights among other things, while Rosa Parks was a Democrat.

The first movie screened in the White House was a racist white supremacist movie called "Birth of a Nation," and was played upon the direct request of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Margaret Sanger, an idol for today's Democrats, regularly associated with and praised the KKK. The father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson, kept thousands of slaves and even had a woman whipped to death for merely washing someone's clothes without asking first.

Check the records - every single Civil Rights bill ever passed, was pushed through by Conservative Republicans, and fought tooth-and-nail by Democrats. Every single one. Without fail. Even the famous 1960s one that the Democrats take all the credit for - LBJ merely signed it - that was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, with barely any Democrats supporting it. Most opposed it. If you removed the Republican support from the bill, it never would have passed.

And for anyone attempting to pull the "big switch" argument, nope, the two parties never switched sides. That whole concept is based entirely off a few voting records that are:

1. Voting records showing that African Americans that previously voted Republican started voting Democratic.

2. Voting records showing that southern Democrats started voting Republican.

Only problem with that, is that those two records were taken at two completely different times, they had decades between the two. The records on African Americans were taken when FDR was running, and promises like the New Deal were out. That enticed many a white Republican, not just blacks - an attempt to isolate the black vote and then twist it to mean something is really pathetic and just shows how desperate the Democrats are to blame someone for their own racist past. The voting records in the South were taken during a time when the South was becoming more modernized and constitutional; the Jim Crow Laws were being torn down, Republicans were succeeding in passing Civil Rights bills, blacks were being armed by an NRA-program and thus the KKK was rarely pulling successfull raids, etc. As the South became less racist, it also became far less Democratic, and more Republican.

There's an old saying that goes something along the lines of this: "If you repeat a lie long enough and enough times, no matter how ludicrous, people will start to believe it."

As for the NRA having "blood on its hands" or "marketing guns," neither of which are true - let's examine why the NRA was established, the initiatives it involved in, and the actual policy prescriptions it has to gun violence.

In 1871, Union veterans Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association. The main goal of the organization was to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Both Church and Wingate founded the NRA because they were dismayed at the lack of marksmanship that was being exhibited by their own troops.

After 30 years of successfully promoting marksmanship and responsible gun ownership, the NRA began shooting sport initiatives for youths on major colleges, universities, and military academies across the country. By 1906, the NRA's youth program was in full operation, with more than 200 teenagers competing in shooting matches that summer. Today, the youth training program (which fosters safe and responsible gun ownership) is still a cornerstone of the core of the NRA's mission.

The NRA diversified its reach in the 1930s, with a large push to recruit hunters to join the NRA. In its push, the NRA included an agenda to institute a massive conservation education program that included specific measures to help preserve and protect wildlife for the next generation.

The NRA also supported the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, which promoted an excise tax on ammunition and guns to help pay for additional conservation projects in the southeast region.

In the 1960s, the NRA helped to set up charters to train local African American communities to protect and defend themselves. In Monroe, North Carolina, the NRA in conjunction with the NAACP, trained local citizens on how to use guns to defend themselves against the KKK. One night, a citizen successfully defended an assault by the KKK on one of the NAACP leader's homes without any casualties.

By the 1990s,the NRA had invested immensely prodigous amounts of money, time, and energy into firearms instruction, which today had more than 55,000 certified instructors, with more than 750,000 people trained each year.

The NRA also sponsored the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe program, which has successfully taught over 25 million children "if you find a gun, stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult."

In response to the allegation that the NRA is funded through "gun corporations" and "special interests," nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations still account for the vast majority of the remaining amount, which includes voluntary donations made during gun purchases.

Yes, although not much at all, gun companies do donate to the NRA, just like drug companies donate to drug organizations and defense companies donate to defense organizations.

In 2008, after the Virginia Tech shooting, the NRA helped pass the NCIS Improvement Act, which increased funding and grants to states to report vital information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the lack of such information has been the reason why many shooters are able to purchase firearms successfully. The NRA also advocates for increased prosecution for those who lie on their background checks when purchasing firearms.

The NRA is not even in the top 10 biggest lobbying groups in the country. The AARP spends almost twice as much ANNUALLY as the NRA does on lobbying, but we do not hear the media complain about that, do we?

The NRA is not a "right wing attack dog" as the Democrats wish to portray it - it is only the manifestation of individuals coming together who believe in the constitutional right to bear arms.

Hey buddy! I wasn't expecting to hear from you till the middle of next week like normal.

Anyway, I sent you the link where Larry Sinclair talked about his two day cocaine induced sex romp with Barrack Obama in the back of a limousine in 1999. Here it is again:

It's a sad world when you can't get any press for telling your story about humping a cocaine filled Democrat president in the back of a limousine because a woman who was "allegedly" paid money in a NDA now wants to make more money from Trump. So sad indeed. Well, unlike Daniels, he at least won his court case.

Maybe he should change his story like McDaniels did. If he claims that he saw Trump talking to Russians while he was barebacking Barrack, he'd get 24/7 coverage on CNN. Don't ya think?

Go ahead and say that this is a "But Obama" post.

@just_sayin: This story came out a decade ago, and even back then the story had no credibility, much like I said earlier that it was more like a tabloid story, this guy failed two polygraph tests, and has a rap sheet a mile log and is proven to be a liar and a con-man, he failed two polygraph tests about this false claim and has been discredited already, this was just a salacious lie that didn't go anywhere because right wing media was so eager to stop Obama over a decade ago.

@just_sayin: Stormy passed a lie detector test, this guy failed two of them, wanna talk about Fake media and fake news , let's talk about Breitbart trying to pay off a Roy Moore accuser, and paying people to make false claims in Roy Moore's defense, let's talk about FOX news covering the false birther story for several years.

@lord_tenebrous:

^This whole Democrat and KKK thing has been covered here adnauseum, both parties have skeleton's in their closet no one is denying that, but both parties have also made contributions to civil rights and no one is denying that either. The parties flipped ideology at the midway point of the last century, somewhere around the time that Linden Johnson signed the civil rights bill. As far as gun control we have already covered that as well several times, why is it so hard to come to a common ground where the 2nd amendment is respected and people's safety is also respected, there are many common sense proposals that will address this but are being stalled because a special interest wants to make maximum profit, this kind of special interest is very similar to big tobacco years ago, trying to fight safety but people's safety always wins out in the long run, and now less people smoke than ever, these kids today are going to make an impact, and gun safety is going to be paramount in the years to come, once we vote out all of these retarded politicians that don't want common sense reform.

@lord_tenebrous: Is he the worst? I believe so, but only time will tell, the oval office should be a place of stability, and so far he has been an "unstable idiot" under the sway of foreign powers, and the inability to divest himself entirely of business interests. He is unwilling to sacrifice for the American people his money means more to him than the future of the country, signing tarrifs and getting into trade wars that are only going to hurt his own voters, when will he show us his tax returns, what does he have to hide? He acts like a man with lot's to hide, trying to shut down any investigation against him no matter how lawful, the only context that he brings up loyalty is only in relation to himself instead of the constitution and the American people, fires anyone that disagrees with him or isn't a psychophant, he has made no sacrifices himself, is he the worst? History will decide, but in my eyes there is a long gap between decency and this white house.

Now, be fair, he claims he did not fail the polygraph tests and he won the $20,000 libel suit over that specific issue. So... maybe he is telling the truth. His story hasn't changed - unlike McDaniels who signed a statement that she did not have sex with Trump just 3 weeks ago.

If the media is right wing, then why didn't you know about this story already? You know about false tales in a Russian dossier but not about a cocaine laced limousine riding man loving two day affair of Obama's.

There is a double standard in covering scandal. CNN has 24/7 coverage of McDaniels - even going to her strip club. Want to see the footage of her being motorboated? I can send that to you.

Here are some media quotes from how the media reacted to Juanita Broadrick and Paula Jones:

“The case is being fomented by right-wing nuts, and yes, she [Paula Jones] is not a very credible witness, and it’s really not a law case at all...some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks...I think she’s a dubious witness, I really do.”

— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 7, 1994.

“We’ve got an awful lot to talk about this week, including the [Paula Jones] sexual harassment suit against the President. Of course, in that one, it’s a little tough to figure out who’s really being harassed.”

— Today co-host Bryant Gumbel, May 10, 1994.

“Why does anyone care what this woman [Paula Jones] has to say? ...Bottom line, Sam. Is she not trying to capitalize on this, in effect to profit from impugning the President?”

— Questions from Good Morning America co-host Charles Gibson to Sam Donaldson about his Paula Jones interview, June 16, 1994. Note: Jones eventually was awarded $850,000 in damages from Bill Clinton.

“I have to profess complete confusion over this entire [Paula Jones] case, why this is even a case. If any man, I don’t care who he is, invites me to a room and pulls his pants down and asks me to do something, he’s going to have a decided limp from that day on and I go on with my life. I don’t need to sue anyone, it doesn’t traumatize me, I don’t understand why this is even a case to begin with.”

— Gannett’s Deborah Mathis on Inside Washington, August 3, 1997.

“The [Juanita Broaddrick] story doesn’t deserve to be dignified by being broadcast and displayed. What I find fascinating about this case is that we’ve sunk so low now that a charge of this magnitude can be leveled against the President of the United States with next to no evidence at all. I think that’s outrageous.”

— Time national correspondent Jack E. White on Inside Washington, February 27, 1999.

Don Imus: “I was reading in either Time or Newsweek that even the woman herself, Juanita Broaddrick said that she hopes that this thing went away this week and even she was sick about hearing about it and it’s her story.”

Rather: “Well, let’s hope she gets her way with that.”

— Exchange on February 23, 1999 Imus in the Morning on MSNBC.

“Are we going to look back on this time 100 years from now the way we look back on Salem?...We’re going to wind up with government by goody-goodies, government by people who have done nothing in their life expect walk the straight and narrow, who have no creative thoughts. We’re going to look back on this 100 years from now and say we drove some of our best people out of politics. In the 20th century, having an interesting sexual history is a leading indicator of success in the Presidency.”

— Newsweek Senior Editor Joe Klein on Face the Nation, May 8, 1994.

@just_sayin: Oh boy, you are just full of conspiracy theories, this story was known years ago, it was known to be a lie then, and it's still a lie now, you probably still believe the whole birther thing don't you?

@just_sayin: I don't care who bangs who, the only reason why the Daniel's thing got so much publicity is because the hush money possibly violated campaign laws and tax laws.

@just_sayin: Actually the only reason that Daniels is in the news at all is because of Cohen, he made a statement a month ago that he paid her the hush money with his own funds without the President's knowledge (which violates statutes in itself) that's the only reason why anyone is talking about this, it's a story that won't go away of the President's or I guess you can say President's lawyers own making.

@black3stpanth3r:

The parties did not switch ideologies. I disproved that already in the post you replied to. But nice try.

It has been statistically proven that less guns = more overall crime.

And despite what the media wants us to believe, gun crime has been steadily decreasing for the past 20+ years.

Also, Trump did show his tax returns, and they were legit.

@lord_tenebrous: Wow , just wow, ok you can believe whatever you want, the stat's can make you think whatever you want, one school shooting is one too many in my book, we don't see that sort of thing happen in other developed nations, I don't think that your stat's make it any more comforting for those who lost loved ones in those shootings, your stat's won't bring back those that were lost, that could have been prevented with more common sense safety regulations, we still have more mass shootings in public places than any other developed nation.

@lord_tenebrous: Why is it ok to make improvements in car safety and not guns? Why is it ok to make improvements in cigarette safety but not guns? Why is it ok to make Food and Drugs more safe with the FDA and not guns? How does gun safety infringe on 2nd amendment rights? Why shouldn't we have improved background check's to prevent people that shouldn't have gun's from getting them? Why can't we prevent convicted Felons from, and people with violent offenses from getting easy access to guns?

@lord_tenebrous: If you can impact a person with a D.U.I. when it comes to driving, why can't you have a similar impact on someone with a criminal record from getting easy access to the AR?

@lord_tenebrous:

Not surprising Trump fled DC. Didn’t want to see more people at the anti gun rally than his inauguration.

Not surprising Hidin Ryan and Yertle McConnel are MIA as well.

@just_sayin:

"[they] believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth…"

-- Barney Frank

@lord_tenebrous:

Good going, Youth of America!

Don't forget, that in order for gun laws to be useful, there are some practices that need to change.

Ownership of multiple guns has to go.

3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.

This enables them to saturate society, as there are no background checks needed for personal sales.

AND we need to take a cue from other countries where guns stay at the shooting ranges, locked up.

If you want to continue with the sport of target shooting, then you need to understand the importance of this.

I would love to see less and less guns produced.

They have been a money making scourge on our country for too long.

Too bad Dopey Don is out lying to his golf partners in FL instead of being at the WH. If he was, he could go outside and see what a REAL crowd looks like ~ not like that pathetic group at his inauguration.

There won't be another crowd like this in DC until his successor is sworn in.

@black3stpanth3r:

I have never said that I am against gun safety and background checks. No logical person is against that.

I am against gun banning and confiscation, and certain ludicrous rules under the guise of "gun safety."

Banning ownership of multiple guns is unconstitutional, illogical, controlling, and without any basis whatsoever.

Guns are primarily for self-defense.. What is their use is they stay locked up in a shooting range? When a burglar breaks into my home, threatening my family, what do I do? Tell him to wait while I call the police, or to wait right there while I go drive to the shooting range to get my weapon? Yeah, no.

Hitler, Stalin and all the great dictators of the world also enjoyed banning guns from citizens. Wonder why.

The shooter in Pearl Missispi was stopped by a citizen with a gun.

All the shootings occur in gun free zones. Wonder why.

Our background checks are flawless currently. Criminals and felons and people with mental health records are not permitted to own firearms. Background checks are mandatory for every gun transaction - personal purchases are monitored as well, and subjected to the same regulations.

The shooter in Texas had domestic abuse records which would have disqualified him of the ability to purchase the weapons he used. The Obama Administration failed to validate and submit his records into his data file, thus the background check came up clean.

Do your research, and you will find that all the shooters have acquired their guns due to failure on the family or the government's part to properly submit info into their background file, or through accessing the gun of family member or friend that was irresponsibly handled and placed.

The number of deaths we have by mass shootings is laughable in comparison to the amount of murders annually occurring in "developed" countries like Australia and Britain. Taking a que from them.. no thanks, their crime rates have been steadily skyrocketing since their gun laws. London is now known as the "Knife city of Europe" due to their unrivaled and unparalleled knife crime rates.

The stats represent what works and what doesn't - and they don't support your view, whether you like it or not.

Less guns = more innocent deaths

The President doesn't make laws. If the gun movement wants gun legislation then they have to speak to Congress. Congress makes the laws, the President just signs them as a check and balance. Article One of the Constitution is the Legislative Party and Article Two is thee Executive Branch/President, thus Congress is actually more important to the laws of the nation than the President.

He doesn't have to be there - just incase you were thinking Lord_Tenebrus was an alt account of mine, lol

we also have more people. Russia and China have a lot of people but they are Communist.

You think Pence will draw that much?

Just asking, why didn't they have these Marches under Obama when there where many, many school shootings? Why now? If HRC were President, would there have been a march today?

In 2009 the DEMs had 57 seats with 2 Independents but only 32 of them voted for gun legislation. Politicians don't want actual laws that make a difference, they want to stay in power and look moral. Republicans do this to. They make a law about Planned Parenthood knowing full well Obama wouldn't sign it, but when Trump is in office - where are the laws much like Obamacare repeal. Both parties do this

@willpayton: why is Hannity on the picture of White House Survivor???

@lord_tenebrous: You misunderstood, not saying locking them up at the actual shooting range, I meant when they are in the house they should be locked up and secured, or if you take it outside of the house it should be for hunting, or at the shooting range, why does one person need his own private armory? One person shouldn't own 500 guns like the las vegas shooter, I just don't see any good reason for them to own 500 guns, 3% own 50% of the guns and those other gun's are sold to people to the point where they can't be tracked.