The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

On PFT there is a story that NE might not be invited to the WH and/or Trump wants any player that is a no show cut.

Even if none of that happens, football players boycotting won't be a big deal.  The stage will still be crowded and the 3 majors will be there Brady, Belichick and Kraft. 

OTOH, basketball teams are a lot smaller, basketball player are more outspoken politically than football players, and are overwhelmingly minorities.  President Thinskinned is not going be thrilled having the coach, owner and two reserves visiting while the rest of the team boycotts. 

This has always been something that saddens me and shows how far we, as a country, have fallen. There was very little about Obama that I agreed with but I'd have jumped at the chance to meet him at the White House. I never agreed with those who boycotted Obama.  It's the freaking President of the United States and that is much bigger than my opinion. People used to respect the position, if not the person, but it is no longer like that. No one respects anything in this country and pretends that is what we are suppose to love about this country.

agree or disagree with someone politically .. you can at least respect them as a human being and respect the position they hold if nothing else.

Trump however isn't someone i respect as a human being. I don't respect those who commit sexual assault. I don't respect those who scam poor people out of money in a "university" .. I cannot and will not respect that.

How do you feel about Bill Clinton? I'm curious if you can look past his assaults? I'm betting it's a non issue since you agree with his politics.

In general I agree with respect the office, not the person.  But I also believe you reap what you sow. I have yet to see anyone disrespect Trump any worse than Trump's bullshit birther claims against Obama. 

Trump was the one who first tweeted the idea of marching on Washington to protest a fair election, why should anyone be offended that the march did occur 8 years later?

And it is not the first time athletes have declined a White House visit.  Brady skipped 2 years ago.  Obama didn't take offense.

How many players boycotted visiting the WH when GWB was President?

I think it would be different if we were talking about President McCain, President Romney, or even President Cruz.  The people who boycotted Obama would have been equally likely to boycott Hillary, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren.

Obama is a pretty normal Democrat.  Trump is far from a normal Republican.

Lot's of people have declined  over the years including Miami Dolphin players. It's still disrespectful.

http://theweek.com/articles/460872/18-athletes-who-refused-visit-white-house

President Obama honored the 1972 Miami Dolphins this week, the only NFL team to complete an undefeated season (sorry, Patriots fans). However, three members of that team — Hall of Fame center Jim Langer, guard Bob Kuechenberg, and defensive tackle Manny Fernandez — declined the invite, citing political differences.

Kuechenberg: "
I just don't believe in this administration at all."

Fernandez: "
[M]y views are diametrically opposed to the president's."

Langer:
"I don't want to be in a room with those people and pretend I'm having a good time. I can't do that."

Yet those three are hardly the first athletes to snub a sitting president's White House invite. And not everyone who has in the past spurned the commander-in-chief has done so for overtly political reasons.

Here, 15 other athletes who were White House no-shows:

Matt Birk
The former Baltimore Ravens center won the Super Bowl earlier this year, but refused to meet President Obama because of the president's support for Planned Parenthood.

"I am Catholic, I am active in the pro-life movement, and I just felt like I couldn't deal with that," Birk said. "I couldn't endorse that in any way."

Tim Thomas
In 2012, Thomas, a noted Tea Partier, posted a screed against the entire government on his Facebook page to explain his refusal to visit Washington with the rest of the 2011 Stanley Cup-winning Bruins.

"
I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People," he wrote.

"This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country."

James Harrison
Harrison twice declined White House invites after winning the Super Bowl, spurning both Obama and former President George W. Bush — not because of their politics, but because he felt the whole idea of inviting championship teams was hollow.

"This is how I feel — if you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don't win the Super Bowl," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, he [Obama] would've invited Arizona if they had won."

Manny Ramirez
Manny, being Manny, didn't show up to meet George W. Bush for no apparent reason other than that he just didn't feel like it.

"I'm sorry [David Ortiz's] running mate, Manny Ramirez, isn't here,'' Bush said. "I guess his grandmother died again. Just kidding. Tell Manny I didn't mean it."

Mark Chmura
A member of the 1996 Super Bowl-winning Packers, Chmura skipped a trip to meet President Clinton, citing a previously scheduled golf tournament. After the Lewinsky scandal broke, however, he said, "
I knew it all along" adding, "It doesn't really say much for society and the morals [Clinton] sets forth for our children."

Tom Lehman
An American golfer known to proudly flaunt his Christian faith, Lehman declined to meet President Clinton, instead referring to him as a "draft-dodging baby killer."

Michael Jordan
Yes, even Air Jordan has had a presidential no-show controversy. When Jordan opted not to meet President George H. W. Bush in 1991, a fuming Chicago Tribune story blared, "Snub By Jordan Undermines Team."

Jordan later defended his decision, saying he wanted to spend time relaxing with his family back in North Carolina.

"As you know, my schedules have been very hectic," he said. "You guys have seen me, I've been every which way, and because I choose to take my private three days somewhere no one can call me, it's my prerogative."

Larry Bird
Bird and others from the 1984 Celtics turned down the chance to visit President Reagan for unspecified reasons, with Bird later quipping, "If the president wants to see me, he knows where to find me."

Albert Pujols, Tony LaRussa
Pujols and LaRussa, who both took part in Glenn Beck's big Tea Party rally back in 2010, did not travel with the rest of the Cardinals to be congratulated by Obama in 2012. Neither cited politics to explain their no-shows, and both were already on their way out of St. Louis by then; LaRussa retired, and Pujols signed a mega-deal with the Los Angeles Angels.

Pujols also missed a meeting with President Bush in 2005 while on a humanitarian mission in his native Dominican Republic.

Ozzie Guillen
The oddball (former) manager and friend of the late-Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez skipped a team meeting with President Bush after the White Sox won the 2005 World Series. He did, however, appear on Chavez's radio show after winning that title.

Greg Biffle, Carl Edwards, Kevin Harvick, and Tony Stewart
The handful of NASCAR standouts all turned down an invite from President Obama, citing "scheduling conflicts."

One consistently denies the accusations and there isn't any corroborating evidence, the other was caught on hidden tape boasting about it.

apples and oranges

bwahahahahaha.

Fau, many conservatives think Trump bragging about assaulting women and Bill Clinton admitting to receiving a consensual BJ are precisely equal.

Keep in mind that Trump has been accused of assault by more women than Bill Clinton has.  However, those accusations against Trump are Clearly False while the accusations against Bill Clinton are Obviously True.

Those "visits" to the White House last all of like 5-10 minutes. It's more of a photo opp than anything. Nothing of substance is said or done with them. If a few players on a team don't want to go who the hell cares.

It is rich that Trump has issues with some Pats players not going when Tom Brady refused to go last time when Obama was president.  Go, don't go. Who cares. The President's squeeze these visits in after their lunch and some really important stuff they have scheduled next. It isn't like it's an all day affair or visit. Most of them just read of a piece of paper someone wrote for them because they have spent ZERO time preparing for it and the thing is over before it starts.

And they won't cancel these visits for all sports and teams going forward because a few players don't want to attend. Before social media these things got little to not attention and nobody was taking attendance on who showed up or not. Now people just have a platform to spout off and pontificate on why they aren't going.

^^^ prior presidents wouldn't cancel the visit because some players didn't show, but there are leaks from the White House that Donnie won't stand for that and is expecting owners to make the trip mandatory or he will not extend an invitation.

I'm happy for those who decide to not visit this guy in office. It is a complete turn-around to what America stands for. Respect the office, but so far, this guy deserves no respect.

Enough is enough......this is an impeachable offense http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/15/media/trump-ncaa-bracket/index.html.  8)

Even Tom Brady is skipping the visit.   

To answer my own question.  Yes, it seems that that tradition is ending at least until we get a new president. 

Yep...I think that, as soon as we get a new President that doesn't have such a bruisable ego, the traditional will be reinstated.

I think Trump was wrong to cancel the visit but I also think it's wrong for people to skip it because of political views. I didn't agree with Obama and I don't agree now. This country needs to get past the fricking hate and re-establish respect for authority or we will loose the country we have. Disagree all you want but still have sort of decorum about yourself.

I agree with you in part about respecting the office.  But the lack of respect for Trump as President is largely his own doing.  Trump never respected the office when Obama held it.  (see Birther) He ran a campaign with a very foundation of being disrespectful.  Little Marco, Pocahontas, chants of lock her up.  Etc.  And then demands a greater level of respect than any President has ever had.  No other president had demanded every single player show up and that any who doesn't should be cut.  Obama had issues with FOX but he never barred them from the white house briefing room because they said mean things about him. 

Trump had not respected the office, why should anyone else.     

You don't have to respect the person to respect the office. The same goes for the Mayor, Governor, police and other authority positions. Lot's of a-holes out there but without the infrastructure we are doomed.

I agree you don't have to respect the person to respect the office.  But if the person holding the office doesn't respect the office, the infrastructure is doomed.  I didn't agree with Bush on a lot of policy, but he didn't disrespect his own office.  Trump not the Eagles are the ones disrespecting the office.   

While Trump is on office? Yeah I think so. You have to understand that these athletes can go "visit" the White House any damn time they want. In my opinion the offer was always to go meet the President, not just "visit" the White House. Apparently there's a good number of athletes who have no interest in meeting the President.

When the office is referring to you and your coworkers as "sons of bitches," that essentially becomes impossible.

And to answer Hoodie's question:  I think the champions of MLB, NHL, NASCAR, and college football will be visiting Trump as long as he's in office.

No offense but that is a textbook snowflake answer. He didn't actually call them sons of bitches (he was speaking about a hypothetical situation) and even if he did ... that's not a big deal. Good grief man ... my coaches used to call use much worse on a daily basis. That's akin to a child saying "he said something about my momma". hahaha

Yesterday I did not agree with him canceling the trip but upon further review ... I think he made the correct call. Philly papers are reporting that less than 10 people had planned on attending and the number was dwindling.  Some reports that only Nick Foles and Doug Pederson were the only ones actually committed to going. If I was an Eagles fan who made the trip to see them I would have been pretty upset.

White house lied again.  Said it was because of anthem protests.

Where is the lie? Did they give another reason for not coming? I know FOX News used a false picture of the them kneeling but quickly retracted that. I hadn't seen anything the president said as false. The previous day CNN reported most of the day that the Supreme Court had "narrowly" ruled in favor of the Baker even though it was 7-2.  For whatever reason they kept emphasizing narrowly. 

“The Philadelphia Eagles are unable to come to the White House with their full team to be celebrated tomorrow. They disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country.

“The Eagles wanted to send a smaller delegation, but the 1,000 fans planning to attend the event deserve better. These fans are still invited to the White House to be part of a different type of ceremony — one that will honor our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play the National Anthem. I will be there at 3:00 p.m. with the United States Marine Band and the United States Army Chorus to celebrate America.”

^^^ Basically, that entire quote is a load of complete horseshit.

This is the lie. 

The Eagles didn't kneel in protest at any point during the season. 

His reason for cancelling isn't about protests.  It isn't about fans.  It's about him -- he doesn't want to look like a chump with very few people showing up.

Although I fully know the administration is full of liars, I don't see an obvious lie here compared to some others they have told. First point, the statement never says any Eagles knelt. It does say that they disagree with Trump and that is why many are not coming. I doubt it was a singular reason but I have no doubt it played a part. Second point, it mentions the smaller group as reason for the change in ceremony.

There are inferences by many readers and omissions by the writers, we all know Trump hates being punked, but I don't see any outright lies.

You're correct. I don't believe he's lieing he's just mistaken as to why they are not coming. He believes it's because of the anthem protests when I think the reasons are far more varied and encompassing then just that.

It's being reported the Eagles were wanting to turn the event into a political protest. As of Friday they had 80 people RSVPd with security clearance and then Monday afternoon they notified the White House only a couple of people were coming. There's no way they didn't know last week no one was coming.

Again ... you can hate the guy all you want but you should respect the position. Just say no. Don't play games ... especially when other people are affected by your decision. I wouldn't care if they all were staying home to protest abortion. It was handled incorrectly IMO.

Ahhh, so it was cancelled because Trump wouldn't have been able to call it "The biggest White House visit ever!"

I just wish every Trump supporter would be forced to take a basic psychology class...maybe then they'd realize how completely they've been conned.

no .. he doesn't care why they aren't coming .. the fact that only 10 of them out of 60 wanted to go made him disinvite them all so he wouldn't look bad

What have we been conned about? Trump supporters are getting everything he promised. He was an ass before he ran. The funny part is those who called him a friend before now call him racist, sexist or whatever. If anything .. he is a much better person today than he was in the past.

Why did they RSVP for 80 and go through security clearances for those 80? Donald Trump didn't do that. Why did they wait until the last night to say they weren't coming? Donald Trump didn't do that either.

no .. he just decided he didn't wanna look bad so eh lied about the whole thing ..because fuck truth .. or honesty .. we'll just lie about everything and the american people won't care because they're used to trump never being truthful about anything .. not about crowd sizes, not about the reasons he does things, not about why he fired comey.. not about anything.
#lockhimup

Given how divisive our society has become (and I know it has always been divisive) and how every single thing in our lives now has been politicized, I could definitely see the tradition of "champions" visiting the White House coming to an end.  Every nice thing gets ruined.  I'm sure that the intention was always that the visit be a nice perk that came along with winning a championship that the vast majority of people didn't give a lot of thought to the political aspect of it.  But like I said, our society seems pretty much intent on ruining every nice aspect of it. 

That's why he cancelled, that's NOT why he thought they weren't coming.

Trump puts athletes who disagree with him in a very difficult position.  If you don't show he claims you are unpatriotic.  If you do show then he claims that your visit is an endorsement of his agenda. 

Other presidents haven't done this.

Players object to being referred to as sons of bitches?  Typical snowflake, grow a pair!
Not enough players join the trip to the White House?  You're disrespecting the office, visit cancelled!

Ironic that you're talking about "snowflakes" when Trump is making up weak excuses to cover up for the fact that he doesn't want to be embarrassed by yet another tiny audience.

The single biggest promise of the Trump 2020 campaign was a giant southern border wall, paid for by Mexico.  It does not exist, and it is not appreciably closer to existing than it was before his election.  Or perhaps you were referring to Trump repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something much better and less expensive, which also has not happened?

The only significant legislative achievement of the Trump Presidency has been an enormous tax cut that is permanent for corporations and the rich, but temporary for everyone else.  When did he promise that?

Does it really matter anymore?  This is the era where athletes fake injuries a lot of times to get out of all-star games or they refuse to play in bowl games because they might get hurt.  It seems like this is just another one of those commitments nobody wants to really deal with anymore

Terrell Owens is skipping out on his HOF Induction.  Just got a news alert about it.  I agree, it's part of the new culture.

the leagues aren't out for the best interest of the athletes, they're there to make as much money off of them as they can. that goes for the NFL, NCAA, Everyone.

The president doesn't invite the NFL champion cause he feels they deserve some honor, he does it to score political and public relation points with the people that like that team. Once the teams deny him that, he has no interest in it.

Players don't have to provide their likeness or talent for someone else's profit, nor should they risk their own livelihood for no reward. That's capitalism, that's not what bowl games are. I would be ok with NO player playing in a bowl game without compensation. Especially if they're risking immediate future income as a result.

Generally I would agree.  My only difference is playing in an allstar game or the bowl game I would view as a source of pride, and I'd go see the president because it's an excuse to actually hang out at the White House. 

Compensation for the players is a bit of a different argument but I see where it fits in.

As a former athlete, I have no respect for players skipping out on their teammates and not playing a bowl game.

I can’t bash leagues for worrying about money because well ... that’s how business works. My employer, as well as pretty much all of them, don’t care about what I feel good or bad about as long as I do my job. If I started protesting and upsetting even a small percentage of clients I’d be sent down the road.

I really don’t get people skipping out on bowl games and or all star games. Seems like a slap in the face to teammates and or people the people who voted you in.

I am astounded at how casually you embrace this contradiction.

The players who are skipping out on bowl games are doing so because they intend to become professional athletes; i.e. they are making a business decision.  They are not playing for fun or for the love of football... they are playing as a career.

It's ridiculous to excuse owners for making decisions that are best for their bottom line (ignoring concepts like loyalty or fairness) while simultaneously bashing players for not being there for their teammates.  If business is business for owners, it's also business for players.

Let's just do away with the W.H. inviting teams after championships.  If a team/individual wants to visit let them ask to come by.

Or, alternatively: let's just do away with it for this White House.

There's no reason why the NFL champion can't visit President Marco Rubio.

I agree.  Will be interesting to see what happens next.

And I tend to think the absolute best thing that could happen to this country in 2020 is if a REPUBLICAN beats Trump and then takes bipartisanship to the extreme.  And sets a new tone. 

If a democrat wins the trumpets will boycott claiming a new precedent. 

And in the last few years some very dangerous precedents have been set.  Let's assume the dems take the senate at the midterms and a month after taking control a sc justice dies.  Anybody be surprised if the dems announce they will be holding hearings on Merrick Garland, creating a constitutional crisis. 

President trump has set a precedent of bypassing many process will the next president?  E.g. Getting the justice department opinion before granting a pardon.

Will future presidents feel emboldened to mix government with personal profit?

I am not saying all of the problems started with Trump.  Obama instructing the justice department not to enforce pot laws, without actually changing the law is part of the downward spiral of the EPA not enforcing pollution laws.  But the downward spiral has accelerated to unprecedented levels with Trump.

That person could never win the Republican primary.

Holding hearings for someone who has not been nominated by the current President doesn't do anything.  What the Dems can do is announce that there will no hearings for any SC nominee that is not named Merrick Garland... and I think every Democratic voter should expect exactly that.  I wouldn't say that creates a "constitutional crisis," unless you believe that we're still in a constitutional crisis now with Gorsuch on the bench.

The problems that are causing entire teams to skip visits to the White House most definitely did start with Trump.  George W. Bush did not come out and say that there are bad guys on "both sides" of a Nazi rally and counterprotest.  Nor did his father "hypothetically refer" to professional athletes as sons of bitches for protesting.

Triple Crown winner, Justify, has declined a White House invitation saying, "If I wanted to see a horse's ass, I would have finished second."  :D

^^^ Bravo, sir!

that there is funny!   ;D

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/warriors-met-with-barack-obama-in-dc-skip-white-house-visit/ar-BBSI286?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280&fbclid=IwAR2FL1AARZbTYUzLoGOHiCe60k47uDPiwlWjvlsbd01kGMwuRFLXMqfg3hc

I hear Obama has a better cater than Ronald McDonald.

 Duron Harmon wants the Patriots to follow in the footsteps of the Golden State Warriors and visit Obama instead of Trump. 

Team Trump will definitely be visiting the White House, so that's a lost cause.

I'm just glad that Tom Brady is on the record with the red hat in his locker.  I think that both Trump supporters and detractors would agree that it will be a great footnote in the history books.

I don’t get it. I would jump at the chance of visiting the White House. It’s the white house. People need to have some respect for the office, and the history. It’s not about who the individual president is, it’s about respect for the he office and for history. Be able to separate your own personal vie s and opinions, and have some respect for the office and the history. It’s not about politics. It’s about sport.

Nah .. that's lazy thinking .. "respect for the office" means nothing when the holder of the office doesn't have "respect for the office" .. it would be like respecting a pedophile priest just because they're a priest .. thanks but no thanks.  Respect has to be earned. Morally bankrupt trump doesn't get respect because Obama earned it.

Yeah....  No...

That's so F'ed up. Comparing Trump to a pedophile priest because you don't agree with him is extremely ridiculous and childish. The same with calling him Hitler. It only goes to show the ignorance of the person making the claims as they clearly don't know who Hitler was.

is it F'd up? .. the guy who boasted about surprise inspections at the teen USA pageant so he could see some under age tits..

and i've never called trump hitler .. you can look that up .. i've said repeatedly if you're going for a historical analogy that he's a less intelligent mussolini

Maybe you're just desensitized to how horrible of a human being this is, this is the "grab em by the pussy" guy .. the "shithole countries" and "mexico sends us rapists and criminals" guy .. he's the guy that stiffs contractors and pays off porn stars. I don't really understand how anyone with a shred of a moral compass can support this giant douchebag.  And it's not like he's some evil genius .. he's a morally corrupt russian puppet and from all accounts a tremendously lazy moron with no capacity for running this country.

^Not saying it did or didn't happen, but you might want to use a different source than BuzzFeed, they haven't been shown to be too reliable.

^ he boasted to howard stern that he's done it .. in his own words .. buzzfeed may or may not be reliable but when you have corroboration coming from trump himself .. i'll buy it

I do know who Hitler was.  And Trump certainly has not done anything has horrible as what Hitler did in the l1940s

But parralles can certainly between drawn between Trump and Hitlers rise to power and first few years in office. 

Rishstag fire is not the exact same thing as conspiring with the Russians to illegally interfere with a US election, but parallels can be drawn.

You can’t compare the death camps to Trumps scapegoating Mexicans and Muslims.  But Trumps statements today are just as bad as what Hitler said early in his administration. 

No Trump’s policies haven’t reach the level of what Hitler did in Nov 1938.  But it certainly sounded like he would be okay with that level of violence based on his lack of concern for Heather Heyer .

But don't you know, whatever he says or does didn't really happen. That's how people still support Trump.

By that logic you must compare liberals to the Nazi party all the time. Their wanting to register and even ban guns puts them much closer to Hitler than anything Trump has done. Trump hasn't looked to take away any freedoms that I am aware of.

Other than the freedom of free and fair elections.  Curtailed the press.  Access to healthcare, attempted to ban travel based on religion, rights of transgendered.  Weaking of the separation of church and state, which curtails the freedoms of non christians.

And the whole Nazi gun thing is an NRA myth.  Gun control was imposed on Germany by the allies after WWI.  The nazis did two thing: total ban of owning weapons imposed on one religious group.  And loosing gun control for everyone else.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

You must have missed the last couple of years of his presidency. Remember where he wanted to take guns away and ask questions later? Forget about due process! The dems have never been anywhere near as extreme as him.

Huh???

You make BS statements and pretend they are real. That doesn't make him evil.

He hasn't stopped anyone legal from voting

He complains about the press just as they complain about him. It falls under the same freedom of speech but liberals don't think it should apply to conservatives.

He hasn't limited anyone's access to healthcare. He just doesn't want to make you and I pay for those who don't. The religion thing has already been misproven several times. He picked 7 terrorist countries. If it had been a Muslim ban he would have included countries like India as well as many others.

  What rights have been taken away? They are free to suffer their mental illness just as they have always been.

Have I missed this new Christian privilege you speak of? Please fill me in so I can get it.

Nazi's took gun rights away and made people register guns. No different from what many of the Democrats want. I bet if you ask some current democrats they would even admit that Jews shouldn't have access to guns and should be exterminated. They don't seem to have to hide their racism any longer. 

There are plenty of videos/reports when it came out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-first-and-worry-due-process-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/

Maybe you'll believe FoxNews: https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5742980798001/#sp=show-clips

He's talking about bypassing due process to seize guns.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong around here. It's best if you let them have their quiet time....

To be fair...I wouldn't want to spend that much time with anyone I consider a chronic liar, regardless of whether they are President of the USA, a star athlete, rock star or whatever. Folks who have no real relationship with the truth have no place in my world.

Please explain what you mean by this.

Any law (e.g. voter ID) that blocks someone who is otherwise legally qualified to vote is "stopping someone legal from voting." If you disagree, I can think of all kinds of new gun control laws that don't stop anyone legal from owning a gun... they would just throw up extra roadblocks to make sure we don't have the wrong people casting votes buying guns.

The press is not our elected government.  Why would you think the same standard applies both ways?  I mean, just because the President can have a journalist arrested, that doesn't mean a journalist can have the President arrested.

The irony is that even if we grant your statement as true, it's irrelevant.  Gun rights would not have helped Jews in Nazi Germany any more than the 2nd Amendment helped Japanese-American citizens when government jackboots came to drag them and their families off to concentration camps.

I get what you're saying but I don't see it that way. In either case he was speaking about a very small minority of people who pose an immediate threat to themselves or others. There needs to be a way of temporarily taking guns from someone who had made outrageous claims. I don't know how you do that legally but there needs to be a better system in place. in most of these mass shootings their were plenty of signs before they happened.

Spider .... if we did not have an issue with illegals in this country then voter ID would not be needed. Unfortunately we have millions of illegals and many of those vote in elections. That doesn't count the people who are dead and or not allowed to vote because of prison record. I have to have an ID to fish, hunt, drive, cash a check, buy tobacco and beer, buy some things etc. no matter how much you try to convince me it seems pretty petty to pretend some little old black lady has no way to get an ID. I have both lived and worked in the projects by selling and delivering furniture. Poor people have access to getting IDs too. 

no .. absolutely no .. this is just a bald faced lie without any proof whatsoever

Setting aside the fact that voting fraud is not a real problem - maybe a dozen arrests out of hundreds of millions of votes cast - and that virtually all convictions of voting fraud involve US citizens, I still find it bizarre that we need to be concerned about illegal immigrants jumping the border and committing violent crimes before voting illegally, but the one thing we DON'T need to be concerned about is them getting a gun.

So when it comes to weapons used to mass murder schoolchildren, there's no point in enacting gun control because criminals don't obey the law, you see.  But if we have to turn away hundreds of thousands of legal voters because they don't have the identification they already provided when they registered to vote in the first place, so be it!  Apparently criminals can easily get guns, but a fake ID is completely unthinkable.

My first two google searches.


https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article225094315.html
Texas Secretary of State David Whitley said a year-long evaluation found about 95,000 people described as “non-U.S. citizens” who are registered to vote in Texas. About 58,000 of them voted in Texas elections between 1996 and 2018, Whitley said.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-local/2018/07/27/Pennsylvania-voter-registration-illegal-election-non-citizens-vote/stories/201807270155
The review first uncovered 11,198 potentially-ineligible voters on the rolls, prompting the agency to undertake a process of confirming registrations. That resulted in 2,500 people being removed from the list recently. But about 8,700 of those registrants remain on the rolls across 64 counties, and those counties will now be tasked with confirming their eligibility or removing them from the rolls.

don't buy the hype .. it is simply not true:

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/01/texas-citizenship-voter-roll-review-how-it-turned-boondoggle/
"Someone did not do their due diligence": How an attempt to review Texas' voter rolls turned into a debacle
Texas officials flagged 95,000 voters for citizenship reviews. But after thousands have already been cleared, questions are being raised about how they handled the process.
...
The secretary of state’s office eventually walked back its initial findings after embarrassing errors in the data revealed that tens of thousands of the voters the state flagged were citizens. At least one lawsuit was filed to halt the review, and others were likely in the pipeline. And a week into the review, no evidence of large-scale voter fraud had emerged.

your second example:
https://www.philly.com/philly/news/voter-system-glitch-pennsylvania-non-citizens-registration-motor-voter-20180727.html
Murren said the agency has "no further information" about illegal votes beyond figures released last fall, when the State Department announced that noncitizens may have cast 544 ballots illegally out of more than 93 million ballots from 2000 through 2017. Those illegal ballots — one in every 172,000 votes — were revealed after the ineligible registrants reported themselves as having mistakenly registered, the department has said.

According to the State Department, the noncitizen immigrants registered to vote at PennDot centers while getting their driver's licenses — which legal residents, like lawfully present non-U.S. citizens, are allowed to obtain.

But during the process of getting their photos taken, their names were put through the motor-voter system — which was installed in the mid-1990s to simplify registration — and "inadvertently" registered to vote even though they weren't legally allowed, the agency said in a statement.

The reason you see these stories is because the republicans desperately want it to be true .. that the reason they're losing elections and why trump lost the popular vote is because  all those illegals funded by soros conspired to illegally vote against the righteous defenders of the american way.

BS .. pure BS. voter fraud in the US is so minuscule it's beyond negligible, yet it's used as an excuse to disenfranchise as many brown people as can be found in red states in a desperate grasp to prevent them from going purple .. or blue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html

mmmhmmm

^^^ And you wonder why the republicans don't want to make it easier for people to be able to vote. They know that the more people that vote, the more likely it is they'll lose. They have basically stated that with their opposition to the bill.

^^^ the poorer you are the more likely you'll vote Democrat. I have no doubt that Florida will no longer be represented by Republicans seeing as how we just passed a law to allow felons to vote.  Democrats want people to depend on the government while Republicans want people to be able to take care of themselves. We fought for freedom from slavery to the King so I'm not sure why Democrats are fighting to become slaves to the government. It's the same thing only a bigger entity.  

I swear I wish we would break up into 2 separate nations seeing as how we are so split. I don't know why anyone who wants to live the way they want should be forced to do so. Two nations ... one conservative and the other socialist.  I don't think it would take very long for one to fail.

No, a democratic republic is not "the same thing" as a monarchy.  We, The People ARE the government.  But it seems like when Republicans suspect that they will lose honest votes, their answer is to rig the system to stay in power.  Why be ruled by the poor just because there are more of them? Everyone knows the proper way of things is for the rich to rule us.

That good old pro-America patriotism!

You aren't the first Floridian to suggest that we should have two different countries.  It didn't work out so well when they tried it.

This phrasing says so much about your political thought process...

How about we split instead into two nations...Democrats and religious zealots.

...see what I did there?

You really have no empathy for your fellow man. Very strange, as you call yourself a Christian. The socialistic ideas that are being put forth have everything to do with making sure people don't go broke because of a hospital bill. It's to pay for education so our country is better off.

Go ahead and form your own country. I guess you won't be having Police, Fire Fighters, roadways, etc.... You can take care of yourself, for now. Just wait for that one life event to happen and all of a sudden you're on your own, on the streets.

Jesus was a socialist

If I may offer a more nuanced criticism of secession in a democracy, it's that it is fundamentally immoral and oppressive.  Let's walk through the rationale:

1) I don't like that I'm being outvoted by people I disagree with, so
2) Let's break off and form a new country where people who agree with me are the majority
3) "What about the people who disagree with you, but are in the minority of this new country?"
4) If you don't like it, leave it.  The door is that way.

Seems to me that 2 and 3 are unnecessary when we can just go straight from 1 to 4 instead. But ultimately, secessionists are fine with an oppressed political minority; they just think it should be someone else instead of them.

Not even close. He didn't take from anyone nor did he order anyone to take from anyone. The coolest thing about God is free will. He gives us guidelines to live by and we choose whether we want to do that. Some choose to follow Him and other do not.

If you want to say conservative and liberal I have no issue with that but the face of the Democrats right now is socialist and you know it is. Even many of the Democrats are realizing that crap is getting out of control. Conservative Democrats left with Lieberman but the days of Nancy, Chuck and Biden are slipping away too. I can live in a Clinton America. I don't know that I want to live in a Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez world.

That bitch is fucking nuts. That's all, bye bye  ;D

Isn't tithing mandated?

I can't say I see much of a difference between the church telling me I'll go to hell if I don't give them money and the government telling me I'll go to prison if I don't give them money.  I mean, at least the government was elected...

Funny thing is a lot of Republicans support the 70% marginal tax rate on millionaires. She's not as nuts as you think.

^Church doesn't say you go to hell if you don't tithe

Nancy doesn't belong in that sentence, which will become clear soon.  And when Chuck and Joe are sent off, they can go to the same wasteland that Jeb!, Jon Huntsman, and the moderate right have been exiled to.

There are a couple of things that Trump's run and Howard Schultz's (attempt at a) run have shown.  Given Trump's promises to protect SS/Medicare and enact protectionist trade, as well as the terrible reception of his tax cuts (and the GOP's refusal to run on them), it's clear that even the conservative base has rejected (or simply doesn't care about) the free market trickle-down nonsense.  And given that almost literally no one is interested in Schultz's socially liberal/economically conservative platform, that tells me that Americans across the political spectrum are sick of being looted by the rich.

The real terrifying thing, for me, is if the next Trump squares this circle and figures out that there is room for a winning coalition that combines economic populism (REAL economic populism, not Trump's indifferent lies) with bigotry and xenophobia; a 21st century William Jennings Bryan, if you will.  I don't think the American left is prepared to deal with that kind of opponent.

It has nothing to do with tax rates, it's the totality of her statements. That bitch is fucking nuts. Probably twice as nuts as I think.

She does have those big, crazy eyes...

which statements are nuts exactly?

The majority of them.

So, the fish and loaves that Jesus fed the masses with, early on in the new testament? Did he spend a lot of time with a line in the water and buns in the oven?


Actually, a number of ancient freelance writers gave us the guidelines, but they did claim to be speaking for God, so if you're big on faith and short on history, that may as well be the same thing...  :-\

what about this was nuts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AljakpXAh7c

Examples. Please.

I mean, she seems to just "get it", and see how easily corrupt our government can be and is. 5 minute video (scroll down a bit). I know the video is on huff post but it's just a video on a hearing, no fake news there. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-campaign-finance_us_5c5d246be4b03afe8d6637ff?utm_source=reddit.com

Tithing is not mandated and even if it was ... it is still your personal choice of whether you want to participate. A law forcing me to do something takes my free will away as did the Obama punishment for not having insurance.

God gives us a standard to live by that we will benefit from if followed. Tithing or giving your first 10% is one of the biggest steps to trusting God and putting Him first in your life. that's between an individual and God. Any Church that tries to blackmail people into tithing is adding requirements to the free gift of Christ.

So if it's not mandated, then fine... but if it is, the existence of free will does not change the consequences.  I mean, you also have free will when it comes to paying your taxes. Speaking of which:

No, a tax break for having health insurance does not "take away your free will."

I have to pay Medicare payroll taxes even if I have no intention of ever using it. This is not eliminating my free will, nor is it slavery.  It's a larger tax bill.

Payroll taxes are the result of having a job. There is a fine for not having insurance. No where have I seen you get fined for not having a job.  Nothing else required except breathing the air as an American citizen.  That's insane to me. Next they will fine people for not vaccinating, not buying into a separate retirement plan, not cleaning their house and so on. The list will be endless as there are so many things people "should" be doing but are not currently forced to do.  

You joke .. but i'm for it .. they should be the ones to pay for the public health crisis they're contributing to.

If you have no income, your net tax liability was still negative even with the mandate tax penalty.  I don't consider "But I should have gotten an even bigger refund!" to be a convincing argument.

But fundamentally, I don't understand why this "You're fining me for breathing!" sentiment is coming from a person who was, just yesterday, criticizing people for wanting "the government to take care of them," and advocating for greater personal responsibility.

Do you use public roads?  Do you eat food that was transported on public roads?  Do you use the government-funded water and sewer infrastructure?  Do you benefit from the protection offered by government law enforcement? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, on what basis can you claim being taxed "just for breathing" is unfair?  If you're living in America and not living a life 100% off the grid, "just breathing" already involves you taking advantage of countless government resources that must be paid for by someone.  (And if you're 100% off the grid, how are you filing taxes in the first place?)

No one debates the government should supply infrastructure and that is what taxes are for. Being fined for not doing something gov people think is beneficial for them is very big brotherish. I should take care of the poor because I want to and not because I'm forced to do so. That's what is so funny to me. Typically it isn't the people who donate the most time and money already that think "all" people should be forced to do so.

Libertarians certainly dispute that position.  They think all infrastructure should be private, including roads and sewers.

But even if we grant that: it is equally undebated that we shouldn't let people die on the street (rather than provide emergency care) if they don't have health insurance.  And someone has to pay for those services.  If you choose not to get health insurance, you are making a bet on your own future health that others will end up paying out if you are wrong.  And so you pay more in taxes to offset that.

Let me also say that an historian at the recent Davos conference pretty much summed up the problem with a charity-based approach:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1090045108064579584

The money quote: "We can talk for a very long time about all these stupid philanthropy schemes. We can invite Bono once more. But, come on, we've got to be talking about taxes. That's it: taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit in my opinion."

If you think AOC is a nut, then you'd better start circling the wagons, because you're going to hear MORE of that kind of talk, not less.

Man, we really need a lot more AOCs in office.

I think the comments in this topic have gone far afield of the original poster's question.

I don't believe that and you know why? The MSM makes fun of her including CNN. They are more coy about it than someone like FOX but many people, who dislike Trump, call out her craziness. LOL

and yet nobody can point at what exactly her craziness is .. i've asked .. i got the answer of "everything" and i gave an example and crickets
the establishment doesn't like her .. i can see why .. she undercut a good ol' boy.. and she'll keep doing that so the corporate democrats won't like her cause their paymasters will tell them not to.. the republicans won't like her cause a - she's a democrat and b - their political paymasters will tell them not to.
people like her policies .. overwhelmingly .. in the 70-80% range for democrats and 50-60% range for republicans.  medicare for all is wildly popular, marginal tax increases are wildly popular, publicly funded college is wildly popular. It's just that none of these are popular for the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, the billionaire lobbies and the wall street lobbies.

https://pics.me.me/new-york-socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-charles-manson-family-values-36011484.png (https://pics.me.me/new-york-socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-charles-manson-family-values-36011484.png)
I can back up my comment

Please do.

^My only comment is she has crazy eyes.  I posted a picture showing that in jest.