Random Political Thoughts

[21st Century Man]

I think you're wrong about that. If Republicans chose an establishment candidate instead of Trump you'd be bitching about Hillary right now. Go ahead though Republicans! Feel your oats and think you did all this then try to run your establishment candidate next time instead of Trump. I'd almost like to see that just for the opportunity to watch in blow up in your face. 

I would not have voted for Jeb Bush if he was the candidate.  Also, I have to say I preferred Trump's message but he does not have the temperament or gravitas for the job.  I blame the man not the message.

[Dr. MD MD]

I would not have voted for Jeb Bush if he was the candidate.  Also, I have to say I preferred Trump's message but he does not have the temperament or gravitas for the job.  I blame the man not the message.

No offense but I think you're entirely to mush-minded to even make that call. You flip flop and fence sit all the time. You'll get bored in a few days and go back to supporting him. You're like a little kitty. You need shiny things to hold your attention. 

[21st Century Man]

No offense but I think you're entirely to mush-minded to even make that call. You flip flop and fence sit all the time. You'll get bored in a few days and go back to supporting him. You're like a little kitty. You need shiny things to hold your attention. 

I'm consistent.  Always have been.  I don't flip flop at all.  Name me one issue.   I've voted for Republicans during my whole life.  I'm not necessarily proud of that fact right now but I sure as hell won't be voting for Democrats anytime soon.   The main issue I am unsure about is health care.  I don't know what the answer is but it sure as hell isn't Obamacare or single payer.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm consistent.  Always have been.  I don't flip flop at all.  Name me one issue.   I've voted for Republicans during my whole life.  I'm not necessarily proud of that fact right now but I sure as hell won't be voting for Democrats anytime soon.   The main issue I am unsure about is health care.  I don't know what the answer is but it sure as hell isn't Obamacare or single payer.

Here's the deal. I've sworn off voting Democrat because they're so horribly corrupt...but so are most of the Republicans, who are often working in cahoots with the Dems to fuck over the people who voted them into power. However, if the Republicans try to fuck Trump over and then try to run that establishment candidate I'd totally vote Democrat again just to fuck them in the ass with a big barbed dick. Now get to work and start doing my bidding, politicians or suffer the wrath of my dick! 

[Juan]

Can't it be both?

Why, yes it could.

[21st Century Man]

Here's the deal. I've sworn off voting Democrat because they're so horribly corrupt...but so are most of the Republicans, who are often working in cahoots with the Dems to fuck over the people who voted them into power. However, if the Republicans try to fuck Trump over and then try to run that establishment candidate I'd totally vote Democrat again just to fuck them in the ass with a big barbed dick. Now get to work and start doing my bidding, politicians or suffer the wrath of my dick! 

The two parties are in cahoots with each other.  They have been since 2000.  Before that for a brief time during the Reagan and Gingrich eras, it was the party of smaller government.  That is the party I supported. It doesn't exist anymore.  As I have said, Trump has the right policies but they probably won't be enacted because he can't get along with anybody because of his hissy fits and egomania. 

[Dr. MD MD]

The two parties are in cahoots with each other.  They have been since 2000.  Before that for a brief time during the Reagan and Gingrich eras, it was the party of smaller government.  That is the party I supported. It doesn't exist anymore.  As I have said, Trump has the right policies but they probably won't be enacted because he can't get along with anybody because of his hissy fits and egomania.

He can't get along with anyone or they can't get along with him? I think we all know the answer to that question. 

I voted for change not the same.

[Taaroa]

There's been a bit of a political show in Australia for the past few weeks with resignations and accusations over a part of the constitution which requires federal parliament members to only have Australian citizenship. It started when someone finally noticed that a Greens senator had NZ citizenship 9 years after he became a senator, and he resigned. 4 days later another Greens senator (who received media attention because she breastfed in parliament earlier this year) resigned after 6 years in office when it came out that she had Canadian citizenship.

After these resignations politicians have been scrambling to provide proof that they only hold Australia citizenship, while accusing their political enemies of breaking the law themselves (particularly directed against former Prime Minister Tony Abbott who was born in the UK).
Now a Liberal National Party senator has resigned his position as minister for resources but not from his role as senator after it has come out that he has Italian citizenship, and is taking his situation up with the courts.

Of course none of these politicians are going to even offer to pay back the years of public funded salaries (the base salary of a senator is $160,000 USD per year) which they were never eligible to receive in the first place.

Meanwhile you've got commentators (mainly on the left) who are whining about how unfair the law is and that it doesn't suit such a "progressive and multicultural country" like Australia. :  Good thing the only way it can be changed is with a referendum, which are notoriously hard to have succeed.


Some related links:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/more-mps-could-be-at-risk-as-dual-citizenship-crisis-threatens-to-widen-20170726-gxjaz7.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_44_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#.28i.29_Allegiance_to_a_foreign_power
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/section-44-of-the-constitution-irrelevant-and-outdated-but-were-stuck-with-it-20170720-gxfalx.html

[21st Century Man]

There's been a bit of a political show in Australia for the past few weeks with resignations and accusations over a part of the constitution which requires federal parliament members to only have Australian citizenship. It started when someone finally noticed that a Greens senator had NZ citizenship 9 years after he became a senator, and he resigned. 4 days later another Greens senator (who received media attention because she breastfed in parliament earlier this year) resigned after 6 years in office when it came out that she had Canadian citizenship.

After these resignations politicians have been scrambling to provide proof that they only hold Australia citizenship, while accusing their political enemies of breaking the law themselves (particularly directed against former Prime Minister Tony Abbott who was born in the UK).
Now a Liberal National Party senator has resigned his position as minister for resources but not from his role as senator after it has come out that he has Italian citizenship, and is taking his situation up with the courts.

Of course none of these politicians are going to even offer to pay back the years of public funded salaries (the base salary of a senator is $160,000 USD per year) which they were never eligible to receive in the first place.

Meanwhile you've got commentators (mainly on the left) who are whining about how unfair the law is and that it doesn't suit such a "progressive and multicultural country" like Australia. :  Good thing the only way it can be changed is with a referendum, which are notoriously hard to have succeed.


Some related links:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/more-mps-could-be-at-risk-as-dual-citizenship-crisis-threatens-to-widen-20170726-gxjaz7.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_44_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#.28i.29_Allegiance_to_a_foreign_power
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/section-44-of-the-constitution-irrelevant-and-outdated-but-were-stuck-with-it-20170720-gxfalx.html

Wow, what an embarrassment.  To have that going on for years before they were caught.  I don't approve of dual citizenship.  One is either loyal to one country or another.  Don't feel too bad about it though.  We have our share of doofuses in our government.

[Taaroa]

Wow, what an embarrassment.  To have that going on for years before they were caught.  I don't approve of dual citizenship.  One is either loyal to one country or another.  Don't feel too bad about it though.  We have our share of doofuses in our government.

There should be more questions asked about how no one in the parties, government, or the media picked up on this issue earlier.
I don't have a problem with dual citizenship, but politicians should only have allegiance to the country whose offices they want to hold.

Here's another one being drawn into it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/malcolm-roberts-believes-he-doesnt-have-dual-citizenship/8750132

[21st Century Man]

There should be more questions asked about how no one in the parties, government, or the media picked up on this issue earlier.

I don't have a problem with dual citizenship, but politicians should only have allegiance to the country whose offices they want to hold.

Dividing my loyalty is unthinkable to me.   I love the USA and am very proud to be an American.  However if I could become a citizen of another country, it would be Australia.   

[ZaZa]

(bold)..it is in UK law..One thing you have that we don't is plea bargaining..In my view that is a gross miscarriage of justice for all concerned. I also think the one sided extradition treaty the USA has (introduced by Bush and Tony fucking Blair) should be abolished.


On a wider note...

It seems that some see democracy as burdensome too. I don't especially like our current government: In my view they've compounded the economic mess that were left them (sound familiar?) by the previous administration. Only yesterday the economic forecast presented by the government is at odds with top economists who have said they envisage absolutely no respite from our current dire situation for at least the next five years., probably a lot longer. Their (governments) approach to our health, social and employment long term futures is in my view catastrophic; the reasons would overload the bandwidth! However, the last administration had policies that have led us down this route and so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this shower of shit.

I worry for my son; he's 9 years old, what fucking future has he got, when the employment prospects of youngster leaving school, college, university now is as bad as it has been since the war? After all that do I still subscribe to the notion of one man/woman, one vote? Of course I do. If whoever I vote fr next time don't get in, I'll accept it- I do have misgivings about a minority having sway over the rest though which happens you have multiple parties and a 'first past the post' ruling that decides the winner. Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced of the present coalition government we have, which happened because no one party had an overall majority in parliament.
I guess I believe in an impossibility: That the people should have true leaders: inspired and motivated, revered, giants, who have true compassion and empathy for the underdog, and enable all to enjoy good health and motivate them to want to have good health with good diet and lifestyle. To not be owned by commercial puppet masters, but be aware that those same commercial interests have inspirational, brilliant and qualified leaders, whose expertise should be drawn on; It isn't weak to ask for help when you don't have the answers. To have a free health service at the point of need, paid for by taxes; but don't let it be an excuse to be used as a milche cow by those who have no desire to keep themselves in good shape. Invest in people; both financially and socially. Make short term gain anathema that simply keeps the banks singing; The great inventions of our ancestors wouldn't have made it if the returns were measured in a few years rather than decades. It's all idealistic I accept, but all it needs is motivation and a collective will.

YorkPud,
you are asking very strange question indeed, "...what fucking future has he got,"
It's very simple in my opinion, in England with the abundance of male muslim emigrants who are jobless I'm sure he can find willing partners...

[ZaZa]

I'm consistent.  Always have been.  I don't flip flop at all.  Name me one issue.   I've voted for Republicans during my whole life.  I'm not necessarily proud of that fact right now but I sure as hell won't be voting for Democrats anytime soon.   The main issue I am unsure about is health care.  I don't know what the answer is but it sure as hell isn't Obamacare or single payer.

21stCM,
Just to set the record straight you were changing your mind every time DarthSandra your Empress was pinning you down, it was so pathetic how she manipulated you. Lol :
You apologized to her profusely even posting flowers for her.
You could ask Jackstar to do home delivery if you had any class.

[albrecht]

There should be more questions asked about how no one in the parties, government, or the media picked up on this issue earlier.
I don't have a problem with dual citizenship, but politicians should only have allegiance to the country whose offices they want to hold.

Here's another one being drawn into it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/malcolm-roberts-believes-he-doesnt-have-dual-citizenship/8750132

I agree. Though I could see a country modifying it perhaps for certain offices (or even to certain countries maybe.) I find surprising that your High Court views the UK as a 'foreign power' in this regard, are you a member of the Commonweath and have some, at least symbolic, fealty to the Queen?

We had some local judge who was found out to not be a citizen. She quit her job (not sure what happened to back salary) but later was naturalized. (I recall some situation that she was brought here as a kid and just assumed she was legal.)

It used to be an issue here but, I think, we are now allowed to have dual-citizenship. Some countries make you 'decide' which to take upon age-of-majority (it happens a lot in children where someone's parents are of different countries or place of birth.) Other places might not recognize dual-citizenship (so you could get into a situation in which one country recognizes both your citizenships but another country doesn't.) Weirdly our Court has held that a US citizen doesn't revoke their citizenship even if they vote in foreign elections (Afroyim v. Rusk.) And you have to renounce citizenship to lose it. If you become NATURALIZED there though you need to specifically renounce your citizenship of the other country.

[Taaroa]

I find surprising that your High Court views the UK as a 'foreign power' in this regard, are you a member of the Commonweath and have some, at least symbolic, fealty to the Queen?

Apart from the relationship between Australia and NZ, the Commonwealth might as well be dead.

The bigger quirk with this law though is that NZ is actually in the Australian constitution, and our citizens can live and work in each country freely. I made a post about NZ and Australian federation here:

[albrecht]

Apart from the relationship between Australia and NZ, the Commonwealth might as well be dead.

The bigger quirk with this law though is that NZ is actually in the Australian constitution, and our citizens can live and work in each country freely. I made a post about NZ and Australian federation here:

Weird. The link didn't work though considering the remoteness/closeness, past, and being only 'white' country in the area I could see why there would be strong bond between Australia and NZ.

Though simply being able to live/work in another country doesn't necessarily mean you can run for office or vote.

I recall that I (as legal resident) could vote in local elections but not in national elections in Holland. I don't think I ever bothered to do so but the idea was if you are legal than issues like bonds, local laws, local taxes, etc effect you, your business, and your property also but the 'larger' national issues a foreigner, even if legal, shouldn't vote or influence. Interestingly, if you were Dutch but living abroad you could vote in national elections but not in local ones by same logic (since you aren't living there and so, presumably, you would not be effected.)

http://www.kalb.com/content/news/Texas-judge-suspended-when-its-learned-shes-not-US-citizen-422870774.html
Later she got her citizenship and think got her job back or was reelected?

[starrmtn001]

White House Chef Found Dead With Note To Call Larry Nichols.  7.28.17.


https://youtu.be/WzC9I36z010

[ZaZa]

White House Chef Found Dead With Note To Call Larry Nichols.  7.28.17.


https://youtu.be/WzC9I36z010

*** What the P stands for? ***

P Donald Trump
P Hillary Clinton

President Donald Trump
Prisoner Hillary Clinton


Let's hope the P for Hillary one day soon it will become reality.

[starrmtn001]

Indeed.

[bateman]

[Richard Groyper]

McCain really shouldn't be seen in public with that ghoulish visage. I mean, someone get a shovel. damn!

[GravitySucks]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/08/02/half-detroit-mayoral-candidates-felony-convictions/104244406/

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhd6EOrO2o

[Kidnostad3]

The below video is a must see.  Ortell has put together an iron clad case against the Clintons but in this interview he connects Mueller and Comey with the whitewash of an investigation of the Clinton Foundation back in 2001.  There were ample grounds for indictment back then but the case was inexplicably not pursued.  It's about an hour long but it's well worth the time.  He also talks about the large number of establishment politicians of both parties and foreign actors who have participated and benefitted from this slush fund and stand to lose if a fair investigation of the whole "matter" was carried out. 

IMHO, the continued failure to prosecute rich, powerful and privileged felons in this country could easily lead to a bloody revolution. 


https://youtu.be/WjLoqu_X540

[Taaroa]

Why is the UN still a thing? They spend all their time bitching about Australia's "poor human rights record" (and censuring Israel) while ignoring the records of the third world. Up until last year Saudi Arabia was even on the UN Human Rights Council...

[Dr. MD MD]

Why is the UN still a thing? They spend all their time bitching about Australia's "poor human rights record" while ignoring the entirety of the third world, and up until last year Saudi Arabia was on the UN Human Rights Council.

Agreed. It's a scam that's also used to run the rat lines (drugs, weapons, human trafficking, etc.) of war, according to some.

[Juan]

Why is the UN still a thing? They spend all their time bitching about Australia's "poor human rights record" (and censuring Israel) while ignoring the records of the third world. Up until last year Saudi Arabia was even on the UN Human Rights Council...

The graft and corruption are easier there.

[pate]

Why, yes it could.

Wood b either, anguish/anglaise.

Saw C:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWGdnsefZfU

[starrmtn001]

Hi, Albrecht.  I'm a bit confused (duh, lol) here.  Could you simplify this for me, please?  I'm not sure I correctly understand the results of competitive bidding versus grants.  Thank you kindly.

Ben Carson's HUD to Shut Down Obama's Illegal Section 8 Grant System!  8.7.17.


https://youtu.be/6PTl8LnOaYc

[albrecht]

Hi, Albrecht.  I'm a bit confused (duh, lol) here.  Could you simplify this for me, please?  I'm not sure I correctly understand the results of competitive bidding versus grants.  Thank you kindly.

Ben Carson's HUD to Shut Down Obama's Illegal Section 8 Grant System!  8.7.17.

Video won't play for me.  But I think when they talk about "grants" it is the actual money giving to the poor person who then uses that voucher to pay rent. "Bidding" would be on the up-stream side of, say a developer, who is going to build Section 8 housing for a city/area (usually there is some sweet-heart deal cut: a tax abatement, some easement or zoning restrictions, some waiving of environmental rules etc in a quid-pro-quo. For example: I will build a complex of Section 8 housing here if the city will waive the rules on cutting down trees and let me build a condo high-rise there.) The money comes (mostly, I think) from the Feds but administrated by the States/Cities. It is complicated. I know a guy who made big $$ because he happened to have a property that a company wanted to make Section 8 in a deal with the city. Paid him a lot and he went and bought a big ranch outside of town. Ha. Lucky dude.

ps: Obama had an agenda to expand Section 8 to decent neighborhoods and force "diversity" into suburbs, rich enclaves, and small towns. It was called "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" and most Republicans (and in their heart- in their gated communities and tony suburbs- many Democrats likely also didn't really like.) I think that is what, hopefully, they are doing a way with. Nobody wants more crime or undesirables in their neighborhood and shouldn't be the place of the government to use tax-dollars to make our neighborhoods worse for 'diversity's' sake.