Summations Only

They could also expedite the process by not asking the question at all. Not only are there other methods to collect citizenship data, but the citizenship question hasn't been asked since 1950. Clearly there's no urgency to include it on this census; this could wait until 2030. Unless the fear is that the artificial majority the Republicans want to lock in will be greatly reduce in ten years.

With new ”imposed contract,’ Trump’s EPA tries to neuter worker rights

quote:

---

The Trump administration continued its attacks on federal workers this week with a new “agreement” that would kneecap the power of unions representing EPA employees.

​

The development, as watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) noted Wednesday, is a new “Master Collective Bargaining Agreement” between the federal agency and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). Far from an agreement, said PEER, the document is really an “edict.”

​

It was not the result of negotiations.

​

“In the Trump world, there is no bargaining, only ultimatums,” said PEER executive director Tim Whitehouse, a former EPA enforcement attorney.

​

...

​

The 75-page agreement (pdf) lays out a number of changes that would limit the union’s ability to help employees. As noted by PEER, the new terms would, among other things, require the union to vacate its office space; deprive employees of union grievance and arbitration for terminations, discipline, lay-offs, and a host of other adverse actions; slash the amount and scope of time union officials could spend assisting employees; and deprive union access to websites, agency intranet, and even bulletin boards in communicating with its members.

​

“Not only is the Trump White House waging war on environmental protection, rolling back regulations, and gutting enforcement, but is targeting the dedicated professionals laboring through very difficult circumstances within EPA,” said PEER Pacific director Jeff Ruch.

---

ETA Blatantly illegal, of course; a contract signed under duress is not valid. But laws don't apply to Republicans. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Your link in message 2898 is to a Washington Post pay site that I can't access.But it looks to me like you're saying that "it's all illegal", that is, no foreign help period, when it comes to campaigns. Just like the summary statement that I quoted from the FEC chair. If there's something in your link that is a "yes, BUT", then I have to ask you to c/p it here. The Trump firm talking to Libyans concerning a past action where Americans were killed, and the Clinton firm talking to Russians to get the Steele dossier, with no real purpose except to get dirt on Trump, form a foreign source. Okay. His ignorance of who was funding the research doesn't lessen the fact that foreign help was used to obtain dirt that was used in a political campaign.So Clinton ~indirectly~ gets foreign sourced dirt on a political opponent - indirectly because she hired a U.S. firm to do it, and that's okay, but if she'd have directly done it herself, that would have been illegal?So in answer to the Stephanopoulos question, if Trump would have said "I'd hire a U.S. research firm to listen to the information offered to me, and let them relay it to me, that would have been okay?

You accept the Clinton foundation as being squeaky clean with no suspicions of corruption and fraud? Would you like for me to load you up with links on just how legitimate it is? Need links to the Clinton's piggy bank use of the Clinton Foundation? If that were true, they could end all the mistrust of themselves by announcing that if they can get one more round of background checks, registration, licensing and training, THEN THEY'D STOP with more calls for gun control in the future. It could be in the form of a new Constitutional amendment. "No more calls for gun control". But they'll never do that. Because they advocate incrementalism . It's true that that happens. But the question is, will it get better, or worse, with a bigger government?The rest of your message is just standard liberal talking points, that have been endlessly discussed by millions of people, I have neither the time nor the interest to get into it further here, but this one sentence is worth addressing; The national debt went up nearly $9 trillion under Obama, almost double what it was, I don't think trying something just a little different is completely uncalled for.

That's only your statement, anyone can be accused of only being out for himself. Temporary hardships on farmers, yes that's about the only example you've got. There are countless examples of workers all through the economy who are benefitting from what he's done. I'm sure one of them, that's the reason I have so little time to play here. Yes, that's one of the many ways the mainstream media amuses itself and it's base, I know. Guess they didn't gather figures for Obama. My most memorable lie of Obama's was "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan." I guess I could spend days looking for ALL the NY Times and WP coverage on that. Probably wouldn't find much. Wow, he'll then have a major monkey off his back if he wins a second term, won't he? No more campaign, he'll be able to listen to foreign governments all he wants without fear of criticism from the news media. The economy soured late in the Bush administration, and early in the Obama administration largely because of one thing, high oil prices, something practically out of the control of anyone in the U.S. including the president. It began growing in 2010 IN SPITE of Obama, not because of him. He did nothing to incentivize job creation and risk taking, with the possible exception of not completely lowering the boom on business with as crippling of environmental regulations as most of his Democrat allies wanted. Obama wasn't telling the truth when he was strongly implying that it wouldn't be possible in the future to see the economic activity that we're actually seeing today. You really don't think people can change over a period of decades? I think Trump is proving that he has different motives and goals in mind than he did 30 years ago. The people of West Virginia gave Robert Byrd second chances after his time in the KKK. I've no doubt that Trump has done some sleazy things in his past. But I'm only worried about his leadership qualities NOW, what he'll do for the country now.During the election and at the beginning of his presidency, there was a lot of mistrust of just what Trump was going to do, among many conservatives. Prominent ones, like Mark Levin, or Glenn Beck, and countless voters. Levin and Beck are Trump backers now, and I've seen a change of heart from many of my social media friends. He's proven to be much more than just an arrogant reality tv guy. Yes, things Obama came up a little short on. But we saw in the debate a few nights ago what the Democrats all agreed they do to get these problems solved, they'd give free health care to illegal immigrants!

If you'll forgive me for jumping around, I'll forgive you for answering my messages to JonF, as if you are him.

Sorry, only 5. So you defeated me!! I could have won if I had more time.Page not found | IJR Do they really hail him as a white supremacist, or do they just see him as not being a black supremacist threat to them?With todays burning hatred of Trump, it's going to be interesting in the future to see what the Democrats do with their traditional superiority on opposing "hate" groups.

Sorry, but it's completely relevant, especially if there are going to be discussions about whose fault it is.

quote:

---

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

---

Okay, so I'll agree that Russia and Putin wanted trump to be elected, and played on the internet to try to help him. But the FBI, CIA, and NSA don't seem to go any further in explaining WHY they wanted to. The reason they said no more is probably explained in the following paragraphs;

quote:

---

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.

​

We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.

---

It's understandable, most of what they did is highly classified, if they declassified all of it, it could start a media frenzy and political firestorm that those agencies want no part of. So there are several possibilities of WHY Putin favored Trump over Hillary;1) Russia hates the U.S. and knew Trump would be worse for its well being than Hillary. If that's true, so far it's not working out for them.2) Russian watched all the mocking and laughing at Trump during the campaign and knew that the U.S. would be far more divided with him as president than Hillary, because Republicans would behave more like adults and accept her presidency. If that's true, it's working for them very well.3) Russia doesn't hate the U.S. near as much as it did 30 years ago, and realizes a vibrant U.S. economy benefits the Russian economy, more than a Hillary big-government, big global warming, big environmental presidency would.I could probably think of more, but it doesn't matter. New technology is here, the internet makes the world much smaller. If Russia, or any foreign country uses the internet to meddle in U.S. elections. it's no more the Republicans fault than it is Democrats. AT&T isn't attacked because people are playing with their phones and get into car wrecks. All this implication that it's Republicans fault that Russia meddled in the elections is 100% false.But we also have evidence that Google also meddled in the election in Hillary's favor, possibly more than did Russia in Trump's favor.96 Percent of My Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Were from Liberal Media Outlets – PJ MediaThis is a U.S. company, maybe we should take a look at meddling within the borders of the U.S., and not all around the world. The U.S. might be the policeman of the world, but it doesn't own it.

And that's bad how? Is it a Democrat policy to automatically hate on Russia?

Nope, the answer wasn't there. No details at all about Russia's motivation. Report: Former Obama officials are currently advising Iran on how to counter President Trump - TheBlazehttps://www.infowars.com/...eat-trumps-foreign-policy-reporthttps://starpolitical.com/...ow-to-defeat-u-s-foreign-policyhttps://conservativefighters.org/...-counter-president-trump 403 Forbidden https://trueconservativepundit.com/...t-trump-foreign-policyReport: Obama Administration Alumni Advising Iranian Regime on Dealing with TrumpZerohedge Need more? I'll bet you can poison those wells faster than I can put them up, and... I'm out of time for another weekend.

What did David Duke say? What did you read on my links?Yes, the white supremacists hail Tucker Carlson as a brother in arms. Got any quotes of him repudiating white supremacist supporters? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

. There are loonburgers with suspicions. I have no reason to suspect any wrongdoing.If you have links to evidence go ahead and post them. I've seen lots of right-wing innuendo and libel and I'm not expecting anything different from you.

quote:

---

If that were true, they could end all the mistrust of themselves by announcing that if they can get one more round of background checks, registration, licensing and training, THEN THEY'D STOP with more calls for gun control in the future. It could be in the form of a new Constitutional amendment. "No more calls for gun control". But they'll never do that. Because they advocate incrementalism.

---

Such an amendment would never pass. And the ammosexuals would shit bricks.Times change. If someone comes up with an automatic equivalent of a bump stock you want it to be impossible to regulate it. It will get better with a government of any size that places the welfare of its citizens above the greed of the 1% and rapacious corporations. How soon they forget. The reasons why matter.
.
Obama passed a stimulus which wasn't quite as effective as was hoped, but it did get us out of Bush's worst recession since the Great Depression.Trump passed a humungous tax break for the wealthy and corporations, claiming increased revenue would pay for it and the effects would "trickle down" to the general populace. Neither happened. It didn't happen for Reagan, it didn't happen for W, it didn't happen for Scott Walker, it didn't happen for Bobby Jindal, it really really didn't happen for Sam Brownback (hailed as the perfect test bed for supply side economicsl, and now it hasn't worked for Trump. But next time for sure, right? Personally, I think saving the economy from a disastrous recession is a good thing and throwing money at the rich and corporations only to explode the debt further is a bad thing.Not all corporations and rich people are rapacious some of them want to be taxed more for the general welfare. Edited by Admin, : Fix first quoted section.

Message 2964: Message 2958 reminds us that suspension of sanctions, in particular the Magnitsky Act were a large portion of what Russia wanted.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Remember why the sanctions were imposed? Remember that the latest round was passed by a Republican Senate and House, and Trump signed them into law but delayed imposing them as long as he possibly could. It's Democratc policy to hold Russia responsible for their actions. Is it Republic policy to suck up to murderous dictators and alienate our friends, or is that just Trump?

Trump has been much better for Russia than any Democrat would have been. Trump's repudiated the intelligence community's assessment and endorsed Putin. Trump thinks Russian election Interference is funny and no problem. Trump has never even mildly criticized Putin.It was obvious during the campaign that Trump is an ignorant buffoon. His representatives discussed dropping sanctions with Russians. He's divided the country by making it clear he represents only his supporters.I don't know if Putin hates us. He intends to make us a third-tier power with few supporters in the world. He's doing wonderfully well at that with Trump's aid.