Quit Picking on the Republicans


TenPenny
#661
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Well, feel free to switch over to the hockey game.



You just don't have the ability to keep up, do you?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#662
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

You just don't have the ability to keep up, do you?

Hard to "keep up" from in front.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#663
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Why is that a problem? It's in our Constitution. The people don't elect the President, the state legislatures do.

I am rapidly gaining new respect for our Westminster model system after watching this bizarre spectacle. I think that having an active third party or even fourth, even if they never reach power, moderates the results of our elections and prevents us from shifting to either the extreme left or right.

The two party dichotomy is pretty poisonous and, in this case, led to two widely despised individuals running for President, all the while trying to keep their ridiculously wide power bases happy.

Vat a schmess!
 
davesmom
#664
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Yep, got to agree with most of what you say but I suppose that Ontario & Quebec getting to "run the country" is fair in that a vote in those provinces is the same strength as any other vote in the country. In British Columbia, one could say the province is run by the Lower Mainland, but the truth is that's where the bulk of the people live.



I do believe in majority rule and that's pretty much what happens. But considering how widespread Canada is and how diverse east is from west, is it really fair to the less populated western provinces to be ruled by the two eastern provinces?
Maybe what is needed is an electoral divide, say Eastern Canada and Western Canada with some room for legal flexibility?
I now live in Southern Ontario but I have lived also in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and I know that the interests of the population and the lifestyles in the Western Provinces are quite different from those of Ontario.
There is even a high degree of diversity between northern and southern Ontario. It's pretty hard to make 'one size fits all' laws and expect people to be happy with them.
Back in the day when the rural populations were the majority there seemed to be less discontent. Urban lifestyles have taken over the majority and their interests are completely opposite to the rural population on most issues.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#665
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmom View Post

I do believe in majority rule and that's pretty much what happens. But considering how widespread Canada is and how diverse east is from west, is it really fair to the less populated western provinces to be ruled by the two eastern provinces?
Maybe what is needed is an electoral divide, say Eastern Canada and Western Canada with some room for legal flexibility?
I now live in Southern Ontario but I have lived also in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and I know that the interests of the population and the lifestyles in the Western Provinces are quite different from those of Ontario.
There is even a high degree of diversity between northern and southern Ontario. It's pretty hard to make 'one size fits all' laws and expect people to be happy with them.
Back in the day when the rural populations were the majority there seemed to be less discontent. Urban lifestyles have taken over the majority and their interests are completely opposite to the rural population on most issues.


I say split her 5 miles east of Thunder Bay and put the Capital of Canada West in Calgary.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#666
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I say split her 5 miles east of Thunder Bay and put the Capital of Canada West in Calgary.

Good Idea. Move the capital to the thinly populated outlands where most Canadians are not.
 
davesmom
#667
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I say split her 5 miles east of Thunder Bay and put the Capital of Canada West in Calgary.



I vote for Winnipeg. It's the geological centre of Canada after all. Parliament would have to stand between the east and west with nowhere to run to.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#668
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmom View Post

I vote for Winnipeg. It's the geological centre of Canada after all. Parliament would have to stand between the east and west with nowhere to run to.

The mosquitos might carry away the occasional parliamentarian in it's talons but maybe that is a good thing.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#669
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmom View Post

I vote for Winnipeg. It's the geological centre of Canada after all. Parliament would have to stand between the east and west with nowhere to run to.


That's true. I was thinking more of the centre of Canada West which would be a separate country.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Good Idea. Move the capital to the thinly populated outlands where most Canadians are not.


Calgary is not thinly populated at close to 1.2 million, but I'm easy, Edmonton or Saskatoon would work.
 
petros
#670
Edmonton is bigger.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#671
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Edmonton is bigger.

Not sure if size is a factor, after say 100,000!

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Edmonton is bigger.


Winnipeg used to be bigger.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#672



Amazing.
 
tay
#673
After North Carolina’s attempt to eliminate an entire week of early voting was struck down by a federal court in July, many Republican-controlled county election boards tried to take matters into their own hands.

Dozens of counties voted to slash the number of early voting locations — especially targeting areas of high Democratic voter turnout like college campuses and African-American neighborhoods. Many, but not all, of these cuts were blocked by the state Board of Elections.

more pics

https://thinkprogress.org/north-caro...748#.xnlll09kd


 
Tecumsehsbones
#674
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post




Amazing.

So, your point is there's stupid folks in Kansas?

Heck of shocker there, goph.
 
tay
#675
Native Americans have to drive 200 miles to vote

Nine Native American tribes asked the Nevada secretary of state last week to establish early voting locations on their reservations. They claimed the roughly 200 mile round-trip drive many of them have to make to vote early is a significant barrier to the ballot.

On Wednesday, Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said no.

“Given that your letter reached the Office of the Secretary of State less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled two week period for early voting, we regret that we are unable to accommodate your request,” she wrote in an October 26 letter to Vinton Hawley, the chairman of the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada.

https://thinkprogress.org/native-tri...810#.viz3wqyik
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#676
Fact Check: Democrats Have Created Twice As Many Jobs As Republicans Since 1950’s



Democrats are better for the economy. This statement is not an opinion, but a fact. According to economist Steven Stoft, who created a series of graphs charting job creation under each party over the last 72 years (during which time Democrats and Republicans have held control for 36 years each), Democrats have created 58 million jobs while Republicans can only claim 26 million.

For roughly the last century, electing a Democrat has been the better option for the economy, with Dems creating more than double the jobs than that of Republicans, and faster.

Even when taking the percent change of number of jobs held, or scaling population (to avoid counting an increased population, thus falsely indicating an increase in jobs), Democrats still prove more successful than Republicans in job creation, and by a wide margin.


Another way of studying job creation is to take unemployment into account. When a Democrat is in the White House, logically unemployment decreases as well. By this rational, of course, when a GOP takes the Oval Office unemployment rises (and has risen under this party) since 1945.

Indeed, this extends to state and federal levels—the top 20 years of national GDP growth have all been under a Democrat. This is not only true for GDP, but for all economic growth in general—extending to the stock market, income growth and debt as a percentage of GDP.

As if you needed more proof that the blue party is better for the economy, simply turn to the numbers over the last 70 years. When it comes time for Election Day, it’s a matter of fact that with every Democratic ballot cast, it’s almost guaranteed the country will be in a better economic position than if a Republican is sworn in.



more ....


Fact Check: Democrats Have Created Twice As Many Jobs As Republicans Since 1950's
 
petros
#677
Hooray for minimum wage?
 
tay
#678
I don’t know what I can add to the media hoopla over Oklahoma state Rep. John Bennett’s supremely weird and bigoted interim study of so-called “Radical Islam” this week, but it might be worth noting the legislator’s inflammatory gestures are symbolic of how the Republican Party here continues to offer fear-mongering as a substitute for substance.

The title of the interim study, according to an Oklahoma House press release , was “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the radicalization process,” which, of course, implies that all these things represent some type of specific and unique dilemma in outback Oklahoma.

Well, I guess the “radicalization process” by the right-wing Christian religious folks here in Oklahoma is a major problem, but I don’t think Bennett intended the title to be read that way.

Oklahoma Haters | blueoklahoma.org


 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#679
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Hooray for minimum wage?

Hiring family.

Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

I don’t know what I can add to the media hoopla over Oklahoma state Rep. John Bennett’s supremely weird and bigoted interim study of so-called “Radical Islam” this week, but it might be worth noting the legislator’s inflammatory gestures are symbolic of how the Republican Party here continues to offer fear-mongering as a substitute for substance.

The title of the interim study, according to an Oklahoma House press release , was “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the radicalization process,” which, of course, implies that all these things represent some type of specific and unique dilemma in outback Oklahoma.

Well, I guess the “radicalization process” by the right-wing Christian religious folks here in Oklahoma is a major problem, but I don’t think Bennett intended the title to be read that way.

Oklahoma Haters | blueoklahoma.org


Looks like a normal family christmas card photo.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#680
The ever intolerant right wing:



Trump protester: I was beaten for holding a 'Republicans against Trump' sign

Source: The Guardian

"The man whose protest saw Donald Trump rushed off the stage by Secret Service agents has said the Republican nominee’s supporters turned on him when he held up a sign reading: “Republicans against Trump”.

The man, who identified himself as Austyn Crites, 33, from Reno, told the Guardian he was holding the sign at a rally when Trump supporters wrestled him to the ground.

He said he was kicked, punched and choked, and feared for his life when the crowd turned on him at the gathering in Reno, Nevada.

Crites cited Trump’s treatment of Mexicans, Muslims and women as the reason he decided to protest again Trump, who he described as “a textbook version of a dictator and a fascist”.

There were panicked scenes at the Trump rally, apparently prompted by shouts from at least one person in the crowd that the protester had a gun. Hundreds of people fled to the back of the auditorium in panic as Trump was hurriedly rushed from the stage by his security detail.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nst-trump-sign
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#681
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Hooray for minimum wage?



some Republicans like the Tea Baggers prefer welfare or unemployment insurance



******************





why we must quit picking on Republicans:







 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#682
 
tay
#683
On average, the top 100 CEO nest eggs are large enough to generate for each of these executives a $253,088 monthly retirement check for the rest of their lives.


  • Among ordinary workers, those lucky enough to have 401(k) plans had a median balance at the end of 2013 of $18,433, enough for a monthly retirement check of just $101.


  • Of workers 56-61 years old, 39 percent have no employer-sponsored retirement plan whatsoever and will likely depend entirely on Social Security, which pays an average benefit of $1,239 per month. [...]
With nearly $3 billion in special tax-deferred accounts, Fortune 500 CEOs stand to gain enormously from Trump’s proposed tax cuts on top earners. [...]

The retirement asset gap between CEOs mirrors the racial and gender divides among ordinary Americans.

The 10 white male CEOs with the largest retirement funds hold a combined $1.4 billion, more than eight times more than the 10 CEOs of color with the largest retirement assets and nearly five times as much as the top 10 female CEOs.


The retirement divide is even greater when accounting for race. The CEOs' combined retirement funds are equal to the retirement savings of 59 percent of African-American families and 75 percent of Latino families.

Topping the list is Progressive CEO Glenn M. Renwick, who can expect a monthly retirement check of $1,035,733. How does that compare with regular workers lucky enough to have 401(k) plans? With an average balance at the end of 2013 of $18,433, these workers can count on a monthly check of just over $100.

Why this retirement divide? Anderson and report co-author Scott Klinger write: "This is not the result of executives working harder or investing more wisely. Instead, this gap is one more example of rule rigging in favor of the 1 percent."

To wit: pension rules that allow CEOs to put unlimited funds into tax-deferred plans, the erosion of traditional pensions, and a tax code loophole that allows for so-called "performance-based" pay.

Apart from eliminating those rules and loopholes to narrow the divide, social security should be expanded by requiring the wealthiest to pay on all their earned income; safeguarding public pensions from attack, supporting universal retirement funds, and increasing unionization as leverage for retirement benefits.

President-elect Donald Trump could make the problem worse, the report states, if he cuts the U.S. top marginal tax rate from the current 39.6 percent to 33 percent. That would save CEOs $196 million when they pay the IRS their taxes on their "special unlimited deferred compensation plans."

The new IPS report comes on the heels of an analysis by Quartz finding that Trump's 17 cabinet-level pics have more wealth than one-third of U.S. households combined.


 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#684
In fairness to the Republicans, most of these newcomers are not really real Republicans. Unfortunately, in a two party system, you have to pigeonhole everyone on the right into the same slot. There is considrable evidence that the main body of the Republican party truly loathe Trump and his entourage.
 
tay
+1
#685
Black guy wins by 10 million. GOP calls him "Illegitimate." White guy loses by 3 million. GOP calls it "Mandate"
 
EagleSmack
+1
#686
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#687
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post








Broken Record
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#688
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Broken Record

But you must admit it is a good one .
 
tay
#689
The RNC Says Its Christmas Message About a ‘New King’ Referred to Jesus, Not Donald Trump

RNC Christmas Message Referred to Jesus, Not Donald Trump
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#690
 

Similar Threads

8254
Quit picking on Obama……
by DaSleeper | May 19th, 2020
65
Quit Picking on Hillary...........
by DaSleeper | Dec 5th, 2017
559
Quit Picking On Romney
by gopher | Jun 12th, 2016