Putin is the most disruptive, the most anti - western civilization force on the planet.
Even though Russia's economy is classified as 28th, or so, in world, his military might is huge and unhinged. He has many weapon systems which math or supersede their western counterparts (like infamous, and only 'promised' so far, undetectable missile sytem, he unveiled a few moths ago with a stunning animated simulation of Russian attack on... Florida).
However, the most dangerous and the most effective weapon against democracy, American and West-European way of life, and the world's economy, in his arsenal is TRUMP.
Trump is either a TRAITOR, or a naive, senile prick - both of these options are scary...
Think about it, come November...
SLOGAN
- a tribute to the Social Media
A RIGHT WORD IS WORTH A THOUSAND PICTURES...
PAGES
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Thursday, January 19, 2017
ONE LINER 0017 - BIRTHER 'Trump' Movement
In 2008, when Barak Housed Obama was about to become the
44th President of the United States of America, the BIRTHER Movement was
born. It was led, for at least 5
years, by Donald J Trump who is about to become the 45th Presidents of the same
United States of America.
The most outrageous thing associated with the Birther
Movement, was not the fact that they were trying to delegitimize the President
Obama, claiming that he wasn’t worn in the States.
The most outrageous thing was, and quite ingenious, was that
instead of dismissing such a charge as completely stupid as irrelevant (I will
explain why in a moment), all Democrats and anybody supporting the President,
assumed the defensive position, trying to prove that Obama WAS born in the
States.
The bully (and I mean Donald J Trump) managed to stupefy all
Americans, and cry denying the charge!
__________
Time has past…
In 2016 Primaries to the Republican Nomination to the Presidential race,
there happened to be Senator Ted Cruz.
I do not want to talk about his lack of virtues, and the IQ making the
monkeys look like ‘brainiacs’.
What I am writing here and now is that, like President Obama
he was born in a family consisting of an American mother, and foreign-national
father. And this is where the
similarities end.
Senator Cruz was born in Canada, not in the States. And as far as this argument is
concerned, Canada is the same as Kenia, or any other country - it ain’t the
USA.
And yet, Cruz, being born outside of the country, from a
singe American parent, was eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA.
It was, all legal, and agreed by both sides of the
isle.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution imposes only
three eligibility requirements on persons serving as president – based on the
officeholder’s age, time of residency in the U.S., and citizenship status.
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the same three qualifications apply to the Vice
President of the United States:
* Only "natural-born" U.S. citizens (or those born
abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the
time) may serve president of the United States.
______________
How is it possible that Trump could have manipulated the
discussion on the presidential requirements the way he did. How is it possible, that NO-ONE ever
rose asking the questions I ask, and dismissing the absurd and completely
immaterial, and completely irrelevant accusation.
I am ashamed for all Americans, who, instead of reading the
Constitution, engaged in a straggle on the Trump’s terms.
Shame…
Monday, January 16, 2017
ONE LINER 0016 - Presidential First Dance - 1st Lady or 1st Daughter?
Since the beginning of our Country, on January 20, after the Inauguration Ceremony, the ball commences... The new Presidents danced with their wives the First Dance Of Their Presidency.
Knowing how much the 1-st Daughter, Ivanka matters to the President Elect, she is likely to replace the 1-st Lady in this ceremonial dance.
The White House is already incorporating the unprecedented changes - Family Office, instead of 1-st Lady Office, etc. Trump doesn't care about any tradition or a possibility to be accused of NEPOTISM, CRONYISM, and... you name it, what else...
We are about to have a President, who needs to be under the constant watch. Constant watch of the Congress (to prevent the likely conflicts of interest), constant watch of CIA (to anticipate and possibly prevent the damaging to the interests of the USA, stupid presidential behavior), constant watch of the fact-checkers (to catch half-baked truths, bragging, and other not-presidential statements, coming from the Office of the President). etc.
In the last couple of years of the President Obama term, I kept rather quiet. Not everything has been to my liking, not everything was in the right direction... But now, I expect that this blog will be quite busy, dealing with reality of the Trump Presidency.
I am sharpening my pen...
Knowing how much the 1-st Daughter, Ivanka matters to the President Elect, she is likely to replace the 1-st Lady in this ceremonial dance.
The White House is already incorporating the unprecedented changes - Family Office, instead of 1-st Lady Office, etc. Trump doesn't care about any tradition or a possibility to be accused of NEPOTISM, CRONYISM, and... you name it, what else...
We are about to have a President, who needs to be under the constant watch. Constant watch of the Congress (to prevent the likely conflicts of interest), constant watch of CIA (to anticipate and possibly prevent the damaging to the interests of the USA, stupid presidential behavior), constant watch of the fact-checkers (to catch half-baked truths, bragging, and other not-presidential statements, coming from the Office of the President). etc.
In the last couple of years of the President Obama term, I kept rather quiet. Not everything has been to my liking, not everything was in the right direction... But now, I expect that this blog will be quite busy, dealing with reality of the Trump Presidency.
I am sharpening my pen...
ONE LINER 0015 - Putin's friend?
The US Congress at the beginning of the 2017, a few days before the inauguration of the President Donald J Trump (alas…), on both sides of the isle, is quite unanimous on Russia being the ‘menace of the world’, and having mingled in the US 2016 election process, by hacking, releasing one sided evidence to the Wiki Leaks and so on.
Russia suffers some sanctions already, and the new sanctions are in the making.
And yet, the President-Elect have been praising the Russia’s Dictator for his wisdom, and handling of the political challenges. He has been diminishing (and previously totally dismissing) the role Russia played in hacking, and other attacks on the US, and the other allies’ affairs (hacking the newspapers around the Europe etc.).
We all know these facts, and, frankly, I still can’t believe that such a person could have been elected President of the USA.
After so much denying the merit of the findings of the CIA and other agencies about the Russian actions, Trump threatens to remove the sanctions imposed on Russia for their actions against our democracy.
On January 14 in the interview for The Wall Street Journal Trump had audacity to utter such a statement:
“If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?”(1*).
Yes, we have to admit, that Russia is a force, which does some stabilizing action in the Middle East. Yet, it’s not by humanitarian means, but indiscriminating ‘extermination’ of the civilian population in Syria, helping the tyrant like Basher Assad, who otherwise would be deposed by his ‘subjects’. Recently Russia teamed up with another ‘going-dictatorial’ force in the region - Turkey, which instead of fighting the ISIS (or I should say ‘beside’), uses this opportunity to decimate their Kurdish opposition.
Proving by his actions in Syria, in the recent months, that he was a War Criminal, Putin is probably the last person on the planet who could have been called:”…somebody's doing some really great things”. Even if he is an ‘ally’ in the fight with ISIS, no one can overlook his absolutely illegal (and condemned by the whole civilized world) annexation of the Crimea, and an attempt to steal at least part of the Ukraine. Let’s not forget the situation in Georgia and a fear which he rises in all Baltic States, who gained the sovereignty from the USSR in a peaceful (mostly) process, and do not want to fall under the New, Revived Russian Empire.
Unfortunately, the United States have had in the past some politicians, who disregarded the obvious aggression against the neighboring countries, and wanted to talk and negotiate with the tyrant… I am talking about Joseph P. Kennedy Sr - the father of so beloved President John F Kennedy, who rejected the warnings of the prominent Member of Parliament Winston Churchill that any compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible. Instead, Kennedy supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's apparent policy of appeasement. Throughout 1938, while the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany and Austria intensified, Kennedy attempted to arrange a meeting with Adolf Hitler.[39] Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy once again sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without the approval of the Department of State, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany”.(*2)
Let’s think for a moment how misguided this lack of judgement on part of Kennedy was…
President Elect Donald J Trump is doing the same, stupid mistake diminishing the danger, which is associated with letting Putin do what he wants.
I only hope that being surrounded by the people (who he hand picked himself), who are more realistic about Russia and the thread it constitutes, will influence the change in his thinking direction.
If not… God, save us all.
_____________________________
1* - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-taiwan/
2* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.
Russia suffers some sanctions already, and the new sanctions are in the making.
And yet, the President-Elect have been praising the Russia’s Dictator for his wisdom, and handling of the political challenges. He has been diminishing (and previously totally dismissing) the role Russia played in hacking, and other attacks on the US, and the other allies’ affairs (hacking the newspapers around the Europe etc.).
We all know these facts, and, frankly, I still can’t believe that such a person could have been elected President of the USA.
After so much denying the merit of the findings of the CIA and other agencies about the Russian actions, Trump threatens to remove the sanctions imposed on Russia for their actions against our democracy.
On January 14 in the interview for The Wall Street Journal Trump had audacity to utter such a statement:
“If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?”(1*).
Yes, we have to admit, that Russia is a force, which does some stabilizing action in the Middle East. Yet, it’s not by humanitarian means, but indiscriminating ‘extermination’ of the civilian population in Syria, helping the tyrant like Basher Assad, who otherwise would be deposed by his ‘subjects’. Recently Russia teamed up with another ‘going-dictatorial’ force in the region - Turkey, which instead of fighting the ISIS (or I should say ‘beside’), uses this opportunity to decimate their Kurdish opposition.
Proving by his actions in Syria, in the recent months, that he was a War Criminal, Putin is probably the last person on the planet who could have been called:”…somebody's doing some really great things”. Even if he is an ‘ally’ in the fight with ISIS, no one can overlook his absolutely illegal (and condemned by the whole civilized world) annexation of the Crimea, and an attempt to steal at least part of the Ukraine. Let’s not forget the situation in Georgia and a fear which he rises in all Baltic States, who gained the sovereignty from the USSR in a peaceful (mostly) process, and do not want to fall under the New, Revived Russian Empire.
Unfortunately, the United States have had in the past some politicians, who disregarded the obvious aggression against the neighboring countries, and wanted to talk and negotiate with the tyrant… I am talking about Joseph P. Kennedy Sr - the father of so beloved President John F Kennedy, who rejected the warnings of the prominent Member of Parliament Winston Churchill that any compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible. Instead, Kennedy supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's apparent policy of appeasement. Throughout 1938, while the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany and Austria intensified, Kennedy attempted to arrange a meeting with Adolf Hitler.[39] Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy once again sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without the approval of the Department of State, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany”.(*2)
Let’s think for a moment how misguided this lack of judgement on part of Kennedy was…
President Elect Donald J Trump is doing the same, stupid mistake diminishing the danger, which is associated with letting Putin do what he wants.
I only hope that being surrounded by the people (who he hand picked himself), who are more realistic about Russia and the thread it constitutes, will influence the change in his thinking direction.
If not… God, save us all.
_____________________________
1* - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-taiwan/
2* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.
Friday, April 29, 2016
ONE LINER 0014: Hilary Clinton - stuck in the era long gone…
Let me start from the statement: I am a Democrat, in fact more Liberal (on the social issues).
As I wrote before, many times, our goal, as Democrats, in 2016 is to prevent the Republicans from taking the White House to farther ruin, and dissipate the American Middle Class.
That said, I am more and more convinced, that the Secretary Clinton is not the answer to our quest.
To be honest, I hate such politicians, like Hilary Clinton.
Intelligent - yes, but dishonest, and weak.
Senator Sanders has been absolutely right rising the question: if Secretary Clinton is, al all, qualified to be a President of the USA, having such a history of bad judgment on so many important issues (the war in Iraq, bailing out the banks, disastrous trade agreements, etc).
We could farther and farther with the list of the wrong judgment proofs - I wrote about it already.
Today I want to shine a spotlight on Secretary Clinton’s disconnection from the 2016 reality.
Not only she still defends her husband’s NAFTA, and her husband’s crime bill, and talks about Super Predators, but uses the metaphors, which have been condemned and discarded a long time ago - in the nineties.
I saw her on TV today (and it’s widely described in many journals, both paper and virtual, like Politico - 1*), saying:
"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get ‘off the reservation’ in the way they behave and how they speak."
If I said that as a joke I would still be considered a bigot and an ‘asshole’, but it would be a ‘no harm done’ - I am a private citizen. However, if the ‘off the reservation’ metaphor is used in 2016 by a presidential candidate, it becomes simply another ‘lack of judgment’ moment, and a proof, that she is not grown (as a human being) since the time she was a ‘first lady’. She is stuck in the past.
I repeat, louder: SHE IS STUCK IN THE PAST.
As I wrote in my previous article, Susan Sarandon had expressed some doubts if the Sanders supporters, like herself, would ‘have the stomach’ to vote on Clinton in general elections. I start thinking along the same lines.
Scary, what the result might be…
_______________
1* - http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/hillary-clinton-men-reservation-222645
As I wrote before, many times, our goal, as Democrats, in 2016 is to prevent the Republicans from taking the White House to farther ruin, and dissipate the American Middle Class.
That said, I am more and more convinced, that the Secretary Clinton is not the answer to our quest.
To be honest, I hate such politicians, like Hilary Clinton.
Intelligent - yes, but dishonest, and weak.
Senator Sanders has been absolutely right rising the question: if Secretary Clinton is, al all, qualified to be a President of the USA, having such a history of bad judgment on so many important issues (the war in Iraq, bailing out the banks, disastrous trade agreements, etc).
We could farther and farther with the list of the wrong judgment proofs - I wrote about it already.
Today I want to shine a spotlight on Secretary Clinton’s disconnection from the 2016 reality.
Not only she still defends her husband’s NAFTA, and her husband’s crime bill, and talks about Super Predators, but uses the metaphors, which have been condemned and discarded a long time ago - in the nineties.
I saw her on TV today (and it’s widely described in many journals, both paper and virtual, like Politico - 1*), saying:
"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get ‘off the reservation’ in the way they behave and how they speak."
If I said that as a joke I would still be considered a bigot and an ‘asshole’, but it would be a ‘no harm done’ - I am a private citizen. However, if the ‘off the reservation’ metaphor is used in 2016 by a presidential candidate, it becomes simply another ‘lack of judgment’ moment, and a proof, that she is not grown (as a human being) since the time she was a ‘first lady’. She is stuck in the past.
I repeat, louder: SHE IS STUCK IN THE PAST.
As I wrote in my previous article, Susan Sarandon had expressed some doubts if the Sanders supporters, like herself, would ‘have the stomach’ to vote on Clinton in general elections. I start thinking along the same lines.
Scary, what the result might be…
_______________
1* - http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/hillary-clinton-men-reservation-222645
Thursday, April 7, 2016
ONE LINER 0013: Bernie for the President of the USA 2016
2016 Presidential Campaign is in a full swing…
Watching what the Republican candidates say and do is to a certain degree, entertaining, but in most cases, disgusting and worrying to anybody who hopes for the better future to the America.
Democrats are much more civil, and much more united… or do they?
OUR ONLY GOAL IN 2016 IS TO ELECT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
So, our immediate goal is to chose the ‘electable’ candidate, putting aside the most personal opinions. When the time comes we have to stand united, without reservation, behind the candidate who wins the Democratic Convention Nomination.
Until then, a two-candidate race is a fierce contest. Both the Secretary Clinton and the Senator Sanders kept promising the issues oriented campaign. Senator Sanders even refused discussing the ‘email scandal’, which clearly showed the Secretary Clinton’s lack of judgment.
The New York Primary is approaching. It comes down to who is trustworthy in his/her message, and who has, historically, the record showing a consistency of the political position, thus indicating the chances of carrying forward his/her political agenda.
On April 6, in the interview on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’, Clinton uttered a number of demeaning remarks about the Senator Sanders, skillfully hinting (and stopping short of saying it straight) that the Senator in not qualified to be president - as summarized by The Washington Post (1*). When the next day, Senator Sanders asked the audience to decide if the Secretary’s record is the base for qualifications (with the wrong votes on the Iraq War, and on all, disastrous Trade Agreements), he played the same game.
Unfortunately, the mayor media outlets, even the MSNMS, are so biased toward Secretary Clinton, that no one even noticed that they behaved identically.
To all fairness, the Secretary’s record is not so glorious:
- She voted for the war in Iraq.
- She voted for all Trade Agreements, which decimated the well paid workers’ jobs in the States.
- She voted for the financial institutions bail-out, making them even more powerful and ’too big to fail’.
- She collected hundreds of thousand of Dollars from the speeches given to the financial institutions and doesn’t want to reveal the transcripts.
- She collected millions of Dollars from the ‘Wall Street’ for her campaign (Wall street, she claims, she wants to regulate - and the voter has to believe, that there are no strings attached - how naive, she thinks, we are?).
And yet she, in her attacks against the Senator Sanders, used, to say the least, misrepresentation, half-truths, or simple lies.
She accused Sanders on voting against bailout of the automotive industry - omitting to say that the bill Sanders opposed was a mainly financial-institution-bail-out bill, where the automotive industry bailout was just a small attachment. He opposed the bill on principle.
She attacked Sanders on multiple occasions, instigating the whole movement promoting the bill allowing suing the gun manufacturers by the victims of gun violence. Senator Sanders opposed this bill, logically, on principle, that you can’t sue the manufacturer of the legally available product for the product performing its functions.
Everyone should be revolted by the gun violence, especially the mass shootings, which happen in our country. We, the society, should do all we can to end this violence. We should influence our legislators to make it more difficult to obtain a firearm, with the mandatory background checks, and mandatory registration. We should have the ‘assault’ style rifles banned completely and available ONLY to the military, and law enforcement personnel.
But making the gun manufacturers liable is not the way to go - if they do, what they do in a legal way. Hysteria shouldn’t be a part of our political reality.
On April 4, The Daily News published an interview with the Senator Sanders, which led some commentators to conclude that he didn’t know anything on how to brake up the ’too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions. This opinion stuck to the media (I heard it repeated several times by the CNN, MSNBC, etc). Secretary Clinton repeated the accusation, without a blink of an eye.
However, as explained in the article in The New York Times a day later (2*), which revealed that last year Sen. Sanders introduced the bill which dealt with this problem, and to which his answers in the original interview obviously referred.
It wasn’t a blunder on part of Sen. Sanders, but on part of the interviewer. And yet, the blame for being ‘unprofessional’ stuck to the Senator.
It hasn’t started in April, let’s move back to the beginning of January: “Chelsea Clinton claimed, on January 12, that Bernie Sanders’ health care plan would “empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid” and undo Obamacare. That line of attack was deemed “mostly false” by the left-leaning fact-checkers at Politifact.” (3*)
All this missteps by the media and the Secretary Clinton campaign are offensive, and mislead the general voter into wrong conclusions. Those, who follow Senator Sanders, and who want him to get the Democratic Nomination, and who know a bit more in depth what the Senator Sanders stands by, are appalled and angry.
Unfortunately, the only outcome of this situation is not going to be for the Democratic Party. As polled by MSNBC on April 07, more than 60% of the Senator Sanders supporters would not vote for the Secretary Clinton if she gets the Nomination. Susan Sarandon is one of these people, saying: "I think Bernie would probably encourage people to [support Hillary if he loses] because he doesn't have any ego in this thing," Sarandon said. "But I think a lot of people are, 'sorry, I just can't bring myself to [vote for Hillary].'" (4*)
Sadly, this would result in the Republicans getting to the White House, and the bleak future for the America’s Middle Class, and the poor.
_________________________________________________
1* - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/
2* - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html
3* - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/06/chelsea-clinton-accidentally-calls-bernie-president-sanders/
4* - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/28/susan_sarandon_i_dont_think_i_could_vote_for_hillary_if_sanders_loses.html
Watching what the Republican candidates say and do is to a certain degree, entertaining, but in most cases, disgusting and worrying to anybody who hopes for the better future to the America.
Democrats are much more civil, and much more united… or do they?
OUR ONLY GOAL IN 2016 IS TO ELECT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
So, our immediate goal is to chose the ‘electable’ candidate, putting aside the most personal opinions. When the time comes we have to stand united, without reservation, behind the candidate who wins the Democratic Convention Nomination.
Until then, a two-candidate race is a fierce contest. Both the Secretary Clinton and the Senator Sanders kept promising the issues oriented campaign. Senator Sanders even refused discussing the ‘email scandal’, which clearly showed the Secretary Clinton’s lack of judgment.
The New York Primary is approaching. It comes down to who is trustworthy in his/her message, and who has, historically, the record showing a consistency of the political position, thus indicating the chances of carrying forward his/her political agenda.
On April 6, in the interview on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’, Clinton uttered a number of demeaning remarks about the Senator Sanders, skillfully hinting (and stopping short of saying it straight) that the Senator in not qualified to be president - as summarized by The Washington Post (1*). When the next day, Senator Sanders asked the audience to decide if the Secretary’s record is the base for qualifications (with the wrong votes on the Iraq War, and on all, disastrous Trade Agreements), he played the same game.
Unfortunately, the mayor media outlets, even the MSNMS, are so biased toward Secretary Clinton, that no one even noticed that they behaved identically.
To all fairness, the Secretary’s record is not so glorious:
- She voted for the war in Iraq.
- She voted for all Trade Agreements, which decimated the well paid workers’ jobs in the States.
- She voted for the financial institutions bail-out, making them even more powerful and ’too big to fail’.
- She collected hundreds of thousand of Dollars from the speeches given to the financial institutions and doesn’t want to reveal the transcripts.
- She collected millions of Dollars from the ‘Wall Street’ for her campaign (Wall street, she claims, she wants to regulate - and the voter has to believe, that there are no strings attached - how naive, she thinks, we are?).
And yet she, in her attacks against the Senator Sanders, used, to say the least, misrepresentation, half-truths, or simple lies.
She accused Sanders on voting against bailout of the automotive industry - omitting to say that the bill Sanders opposed was a mainly financial-institution-bail-out bill, where the automotive industry bailout was just a small attachment. He opposed the bill on principle.
She attacked Sanders on multiple occasions, instigating the whole movement promoting the bill allowing suing the gun manufacturers by the victims of gun violence. Senator Sanders opposed this bill, logically, on principle, that you can’t sue the manufacturer of the legally available product for the product performing its functions.
Everyone should be revolted by the gun violence, especially the mass shootings, which happen in our country. We, the society, should do all we can to end this violence. We should influence our legislators to make it more difficult to obtain a firearm, with the mandatory background checks, and mandatory registration. We should have the ‘assault’ style rifles banned completely and available ONLY to the military, and law enforcement personnel.
But making the gun manufacturers liable is not the way to go - if they do, what they do in a legal way. Hysteria shouldn’t be a part of our political reality.
On April 4, The Daily News published an interview with the Senator Sanders, which led some commentators to conclude that he didn’t know anything on how to brake up the ’too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions. This opinion stuck to the media (I heard it repeated several times by the CNN, MSNBC, etc). Secretary Clinton repeated the accusation, without a blink of an eye.
However, as explained in the article in The New York Times a day later (2*), which revealed that last year Sen. Sanders introduced the bill which dealt with this problem, and to which his answers in the original interview obviously referred.
It wasn’t a blunder on part of Sen. Sanders, but on part of the interviewer. And yet, the blame for being ‘unprofessional’ stuck to the Senator.
It hasn’t started in April, let’s move back to the beginning of January: “Chelsea Clinton claimed, on January 12, that Bernie Sanders’ health care plan would “empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid” and undo Obamacare. That line of attack was deemed “mostly false” by the left-leaning fact-checkers at Politifact.” (3*)
All this missteps by the media and the Secretary Clinton campaign are offensive, and mislead the general voter into wrong conclusions. Those, who follow Senator Sanders, and who want him to get the Democratic Nomination, and who know a bit more in depth what the Senator Sanders stands by, are appalled and angry.
Unfortunately, the only outcome of this situation is not going to be for the Democratic Party. As polled by MSNBC on April 07, more than 60% of the Senator Sanders supporters would not vote for the Secretary Clinton if she gets the Nomination. Susan Sarandon is one of these people, saying: "I think Bernie would probably encourage people to [support Hillary if he loses] because he doesn't have any ego in this thing," Sarandon said. "But I think a lot of people are, 'sorry, I just can't bring myself to [vote for Hillary].'" (4*)
Sadly, this would result in the Republicans getting to the White House, and the bleak future for the America’s Middle Class, and the poor.
_________________________________________________
1* - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/
2* - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html
3* - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/06/chelsea-clinton-accidentally-calls-bernie-president-sanders/
4* - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/28/susan_sarandon_i_dont_think_i_could_vote_for_hillary_if_sanders_loses.html
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
ONE LINER 0012: Nothing says ‘I love you’ as strong as 10mm Glock Birthday Present.
We are so hung up on the gun issues, constitutionality of the right to own a gun, loopholes, and so on, that we run circles not seeing a single viable solution.
The ‘gun show loopholes’ happen only because the whole process of obtaining a gun is so convoluted and awkward, and and IS un-applicable.
No matter if you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you have to agree, that a clear, applicable, and easily understood gun law would make our country safer.
We argue constantly about the background checks at the purchase point. Since the individual sellers do not have real means to perform it, they are exempt from this requirement. I hear constantly voices trying to impose this requirement also on the individuals. How?
I am sure that the solution lays elsewhere.
We do not even think about the driving licenses. Many decades ago we have agreed that you have to obtain the driving license for the kind of vehicle you want to drive. Once you get the license to drive a vehicle under a certain weight limit, you can’t drive an eighteen-wheeler, or a motorcycle without obtaining an additional license. It simply makes sense.
And then, when you buy a vehicle you register it - but you are able to operate it if, and only if you have the license!
So, my proposal is as follows:
1. In order to be able to buy a gun (any gun), an individual has to obtain the license (for the particular kind of weapon - be it a hand hun, hunting rifle, or a shot gun). But separate the licensing from the gun purchase. At the point of obtaining the gun license all background check are done by the most suitable to do so agency - the police. Every 2 years the process should be repeated. If you have seizures - the driving license is revoked. If you have psychotic episodes your gun license should be revoked - just a common sense.
2. The above is followed by just a single additional requirement. You can’t purchase any guns, anywhere, without a VALID, current gun-license.
3. All guns are registered at the point of purchase - with no exceptions.
It makes all the gun sales vetted, and takes the burden of the background check in the individual sales from the seller. But at the same time creates the situation in which an individual who doesn’t pass the periodical renewal - can’t purchase a gun.
Wouldn’t it make simpler and more logical the whole process of purchasing and using guns in America. It surly would.
Unfortunately, both proponents and opponents of the guns are so deeply entrenched in their outdated (I would call it archaic) application of the second Amendment, that the logical and simple solutions are never on the table.
I am not even talking about the 'assault rifle' issue. To me, it's no-brainer. Unless you are a law enforcement agent, you do not have a use (and you shouldn't be able to use it) for the AK-47, M-16, nor their 'semi-automatic' versions. The ban on these weapons was in force for years and should return.
We have as many guns in the open as many citizens in the US. We have to make these guns trackable and transparent. We have to take them away from the individuals who are unstable, or simply ‘loonies’ (I know it’s not ‘pc correct’).
What do you say - Citizens of the US?
The ‘gun show loopholes’ happen only because the whole process of obtaining a gun is so convoluted and awkward, and and IS un-applicable.
No matter if you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you have to agree, that a clear, applicable, and easily understood gun law would make our country safer.
We argue constantly about the background checks at the purchase point. Since the individual sellers do not have real means to perform it, they are exempt from this requirement. I hear constantly voices trying to impose this requirement also on the individuals. How?
I am sure that the solution lays elsewhere.
We do not even think about the driving licenses. Many decades ago we have agreed that you have to obtain the driving license for the kind of vehicle you want to drive. Once you get the license to drive a vehicle under a certain weight limit, you can’t drive an eighteen-wheeler, or a motorcycle without obtaining an additional license. It simply makes sense.
And then, when you buy a vehicle you register it - but you are able to operate it if, and only if you have the license!
So, my proposal is as follows:
1. In order to be able to buy a gun (any gun), an individual has to obtain the license (for the particular kind of weapon - be it a hand hun, hunting rifle, or a shot gun). But separate the licensing from the gun purchase. At the point of obtaining the gun license all background check are done by the most suitable to do so agency - the police. Every 2 years the process should be repeated. If you have seizures - the driving license is revoked. If you have psychotic episodes your gun license should be revoked - just a common sense.
2. The above is followed by just a single additional requirement. You can’t purchase any guns, anywhere, without a VALID, current gun-license.
3. All guns are registered at the point of purchase - with no exceptions.
It makes all the gun sales vetted, and takes the burden of the background check in the individual sales from the seller. But at the same time creates the situation in which an individual who doesn’t pass the periodical renewal - can’t purchase a gun.
Wouldn’t it make simpler and more logical the whole process of purchasing and using guns in America. It surly would.
Unfortunately, both proponents and opponents of the guns are so deeply entrenched in their outdated (I would call it archaic) application of the second Amendment, that the logical and simple solutions are never on the table.
I am not even talking about the 'assault rifle' issue. To me, it's no-brainer. Unless you are a law enforcement agent, you do not have a use (and you shouldn't be able to use it) for the AK-47, M-16, nor their 'semi-automatic' versions. The ban on these weapons was in force for years and should return.
We have as many guns in the open as many citizens in the US. We have to make these guns trackable and transparent. We have to take them away from the individuals who are unstable, or simply ‘loonies’ (I know it’s not ‘pc correct’).
What do you say - Citizens of the US?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)