about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Mike Malloy has been a hero of mine since I started listening to him back in the Dubya Bush days, circa 2002. Lately he has been doing a daily podcast with video on youtube from Georgia. He uses all the pejorative and profane language necessary to express himself, so fair warning.
Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 20h 45m 50s
How the aristocracy rules
The Aristocracy uses racism and xenophobia to keep the lower classes in line. As Beau explains so well in this video.
Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 15h 40m 37s
The Liberty to be Free and the Freedom to have Liberty
The fundamental flaw in all Libertarian philosophy consists of the following truth: no one
individual exists or can exist without assistance from his or her community or fellow human beings.
We have to talk to one another and have community discussions about what to do and how to proceed.
There is also no automatic calibration that can be created which attaches individuals to their
community or society that is independent of the social conditions and relations.
We are not primitive tribes, hunting and wandering off the land, living in temporary easily
constructed and deconstructed abodes. Our nation is a heavily capital invested social order. Every
person, every single day lives their life in the modern world (especially the United States) thanks
to the infrastructure created by a heritage of fellow human beings and their community. Every where
you go, everything you do, everything you eat in the modern world would not be possible were it not
for unseen persons who provided these conveniences like indoor plumbing, septic systems, traffic
lights, interstate highways, coffee shops, truck drivers, wharf attendants, train stations,
restaurants, grocery stores, etc… Even in the ages before airports, every harbor or river port town
needed a maned lighthouse and a reservoir of knowledgeable local professionals to navigate the
waterways. A single ship (or plane) represents a plethora of different persons, both in the creation
of the ship, and in the usage after the ship was created. The mere act of walking into a building is
possible only because a large number of persons designed, organized, and physically constructed that
Libertarianism ignores this context when viewing capital creation from a historical perspective.
When you purchase an item in a market (retail or internet) a whole infrastructure was or has been
created that is being regulated by numerous unseen persons in order to maximize the efficiency of
such markets. Libertarianism views these concerns as more easily addressed by the minimization or
elimination of government because unclean humans are biased, and human governments tend towards
authoritarianism. Libertarianism strips the people out of the background environment and portrays
events based upon individual singularities, individual responsibilities, while ignoring the
alternate reality of aristocracy evolving to authoritarianism. Libertarianism hides human reality
behind the facade of money and mathematics — where only prices, formulas, mathematical algorithms
and spending habits determine the development of society and community. However every advance was
enabled by an environment. You can’t have automobiles without roads. You can’t have a free
exchange of ideas (or an efficient market for goods and services) without a cheap postal service.
You cannot have basic human services (police, fire, legal) effectively and efficiently administered
without taxes paid for proportional to the level of income. Having a standing military or a state
department gathering data and global relationships is also better done than when not influenced by
the various potential agendas of private interests and the natural profit motives thereof.
Libertarianism is a belief that government is anathema to the natural order of human society.
Intrusion of government into human affairs is thus viewed with an immoral character. Taxes in
particular is the poster child for why the Libertarian Party exists — which is why Libertarianism is
hijacked by large wealthy elite individuals who don’t want to pay taxes and need a justification.
In the past, this was the difference between “Liberty” and “Freedom”. Liberty means you are not
held accountable for your social or economic practices. Freedom means that the court of law or
civil jurisprudence has no reason to limit your actions. In this sense, individuals have the Liberty
to be Free, but not the Freedom to have Liberty. Either way you still have to pay taxes. In the
Libertarian view, taxes are a theft from the productive uses of individuals because of the
fundamental Libertarian premise that individual uses are always better than collective uses, ie. not
having freedom to have Liberty.
This idea that the individual will always make better choices and can better use investment funds is the
crux of the Libertarian philosophy, the conflict between Freedom and Liberty. The dynamic is often
couched in a further belief that relying on individual choices is the best protection against
authoritarianism. Human beings are irrational, often driven by needs that are dysfunctional to the
larger society. Short term desires override long term needs, especially when such long term needs
can be outsourced or externalized to other responsible agents and then ignored. Individuals are hard
pressed to wait 20 or 30 years to make a marginal return on invested funds while taking large losses
up front. Humans are more easily persuaded to make tons of money on the front end of the cycle,
then getting out on the back end of the cycle when the losses accumulate. This has been the dynamic
of the mass consumer economic system. Look at all the consumer items that were developed since
World War Two. These events occurred because of short term profit motives, not from long term
stability concerns. Making money was always the priority.
Hence, currently we are all dealing with the external costs of plastic refuse destroying ocean
eco-systems and carbon pollution tipping the climate system equilibrium. We have infrastructure
needs all over the 50 states that are not being addressed by the invisible hand of the free market
because Libertarianism is a stillborn idea. Human beings are not solitary isolated individual units
of economic production. All human progress is a collective effort, even in a capitalist society.
Which is what the word "capitalist" means btw, an economic system that relies upon the development of "capital" goods. The word is quite often twisted and construed by Libertarians, who confuse economic feudalism with the development and nurturing of capital goods. How these capital goods are created and distributed is more related to the social and cultural norms of the community and society, not to some abstract equilibrium models that balance market & wage prices, even when capital goods and markets are largely controlled by non-government entities.
Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 20h 2m 8s
A Summary of the Mueller Report
Congressman, and true patriot, Adam Schiff makes these opening statements at today's 2nd hearing
with Robert Mueller in the House Intelligence Committee.
Your report, for those who have taken the time to study it, is methodical and it is devastating,
for it tells the story of a foreign adversary’s sweeping and systematic intervention in a close U.S.
presidential election.That should be enough to deserve the attention of every American, as you well
point out. But your report tells another story as well. For the story of the 2016 presidential
election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies. Your
investigation determined that the Trump campaign – including Trump himself – knew that a foreign
power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy,
and used it.
Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential
campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which
did not publicly shun it or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full
use of it. That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the
destruction of documents & the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish
each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime,
in any event.
But, I think, maybe, something worse. A crime is the violation of a law written by Congress. But
disloyalty to country violates the very obligation of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle
on which our nation was founded: That we, the people, not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we
decide, who shall govern, us.
This also a story about money, about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign
willing to compromise the nation’s interest not only to win, but to make money at the same
time.About a campaign chairman indebted to pro-Russian interests who tried to use his position to
clear his debts and make millions. About a national security advisor using his position to make
money from still other foreign interests.And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of
them, through a real estate project that to him, was worth a fortune, hundreds of millions of
dollars, and the realization of a lifelong ambition – a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow.A
candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history.
Donald Trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make
money. For Russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from U.S.
economic sanctions...imposed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and over human rights
violations.The secret Trump Tower meeting between the Russians and senior campaign officials was
about sanctions. The secret conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador were about
sanctions.Trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the Russians wanted more money
for themselves, and for their oligarchs.
But the story doesn’t end here either. For your report also tells a story about lies. Lots of
lies. Lies about a gleaming tower in Moscow and lies about talks with the Kremlin. Lies about the
firing of FBI Director James Comey, and lies about efforts to fire you, Mr. Mueller, and lies to
cover it up.Lies about secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions and lies about
Wikileaks. Lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. Lies about meetings in the
Seychelles to set up secret back channels, and lies about a secret meeting in New York Trump
Tower.Lies to the FBI, lies to your staff, and lies to our Committee.
And lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign
power in our history.That is where your report ends, Mr. Mueller, with a scheme to cover up,
obstruct and deceive every bit as systematic and pervasive as the Russian disinformation campaign
itself, but far more pernicious since this rot came from within.Even now, after 448 pages in two
volumes, the deception continues. The President and his acolytes say your report found no collusion,
though your report explicitly declined to address that question, since collusion can involve both
criminal and non-criminal conduct.Your report laid out multiple offers of Russian help to the Trump
campaign, the campaign’s acceptance of that help, and overt acts in furtherance of Russian help. To
most Americans, that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not.
They say your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outline numerous actions by
the President intended to obstruct the investigation. They say the President has been fully
exonerated, though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him.In fact, they say your whole
investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the Russians didn’t interfere in our
election, that it’s all a terrible hoax.The real crime, they say, is not that the Russians
intervened to help Donald Trump, but that the FBI had the temerity to investigate it when they did.
But worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country, for that
too, continues. When asked, if the Russians intervene again, will you take their help, Mr.
President? Why not, was the essence of his answer. Everyone does it.Not in the America envisioned by
Jefferson, Madison & Hamilton. Not for those who believe in the idea that Lincoln labored until his
dying day to preserve, the idea animating our great national experiment, so unique then, so precious
still: That our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile
Monday, 22 July 2019 at 15h 20m 29s
Sunday, 21 July 2019 at 12h 31m 28s
opinion polls with a grain of salt
I am mathematically pissed off.
We need to stop using these numerous polls, week after week, as a surrogate for democracy, because
they are not only riddled with both sampling and non-sampling (systemic) errors, but they are also
manipulated in ways that dilute their actual value.
Sampling a large population is useful. Obtaining data about a large population can often be
expensive, in addition to propagating unforeseen systemic errors that can lead to erroneous
conclusions. For example: if your method of sampling is ⅔ rds more likely to get a certain type of
person, then that characteristic will be more likely representative in the sample. Hence, the modern
sampling methods are more likely to rely upon people who are sedentary and willing to spend 10 or
more minutes responding to a poll. Small samples are also likely to be effected on the extreme —
akin to looking at sports players in a given week as opposed to the entire year. The smaller sample
size can produce extremes more frequently than large samples.
Sampling is inherent to any collection of data. Data is also inherent to our modern scientific
management believe systems, hence a need arose in the 18th and 19th centuries to quantify how to
collect and analyze data. Frequency distributions, bar graphs, and line graphs showing changes over
time are the most common. But these are measures of hard data. Pounds of imports of steel. Costs
of health care per month. Numbers of traffic accidents per day. This collection of data is
completely different to the matter of opinions, asking people what they believe or how they feel in
relation to a constructed verbal question.
Opinion polls are not hard collections of data. What does it mean when 45% of your sample says
“Yes”, 25% says “Maybe”, and 30% says “No” ? Which is a 3 index scale. Some scales are 5 or 6 or
10 — which is where the colloquial saying “He/She is a perfect 10” comes from. This is where humans
are supposed to proportionally scale our emotions or sentiments or philosophical predispositions all
along the range from 1 to “x” , where “x” is say 3, 5, 6, or 10. The notion of zero has no place
here, since the number 1 means the lowest rank and zero would mean the absence of any such rank.
Mind you, it’s not like people think this deeply about these matters. Humans are intuitive when it
comes to having opinions involving non-hard collections of data, where the numbers are ambiguous,
not related to quantifiable measurements or weights. You can’t put your opinion or belief on a
scale and measure the weight like you can with a watermelon or automobile, because the criteria or
schema by which measurement occurs is different depending on both the life experiences of the person
AND the context of what question is being asked. How people answer a question always depends upon
the inherent null and full conceptions of the context — in other words, the absence or complete
So if you are asked, “How do you feel about X?”, your response depends upon a multitude of factors.
Are you cognizant of X? Do you even know who X is? What is the experience by which you obtained
your current knowledge or idea of X? Is your feeling or sentiment nuanced or singular? All of
these questions matter when it comes to an interpretation of a poll based upon opinions, no less
than obtaining a sample based upon slightly amorphous data. There are viable instances when a
“Maybe” is actually a “Yes” or a “No”, not less than the issue of how one quantifiably interprets
the difference between a 4 or a 5 on a 6 point scale.
This matter of the middle is what troubles the statistics of non-hard data collections. How do you
interpret what is in between a “yes” or a “no” question? What happens when a Yes or No question
forces the notion of “Maybe” to choose between two choices instead of three (or more) ? In most
cases, “Maybe” actually means either “yes” or “no” because people are responding to the ambiguity of
the context, or as a result of the sequence of questions that were asked.
This is why opinion polls are more reliable at the extremes. 60 to 40 versus 70 to 30 is a huge
difference. As a rule of thumb, 10% is like one unit on a Richter Scale. Likewise, an event that
does not ever cross a percentage threshold (say 50%) over a period of 3 or 4 or 5 or more years
means a lot more than the up and down monthly measurements, which can be completely skewed by
context, small sample size and relative ambiguity ( “are you confident”, “do you like”, “are you
better off”, …) of the questions being asked.
Saturday, 20 July 2019 at 13h 46m 46s
This is what they do
240 Democrats plus 4 Republicans plus 1 independent vs. 187 Republicans
House Republicans who voted against Tuesday's resolution denouncing the President's Racist comments
telling 4 Congresswomen of Color to "go back" to their "crime infested" countries
Rep. Ralph Abraham (LA-05)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12)
Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-Large)
Rep. Jodey Arrington (TX-19)
Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36)
Rep. Don Bacon (NE-02)
Rep. Jim Baird (IN-04)
Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12)
Rep. Jim Banks (IN-03)
Rep. Andy Barr (KY-06)
Rep. Jack Bergman (MI-01)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Rep. Michael Bost (IL-12)
Rep. Kevin Brady (TX-08)
Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-16)
Rep. Ken Buck (CO-04)
Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN-08)
Rep. Ted Budd (NC-13)
Rep. Tim Burchett (TN-02)
Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL-01)
Rep. Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01)
Rep. John Carter (TX-31)
Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Rep. Liz Cheney (WY-At-Large)
Rep. Ben Cline (VA-06)
Rep. Michael Cloud (TX-27)
Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04)
Rep. Doug Collins (GA-09)
Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27)
Rep. James Comer (KY-01)
Rep. Mike Conaway (TX-11)
Rep. Paul Cook (CA-08)
Rep. Rick Crawford (AR-01)
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02)
Rep. John Curtis (UT-03)
Rep. Warren Davidson (OH-08)
Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Rep. Sean Duffy (WI-07)
Rep. Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02)
Rep. Tom Emmer (MN-06)
Rep. Ron Estes (KS-04)
Rep. Drew Ferguson (GA-03)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03)
Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL-01)
Rep. Mike Gallagher (WI-08)
Rep. Greg Gianforte (MT-At-Large)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH-07)
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (OH-16)
Rep. Lance Gooden (TX-05)
Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Rep. Tom Graves (GA-14)
Rep. Garret Graves (LA-06)
Rep. Sam Graves (MO-06)
Rep. Mark Green (TN-07)
Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI-06)
Rep. MIchael Guest (MS-03)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02)
Rep. Jim Hagedorn (MN-01)
Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Rep. Kevin Hern (OK-01)
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
Rep. Jody Hice (GA-10)
Rep. Clay Higgins (LA-03)
Rep. French Hill (AR-02)
Rep. George Holding (NC-02)
Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09)
Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08)
Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI-02)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
Rep. Mike Johnson (LA-04)
Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-06)
Rep. Dusty Johnson (SD-At-Large)
Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Rep. David Joyce (OH-14)
Rep. John Joyce (PA-13)
Rep. John Katko (NY-24)
Rep. Fred Keller (PA-12)
Rep. Trent Kelly (MS-01)
Rep. Mike Kelly (PA-16)
Rep. Steve King (IA-4)
Rep. Peter King (NY-03)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16)
Rep. David Kustoff (TN-08)
Rep. Darin LaHood (IL-18)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05)
Rep. Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)
Rep. Billy Long (MO-07)
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
Rep. Frank Lucas (OK-03)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
Rep. Roger Marshall (KS-01)
Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Rep. Brian Mast (FL-18)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (CA-23)
Rep. Michael McCaul (TZ-10)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
Rep. David McKinley (WV-01)
Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Rep. Dan Meuser (PA-09)
Rep. Carol Miller (WV-03)
Rep. Paul Mitchell (MI-10)
Rep. John Moolenaar (MI-04)
Rep. Alex Mooney (WV-02)
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
Rep. Dan Newhouse (WA-04)
Rep. Ralph Norman (SC-05)
Rep. Devin Nunes (CA-22)
Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06)
Rep. Greg Pence (IN-06)
Rep. Scott Perry (PA-10)
Rep. Bill Posey (FL-08)
Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX-04)
Rep. Tom Reed (NY-23)
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14)
Rep. Tom Rice (SC-07)
Rep. Denver Riggleman (VA-05)
Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Rep. Phil Roe (TN-01)
Rep. Mike Rogers (AL-03)
Rep. Hal Rogers (KY-05)
Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-16)
Rep. John Rose (TN-06)
Rep. David Rouzer (NC-07)
Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21)
Rep. John Rutherford (FL-04)
Rep. Steve Scalise (LA-01)
Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Rep. Austin Scott (GA-08)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Rep. John Shimkus (IL-15)
Rep. Mike Simpson (ID-02)
Rep. Jason Smith (MO-08)
Rep. Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04)
Rep. Lloyd Smucker (PA-11)
Rep. Ross Spano (FL-15)
Rep. Pete Stauber (MN-08)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21)
Rep. Bryan Steil (WI-01)
Rep. Greg Steube (FL-17)
Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Rep. Steve Stivers (OH-15)
Rep. Van Taylor (TX-03)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (PA-15)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Rep. William Timmons (SC-04)
Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Rep. Mike Turner (OH-10)
Rep. Ann Wagner (MO-02)
Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Rep. Greg Walden (OR-02)
Rep. Mark Walker (NC-06)
Rep. Jackie Walorski (IN-02)
Rep. Michael Waltz (FL-06)
Rep. Steve Watkins (KS-02)
Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14)
Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-11)
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)
Rep. Bruce Westerman (AR-04)
Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Rep. Rob Wittman (VA-01)
Rep. Steve Womack (AR-03)
Rep. Rob Woodall (GA-07)
Rep. Ron Wright (TX-06)
Rep. Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Rep. Dong Young (AK-At-Large)
Rep. Lee Zeldin (NY-01)
They call the opposition names rather than discuss policy. They speak folklore and half-truths
rather than explaining historical knowledge or elucidating legal documents and practices. They are
shills for large donors who benefit from the current dysfunctional corporate/hedge-fund economic
system, and their eyes are either blinded by access to such wealth, or they imbibe the philosophical
dystopia because they are true believers.
We have reached a point where the obvious hypocrisy is blatant to the educated, and knowledgeable to
even the ignorant. So what do our lords hording massive wealth do? They corporatize and downgrade
education. They get rid of scientists. They create massive disinformation campaigns and hire
stooges to prop up con artistry (I'm looking at you Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro).
And they use racist memes. White Nationalism and Nativism (Thailand) is rising all over the world.
Steve Bannon is on tour in Europe right now stirring up the pot. Middle Aged WASP males are
standing in front of audiences at lecterns sponsored by think tanks talking about concerns and
worries and needing to stunt the "troubling trends" towards a "multicultural" society. Do a google
How far does this go?
Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 12h 23m 18s
The local newspaper out here in the land of liberal fruits and nuts is the San Francisco Chronicle.
Another newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner, is a free rag that is available in thousands of
kiosks across the city. The history of newspapers in San Francisco is no different than other large
urban areas in the United States. Where there used to be 4 or 5 or more competing newspapers, now
there is one with another sidekick or two. Weekly info papers try to fill the gap, but tend to
focus on lesser quality journalistic endeavors or entertainment and restaurant concerns.
Well out here, Donald Trump Jr. appeared to have arrived in San Francisco on Knob Hill for a fund
raising event that was ticketed at $35,000 per couple.
Only the SF Examiner bothered to send a journalist, to do, well, you know, actual journalism.
[SOURCE:Sf Examiner | Joe Fitzgerald
Rodriguez |17 July 2019 ]
When asked about why they supported Mr. Trump, or what they thought about his recent comments over
sending 4 black women duly elected as Congressional representative back to their countries -- this
is what the upper classes of San Francisco had to say
Some of those Republicans had choice words for San Francisco.
Charlie Kirk, founder of conservative group Turning Point USA, exited the fundraiser following Don
Jr. Kirk’s group has struggled with budding white nationalists within its ranks, according to the
Huffington Post. Still, Kirk didn’t hide his disdain for The City by the Bay.
“It’s a beautiful city with a lot of problems,” Kirk continued, which he listed as “homelessness,
for one, and failing public schools, for two.” When asked how he would solve The City’s homeless
problem Kirk said, “stop electing Democrats.”
“It was fabulous,” said Joan Leone, the president of a 200-member group the Republican Women’s Club
of San Francisco.
Don Jr. talked for “a very long time,” she said, though she and other attendees said he did not
touch on San Francisco. And why did she attend the event? Simple, Leone told reporters.
“We love Donald Trump, we want him to win. How about my 401k? How about low unemployment? We all
know what he’s done as president and we want four more years of that,” she said.
Gregory Mendez, who attended the event, told reporters outside that Trump is “a great president”
because “taxes are great. Immigration, he’s doing as well as he can.”
Responding to Trump’s recent critiques of United States representatives known as “The Squad,” in
which the president said those representatives — three of whom were born in the United States —
should go back to the countries they came from, Mendez said, “people who are viciously critical of
this great nation maybe should think about why they’re in this nation.”
WTF is this bullshit. Hiding behind their luxury and status in the economy, while ignoring that
more than 30% of the 2017 tax cuts went to corporate stock buybacks, but oh my, golly gee, that 401k
is hawt babe !?!
Do these people realize we have a situation where a wanna-be dictator is using racist memes to
avoid questions about Russian collusion. He is using ICE and CBP to create vast private holding
centers -- at tax payer expense -- currently
being filled with immigrants seeking asylum. Additionally, the demeaning and inaccurate words
"socialist" and "communist" and
"haters" of America is starting to become the norm. Being told to "love it or leave it" is the same as
saying shut the fuck up and bow down to our superiority.
Excuse me but back before the Civil War constituents would allocate their taxes all the time for
and community needs, like poor houses, police and fire departments, buildings, schools, roads,
railroads -- often using taxes to subscribe to the stock of the created railroads. Because society
is created by investment in the community, not because of some independent magical Adam Smith "free
hand" that automatically creates the best society and gets government off the backs of the people.
The government is the people, which earlier generations of Americans intuitively understood.
Notice what these stallions of the Republicans say when given an opportunity to express their ideas,
or to try to convince with their different
opinions. Mr. Kirk, when asked about what he thought about "solving" the homeless problem, offered
no substance or policy position other than to say don't vote for the other party. Which by default
means nothing other than the same, addressing the symptom of homelessness with big show case events
and street sweeps, proving that politicians are "tough" on the marginalized souls who wind up
sleeping on the streets. Stopping our voting for "Democrats" will somehow change this trajectory,
because of some unarticulated reason.
I have personally encountered these upper crust San Francisco Republicans. There is no policy.
There is no ideology. It is quite simply all about maintaining status and wealth, which is why the
very first reason given by Mrs. Joan Leone is her 401k. She also gives away how clueless these
Republicans are when she utters her second reason -- low unemployment statistics. Touting high
profits on stocks and low unemployment statistics is like jumping up and down and going
ga-ga-goo-goo over 2 data sets within a sea of literally thousands of data sets.
Are you concerned over the dismantling of the science at NASA and the Department of Agriculture? No,
we are making money hand over fist and have a small statistic of limited value called the
unemployment rate. Well, how about looking at other data sets that are more relevant and less
easily manipulated, such as ...
But none of these matters were considered by these swarthy caretakers of the Republican elites.
That's because they are blind. They have plenty of money. They don't have to work multiple jobs or
have rents that take away 50% of their earnings, and they paid for their children's college
education by writing a flat check.
Meanwhile they look at blatant white nationalism and racism and private firms making money housing
immigrant refuges in camps with not a care in the world.
Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 8h 4m 35s
Citizens and persons
Beau decimates the notions that certain racists have about immigrants not having constitutional rights.
Saturday, 13 July 2019 at 11h 47m 33s
What can you do to affect Climate Change Solutions?
Click here to find out 100 solutions
suggested by Paul Hawken from Sausalito, California.