Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Kamala is the governor California deserves. 🙂
It astounds me the enlightened voters of 2008- you know, the ones who voted for Obama – transformed into uneducated MAGA sycophants in 2024.
I saw a clip of Schiff saying he was not interested in a pardon, thought it unwise to do so. I guess it will be interesting to see if how many of those pardoned accept it.
I guess he didn’t get the memo that slightly more than 1/3 of voters have college degrees. Maybe a winning strategy would be – stop pandering to the fringe groups.
[quote quote=9620]https://x.com/balajis/status/1881090481217749273[/quote]
Is this why Congress wants to provide Social Security benefits to civil service workers?
A story of finger pointing, passing the buck, denial and bureaucratic failure.
Clearing brush requires a $150 fee and inspection- with an 8 week wait. Seriously?
Interesting she has legal status but decided to move anyway? Wonder how long it took the AP to find her. No mention that she is not in the demographic Trump wants to deport.
So she went to Ireland, and the entry process was easy peasy. Ireland had 141K immigrants last year, and all time high. The US averaged 183K ILLEGAL immigrants a month since Biden’s election. If our immigration system was not overburdened with processing illegals, it wouldn’t take years to gain legal status.
I don’t believe our immigration system is broken, only the enforcement of immigration law. I also don’t buy the argument we don’t want immigrants. We want and need immigrants that are here legally and contribute rather than consume resources. We are tired of stories about illegals housed in $350/night hotels, the take over of school gymnasiums, special public school classes… the list goes on.
Oh well, it won’t be long before we will start seeing stories about families being deported. If they are here illegally, I will applaud each one.
OMG, do liberals ever listen to what they say? “But Florida Democrats fear Biden’s move gives Trump a chance to frame their party as beholden to socialists.”
Democrats are responsible for framing their entire party as socialists, it has nothing to do with Trump. Typical of dems negotiating with unfriendly actors, concessions are made with a promise by the antagonist but it never seems to happen. In this case, prisoner release will be “gradual”. No time line, but gradual is not agreeing to anything except releasing prisoners someday.
Biden, Blinken and Company can’t be gone soon enough.
So what if they resign? The voters who put them in office to start with are still voting. There is no promise their replacements will be better, and every indication that they will be worse.
And in the AYFKM category…Cali is looking at huge deficits and that was before the fires. In spite of a budget shortfall, Newsome and the legislature has come up with $50M to fight Trump primarily on his deportation plan.
Lets see- Cali has the largest homeless population of any state. Cali spends close to $5B annually on homeless programs. Cali’s homeless population has increased every year since 2015 to almost 200k, with illegal immigrants being a large percentage of the increase.
Makes sense to me. Rather than selectively work with the feds to remove illegals, spend MORE money to keep them in place.
https://ktla.com/news/california/heres-how-much-california-spends-on-each-homeless-person/
I wonder if Orange County will turn red when residents wanting to rebuild discover how f’ed permitting and land use laws have become in California.
Question – If your property taxes were frozen under Prop 13, would your taxes go up on a replacement home?
[quote quote=9541]
It’s longevity. The one that sticks out to me is HW Bush. He led the CIA and had a relatively inauspicious presidency, followed by a quiet post presidency (meaning he didn’t launch the Bush global initiative and seek celebrity…just like his son). I wouldn’t have thought that would score most admired points (and yes, I admired him at times though have revised my view of neocon republicans in recent years.).
Do you think GHWB would have been re-elected if Perot had not run? Clinton got 43.0% of the popular vote, GHWB got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%. My sense is that he largely drew from Bush, but what do you think?[/quote]
From RCP- “From all of this, you might see an argument forming that Perot did, in fact, cost Bush re-election. But the claim here is actually significantly weaker. Instead, the best we can say is that we don’t know, and cannot know. There is significant empirical evidence, briefly outlined above, that Perot did not cost Bush the election, but that evidence all comes from the universe where Perot actually ran. If Perot fundamentally reset the terms of the 1992 election, then this evidence cannot answer our actual question.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/10/we_dont_know_whether_perot_cost_bush_in_1992_140743.htmlWe can’t know how voters would have reacted to a traditional two party contest, but in my opinion Bush would have lost due to the 1990 recession. I don’t believe you can simply say Perot supporters came at Bush’s expense.
If Bush would have won all of Perot’s popular votes, he would have won several normally solid blue states and won by a landslide. My point is, Bush would not have won California, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin even if Perot had not run.
Just for grins, here is an AI response to the question.
“The idea that Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 presidential election has been debated for decades. Here’s an overview of the arguments:
The Case For Perot Costing Bush the Election
- Split the Conservative Vote: Perot’s policies, particularly on fiscal conservatism, appealed to many voters who might otherwise have supported Bush. Some argue that this split the conservative vote, weakening Bush’s ability to counter Bill Clinton.
- Vote Distribution: Exit polls suggested that Perot drew more votes from Bush than from Clinton. Perot received nearly 19% of the popular vote—a significant share for a third-party candidate.
The Case Against Perot Costing Bush the Election
- Broad Appeal: Perot’s support was broad and came from both parties and independents. Analysis of exit polls showed that a substantial portion of Perot voters might not have voted at all if he hadn’t run.
- Clinton’s Strong Campaign: Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Bush’s perceived weaknesses, including the economy and his perceived broken “no new taxes” pledge. Many analysts believe Clinton would have won even without Perot in the race.
- Electoral Votes: Even if Bush had received all of Perot’s votes, Clinton’s electoral victory was decisive. Clinton won 370 electoral votes to Bush’s 168, a margin unlikely to have been overturned by Perot’s absence.
What the Data Suggests
- Studies and polls conducted after the election suggested Perot’s voters were fairly evenly split among those who would have otherwise voted for Bush, Clinton, or not voted at all.
- Perot’s presence likely changed the dynamics of the race, but his exact impact remains uncertain.
Conclusion
While Perot’s candidacy influenced the election, most political analysts agree that other factors, such as a weak economy and dissatisfaction with Bush, were more decisive in Clinton’s victory. Perot may have played a role, but he was likely not the sole reason for Bush’s loss.”
I still believe Clinton won because Perot entered the race and forced Bush to respond on two fronts, allowing Clinton to gain momentum.
This is what you get with disjointed and conflicting policies.
1) Urban Growth Boundaries
2) Expensive and Lengthy permitting process
3) Policies that favor (incentivize) large mutifamily projects over single family dwellings.
4) State agencies, like the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), can penalize cities that fail to comply with state driven mandates.
5) Environmental requirements delay or prevent single-family developments. Multi-family or transit-oriented projects are prioritized because they align with environmental goals.Couple that with an influx of 10 million illegal aliens we can’t absorb but must be paid and cared for, blue cities and states are scrambling for new sources of revenue (AKA Wealth Tax).
Liberals specialize in spending money they don’t have and kicking the can down the road. Here is great example – https://apnews.com/article/low-income-housing-tax-credit-affordable-harris-8f68bcf189c17f910459142ee8a50289
So the answer is, provide subsidies to build low income (subsidized ) housing. Of course, shock and disbelief set in as property owners raise rent when subsidies end.
Shocking.
Poison Pill? The pork packed into the latest continuing resolution is ridiculous.
1) $200B in Social Security benefits for government workers who have not paid into social security.
2) Congressional pay raise.
3) Opt out of Obama Care for Federal Employee Health Care.
4) $50B for Big Pharma
5) Transfer Federally controlled land for RFK Stadium.
6) $10B in aid to Farmers.Basically, Dems are introducing an Omnibus spending bill disguised as a continuing resolution, which will expire in Trump’s first 100 days in office.
I would like to see Congress pass a bill that prevents adding provisions to CRs. Congress should not be able to authorize new spending without passing a budget.
