Toyota Nation Forum banner

9701 - 9720 of 9850 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
She's lazy. Plain and simple. She complained about her responsibilities as a committee member. Fundraising and glad handing is work. She didn't go to Washington to work!? She is an actress, work is beneath her.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Sorry, but I don't think any of these people are involved in the deep state. They are merely government employees, no different than your illustrious teacher union.

OT: Teacher unions have an agenda which reaches far beyond just helping teachers and students.
1. If you don't include people that have been working and rising within the federal government, or lobbyists who have decades of experience shifting government to fit their needs- how do you define the deep state- and who is included in that deep state?

2. Teacher Unions are not government employees- so yes, they are different.

I'm really curious how you define the deep state- and who you include in that definition.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
The whole problem now is everything is political, don't buy here because they support this, you can't say that because you might offend someone, I'm better than you because I'm part of a minority group. I see things, hear things that offend me every day but I don't start stomping my feet and start bitching I just go on. The democrates say we need to be tolerant, tolerant of what, someone being a complete D bag. Its just like these so called progressives that are intimidated by confederate statues, if that statue intimidates you you have more issues than that. Right or wrong that statue is a reprsentation of history, history ain't pretty but youd better learn it or you'll repeat it Thats how I view most of the talking heads on MSNBC, CNN, refuse to even watch them. It was Harry Reid that made a statement on the Senate floor, knowing he was protected their, couldn't be sued, that word on the street was Mit Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years. After the election he was ask about it he said well it worked, no apology, no I was wrong, he just wore it as a badge. Apparently he pissed off his a exercise machine and it got him back. Its the democrates that want to change the Supreme Court, its the Democrates that want to do away with the Electorial College. So who's craping on the constitution? Bernie Sanders has already said that if he was President the government would take over the complete energy industry. The current crop of democrates running for President are a bunch of wannabe socialists. There isn't one successful socialist country in the world. Sure, this is not a perfect country, but its a lot better than it used to be.

Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk
1. For your complaints about people making things political- and not shopping here or there because of political beliefs, that's just plain good ol' fashioned free will. I am free to shop and support businesses that have similar values to mine. You have that same right. People also have the right to completely ignore all of that stuff and just shop where its convenient. Free will... choice. It's what makes America great.

2. While I agree with your argument that we shouldn't ignore history or try to rewrite it, I disagree with your reasoning and theory of why people want those statues removed. I personally don't support removing those statues, but I completely understand why someone might argue that they should be removed. They aren't intimidated by those statues- they don't like the idea that those people are still (literally) put on a pedestal. It's important to remember and learn about the history of our country- and that includes the history of the Confederacy. They just don't think that its appropriate to put slave owners and people who fought to keep slavery legal on a pedestal that everyone has to look at when they go to the courthouse or local library. We can remember history without large monuments dedicated to people who supported values that aren't widely accepted in the 21st Century.

3. I've said it before- and I'll repeat it here. Right now you are witnessing Democratic hopefuls trying to gain support during the primary process. Those candidates know and understand that only the most politically active- usually the most liberal- members of the party pay close attention and vote in primary elections. Therefore liberals must cater to that demographic and their desires, which is why they are pushing ridiculous proposals that aren't realistic. As the primary season wraps up, the remaining candidates will shift their positions to the center, where it will cater to the more moderate voters that participate in the general election. Republicans did it too back in 2016, 2012, and 2008. Cater to the fringes in the primary, go after the middle in the general. Rest assured, if the Democrats running for their party's nomination don't move center by April or May of 2020, their campaigns will ultimately fail because centrists won't vote for a Democrat that is pushing for single-payer, free college, or a huge tax on oil or coal.

One last thing about your fears of socialism taking over... go back and watch Trump's State of the Union speech. About halfway through his speech- he loudly proclaims that the United States will never become a socialist nation. Not only did Republicans applaud that statement- so did many of the Democrats running for President.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
That is so ludicrous. It's time for the Federal Government to withhold all federal funds from the State of California. They need to be held accountable for these unconscionable laws.
While I definitely think that San Francisco has gone off the deep end (I don't like the NRA, but I hardly think of them as a terrorist organization- they, like any organized group, are free to push for their ideas and values), it's important to remember that San Francisco is one of the most liberal pockets of America. As such, their policies often reflect the views of the extreme left, for better or worse. It shouldn't be used to characterize all of California, or all Democrats nationwide.

That said- it's important to note that there are millions of Republicans that live in California. Roughly 25% of voters (About 5 million) registered as Republican last year- and that doesn't include the millions that vote conservatively but don't officially identify with the party. Cutting off funding would impact them too.

Secondly, perhaps your argument that the federal gov't should withhold all federal funds from that state should also result in that same federal government not being able to tax those citizens. There's about forty million people in California. A few studies have shown that it would result in the federal government suffering- as California pays much more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding/payments. Politifact actually looked into this a few years ago- and found that California only receives about 78% of the money it sends to the fed back in funding. It's much less than the national average. According to the data, it looks like it's towards the bottom 25% when compared to other states.

 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
You're a full on liar. You don't leave any of your beliefs at the door and like all leftists you claim that you're doing one thing while doing another. You're the single rudest member here and never stop trying to baffle with your sermons.
I don't teach through ToyotaNation. I may be expected to leave my political biases at the door when I'm at work- but that certainly doesn't apply outside of my workplace. I am free to argue any political belief I personally support on this forum.

It would be nice if you toned down the personal attacks. I'm not a liar, nor am I rude. Just because you don't agree with my arguments or political views doesn't mean that I'm rude or lying. Let's be civil and debate each other with respect, please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
While I definitely think that San Francisco has gone off the deep end (I don't like the NRA, but I hardly think of them as a terrorist organization- they, like any organized group, are free to push for their ideas and values), it's important to remember that San Francisco is one of the most liberal pockets of America. As such, their policies often reflect the views of the extreme left, for better or worse. It shouldn't be used to characterize all of California, or all Democrats nationwide.

That said- it's important to note that there are millions of Republicans that live in California. Roughly 25% of voters (About 5 million) registered as Republican last year- and that doesn't include the millions that vote conservatively but don't officially identify with the party. Cutting off funding would impact them too.

Secondly, perhaps your argument that the federal gov't should withhold all federal funds from that state should also result in that same federal government not being able to tax those citizens. There's about forty million people in California. A few studies have shown that it would result in the federal government suffering- as California pays much more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding/payments. Politifact actually looked into this a few years ago- and found that California only receives about 78% of the money it sends to the fed back in funding. It's much less than the national average. According to the data, it looks like it's towards the bottom 25% when compared to other states.

That 78 cents figure is from a study in 2007.
From that same article "In January 2017, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office said by several measures California is, indeed, a donor state, but just barely. It receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid".
No longer much of a difference.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
From my understanding, the law you are referring to dates back to 1872 and required that all "able bodied" adults provide assistance to police officers that request help when making an arrest. It's an outdated law that was largely unenforceable.

Under this law, a 120lb, 25 year-old female could be punished for not helping a police officer tackle a 350lb man. That's absolutely ridiculous. While it is nice to imagine that a lot of people would rush to the police officer's side to provide assistance, no one should be forced by law to do this, which is what the old law required. You want to help? Great! If you'd rather not, the government should't be able to punish you for choosing not to endanger your own safety.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
That 78 cents figure is from a study in 2007.
From that same article "In January 2017, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office said by several measures California is, indeed, a donor state, but just barely. It receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid".
No longer much of a difference.
I read your link- and it looks like there might be an explanation included that might explain what's going on here. In the year you reference, the government's spending was much higher- meaning that the government was actually spending $1.22 for every dollar that it collected in taxes. That means that there is really a 23 cent difference between what California receives and what the gov't collects, on average using your more recent numbers. That's similar to the 78% (or 22 cents on the dollar) that I mentioned in my original post.

Your link also supported my point that California remains in the bottom 25% in terms of states and how much they receive back from the federal government. (Only nine other states receive less as shown in Figure 2 using your link).

Any way you slice it- California gets less back from the federal government compared to most other states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I don't teach through ToyotaNation. I may be expected to leave my political biases at the door when I'm at work- but that certainly doesn't apply outside of my workplace. I am free to argue any political belief I personally support on this forum.

It would be nice if you toned down the personal attacks. I'm not a liar, nor am I rude. Just because you don't agree with my arguments or political views doesn't mean that I'm rude or lying. Let's be civil and debate each other with respect, please.
You're absolutely rude to the president and you're a liar about leaving your beliefs at the door when you're sharing those views with your students.

I can do exactly as you ask only when you act in the same manner towards all that you're demanding for yourself. Really tired of the double standard from the left where they deserve to be treated with kindness while they openly disparage and question the honest/integrity of any who dare disagree with them. You want a certain type of treatment, then first be willing to give it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
Makes you wonder where the members are stealing the money from for dues. Let alone the contribution to the DCCC to get points. I like that AOC said she wasn't going to pay her dues (shows her support). I guess she thinks she doesn't need to, since she's become the mouth piece of the DNC in the media. I guess she already knows she's 1 and done.
Interesting read. It sheds some light, as the why and how, Nancy Pelosi retains her position of Speaker. No wonder we don't have term limits. Corrupt system if you ask me.
 

·
Joined the dark side. :D
Joined
·
5,762 Posts
Interesting read. It sheds some light, as the why and how, Nancy Pelosi retains her position of Speaker. No wonder we don't have term limits. Corrupt system if you ask me.
When there are more bad people and loud bad people, how do you keep them from reaching the power to dictate and control you? Only way I see is to give power to the individual for them to exercise their power. When you give power to a communist group, you got only yourself to blame. (look over to heartdisease)
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
You're absolutely rude to the president and you're a liar about leaving your beliefs at the door when you're sharing those views with your students.

I can do exactly as you ask only when you act in the same manner towards all that you're demanding for yourself. Really tired of the double standard from the left where they deserve to be treated with kindness while they openly disparage and question the honest/integrity of any who dare disagree with them. You want a certain type of treatment, then first be willing to give it.
1. Questioning what the president is doing, and pointing out things that I don't agree with isn't rude. If someone wants to serve in the highest office in this country, that office comes with expected criticism and opposition, especially when that office is filled by someone who is as outspoken as Trump. Second- and I've said this before on this forum- it is important to respect the office of the president. That isn't the same as standing by and just blindly accepting whatever the officeholder is doing. My previous post- requesting that you tone down your personal attacks- was referencing the rules of this forum. I've always understood those rules to prohibit personal attacks on forum members, but still allow political discussion and criticism of government officials. Perhaps a moderator on this forum could better explain this rule than I could. Here's a link to the rules I am talking about- specifically rule number three.

2. Have you been in my classroom? Have you spoken with any of my students? No, you haven't. My district has rules that require teachers to be impartial in the classroom. I am not allowed to show favoritism or show any sort of disrespect towards one politician or another. That's really a hard thing to do, but I take pride in the fact that my class is a place that doesn't show favoritism. You shouldn't assume that just because I show my liberal colors on this forum that I can't be impartial in a classroom.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Interesting read. It sheds some light, as the why and how, Nancy Pelosi retains her position of Speaker. No wonder we don't have term limits. Corrupt system if you ask me.
Term limits and better restrictions on moving from elected officeholder to lobbyist would do this country a lot of good.

The Congressman that represents the district next to mine just announced his retirement after the 2020 election. When he retires, he will have served for 42 years in Congress. 42 years! I don't care what political party you're in- 42 years is much too long. Pelosi has been in Congress for more than 30 years, so has Mitch McConnell. In my mind, twelve years should be the maximum someone can serve in Congress.

In my opinion, it all comes down to how states have designed out their Congressional districts- in many places they just aren't competitive. In my district, led by a Democrat, the district is shaped purposely to include roughly 70% liberals and 30% conservatives. There is no chance that a conservative would ever win in my district. It's much the same throughout Wisconsin. That congressman I was referring to that is retiring after 42 years? Yeah, his district is shaped to include about 70% conservatives and 30% liberals. The districts in Wisconsin are a result of the gerrymandering that was used to create them. Despite having nearly a 50%-50% split statewide between liberals and conservatives, Republicans hold roughly 65% of state legislative seats and five out of eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our state legislature purposely created districts that would ensure that Republicans maintained control- and were pretty safe in terms of winning elections. It's not just Republicans, Democrats do the exact same thing elsewhere. The creation of districts that all but guarantee one party winning results in career politicians that no longer have to listen to the needs of the people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Questioning what the president is doing, and pointing out things that I don't agree with isn't rude.
Me calling you what you are isn't rude, but simply accurate. You're a liar about the president and it's you and the rest of the left who are shitting on the constitution and the country on a daily basis and then crying foul whenever things don't go the way you'd like.
 

·
Camry Freak
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Me calling you what you are isn't rude, but simply accurate. You're a liar about the president and it's you and the rest of the left who are shitting on the constitution and the country on a daily basis and then crying foul whenever things don't go the way you'd like.
All politicians shit on the Constitution and try and twist it to fit their personal beliefs or agenda. Both political parties also act like babies when they don't get their way.

Case in point: When former Republican Governor Scott Walker lost his reelection bid in 2018, the Republican-controlled state legislature was called in for a special session. At that session, the Republicans who controlled our state government- with Scott Walker's blessing, passed several hastily written laws that significantly restricted the new Democrat Governor and State Attorney General's power. They lost the election-so they tried to rewrite our laws- changing them so that a significant amount of power was shifted from the governor and attorney general to the Republican-controlled legislature.

Republicans in Congress are mostly turning a blind eye at the power grab that Trump is making when he feels that it is within his authority to reallocate funds to pay for his border wall. A border wall that Congress specifically chose not to fund. Our Constitution is clear- Congress has the power of the purse... not the president. Allowing the president to reallocate funds to whatever he wants demonstrates a significant shift of power under the Constitution- not one that our founders ever intended. Worse, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Will you be okay with a Democrat president who takes money from FEMA to fund an element of Obamacare that Congress specifically chose not to fund?

Lastly, I'm interested in your statement that claims that I've lied about the president. Can you provide a specific example of me lying about Trump?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
Secondly, perhaps your argument that the federal gov't should withhold all federal funds from that state should also result in that same federal government not being able to tax those citizens. There's about forty million people in California. A few studies have shown that it would result in the federal government suffering- as California pays much more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding/payments. Politifact actually looked into this a few years ago- and found that California only receives about 78% of the money it sends to the fed back in funding. It's much less than the national average. According to the data, it looks like it's towards the bottom 25% when compared to other states.

So, do those numbers include the 21.8 Billion given to help illegal aliens (sorry I ment Undocumented Democrats according to UCLA)? Or the money the Fed gives to support Sanctuary cities? I saw that Wisconsin was #2 on that list, does that mean your stare gets less money back than California for every dollar sent in? I know here in Michigan it used to be 89 cents back for every sent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
Interesting read. It sheds some light, as the why and how, Nancy Pelosi retains her position of Speaker. No wonder we don't have term limits. Corrupt system if you ask me.
Sorry, but term limits START in your state. You have to get enough signatures to make a start for a bill, then it has to get passed before it goes on the ballot. Then the voters have to vote yes/no on it before it can take effect. (basic civics lesson). Michigan has term limits. 2 terms for gov't offices. Doesn't matter if it's Tlaib's seat, or the governors seat. About the only place it doesn't apply is city offices or township offices, and for judges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
Term limits and better restrictions on moving from elected officeholder to lobbyist would do this country a lot of good.

The Congressman that represents the district next to mine just announced his retirement after the 2020 election. When he retires, he will have served for 42 years in Congress. 42 years! I don't care what political party you're in- 42 years is much too long. Pelosi has been in Congress for more than 30 years, so has Mitch McConnell. In my mind, twelve years should be the maximum someone can serve in Congress.

In my opinion, it all comes down to how states have designed out their Congressional districts- in many places they just aren't competitive. In my district, led by a Democrat, the district is shaped purposely to include roughly 70% liberals and 30% conservatives. There is no chance that a conservative would ever win in my district. It's much the same throughout Wisconsin. That congressman I was referring to that is retiring after 42 years? Yeah, his district is shaped to include about 70% conservatives and 30% liberals. The districts in Wisconsin are a result of the gerrymandering that was used to create them. Despite having nearly a 50%-50% split statewide between liberals and conservatives, Republicans hold roughly 65% of state legislative seats and five out of eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our state legislature purposely created districts that would ensure that Republicans maintained control- and were pretty safe in terms of winning elections. It's not just Republicans, Democrats do the exact same thing elsewhere. The creation of districts that all but guarantee one party winning results in career politicians that no longer have to listen to the needs of the people.
Yeah, ours are really going to get messed up after the 2020 census. It'll no longer be who is in power decides how they are shaped, but rather involving independent citizens deciding by committee that will decide how they are drawn up.
As for 42 years in office, I'm glad John Conyers died. He'd been in office a long time.
 
9701 - 9720 of 9850 Posts
About this Discussion
9.8K Replies
137 Participants
Corrolla clone
Toyota Nation Forum
ToyotaNation Forum is a community dedicated to all Toyota models. Come discuss the Camry, Tacoma, Highlander, 4Runner, Rav4 and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top