TriGirl

Then we have Sen. Graham at first trying to rebuke him, but ends up basically joining him (bolding mine):

this sums it up for me that was a stupid thing to say The problem being that because he tweeted it, it is obviously a sentiment that he holds. So as Turtle wrote, he won't think before he speaks. And because he doesn't see/feel any consequences for these gaffes from the body that is supposed to do so, the message to those Americans who may not disagree but who wouldn't think to voice the same hate speech now have in the back of their minds that this is okay. The person in this office is supposed to be the one who upholds the ideals of our nation. Whether he likes it or not, his tweets are policy. This is how divisive rhetoric becomes normalized, with all the second- and third-order affects thereafter.

(You all had to know I would jump in on this one sometime) Please, please, PLEASE read the book. The title character is actually the best actor in the fictional foreign country out of all the stories! (He's literally physically unattractive -- not a bad person). [/rant] Sorry, but I train diplomats, and find The Ugly American to be a quintessential treatise on how to approach work in the foreign service.

He spent at least 5 minutes extolling the virtues of EACH military branch during his speech. He only spoke for 40 minutes. That makes more than half of his speech just talking about the service branches. I don't know how much more he spent talking about the military as a whole. I agree, he did stick to the script, so his remarks were not so egregious. The possibility that he would behave and stay on message was the very reason I did not agree with opponents staging demonstrations -- that, and if you want your accusations taken seriously, don't do the same thing (in other words, I would have preferred opposition groups had left the baby balloon and protest signs at home). As for the cost -- his campaign hasn't finished paying for the cost of the inaugural events. As was noted in previous posts, the city had to spend more than anticipated because POTUS wanted to participate. As for the military costs, those will be taken out of the defense budget (personnel are paid regardless, but travel, billeting, fuel, etc. are wasted expenses just for this). Because he was able to stay on message, you are correct -- his campaign would not have to pay for it. Additionally, had he gone off script, with military equipment as the backdrop, he would have been guilty of campaign finance violations.

In my 29 years (so far), I have never seen this kind of compensation. You had good leadership.

That's like saying you get your insurance through the ACA, not Obamacare.

Kavanagh wasn't on trial, he was sitting a job interview. "Lock him up" based on Blasey-Ford's testimony would have been applying "guilty until proven innocent."

American Independence is not limited to celebrating the military. In fact, that should be an incidental acknowledgement in this whole remembrance. Where was the celebration of self rule? Rule of law? The statesmanship that permeated the hall in Philadelphia where the colonial representatives got together and discussed/debated/hatched the idea, which evolved to a formal Declaration, of secession? It wasn't just about killing people and burning stuff. In fact, that happened later -- well after the signing of said Declaration on July 4, which is the basis for our celebrations on this date. The military is celebrated enough on multiple other days of the year. It should not be a political backdrop to a Presidential ego. Incidentally, if said POTUS really wanted to honor and celebrate the military, why did he make so many of them WORK on what would have been a 4-day weekend?

And, everyone gets paid the same regardless of job (for the most part*). An admin clerk with 2 years of experience gets the same pay as an airline mechanic with the same time in service. The doctor gets the same base paycheck as the supply officer -- although the supply officer probably has more time in service as an O-3, since the doctor likely came in at that grade; therefore the supply officer would make a higher base salary. *The variances on bonuses are because the only way a totally socialist pay and benefit structure works is if the organization can determine who can be part of the buy-in population.

It's the Satanic Temple. Why do you keep singling out this religion? Why not use Mormon, or Catholic, or Jew, or Pagan? Or atheist?

Wow. Just wow. This is just an extension of blaming a rape victim: Victim: "I was attacked and raped as I was walking home from work." Police: "Okay, we'll get to the bottom of this. Where was this, why were you there alone at night, and what were you wearing?"

So, Trump is directing the Deep State?

The photos depicted at least three (101, 102, and another). Did anyone catch the subtitle of the "loo" graphic?

So, back to the topic at hand... Anyone have a comment about the recent conventions the Democratic hopefuls have recently attended? I've seen some summaries, but as everyone has acknowledged, there are just way too many candidates to separate them out. I would be interested to hear opinions of some of the not-as-well-known hopefuls and their proposals. If they don't seem to stand a chance in this field, what else would you recommend they do to contribute? Thanks.

Just watched John Delaney on Smerconish. I liked what he had to say about health care and the Hyde Amendment. Health care: single-payer (only), "Medicare for all" = bad. Everyone can get basic healthcare = good. He admitted it costs money, but in his reckoning, forcing everyone to give up the system they already know/like and build a single system run by the government from scratch would be disastrous. He had some good points there. Hyde Amendment: he agrees with the former VP's newest position, that the restrictions on women's public healthcare are wrong, and he made no apologies for it. I liked that exchange. Now I would like to hear his position on other issues. I think I've been pretty clear above that I am against single-issue campaigns. Has anyone else heard more from this candidate?

I really like listening to Pete Buttigieg whenever he is on an interview/panel/talk show. He knows his business -- not just his talking points and platform, but can have a real, intelligent conversation about anything thrown at him. He can admit when he doesn't know about an issue, and actually listens to people with different views. I'm not yet convinced he is ready for the presidency, but I really would like to see him have a prime advisory/cabinet position in the next administration. Maybe once he gets more experience behind him, I'll be more comfortable voting for him for the highest office. In the meantime, he has a really good start. Also wish Evan McMullen would get back into the race somewhere. He had some really good positions in 2016, and demonstrated he understood where he fell out among the two major party candidates. Had he not entered the scene less than two months before the election, he could have done much better as a write-in. Between him and his running mate, I appreciated the domestic, defense, intelligence, legal and foreign affairs aggregate experience. I loved Cory Booker's comments at the convention in 2016, and remember thinking very highly of him at that time. I have been less than impressed with him thus far, however. I think if Bernie Sanders wants to run, he should run as an independent. If he wants D dollars, he needs to register officially as a Democrat. As far as "the party" putting up the candidates -- can't have it both ways. Either "the party" chooses its top choices and allows those folks to run in the primaries, or "the party" stays the hell out and lets the votes come in where they will. I don't have a problem with the DNC choosing their candidate toward the end of the primaries in 2016. It's only been recently (someone fact check me, please -- 30-ish years?) that the parties have allowed such free participation in the primary/caucus process. Used to be some party elders would get together, have some scotch and cigars with a deep discussion, and then ask their preferred candidate(s) to run. I also would like to see the party leadership (both sides) set the standards for what the party stands for (very generalized platform -- like smaller government, free trade, etc), and insists that no one gets the party letter behind their name if they stray significantly from those issues. It would stop these single-issue radicals from hijacking the parties. Let them start their own parties if they want a different focus, or find a candidate that also conforms to the basic party issues as well as your own personal crusade. Once the candidate from that party is determined, then the more focused, prioritized list of issues makes the platform for that election. But, it has to start with the parties setting some standards and enforcing that general platform. Okay, I'm off my soapbox. Had to get that off my chest. To the OP -- thanks for starting this thread. I'll try to add my thoughts whenever I see a specific candidate do/say something as they go. I hope others will do the same. I would also like to see a discussion on R candidates. Sure, the list is limited, but the current president does have a challenger.

I heard another point of view as well: if a child is BORN in the United States (with the exceptions for diplomats and other exchange personnel representing their home country), that child is guaranteed U.S. citizenship (per the Constitution). If laws start to come on board that recognize fetuses as people, what does that do to the fetuses of pregnant migrants? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the parent of that fetus is also permitted entry? And, does the conception have to take place within U.S. territory? How would anyone prove it didn't?

Georgia's law does include charges for women who go out of state to terminate a pregnancy.

Yep -- we're seeing an extreme group that wants to implement Sharia Law here in the U.S. (ETA: Sorry, I know this post is from a couple of pages back. I'm just getting caught up on my reading!)

The difference is out of whose mouth the words came. Sure, Mr. Mueller wrote them in his report, but fewer than 1% of people actually read it. Media outlets reported these facts, but we know how the media has been criticized these past few years. The only official voice has been the AG, who has repeatedly lied about the findings in the report. Therefore, it needed to be heard in Mueller's own voice, making him the unequivocal source of the conclusion. There is no disputing that these are the findings, regardless of what Mr. Barr says (in fact, the contradictory and propagandizing statements by the AG now can be used as grounds for his impeachment, should Congress decide to hold him to conventional standards).

And that money he promised to the farmers? From the tariffs. So in essence, POTUS supports redistribution of wealth in this country.

Fine. -- Discover (yes, that is a long process) reasons why law enforcement is ineffective in said country. Identify bits that can be improved by training, SOPs, gear/vehicles, etc (just some examples) and develop programs and agreements to implement said assistance. -- Look at the economic processes in that country to determine (again, simplified statement) ways to revitalize the economy. (better/more economic opportunities reduce the choice to go to organized crime) -- Discover what limitations that county may have to access to affordable, healthy food (usually multiple limitations/issues contribute to this problem), and suggest ways to mitigate those limitations. -- Repeat for basic education, including vocational education in food management and basic health care. Need more?

There are more ways to work with another government than just to give money.

The other part of the solution is to address what's going on in their countries of origin, and work to make life better in those places so people don't feel the need to risk their (and their kids') lives to migrate to the U.S.

I was thinking of using the ban in another way. Opponents of the Alabama legislation should introduce multiple bills to compensate. Rape has no statute of limitations. Penalties for rape are raised to the same level as health care providers who terminate the pregnancy (per the recent bill -- up to 99 years incarceration). Free health care for all women and their children until the child leaves the home (if the life is valuable enough to bring to term, then it is valuable enough to be healthy). Increase educational spending -- because what value is a life to society if they are not educated? They need to have their own words used to illustrate that they're really full of shit. Of course, none of these will make it through, but the lawmakers need to be on record showing their lack of consideration for women who no longer have rights over their own bodies, and children forced to be born. One lawmaker already said that embryos in stasis don't count -- only those already in a woman's body count as real lives. (ETA: Because they obviously understand the definition of the word "conception.")