Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

Is that intended to be nonsensical, or did it just come out that way?

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Is that intended to be nonsensical, or did it just come out that way?

we have a serious problem with politicians enriching themselves after and during their time in office.

You cant for example argue for Trump corporation to go into blind trust and at the same time think its OK for the OBAMA foundation, Clinton foundation and other to take in hundreds of millions while either is in office. or running for office.

In fact...we nee:

1. term limits! 2 terms in any office 5 terms total.
2. Anti lobbying law where any individual or their corporations or trusts or foundations can not lobby or be a part of any lobbying for 7 years prior to campaigning for office and 25 years after. yes 25 years.

And this goes for books, movie deals, charities. everything. if the clintons want to raise money via foundation. or obamas with book deals and movie deals...simple wait 25 years.

I would add that politician should receive their full salaries (given no crimes) for 20 years after they leave office or until they are 60 years old..after that SS like the rest of us!

Bottom line...we need money 100% out of politics.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[JWizmentality]

I hope you guys have been watching the hearing with Google. I'm sorry, I say his with no apology. Conservatives in congress are dumb as sh*t. These people should not be leaders.

[Pointgod]

I don’t know which poster mentioned it but immigration is 100% a red herring. Republicans don’t give a **** about immigration or else they would have passed immigration reform as harsh as they wanted when they controlled all 3 levels of government. All Republicans care about is using immigration as a political cudgel so they can scare their xenophobic base into voting. A couple truths:

The US needs more immigration not only to fill jobs but create a base for older people on social security.

Building a wall is an idiotic waste of money since the majority of undocumented immigrants are Visa over stays.

The majority of undocumented immigrants are seeking economic opportunities. If the US would invest in countries of origin to make them better places to stay then the incentive to enter the US is reduce

The US can’t ignore how they’ve contributed to the **** conditions in central and South America that lead to economic migrants

Another way to look at it is: we 100% have immigration issues that allowed a demagogue to exploit.

Another way to look at it: Every time we "invest" in other countries, we make it MUCH worse.

One thing we are in agreement on, the current POTUS has vilified immigrants and made a bad situation terrible and is open to throwing money away at the same time driving down the same tax receipts that would be needed to pay for it.

Look even if immigration worked well the Republicans would still demagogue. They don’t care. To them immigration is simply a political tool. Remember not too long ago Trump wanted to cut legal immigration. You and I both know that the opposite is neeeded, yet don’t for a second think Trump wouldn’t find suppprt to cut legal immigration with Republicans in both the House and Senate.

Immigration won’t ever be addressed in a meaningful way until Democrats are in power.

[dckingsfan]

I don’t know which poster mentioned it but immigration is 100% a red herring. Republicans don’t give a **** about immigration or else they would have passed immigration reform as harsh as they wanted when they controlled all 3 levels of government. All Republicans care about is using immigration as a political cudgel so they can scare their xenophobic base into voting. A couple truths:

The US needs more immigration not only to fill jobs but create a base for older people on social security.

Building a wall is an idiotic waste of money since the majority of undocumented immigrants are Visa over stays.

The majority of undocumented immigrants are seeking economic opportunities. If the US would invest in countries of origin to make them better places to stay then the incentive to enter the US is reduce

The US can’t ignore how they’ve contributed to the **** conditions in central and South America that lead to economic migrants

Another way to look at it is: we 100% have immigration issues that allowed a demagogue to exploit.

Another way to look at it: Every time we "invest" in other countries, we make it MUCH worse.

One thing we are in agreement on, the current POTUS has vilified immigrants and made a bad situation terrible and is open to throwing money away at the same time driving down the same tax receipts that would be needed to pay for it.

Look even if immigration worked well the Republicans would still demagogue. They don’t care. To them immigration is simply a political tool. Remember not too long ago Trump wanted to cut legal immigration. You and I both know that the opposite is neeeded, yet don’t for a second think Trump wouldn’t find suppprt to cut legal immigration with Republicans in both the House and Senate.

Immigration won’t ever be addressed in a meaningful way until Democrats are in power.

I agree that these Rs won't address immigration in a meaningful way. I would point out that the Ds when they were the supermajority didn't either.

But here is hoping that the next round of Ds will - have you seen any meaningful proposals out of the D side yet?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

Is that intended to be nonsensical, or did it just come out that way?

You Democrats are just as cultish as the Republicans. Do you seriously not understand the problem that graphic or are you just playing dumb?

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

LOL that woman is older than Bernie Sanders, and now she wants to put term limits on Dem leaders because she knows the Progressive wing is going to completely take over the party. What a *** that woman is.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

LOL that woman is older than Bernie Sanders, and now she wants to put term limits on Dem leaders because she knows the Progressive wing is going to completely take over the party. What a **** that woman is.

No offense but how can you go through life being so cynical/bitter?

Be happy man.

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

[dobrojim]

I hope you guys have been watching the hearing with Google. I'm sorry, I say his with no apology. Conservatives in congress are dumb as sh*t. These people should not be leaders.

The guy dressed up as the Monopoly banker was too funny.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/monopoly-man-returns-to-congress-for-google-ceo-pichais-hearing.html

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

LOL that woman is older than Bernie Sanders, and now she wants to put term limits on Dem leaders because she knows the Progressive wing is going to completely take over the party. What a **** that woman is.

No offense but how can you go through life being so cynical/bitter?

Be happy man.

It’s the byproduct of living in the Glen Greenwald, Progressive outrage bubble. When everyone is seen as an enemy, even those who align to your side you’ll never rest or be happy.

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

Is that intended to be nonsensical, or did it just come out that way?

You Democrats are just as cultish as the Republicans. Do you seriously not understand the problem that graphic or are you just playing dumb?

This is really about Paul Pelosi being a very good venture capitalist. And Nancy Pelosi being rich BEFORE she became a congresswomen. TGW, do you understand that? She came to serve after they had money.

But it is also about the Pelosi’s participation in IPOs while having access to insider information. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Warren's recent legislation package would deal with that issue.

And that issue that TGW points out makes it hard for the Ds to point at Trump when the Rs can point at Pelosi and the Clintons.

But here is the "thing". Just because a progressive doesn't have money doesn't make them better legislators. Just look at Warren's awful legislation.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

If only she’d do the same for Cuomo and his cronies.

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

Is that intended to be nonsensical, or did it just come out that way?

we have a serious problem with politicians enriching themselves after and during their time in office.

You cant for example argue for Trump corporation to go into blind trust and at the same time think its OK for the OBAMA foundation, Clinton foundation and other to take in hundreds of millions while either is in office. or running for office.

In fact...we nee:

1. term limits! 2 terms in any office 5 terms total.
2. Anti lobbying law where any individual or their corporations or trusts or foundations can not lobby or be a part of any lobbying for 7 years prior to campaigning for office and 25 years after. yes 25 years.

And this goes for books, movie deals, charities. everything. if the clintons want to raise money via foundation. or obamas with book deals and movie deals...simple wait 25 years.

I would add that politician should receive their full salaries (given no crimes) for 20 years after they leave office or until they are 60 years old..after that SS like the rest of us!

Bottom line...we need money 100% out of politics.

Is that intended to be comical, or did it just come out that way.

How do you even start that post with Trump's entire family having a zillion business conflicts of interest - and call out the Obama Foundation of all things. I mean... why in the f am I even to your garbage?

[TGW]

Holy **** I HATE DEM leadership:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/congress-trying-use-spending-bill-criminalize-boycotts-israel-and

According to recent reports, congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle are planning to sneak a bill criminalizing politically motivated boycotts of Israel into the end-of-the-year omnibus spending bill.

The bill’s original sponsor, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), is pushing Democratic leadership to include this bill, which has not moved forward thus far primarily because it violates the First Amendment. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are reportedly leaning toward slipping the text into the spending bill, which needs to pass for the government to stay open.

The ACLU has long opposed the Israel Anti-Boycott Act through its multiple iterations because the bill would make it a crime to participate in political boycotts protected by the First Amendment. Now, the bill’s sponsors are attempting to avoid public scrutiny by including the bill’s unconstitutional criminal penalties in must-pass legislation scheduled for a vote just days before Congress’ holiday recess — likely because it will be harder to pass in the new Congress.