NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Hink]

Absolutely! and TAX THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THAT MONEY! Money getting taxed at a lower rate when it is being used or in transition is ok....as long as it is getting used....aka distributed into and through the economy.

HOARDING capital and transferring capital to others that would hoard it should be an invitation for higher taxes. An incentive to not pocket 30% of the nations wealth.

1. Hoarding wealth hurts the economy....that has been proven. Less money being spent or passed through the system diminishes the entire economy.
2. Trickle Down economics doesn't work....has never worked and will never work.
3. Hoarders are NOT patriotic. Just look at all the ways they try to divorce their money from the United States.
4. There is a defined point after which money being "saved" is money being hoarded. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many other Billionaires have pointed this out in the last 15 years. They only continue to hoard because we allow it through relaxed tax policy (aka proper incentive to reinvest the money in something other then themselves).
5. Please don't pretend that we are talking about ANYONE other than about the top one half of one%.....they after all, have HOARDED about 30% of the nations wealth. The other 99.5% can continue hoarding if they choose to do so.

Oh and quotes from Robert Reich this week:
"Congressional Republicans’ decision last week to eliminate the estate tax, which hits only the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans, is an example of their complete disdain for public morality – what we owe one another as members of the same society. Conservative Republicans have no problem with some Americans imposing their private religious views on other Americans. They just don’t want to impose any public responsibilities on super-wealthy Americans. Once again, they’ve got public and private morality backwards."

and;

"Last month, under mounting pressure, Walmart announced it would raise wages to $9 an hour in April and to $10 an hour by 2016. A study just out from Americans for Tax Fairness estimates that even this increase still requires taxpayers subsidize Walmart’s low wages with $6.2 billion a year in food stamps, housing assistance, and other aid, to keep Walmart workers and their families out of poverty. In other words, you and I and every other taxpayer will continue to shell out $6.2 billion a year because Walmart – America's largest employer, whose Walton owners and heirs have more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans put together – still won’t pay its employees a livable wage."

The top 1/10th of 1% would benefit from that estate tax break......and a subsidy for a company that has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans!

DROPS MIC.....AGAIN.....

I am not certain how Mr. Reich correlated morality with being taxed multiple times, but my concern is not with morality, as I personally don't think the government should be in that business, but more so with actual fairness in the tax code. Your position is that money earned by me, saved by me, and not spent, but given to my kids, should be taxed again. I know you are saying there should be an artificial number put on it (like millionaires!!), but the point is the same. You think money should be taxed twice. I strongly disagree with this principle. There are much more efficient methods to get at a progressive system. If the only intention is to get more money from some arbitrary number (like millionaires!!) then I think we are working against ourselves.

Our tax code should not penalize someone for making, saving, and giving money to their family. I agree that this may be "unfair" to those who don't make as much money, save as much money, or have any money left over when they die to be able to give to their family. But I think that our country should not be viewing this entire concept as negative. My goal is to be "rich" some day. Sure I may never make it. But I like the idea, and I work hard, save hard, and plan on making my kids lives better. Why should I be punished by a system that basically says - if you make it, you will be penalized. If you don't waste all your money on cars, houses, and other extravagent expenses, you aren't helping the economy and therefore more of your money should be taxed.... and then taxed again!

Close the loopholes. Make a sliding scale. Tax purchases. The entire idea that some arbitrary number (like millionaires!!) will support the entire system has been shown that it won't work. I am not arguing for trickle down economic, as that too has been shown to fail. My point is that saying anyone who makes a million dollars a year pays 75% of their income because they can. Or because they won't notice it. Isn't fair. It makes those of us who don't have to burden this requirement feel better, but it certainly isn't fair. The idea that they won't feel it because they make more, doesn't begin to touch on fair.

My frustration with the left is that instead of trying to push progressive solutions that create a new middle class, a strong upper middle class, and yes even a strong millionaire class, to allow each of these groups to thrive, they are going after millionaires. They are trying to tax success. They are conflating crazy CEO pay schedules, with hard working small business owners who make millions of dollar. Instead of focusing on solving some of the real problems (corporate welfare, CEO pay, golden balloons, etc.) they push tax reform for millionaires.

Close loopholes. Make a sliding scale. Create a fair tax with prebates, etc. Get everyone to know what they owe, and make it clear. Clarity is fair.

 

[The One]

A reminder......

Not millionaires......

Billionaires

Remember.....top 1/2 of 1%

Everyone else can continue hoarding to their hearts content.....I'm talking about a whole level beyond where you are.

 

[michaelskis]

OK... now I am confused. The idea that the money would be taxed twice does not seem right to me. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate are just that, gains. The principal is not taxed but what one makes in and above the principal investment. (IRS Link) So if you inveset $200,000 on Jan 1, and your account is $225,000 on December 1 when you take it out, you pay taxes on $25,000.

So no, I don't have a problem with a $25,000 capital gain being taxes at the same rates as a $25,000 traditional income.

However, we are double taxed on just about everything. We are taxed on the money we make (income tax), and then taxed again on the money we spend (sales tax).

 

[Hink]

Not millionaires......

Billionaires

Remember.....top 1/2 of 1%

Everyone else can continue hoarding to their hearts content.....I'm talking about a whole level beyond where you are.

But the conversation is not about billionaires ever. Even the Warren Buffet rule is about millionaires. Billionaires give their money away, millionaires still think they are middle class... 8-!

 

[Gedunker]

Indiana republicans have managed to shoot themselves in both feet and both hands and somehow, they survived. But [STRIKEOUT]Governor[/STRIKEOUT] Reverend Pence has given them a deadline of this Friday to fix this RFRA mess and it seems very likely the republicans are going to shoot themselves in the feet and hands, AGAIN! It's so much fun being a Liberal Hoosier right now.

 

[The One]

Clarification....

But the conversation is not about billionaires ever. Even the Warren Buffet rule is about millionaires. Billionaires give their money away, millionaires still think they are middle class... 8-!

I'm trying to point out that there is SOME point at which hoarding money meets the "Enough Is Enough" test I'm not going after the 99% of people that have managed to save a million or 30 million dollars by retirement age. Good for them....keep it up......Woo Hoo. The general message I'm trying to get across is that people should REALLY be pissed off at that fraction of the top 1% hoarding somewhere around 30% of all wealth. And NO, Billionaires cannot get rid of their money fast enough through charities. Look at the last twenty years....The increased wealth intake has made their contributions seem like a tiny blip on the radar. That starts a WHOLE new discussion about how all those donations haven't changed a damn thing in the USA with regard to poverty. At least there is evidence between the 1960's and 1970's that greater wealth distribution through tax policy lead to more money in peoples pockets. This included the minimum wage that if it had kept up with inflation would now be around $15/hour.

People at the bottom are giving proportionally more to charity, despite having WAY less or even decreases in income compared to the rich:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...ss-give-more-to-charity-but-wealthy-pull-back

and

https://philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Indiana republicans have managed to shoot themselves in both feet and both hands and somehow, they survived. But [STRIKEOUT]Governor[/STRIKEOUT] Reverend Pence has given them a deadline of this Friday to fix this RFRA mess and it seems very likely the republicans are going to shoot themselves in the feet and hands,

You expected something else perhaps.:not::wall:

 

[MD Planner]

There's a story now about an Indiana pizza restaurant that supports the new law and said they would not cater a gay wedding and of course they are now being crucified everywhere.

The only thing I took away from the article was "who has their wedding catered by a pizza shop?" :-o

 

[Dan]

There's a story now about an Indiana pizza restaurant that supports the new law and said they would not cater a gay wedding and of course they are now being crucified everywhere.

Call them, and ask for a 12 inch sausage, delivered to the back door.

They deserve all the grief they're getting. But, yeah, outside of Buffalo, what gay couple would have pizza at their wedding?

 

[Seabishop]

What I don't get is that people's main problem with the law seems to be gay weddings. While refusal to take photos at a gay wedding would be a bad thing, the main problems would be discrimination in hiring and other more pervasive kinds of discrimination that could be protected by "religious freedom."

 

[DVD]

There's a story now about an Indiana pizza restaurant that supports the new law and said they would not cater a gay wedding and of course they are now being crucified everywhere.

The only thing I took away from the article was "who has their wedding catered by a pizza shop?" :-o

My wife might actually have gone for a pizza wedding. Not their pizza, but one from a less discriminatory pizza joint. Maybe one run by the mob.

Kudos to these businesses who actually vote with their feet and try to make change happen. They are actually boycotting Indiana in some manner: Now if we could get some businesses that people actually care about maybe people will learn discrimination of any kind is bad.

Salesforce: The largest tech employer in Indiana has canceled all corporate events in the state. Indiana's governor has halfheartedly attempted to walk back from the law's discriminatory potential, but Benioff is not swayed.
Angie’s List: The local business review website Angie's List put an expansion of its Indianapolis headquarters on hold while it waits to see how the law hashes out. It is actively looking for different locations.
Wilco: The rock band Wilco has canceled upcoming concerts in Indiana.
Nick Offerman: The comedian and Parks and Recreation actor Nick Offerman hascanceled a scheduled performance in Indiana.
AFSCME Women’s Conference: The public services employees union is moving its annual women's conference out of Indiana for good.

 

[Hink]

What I don't get is that people's main problem with the law seems to be gay weddings. While refusal to take photos at a gay wedding would be a bad thing, the main problems would be discrimination in hiring and other more pervasive kinds of discrimination that could be protected by "religious freedom."

The law is currently used mostly by prisoners is what I heard this morning on NPR. The idea that these laws are protecting religious freedom above discrimination law, is what is wrong in my mind. Religion should not trump discrimination protections, in any context.

 

[safege]

Turning parts of the private sector into parts of the public sector is called socialism. Doing the opposite is called privatization. But let me reassure those engaged in the argument on either side, that when the problem of the oligarchy we now face is solved, that none of your chess pieces will have moved, and you can continue with your game.

 

[Planit]

So let me understand this...USA gives money to Pakistan as military foreign aid - Pakistan decides to buy submarines from China - so in reality the Good Ole USofA just bought submarines from China for Pakistan. Does anybody else think this is wack-a-doodle?

 

[The One]

Yup.....

So let me understand this...USA gives money to Pakistan as military foreign aid - Pakistan decides to buy submarines from China - so in reality the Good Ole USofA just bought submarines from China for Pakistan. Does anybody else think this is wack-a-doodle?

You do know we don't just send China interest checks each month.....right:not:

 

[DVD]

So let me understand this...USA gives money to Pakistan as military foreign aid - Pakistan decides to buy submarines from China - so in reality the Good Ole USofA just bought submarines from China for Pakistan. Does anybody else think this is wack-a-doodle?

It's actually the world's largest ponzi scheme.

 

[michaelskis]

So let me understand this...USA gives money to Pakistan as military foreign aid - Pakistan decides to buy submarines from China - so in reality the Good Ole USofA just bought submarines from China for Pakistan. Does anybody else think this is wack-a-doodle?

It's actually the world's largest ponzi scheme.

Yea... that sounds typical of the Federal Government. After all who helped Osama bin Laden beat the Russians in Afghanistan.

 

[DVD]

Sorry, I've got nothing. I'm just making fun of foreign politics in general.

 

[The One]

Wow! Just WOW!

"Yesterday, the House voted (270-179) to give millions of dollars more to heirs of the wealthiest estates in America and to add the $269 billion cost of doing so to our growing deficit, all while continuing to claim they care about poverty reduction, inequality, and reducing our debt.

By repealing the estate tax, the House effectively gave $2 million to heirs of the wealthiest 5,400 estates in the U.S. – the only estates that are subjected to the tax. The richest of the rich – those inheriting the 318 estates in 2016 worth $50 million or more – will receive a tax break averaging $20 million each. As we noted in a blog last week, only estates worth more than $5.4 million for a single owner ever had to pay estate taxes. For a couple, their estate had to be worth more than nearly $11 million."

http://www.chn.org/2015/04/17/head-...ore-to-wealthiest-5000-families/#.VTUWX03wtaR

More proof the rest of the country is getting taken for a ride:not:

 

[DVD]

Just for TO, I read a book to my kids last night. It took big things and turned it into manageable numbers. You know, If the history of the world were a 2 hour movie, mankind would only be seen for the last few seconds. If the planets were balls earth would be a baseball, Jupiter would be an exercise ball, etc. The best part, if all the worlds wealth were 100 pennies...The 1% of the population would have 40 coins and 50% of the population would share 1 coin. I forget the other numbers, but still sad.

 

[otterpop]

Just for TO, I read a book to my kids last night. It took big things and turned it into manageable numbers. You know, If the history of the world were a 2 hour movie, mankind would only be seen for the last few seconds. If the planets were balls earth would be a baseball, Jupiter would be an exercise ball, etc. The best part, if all the worlds wealth were 100 pennies...The 1% of the population would have 40 coins and 50% of the population would share 1 coin. I forget the other numbers, but still sad.

And the 1% are wondering how the 50% got that penny and are trying to figure out a way to get it.

 

[ColoGI]

"Yesterday, the House voted (270-179) to give millions of dollars more to heirs of the wealthiest estates in America and to add the $269 billion cost of doing so to our growing deficit, all while continuing to claim they care about poverty reduction, inequality, and reducing our debt.

More proof the rest of the country is getting taken for a ride:not:

Not even hiding the payback to their benefactors any more. No need to, the takeover is almost complete.

 

[michaelskis]

So based on the new book "Clinton Cash" it sounds like Hillary did favors as Secretary of State for foreign officials who paid her husband for speaking engagements. (LINK)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


I will say it again, neither side has our best interest at heart. They are only in it for the money and power.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I really wish folks on the Democrat side would pay attention to Martin O'Malley. He is far more articulate and has a stronger record of success than Clinton with almost no baggage, along with true executive experience. Successful urban mayor. He strikes me as a bit of a collaborative technocrat with a personality not unlike Republican Jon Huntsman, which is the type of person I like to see in leadership regardless of political leanings.

The GOP race will get more interesting once the grown-ups start to enter the race and start talking actual issues. I can't take any of them seriously right now--it is just a side show.

 

[DVD]

I really wish folks on the Democrat side would pay attention to Martin O'Malley. He is far more articulate and has a stronger record of success than Clinton with almost no baggage, along with true executive experience. Successful urban mayor. He strikes me as a bit of a collaborative technocrat with a personality not unlike Republican Jon Huntsman, which is the type of person I like to see in leadership regardless of political leanings.

The GOP race will get more interesting once the grown-ups start to enter the race and start talking actual issues. I can't take any of them seriously right now--it is just a side show.

The opening act is always either obvious people like Hillary just making it official or the clowns. Either way it gets ignored until the big show.

 

[ColoGI]

The opening act is always either obvious people like Hillary just making it official or the clowns. Either way it gets ignored until the big show.

Kochs announced they purchased the Scott Walker model to run their country. Big show has begun. Whatshisname running Clinton theater company was on Charlie Rose last night pretending she's only going to use small donors to carve out her slice of the plutocracy, so we are already walking down the path of national deception. Choose your billionaire now.

 

[Hink]

Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush.

Those are the final three in my estimation. Walker with the libertarian money and Kasich and Bush with the establishment money. All the kooky tea partiers like Cruz, Carson, and Rubio will be out, along with Paul and the otherwise unknown.

It comes down to money. These guys all have the same message, it is just who can get their name out there, and who has the strongest network.

Walker, Kasich, and Bush. At least one of those three will be in the final rounds.

 

[mendelman]

Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush.

Those are the final three in my estimation. Walker with the libertarian money and Kasich and Bush with the establishment money. All the kooky tea partiers like Cruz, Carson, and Rubio will be out, along with Paul and the otherwise unknown.

It comes down to money. These guys all have the same message, it is just who can get their name out there, and who has the strongest network.

Walker, Kasich, and Bush. At least one of those three will be in the final rounds.

Kasich is certainly experienced at making people forget gigantically myopic political decisions.

Sorry for the collective bargaining limitations...so here's expanded Medicaid coverage for seniors. We cool?

 

[DVD]

Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush.

Those are the final three in my estimation. Walker with the libertarian money and Kasich and Bush with the establishment money. All the kooky tea partiers like Cruz, Carson, and Rubio will be out, along with Paul and the otherwise unknown.

It comes down to money. These guys all have the same message, it is just who can get their name out there, and who has the strongest network.

Walker, Kasich, and Bush. At least one of those three will be in the final rounds.

I hate to say it and I will preface this by saying I am considerably uninformed at this point, but today I have to say go Jeb. If things go wrong, we just blame the fact that he is a Bush and from Florida, what were we thinking in the first place.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Kasich is certainly experienced at making people forget gigantically myopic political decisions. Sorry for the collective bargaining limitations...so here's expanded Medicaid coverage for seniors.

We cool?

Yeah, I thought Kasich might be worth a look, but it turns out his words don't match his history of efforts in Ohio. He is just another hack. And Huntsman won't pursue the nomination (nor could he get it if we're being honest). Jeb Bush is starting to look like the only reasonable alternative on the GOP side, and I'm not comfortable with another Bush. Plus, Jeb's attitude reminds me a bit of Romney for some reason. In addition, Kasich worked for Lehman Brothers as an investment banker. I don't trust investment bankers to act in the national interest. Goldman Sachs & the like already have way more than enough influence.

 

[michaelskis]

How sad would it be if it was Bush vs Clinton in 2016.

However... I think this is about how I feel at the moment:

 

[MD Planner]

Martin O'Malley is probably way too liberal to have widespread national appeal. By the time his 8 years were up here pretty much everybody was fed up with him, including many Democrats which is a big reason why we now have a (clueless) Republican governor. But who knows. He's a likeable guy and has his own band, O'Malley's March. Who are pretty good by the way. Factor in his biceps and his guitar playing maybe he's got a shot. Look how the saxophone thing worked for Bill Clinton. People ate that crap up.

 

[Hink]

I say we cut funding for schools. That will balance the budget. Just ask Kansas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...ding_n_7112702.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Oops...

Brownback has championed tax and spending cuts since he was elected in 2010. The governor's school funding reform this spring came less than a year after the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that some of the state's spending cuts to education were unconstitutional.

 

[Planit]

So at lunch today the restaurant the FoxNews on one of its tv and on the program there is Dog The Bounty Hunter as one of the panelists talking about the newest slant about Hillary's old donations and then how bad it is for them to bring Chelsea up as "a deflection" - seriously - what kind of expertise does Dog have on these political issues? I'm just glad I could turn and look another way and watch NASCAR practice from Richmond, otherwise I probably couldn't have kept my lunch down.

 

[michaelskis]

This is bound to get political so I figure I will just post this here.

It is horrible that Freddie Gray died and that he suffered such horrible injuries that caused his death. But to what level are the police responsible for that death.

From what I understand based on several sources, Freddie was not cooperative with officers, was thrashing around when they put him into the van, and did not buckle him because they feared for their safety. Yes, they should have buckled him. There is no question about that. According to other passenger, the driver did not drive erratically or anything, but Freddy was throwing himself around the van, and based on the medical report, it was speculated that these movements that caused the injuries.

I think at best, they should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, but not murder 2.

 

[DVD]

This is going to sound horrible and maybe a bit racist, but can we stop calling every incident of police brutality on a minority a racial thing? I have very little sympathy for criminals that get the crap beat out of them by cops regardless of race. Something should be done to make sure there is no excessive force, murder, or whatever. I'm not going to side with the cops on this one either, but there are better examples of racial profiling out there like the guy that was choked to death in NY. I guess I'm just trying to say if the guy is a declared criminal of some kind I just don't care as much. I know it's a broad generalization, but that's just how I feel. At the same time, to cover for some of my potentially racist ranting, there is a problem and we need to address it. Just not with criminals as poster children.

 

[Planit]

They have now interviewed the other passenger in the van (from what I understand) and his responses do not collaborate the official story of Gay throwing himself around in the van.

Don't know who is right, I wasn't there.

I can't form an opinion on conflicting information from news sources I don't really trust.

 

[MD Planner]

My opinion at this point is WHY IN THE HELL is the prosecutor addressing the protestors in her remarks? "I heard your call." So what????? Either the right thing to do is charge the officers based on the information you have or not. This just gets worse and worse. And don't forget the moron Mayor saying “It’s a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I'm trying to think of a worse way that the Baltimore leadership could have handled this. I can't, short of them actually declaring open warfare on protesters. You've got a bad mayor, prosecutor & chief (though it sounds like mayor overruled his recommended course of action so it may not be his fault in how things escalated).

These incidents are symptoms. There is a very deep distrust between historically oppressed minorities and the police, and I think a lot of it has to do with failed police leadership, poor police recruiting/training and a underemphasis on community policing/visibility in favor of "wars on crime." And it seems to be an almost uniquely urban issue. One thing that has always impressed me in Europe from my experience is that their police focus on visibility and really being in the community. They are all very approachable. They drive around with lights on so people can easily spot them (for service, and to discourage crime).

To ask an obvious question since this was a van... why is there not a camera in the back of a vehicle that is designed to carry multiple people in custody? You'd think you'd want that just to make sure they aren't screwing around back there to attack an officer when the doors open again.

I'm also really angry at the media in all of this. The violent protests are by a very, very small group. The overwhelming majority are being peaceful and/or actively trying to defuse the situation. But that doesn't get coverage. Unless of course it's a mom beating the shit out of her son for being in the fray. And all of this I think is revealing a serious problem with social media in inflaming & spreading misinformation.

I don't have answers, but there are definitely a number of root problems in play.

 

[michaelskis]

I'm trying to think of a worse way that the Baltimore leadership could have handled this. I can't, short of them actually declaring open warfare on protesters. You've got a bad mayor, prosecutor & chief (though it sounds like mayor overruled his recommended course of action so it may not be his fault in how things escalated).

These incidents are symptoms. There is a very deep distrust between historically oppressed minorities and the police, and I think a lot of it has to do with failed police leadership, poor police recruiting/training and a underemphasis on community policing/visibility in favor of "wars on crime." And it seems to be an almost uniquely urban issue. One thing that has always impressed me in Europe from my experience is that their police focus on visibility and really being in the community. They are all very approachable. They drive around with lights on so people can easily spot them (for service, and to discourage crime).

To ask an obvious question since this was a van... why is there not a camera in the back of a vehicle that is designed to carry multiple people in custody? You'd think you'd want that just to make sure they aren't screwing around back there to attack an officer when the doors open again.

I'm also really angry at the media in all of this. The violent protests are by a very, very small group. The overwhelming majority are being peaceful and/or actively trying to defuse the situation. But that doesn't get coverage. Unless of course it's a mom beating the shit out of her son for being in the fray. And all of this I think is revealing a serious problem with social media in inflaming & spreading misinformation.

I don't have answers, but there are definitely a number of root problems in play.

I agree with everything you just posted. I have seen some positive stories of people stepping up and doing the right thing (Like the Mom who took her kid out of the Riot, or the guy who walked around with the garbage can cleaning up while people were still rioting) but I doubt that the media picked up on any of that.

The other part of this is something my brother in law commented on. He said that the black community is just making things worse with their response to bad events like this. He has been on the receiving end a few times as an African American, but he he teaching my niece and nephew that the color of their skin does not matter. You respect the police, follow the rules, and work to make this world a better place for everyone.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

The other part of this is something my brother in law commented on. He said that the black community is just making things worse with their response to bad events like this. He has been on the receiving end a few times as an African American, but he he teaching my niece and nephew that the color of their skin does not matter. You respect the police, follow the rules, and work to make this world a better place for everyone.

I also think part of the problem is that the face of civil rights leadership, at least in the realm of race, has not really changed. Why am I still seeing Al Sharpton 50 years after the MLK-era movement? Why has there been no meaningful succession planning? Civil rights is an old issue, but this is a modern era that demands modern approaches to working towards true equal treatment. The legal framework is there--it just needs practical implementation. That requires modern leadership in the civil rights movement. Yet I'm still looking at Al Sharpton's mug every time something happens. He is a polarizing figure that I tend to think at this point damages credibility rather than helps. I'm not seeing ideas coming out of the movement like you did in the 50s & 60s. I don't see pro-active, pragmatic solutions coming from civil rights leadership or police/government leadership. That is where the problem lies... and that vacuum is what is causing this issue to rear its head with increasing frequency.

My gut says the focus needs to be on police culture, not tactics. This is partly because the police are the ones in the position of power and thus have the greatest ability to implement solutions & initiate changes in these relationships. We keep focusing on where these problems are occurring; we need to turn focus to where these problems are not occurring and determine what makes those police forces & historically-oppressed minority groups form positive relationships built on a framework of trust & equality. Where are the urban places where we've seen reduction in police complaints in conjunction with crime reduction? Tactics are the symptom... culture is the cause.

 

[DVD]

I'll have to say I was wrong. This poor guy was arrested for walking (biking) while black. Bad cops, no donut for you. I was thinking it was more like the Ferguson case.

On almost good news, Kansas is starting to figure out that if you drop the taxes off the businesses and the farms then the only person paying taxes is the people and they don't like taking on all the burden. Granted, nothing will be done about it, but at least they're starting to realize that taxes are a reality of life.


On other fun Kansas news, check out the story of the waitress who told the governor to "tip the schools". Good for her.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kansas-governor-gets-tip-waitress-tip-schools-not-me-n352916

 

[Hink]

Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson. Wow... YAWN...

Although these are humerus...

http://time.com/3845767/carly-fiorina-hp/
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/

 

[michaelskis]

Hillary will win the election... And it makes me want to puke.

The Republican Party is too fragmented and I think the number of republicans entering the race is evidence of that.

 

[Hink]

Mike Huckabee is entering the race today. He will fade and use it to get ANOTHER tv show.... why does he think he has a chance? Who is telling him that?

Ugh.

---

I think the fact that Rubio, Cruz, and Paul have had such a lackluster impact so far, doesn't speak well for the more conservative candidates. Walker, Kasich, and Bush will make a splash. I bet all three are in by Memorial Day.

 

[DVD]

Mike Huckabee is entering the race today. He will fade and use it to get ANOTHER tv show.... why does he think he has a chance? Who is telling him that?

Ugh.

---

I think the fact that Rubio, Cruz, and Paul have had such a lackluster impact so far, doesn't speak well for the more conservative candidates. Walker, Kasich, and Bush will make a splash. I bet all three are in by Memorial Day.

I think part of running for president is just getting a book and TV deal along with spouting some nonsense about how it's wrong to be gay or some other bs. Who wants to be president anyway?

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Who wants to be president anyway?

I'm a firm believer that somebody that is truly qualified to be President is also of the mindset that they would never choose to run because they are too smart, too humble, or both.

 

[Hink]

I think part of running for president is just getting a book and TV deal along with spouting some nonsense about how it's wrong to be gay or some other bs. Who wants to be president anyway?

I think we have officially reached the point where someone who isn't a lawyer just doesn't have a chance any longer. Military veteran's even are hard pressed to have a chance.

Vacancy: President
Requirements: Lawyer, Harvard or Yale educated, and previously successful in business. Previous experience with being a governor of a state is preferred.
Age: 45+ (You can't have enough experience at 35, we want 10 more)
Race: Probably white, but we can't say that. Equal opportunity employer....
Skill Set: Ability to look important, give speeches, and get nothing done. Preference given to those who can show they never compromise.

 

[DVD]

I'm a firm believer that somebody that is truly qualified to be President is also of the mindset that they would never choose to run because they are too smart, too humble, or both.

Yes, most people here would actually make a decent president, but we're too humble and realize that we might do more harm than good trying to fix things.:lmao: The ones that truly are qualified are to busy making real money and doing something substantial.

I think we have officially reached the point where someone who isn't a lawyer just doesn't have a chance any longer. Military veteran's even are hard pressed to have a chance.

Vacancy: President
Requirements: Lawyer, Harvard or Yale educated, and previously successful in business. Previous experience with being a governor of a state is preferred.
Age: 45+ (You can't have enough experience at 35, we want 10 more)
Race: Probably white, but we can't say that. Equal opportunity employer....
Skill Set: Ability to look important, give speeches, and get nothing done. Preference given to those who can show they never compromise.

You have to differentiate between actual presidents or presidential material and those who just want to be on TV, talk about weird ideas that don't fly or religious beliefs, and make money on superpacs. I think I should run just so I can get a superpac and a book deal. Plus I like being on TV! I'm just not anti anything enough to be news worthy. You think I can get anyone behind me if I run as a republican and spout moderation, equality, and generally just knock off the stupid and get back to work!

 

[michaelskis]

On a more local note, there is a state ballot measure that would restructure the gas tax and increase the general sales tax by 1% to go towards "Transportation Costs". Sad part is the amount of pork in the bill for other things and the way transportation costs are defined results in very little of the money going towards actually fixing the roads.

Personally, I voted no. I know of at least one other cyburbian who voted yes.