yobnoc

I think you may have missed the part where I said that it should be a choice. Now, I haven't crunched the numbers on this (I think it would be a difficult task and I haven't found myself with enough time to do so), but I'm completely in favor of a program that people can *choose* to pay into for a social security safety net. My inclination is that this would result in overall better benefits for those who do choose to invest in the program. If I'm 70 and still needing to work, then I've done it all wrong. I plan on retiring at 55, and I'd be able to probably do it sooner if I was able to invest my money the way I see fit rather than put it into a program that I most likely won't live long enough to see the benefits from.

That's a nanny-state argument: "It's for your own good." If people choose to be part of the program, then great for them! I just feel like I can manage my money better than the government can in this instance. And, since you went all morose on us here: I may find it preferable to end my own life if I found myself in that situation. Which is why I'm also completely supportive of "death with dignity" laws.

I don't disagree, but even the younger candidates are looking at SS as something that needs "saving." You can still "save" it by making the program voluntary, albeit at the expense of several...(thousand? I don't know)...federal jobs in SS admin. But that does the program a favor too. Sure, less people will be in the program, but with less administrative costs and fewer beneficiaries (those who opt out would not be eligible for benefits under any circumstances i.e. disability), I think it would cause the program to be even more solvent going forward, and maybe even increase the benefit amount for the beneficiaries. I fully understand that means that if I decided to opt out (and reclaim all the money I've ever paid into SS in a lump-sum-thank-you-very-much), and I get hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd be ineligible for SS disability. That doesn't phase me. The libertarian part of me says that is the cost of the freedom to choose. I'd have nobody to blame but myself.

I read a report today that pretty much said what we thirty-somethings plus or minus 10 years already know: that Social Security won't be around in any meaningful way by the time we get old enough to claim it. I'm still trying to figure out why the hell this program isn't voluntary. The administrative costs of SS versus the benefit payout makes it seem more like a government mandated Ponzi scheme than a "security blanket." I'm of the stance that we should make the program completely voluntary. If you want to receive SS benefits, then you must contribute for the entirety of your working years. If you'd rather have that money go toward private investments in your own 401(k)/Roth, then that should be a separate option. Give the power back to the people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-apologizes-to-americans-who-are-losing-their-health-insurance/2013/11/07/2306818e-4803-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f74948c7331 as for the second part, I cannot do that and you know it. But that’s sidetracking. President* trump has even gone so far as to say he’s never asked for forgiveness from god himself for anything in his life. Can you point out any hint of regret that trump has made for any of his blatant lies? Because I’m convinced based on all available evidence that Obama’s *one* lie that keeps getting parroted over and over was a statement that he believed to be true at the time and after reflection he realized and stated publicly that he was remorseful for the damage done to some individuals that it proved out to not be true for.

GoT reference. And I’m a healthy 31 yo man. Clearly, I’m wishing a heart attack on the president*. I’m pretty sure that hoping for a somewhat common health calamity on the president won’t earn me a visit from the Secret Service. I don’t believe in karma, btw and I’m fully at peace with wishing a speedy demise to another human, though in no way am I threatening any action on my part or the part of any other individual, either directly, indirectly, or stochastically on carrying out any violent act against any member of our government, including the president*. I think I covered my legal bases there.

Verifiable, and those which have never been readdressed. Unfortunately for you, President Obama re-addressed his statement about keeping your doctor. He admitted that he did not foresee the consequences that some Americans would face, and committed to finding a way to make it right. Can you point to one time that Trump has admitted he lied?

I took my oath seriously and with the gravity that it represents. It is not malleable based on some shifting sense of morality. Also, your phrasing is dangerously analogous to how a petulant king would justify exacting punishment on his subjects. And yes, this is how I view it. The presidency should be the pinnacle of our representation; the paramount of what America stands for. Yet here we are with President* Joffrey, taking the oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back.

That’s called false equivalence. Let’s play a game: you list every blatant and unrepentant lie that the last 3 presidents told, and I’ll list President* Trump’s blatant and unrepentant lies, and we’ll compare the list. If you can come up with more from the last 3 presidents combined then I can with Trump, I’ll concede that your assessment is fair and equitable. The odds would seem to be in your favor here, no?

Wow. I think it speaks volumes that you went ahead and put words in my mouth like "Smelly walmart people" and "deplorables." Also, you incorrectly stated that I'm in the same basket as the media and apparently we all "love" Hillary. I actually just stated that I think she's revolting. Revolting means something that disgusts. Since you self identify as a smelly walmart person, I felt I should include that for context. Deficit spending at a time when the economy is already doing fine (not great, just fine) after one of the worst economic crashes since the depression is a neat little trick that makes everyone richer for a short amount of time. Then, when the next crash comes (and it will), there is less room to recover by doing more deficit spending. Of course my 401k looks great right now, but I'm not selfish enough to think that the only thing that matters is me and my money. There are a lot of people who aren't as fortunate as I am. You have no way of knowing this because we're strangers, but I'll say it once and hopefully you have the decency to leave it be. I proudly and honorably served my Country in her Navy. I love my Country and care deeply about her citizens, her laws, and her constitution. Don't *ever* presume that you've got some superior sense of patriotism over me.

What does that have to do with the matter we were discussing? I watched the entire video; it was my second time watching this particular news conference. I guess you expected the law to be applied differently with regard to Hillary than it has been applied in the past? Comey also only made recommendations; the justice department had free reign to prosecute if they felt the case was strong enough to convict. They didn't. I find Hillary to be a revolting politician, by the way. I voted for her because I expected that Trump would be 10,000 times worse for our country than her. Given that we're not able to examine an alternate universe (except watching Trump supporters' explain away how he's the most law-and-order, non-racist, godly president* of all time), I cannot point to a situation that never happened and say "See, it's better!" I still am convinced, however, that her being president would be far less repugnant than what we're seeing unfold.

Just wanted to put this out there: Trump, the guy who, at one or more of his rallies, mocked Dr. Ford for not being able to recall minute details during her testimony re: Brett Kavanaugh, had over 30 instances of responses to Mueller's inquiry that were "I don't recall." He's supposed to have the greatest memory of all time (his words). It just makes me wonder about these die-hard trumpers who still look at him and go "Yep, that's my guy!" Seriously, how do you determine what's a lie and what's true? He lies about so much that his own staffers don't know how to proceed with his directives.

Cite your source that felonies were committed. When did Comey list the felonies? I can't seem to recall when that happened. Do you have a transcript? Corrupt intent is absolutely an essential part of any indictment. If it wasn't, then Trump would be indicted on obstruction of justice. The inconsistencies you espouse are mind-boggling. I'm simply pointing out that the only consistency in your positions is the partisan application of what standard of proof is required to indict someone either criminally or in the court of public opinion.

Thanks for that thoughtful and comprehensive response.

Let's do a simple line of questioning here so you can understand the backlash on the president's* threat to send aliens to sanctuary states/cities, because it has nothing to do with NIMBY. Do you believe that the President actually believes that the alien population poses a clear and present danger to the American Public? If no, then the president* illegally declared a state of emergency for his wall funding under false pretenses and should be removed from office for dereliction of his oath of office. If yes, then the president's* threat to send what he (and you) believes are dangerous people to cities and states that tend to vote for Democratic policies is an example of the president* intentionally placing American citizens in harm's way, and he should be removed from office for dereliction of his oath of office. Remember: this has nothing to do with whether he's right or not. It's simply his stated positions and policies he's enacted, and the natural logic that follows.

I keep seeing "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as being the standard that must be reached with the President* and it baffles me why this is the standard that it would take for Trump supporters to say "Hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be president." Impeachment is not limited to whether a criminal statute was violated anyway. The office of the president is supposed to be held to a higher standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard used in criminal court for purposes of conviction. It does not mean that if the evidence falls somewhere short of that, that the person is exonerated or hasn't engaged in nefarious activity; it only means that the evidence is not strong enough to convict. If you want to understand how little sense it makes that you hold this standard, ask yourself if you'd entrust your kid to a daycare run by Casey Anthony. If the answer is anything other than "hell no," I'd call you a liar. I'd also point out the hypocrisy that you're willing to turn a blind eye to anything less than a criminal conviction on the part of the president* and still trust our country in his tiny hands. Have some principles. You look pretty dumb pontificating about how Hillary is guilty of X,Y, and Z when she's been investigated for YEARS longer than Trump and it was a big nothingburger, but then you turn around and say "Oh, well. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is my standard."

Which Candace Owens? The 2015 version? In 2015, Owens was CEO of the website Degree180, a marketing agency that offered consultation, production and planning services. The website included a blog which frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content, including mockery of his penis size. In a 2015 column that Owens wrote for the site she criticized conservative Republicans, writing about the "bat-shit-crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party", adding, "The good news is, they will eventually die off (peacefully in their sleep, we hope), and then we can get right on with the OBVIOUS social change that needs to happen, IMMEDIATELY." Or the opportunist version of late? Owens has appeared on fringe conspiracy websites, such as InfoWars. In May 2018, Owens suggested that "something bio-chemically happens" to women who do not marry or have children In October 2018, Owens launched the Blexit movement...... Shortly after the launch, The Daily Beast found that approximately 16 percent of the total tweets using the #blexit hashtag were from Twitter accounts associated with the promotion of Russian disinformation. The one who says that racism isn't a real thing in America? In April 2018, Connecticut NAACP president Scot X. Esdaile, who had defended Owens when she was the victim of an alleged hate crime in 2007 and helped her receive a $37,500 settlement, was interviewed by Mic. He was "shocked" to learn that Owens had become conservative Later on, talking about the NAACP: Owens stated: I mean, the NAACP is one of the worst groups for black people. All they do is jump on a platform, and they never talk about real issues that are facing the black community. It’s all about PR for them, so I’m sure if they’re involved then it’s got to be absolute BS Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who "influenced [him] above all" So...Who *is* she, really? Looks like just another gross opportunist to me.

My guess is that she would have preferred that over her entire life being stigmatized. That wherever she goes, people know her and recognize her and associate her with bumping uglies with the president. She was a bystander that was thrown under the bus by Ken Starr to try to make Clinton look bad. It was an ancillary investigation that had nothing to do with the initial investigation, and violates what republicans now say they are wholly in favor of: not putting damaging information out on public display for people who are not indicted in any crime. But...The precedent was set, by republicans. So...rules for thee, but not for me? Nah...Pandora's box is wide open. Can't wait for the breakneck speed with which republicans decry the next president or the next senate majority utilizing all the dirty tricks that they (republicans) came up with; going nuclear on everything and signing executive orders and defying the courts. Although, I don't have much faith in the Democratic leadership to actually do those things, at least not to the extent that mitch mcconnell has. Edit: They've already abandoned their manufactured outrage at executive orders. I remember clearly all the commotion about executive orders that Obama signed: "He's not a king!" "This is tyranny" Meanwhile, Trump has signed almost half as many in his first 2 years as Obama did in a full 8. Annnnnd.....where's the outrage again?

No. You know what? I changed my mind. He's not f**king Joffrey, ok? If the president makes a decision that unnecessarily puts American citizens in danger, that is the stuff of dictatorships and tyrants. If he believes that's what he's doing, then don't ever claim he's some patriot. Come on, cholesterol...do your work already.

I think most Trump supporters don't understand what "Sanctuary Laws" actually are. All the other stuff you're talking about: housing, food, humanitarian projects; those have nothing to do with sanctuary laws. The basis of Sanctuary laws is to assist law enforcement. People are less likely to report a crime against them or to act as a witness if they have to worry about deportation. Sanctuary laws prevent someone from being detained and deported due to alien status if they are a witness to or victim of a crime. This is a good thing, unless you're in favor of alien populations being a vulnerable target for violent crimes.

I wrote a whole long reply but I deleted it all, because it's not worth it.

Here's the thing: You can't have it both ways. Either they are dangerous and a threat to society and we must keep them out by any means (i.e. emergency funding for Trump's hate monument) because of the danger they pose, and Trump is doing this as an illegal form of political retribution against his perceived enemies (never mind that there are 5 states that employ sanctuary policies toward aliens, of which an estimated 30-40% of the citizens are supporters of this administration), ORRRR they really aren't that dangerous and he's still only using the issue as a political wedge to try to jam through his hate monument. Even if he's right about the aliens...think about it this way: Trump has not a second thought about endangering Americans to score political points. That should worry all of us.

Touché

Damn, you old :-P

I guess I have more to learn on this. Thanks for the correction.