Jump to content

ExPDXer

Member
  • Content Count

    902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    M
  • Location
    FL

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Recent Profile Visitors

1,866 profile views
  1. ExPDXer

    Stand behind Biden

    Women's Right's: Foreign Affairs (Bush-Cheney's Regime Change (WMD) fiasco): H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Yea DE D Biden, Joseph LGBT Rights: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (enacted September 21, 1996) was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples. Yea DE D Biden, Joseph
  2. The big, fat thumb of the DNC re-appears to tip the scale once again...... Are they making up the rules as they go along? Presidential candidate Jay Inslee — who is running as a climate change candidate with a deeply developed plan to transform the nation's energy system and rapidly slash carbon emissions — had urged the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to host a debate dedicated exclusively to climate change. But Wednesday evening Inslee announced that his campaign received a call from the DNC "letting us know that they will not host a climate debate." What's more, Inslee said the DNC told him that "if he participated in another climate debate, outside of the DNC, the candidate and current governor of Washington would not be invited to any of the highly anticipated and televised DNC debates". Hmmm... which candidate(s) would have a difficult time debating their position on climate change, and which candidate(s) would benefit from such a debate? Or.. which corporate overlord(s) have made their DNC donations contingent upon snuffing out debate on such an important issue?
  3. ExPDXer

    Biden is the only hope for beating THE PIG

    Agreed. There are many Democrats who will absolutely not vote for Bernie.These are mostly Hillary fans, who have not moved on from 2016 election, and still hold a grudge. Fairly, or unfairly. There are also many Democrats who will absolutely not vote for Biden. These are mostly issue based progressives, and younger voters (under 30). So, Warren seems to be acceptable for the 1st group, and enthusiastic for the 2nd group. If Dems want to keep the party united, then it would be a good compromise selection. There are other good choices of course, but currently she has the momentum, and can generate enthusiasm from progressives, and women voters. I myself have changed my #1 choice from Bernie to Warren, mainly because of her policy proposals, and strong stand on impeachment. She is very sharp on legal, and economic issues. A native of Oklahoma / Texas, she won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. She is also a graduate of the University of Houston (Texas) and Rutgers Law School (NJ), later becoming a professor of law teaching at several Texas universities, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard (Mass). One thing that gives me pause: Tucker Carlson recently said many of Elizabeth Warren's economic policies make "obvious sense." It's still early, so we shall see.
  4. ExPDXer

    Biden is the only hope for beating THE PIG

    It's been a bad week for Biden... He didn't show up at the California Democratic Party annual convention. All the other major candidates attended. Sen. Warren got an ovation, while Hickenlooper, and Delaney received, .....uh, appropriate feedback for their performance. The last 24 hours have been especially bad….. His campaign acknowledged lifting language from other people and institutions in crafting his climate change proposal, which was released Tuesday. And The Washington Post reported Tuesday night that some language in Biden's education plan had been taken from other sources without attribution. Biden's first run for president in 1987 was ended by plagiarism allegations. Biden's campaign was forced to clarify that the former vice president still supports the so-called "Hyde Amendment" that keeps federal dollars from being spent on abortion services. Biden's reiteration of his support for the Hyde Amendment led to a series of blisteringly critical statements from the abortion rights community. In New Hampshire on Tuesday, Biden was asked about criminal justice reform. He said this: "When I wrote the crime bill, which you've been conditioned to say is a bad bill, there's only one provision that had to do with mandatory sentences that I opposed, and that was a thing called the 'three strikes and you're out,' which I thought was a mistake, but had a lot of other good things in the bill." (The crime bill is widely regarded by Democrats as a disaster, which led to the mass incarceration of black men.)
  5. ExPDXer

    Biden is the only hope for beating THE PIG

    Public Education - Two of my favorite words, (whether used separately or together). As in Public Good, Educated Public, Public Spaces, ....etc Whoever started this for-profit, private education (using public funds) idea anyway? They need some education in civics. Good public school teachers do not get paid enough, and are not supported by their local elected officials, especially in southern red states. It's almost as if they do not want an Educated Public. A winning football team seems like their main concern.
  6. ExPDXer

    Impeach

    I knew your were on the fence, I was just trying to give you a friendly 'nudge' . Fence -sitting can sometimes get a little uncomfortable. The grass is greener, and life is idyllic on my idealistic side of the fence 🌎. I respect, and appreciate everyone's unique perspective. This whole impeachment thing has me so upset I might need to taper off my anti-euphoria medication. You must admit, ... advocating for the Devil 🤬 is usually a somewhat hazardous, and unpopular role to play. Just ask Barr, and Guiliani..... peace(?)
  7. ExPDXer

    Biden is the only hope for beating THE PIG

    This is not true at all.... Democratic Presidential candidates do not need one d*#! republican voter. Even in EC calculations, the R Party lead does not exceed the D+I number of registered voters. There are 44 million registered Democrats 40% There are 32 million registered Republicans 29% There are 31 million registered Independents 28% about 61% of registered voters actually turned out on election day 2016, and.. there are about 20 million eligible voters that are not registered to vote (see below) These are things that can be to strengthen the Democratic numbers.. Streamline voter registration with automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration (SDR),preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds, and online voter registration Make voting more convenient with in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and vote-at-home with vote centers Provide sufficient resources in elections and ensure voting is accessible Restore rights for formerly incarcerated people Strengthen civics education in schools Invest in integrated voter engagement (IVE) and outreach
  8. ExPDXer

    Biden is the only hope for beating THE PIG

    Given that women have longer life expectancy, I''m assuming the relative cognitive decline would also be less. So, I would add a couple years to female candidates age threshold. There may also be a too young threshold, other than the 35 yr old requirement. Sen. Warren could serve two full presidential terms and still be 2 years younger than Pelosi's current age. Age (in descending order): Pelosi: 79 Sanders: 77 Biden: 76 Reagon: 74 (*Oldest President -at time of re-election) Trump: 72 Warren: 69 Harris: 54 O' Rourke: 46 Kennedy: 43 (*Youngest President -at time of election) Buttigiege: 37 Presidential requirement: > 35
  9. ExPDXer

    Impeach

    If democratic leadership is arguing against impeachment, why would any more republicans come out in favor? The strongest voice against impeachment is not coming from the the republican side. The Speaker is making their case for them. Since the Mueller report was released, not one document has been released to any House oversight committee. Subpoenas have been ignored (another impeachable offense), and everyone has refused to testify. We did however get to see the riveting testimony of an empty chair... Mueller investigated, the results are in. The evidence has been presented. 900 prosecutors have publicly argued this is prima facie evidence of multiple counts of felonious obstruction of justice (impeachable offense). The sensational results are in... The Mueller investigation is over. The investigations in the House are essentially stalled. Every subpeona will be ignored. Every meaningful witness will be blocked from testifying. Executive privilege will be asserted. Every dispute will be taken to court, and tied up for years. Then, the high court will ask ' if this was so important, why did congress not assert it's impeachment powers?" It's really very simple: If there is evidence Trump committed high crimes, and/ or misdemeanors, then it is the DUTY of congress to begin impeachment proceedings. Failure to do so weakens our democracy. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you do not believe Trump committed impeachable offenses, and therefore should not be impeached. IMHO.. Violating the emoluments clause is an impeachable offense.The framers of the constitution were very concerned about foreign countries corrupting the office of the President through bribery, or gifts. Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense. Defying Congressional subpoenas is impeachable. Abuse of presidential power, is an impeachable offense. Being Cohen's unindicted co-conspirator is an impeachable offense. Do you believe these are not high crimes, and/ or misdemeanors? It seems to me you are setting the barr very high by indicating only child molestation, or murder are impeachable offenses. So we adapting to the idea of an Imperial presidency? Neville Chamberlain took this approach, and history was not kind. There is no realistic, flexible middle ground on a binary decision. Either these abuses are acceptable, or they are not. In politics, strong leadership is more powerful than capitulation. Do democrats expect to be rewarded by red state swing voters for not impeaching? I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about governance. Governance is the thing that elected leaders should be doing immediately after being elected, and before starting their next political campaign. It involves taking an oath, and executing their duties outlined in the Constitution. In case I haven't made it clear. The right thing for the country, in my opinion, is to begin impeachment proceedings, because Trump committed impeachable offenses. Period. Even if only 20% of democratic voters approved. But that is not the case. 60-80% of democratic voters want to impeach. Disregarding that many democratic voters will have negative consequences in 2020. It's like pouring ice water on your own base, because you are afraid the how Trump's base will react. I don't see much fighting. I see democrats bringing a squirt gun to a massacre, and expecting to get rewarded for being reasonable. Being viewed as spineless, and timid in the face of blatant provocations, and illegal acts should be the domain of subservient republican candidates, not democrats. The avenue of approach that I favor, is aggressive impeachment proceedings. You sure there is absolutely no room for inflexibility? That sounds a little,.......... rigid, and inflexible.
  10. ExPDXer

    Impeach

    I disagree. There is, and has been for a long time now, definitely more than enough evidence for impeachment. No, investigations will be thwarted by more Presidential stonewalling, & abuse of power, and will not reveal much more than we already know. But what we already know is far, far beyond the pale, provable, indictable, and impeachable. To not impeach would to tacitly approve of these abuses, and encourage even worse abuses, like Barr announcing the results of his 'investigation investigation', or his Biden investigation, Nov 1st, 2020. Last December, 80% of Democratic voters approved of impeaching Trump. Nancy Pelosi managed to talk that number down to 60% (good job, Ms Speaker!) But that's still 60% of democrats favoring impeachment, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. So more than half of democrats have stated their preference for principle over politics. Should the will of 60-80% At what point do you stop making political calculations, and do what is the right thing to do for the country??? Wow! you sound completely defeated. Having no hope will certainly not produce success, only display timidity. If you define success as 'getting Republican Senators to remove Trump', then only failure is possible, because we can even get our own leadership to do more than shake their finger at flagrant abuses committed daily by Trump. We all know removal will not happen, but I define success as doing the right thing, by standing up for truth, justice, and the American way, and more cynically, generating voter enthusiasm, / anger before the 2020 elections, instead of disenchantment. Is standing up for principles, and upholding the Constitution making a weak symbolic statement? Here are some inspirational quotes to uplift your idealism... The deterioration of a government begins almost always by the decay of its principles. ― Montesquieu “Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too frightened, when we fail to speak up and speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.” ― Robert F. Kennedy “One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.” - RFK Which convictions are you speaking of? The vital imperative, at this time of crisis,........is to do nothing? Investigate, but don't impeach. Everything that Trump has done so far goes unchecked So if many more republicans declared impeachment, it convince you that Trump committed impeachable offenses? Yes. I agree. They are in real danger of living up to their reputation as republican-lite, by basically agreeing with Trump, Barr, McConnell, FoxNews, etc, etc. All this to attract the proverbial red state swing voter. Of the major 2020 candidates, all support impeachment, except Biden. If Biden is the nominee, then his problem will be with angry progressives, not with potential Trump vote-flippers.
  11. After 4 months, I would suspect many things become obvious, regardless of the country of origin. That’s a cool job, getting paid to draw stuff. He should get paid the same living wage regardless of whether he draws UA, or uncle martian logos. I don't know why you asking me to explain things to your son.... His current employer should be the one to explain why outsourcing his job to a highly exploited Chinese illustrator saves the corporation money, and therefore benefits the shareholders, who make the profits, which are lightly taxed in order create bonuses, or jobs (somewhere), which is good for America, and therefore good for every Patriotic American, etc. etc. etc. huh? Unfortunately, the going rate for drawing uncle martian logos is probably less than 10 yuan, which is almost free, but if he keeps his expenses under control,.....who knows.
  12. ExPDXer

    What Mueller said

    Pelosi's new plan is to immediately begin an inquiry into starting an investigation about starting a possible impeachment inquiry..... if the Republicans agree, of course....
  13. It's a clear knock-off, and counterfeit!! It's clear to me that the garment on the right is of higher quality, being manufactured in Guangzhou by an American company, employing Chinese workers at $1.10 / Hour. While the knock-off on the left is manufactured in Guangzhou (down the street), employing Chinese workers at $1.10 / Hour. The difference is obvious! From the Under Armour website: "Substantially all of our products are manufactured by unaffiliated manufacturers and, fourteen manufacturers produced approximately 65% of our products, with primary locations in Jordan, Philippines, China, Nicaragua. Malaysia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras. Our products were manufactured by 26 primary manufacturers, operating in 19 countries, with approximately 66% of our products manufactured in Asia, 14% in Central and South America, 15% in the Middle East and 5% in Mexico." "We have a subsidiary in Hong Kong to support our manufacturing, quality assurance and sourcing efforts for apparel and a subsidiary in Guangzhou, China to support our manufacturing, quality assurance and sourcing efforts for footwear and accessories."
  14. Whose intellectual property is it? A couple of decades ago, I worked for a Very large, U.S.based technology company. As was the practice upon hiring, and as a condition of employment, every Engineer was required to sign away intellectual property rights to the company. So their IP became the IP of the U.S. based multi-national corporation. It must be emphasized that corporations only have allegiance to shareholders, whether they are based in the US, or elsewhere. Their bottom line dictates whether Americans are affected negatively, or not. If it is advantageous for them to sign away their IP in order for them to gain entry into China, they will do it. If opening up 'Engineering Centers' in China, or elsewhere, and laying off US workers, positively affects shareholders, then they will do that as well. Just because they have HQ located in the US, does not mean they have any special requirements to positively affect US citizens, buy from US suppliers, or even responsibly pay their share of taxes.
  15. Are you denigrating my religious beliefs? How many sperm did you kill today?
×