Democrats Are Creating Hellholes Within the U.S. Due To Their Selfishness Without a Conscience.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: carewemust

You do realize that conservatives and redlining literally created every ghetto in the country...


Purposely, by design..



You do realize that the ghettos of the country are100 years old right... atleast???


Guess what was happening in America 100 years ago??


The 1920s KKK resurgence... where countless white southerners took to the streets to express their anger at the fact the blacks were no longer property..


The level of garbage from conservative media is just mind boggling..

So...than why are the Democrats keeping the ghettos? Why not change it?

People like you are delusional, it's always and only the Republicans fault.

And you do realize Democrats are the racist ones, but let me guess they all changed parties lolol

¡Atención ciudadanos de Honduras!

Si planea migrar a los Estados Unidos de América, no se traslade a la ciudad de Baltimore, en el estado de Maryland.

La tasa de delitos violentos en Baltimore es mayor / mayor que la de Honduras.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: carewemust

You do realize that conservatives and redlining literally created every ghetto in the country...


Purposely, by design..



You do realize that the ghettos of the country are100 years old right... atleast???


Guess what was happening in America 100 years ago??


The 1920s KKK resurgence... where countless white southerners took to the streets to express their anger at the fact the blacks were no longer property..


The level of garbage from conservative media is just mind boggling..

When addressing political hooliganism you may as well bang your head against the wall it would likely at least yield a result.

The op wants to go back to segregation and times of a bygone era, to some going backwards is going forward.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? The only thing discussed in the OP was about Cummings and how he has failed his constituents. You can try to make it about race, if you want, but it ain't going to fly far with most.

If you disagree with the post attack the post, not the character of the person reporting it. Show us how Cummings is a great guy who care for those who elected him. Show us the programs he has championed, that will help raise these areas above ghetto status. Show us how it is someone, anyone, else's fault but his, and his party. Anything other than a pointless (and seemingly baseless) attack on another poster.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: carewemust

You do realize that conservatives and redlining literally created every ghetto in the country...


Purposely, by design..



You do realize that the ghettos of the country are100 years old right... atleast???


Guess what was happening in America 100 years ago??


The 1920s KKK resurgence... where countless white southerners took to the streets to express their anger at the fact the blacks were no longer property..


The level of garbage from conservative media is just mind boggling..

You do realize that the Democrats were (and possibly still are) supporters and members (possibly even founding members) of the KKK, right? That it was the dems who wanted to keep slavery going (as they owned the plantations and ran the businesses that profited the most from slavery), right?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: tabularosa

Pray tell, how does one get money out of politics?

This is a common fallacy, like most things pushed by progressives. There is no way to get money out of politics.

Sure there is, make it a crime worthy of the death penalty if caught taking a bribe (or whatever dressed up term they want to label it as). Make them play the game with real stakes, not just a slap on the wrist if they get caught. For most that would likely be enough to ensure most money is removed from politics. The rest... well that's what the hangman's rope is for.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: carewemust


The 1920s KKK resurgence... where countless white southerners took to the streets to express their anger at the fact the blacks were no longer property..

You mean the same KKK that was founded by 3 democrats? That KKK?

a reply to: 1point92AU

I think you mean Dixiecrats.

The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States. It originated in 1948 as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party determined to protect states' rights to legislate racial segregation from what its members regarded as an oppressive federal government.

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: 1point92AU

I think you mean Dixiecrats.

The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States. It originated in 1948 as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party determined to protect states' rights to legislate racial segregation from what its members regarded as an oppressive federal government.

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

en.wikipedia.org...

Nope...I was right with democrats. No matter how much the democrats attempt to rewrite history the facts are it was the democrats who founded and pushed the advancement of the KKK.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

So what constitutes a bribe? Is a nice cushy job a bribe? How about a nice cushy job for your dad/brother/sister? Furthermore, how do you separate a bribe from petitioning ones government to have their interests heard?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

So what constitutes a bribe? Is a nice cushy job a bribe? How about a nice cushy job for your dad/brother/sister? Furthermore, how do you separate a bribe from petitioning ones government to have their interests heard?

I would say if money changes hands or a favour is promised in order to secure votes, then those would qualify as bribes. I say out law campaign contributions entirely! If they want to get into office so bad, then they should have a solid enough platform that it supports the candidate, without them needing to resort to insanely expensive advertising campaigns.

As for telling the difference between petitioning your government and issuing a bribe... well again if you have to pay money to get your point heard, it's a bribe. If you are donating money to a campaign in order to get "favourable" results, then that's also a bribe. If you are promising a job to specific people, outside of a designated hiring drive or speaking in general terms during a press conference, that too would be a bribe.... you get it now? Make it so there is little to no wiggle room in the interpretation of the law, then heavily enforce said law so the "critters" don't think they can just do as they please. I know it sounds a touch draconian, but I honestly think if you give them even the littlest amount of wiggle room the corporate and government critters will try to gain another foot hold. Best to make it as difficult and dangerous as possible so they loose interest.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

As fun as that sounds, it's unenforceable. How would you prove a politician was bribed with a job? I mean, bribery is already illegal. You can't bribe a senator or congressman legally. Yet they still land all of these cushy jobs after they leave office. We all know it was for votes certain ways and yet no one goes to jail for it.

The reason for the current system, of basically legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions, is to level the playing field. By capping individual contributions you give everyone a fair opportunity to bribe their congress person. It keeps it within reach of citizen groups rather than making it exclusive to large businesses and organizations.

Also, without advertising the only way to get press would be to say outrageous things. So our politics would ONLY consist of the outrageous and those rich enough to fund their own campaign advertising. So we've got the rich and the crazy to choose from. Or I guess the media could coronate someone with propaganda. Sounds lovely.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

As fun as that sounds, it's unenforceable. How would you prove a politician was bribed with a job? I mean, bribery is already illegal. You can't bribe a senator or congressman legally. Yet they still land all of these cushy jobs after they leave office. We all know it was for votes certain ways and yet no one goes to jail for it.

The reason for the current system, of basically legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions, is to level the playing field. By capping individual contributions you give everyone a fair opportunity to bribe their congress person. It keeps it within reach of citizen groups rather than making it exclusive to large businesses and organizations.

Also, without advertising the only way to get press would be to say outrageous things. So our politics would ONLY consist of the outrageous and those rich enough to fund their own campaign advertising. So we've got the rich and the crazy to choose from. Or I guess the media could coronate someone with propaganda. Sounds lovely.

So because you dont see a way to enforce it, you choose to turn a blind eye? That doesnt sound like a smart thing to do. It could be enforced, and create thousands of new jobs in the process. Basically the idea I had was to put them through a constant IRS review/audit. One where they must account for every cent, both personally and through their office. With real repercussions if they can't (think any where from LONG jail terms in the state pen, up to and including the death penalty). All jobs/tenders would go in front of a rotating panel. No one on the panel could hold the position for more than four years, nor would they rule on more than two or three cases from one company/constituency group during their term. Limiting the chance of gaining favours from "friends". They would also be barred from accepting jobs from anyone who brought a proposal through the panel (during their term) for no less than 10 years after they leave the panel. They should also set practical limits for campaign contributions, if they had to exist, say $500 max (basically small enough individuals could afford it) that way a "special interest group" can't pay to win.

As for the press... screw them, with luck most of them will go bankrupt sooner than later anyway. But if it must be a consideration, then so be it. Let them report on the platform of the candidates, press conferences, debates, etc. None of the "news" companies really need to be involved beyond sharing the facts. Maybe taking the large money out of campaigns ads would help slow the constant opinion based reporting we currently get from most "news" sources. After all if no one is spending big bucks advertising, then it would be a fair race for everyone. No need for corporate sponsors.

Basically what I'm trying to say, is that there are ways to enforce it. Sure they wouldn't be easy, nor would they be pretty in the short term, and they would certainly take some getting used to, both for them and us. But it could be done, if we really wanted to get serious about it.

While I do agree that many inner cities are bad and need a lot of work to get better I also think that as a whole the majority of these places are better than they were 20, 30 years ago. This latest push to vilify Democrat led areas I believe it's fear-mongering to get more Republican support.

a reply to: carewemust

It has been Reported Cummings Robbery Uncovered a Thieft of a 10 Million Dollar Art Collection Stolen .............Hmm

a reply to: carewemust

I also found out that 19 of the 20 poorest cities and states are run by Democrats. There are similar statistics for crime rates in Democrat-controlled areas of the country. 

What statistics exactly are you using here?

It is known that the poorest states are in fact run by Republican. A quick Google search and there are many studies and examples.

I was going to move somewhere with a little better climate. The problem is that I cannot and will not take a $25,000 reduction in wages just to live in your awesome Republican controlled states

Now I may not agree with the whole Democrat agenda and to be completely honest I voted third party, but the ignorance that os being spewed around here is getting quite ridiculous.

So why you are brainwashed into believing that your Republican super cities and states are superior, there are working class individuals and families that also live in extreme poverty in your awesome no wrong doing garden of edens.

Paaalease, this two party bullsnip is way out of friggin hand and I think it should be abolished and friggin buried with all of the rat carcasses.

Meanwhile enjoy your $7.25 an hour in the red zone.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

You've missed all sorts of holes. Even with all of that they can be paid off before, through a 3rd party, or after their term is over.

And that's without going into the constitutionality of basically considering them all guilty and subjecting them to ongoing investigation throughout their term.

I guess the real point I'm getting at, is no one seems to care about corruption. Especially not enough to do what would be needed to enforce this sort of stuff. Look at senator menendez. He got re-elected in the middle of a corruption investigation. The current limit on campaign contributions is $2,800. Most people can afford that every 2-4 years, they just chose to spend their money elsewhere (I don't blame them, I wouldn't contribute that much if anything, ever).

IMO, the best fight against corruption is term limits and following the constitution (ie, limiting the power of the federawl government). We don't need an orwellian approach to overcome it. Remove the incentive rather than try to punish what's incentivized.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I would need to make 50k more a year to have the same quality of life in a Boston Suburb as I do living in the biggest city here in this Republican state.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Well the Obama's are Uber rich after his presidency, speaking deals, books etc etc Trump will likely triple his riches once he's out of office, that man will pack stadiums when all is said and done.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

You've missed all sorts of holes. Even with all of that they can be paid off before, through a 3rd party, or after their term is over.

And that's without going into the constitutionality of basically considering them all guilty and subjecting them to ongoing investigation throughout their term.

I guess the real point I'm getting at, is no one seems to care about corruption. Especially not enough to do what would be needed to enforce this sort of stuff. Look at senator menendez. He got re-elected in the middle of a corruption investigation. The current limit on campaign contributions is $2,800. Most people can afford that every 2-4 years, they just chose to spend their money elsewhere (I don't blame them, I wouldn't contribute that much if anything, ever).

IMO, the best fight against corruption is term limits and following the constitution (ie, limiting the power of the federawl government). We don't need an orwellian approach to overcome it. Remove the incentive rather than try to punish what's incentivized.

You're not wrong, no one seems to care about corruption, that much is true for sure.

You point out I missed somethings, funny that the last series of holes you pointed out, I did in fact suggest a possible action to overcome it. Meaning any possible holes could be closed... if people wanted it bad enough.

As far as the "constitutionality of basically considering them guilty", we there are two things I can say to that. First off, they are! To my knowledge the crooked politicians far out number the honest one or two that exist. So why not treat them like the criminals they show themselves to be? Secondly that didnt stop the "Russiagate" investigation from happening. And since the precedent has been set, why not use it to our advantage?

It's a public office, it rightly should be under a microscope, as should the politicians who sit those offices. Everything they do should be subject to public review and oversight.

It is as much our fault, as it is theirs, for allowing this to happen. We got lazy and instead of searching for facts ourselves, we allow some pundit to set the narrative for us. It is shameful, to be honest.

What needs to happen is a complete reform of the political system and how we interact with it. They (politicians) need to be held to the law, and not set themselves above it like many currently do. But until the people have had enough, and finally stand up to be heard, not much will change sadly.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: carewemust

I also found out that 19 of the 20 poorest cities and states are run by Democrats. There are similar statistics for crime rates in Democrat-controlled areas of the country. 

What statistics exactly are you using here?

It is known that the poorest states are in fact run by Republican. A quick Google search and there are many studies and examples.

I was going to move somewhere with a little better climate. The problem is that I cannot and will not take a $25,000 reduction in wages just to live in your awesome Republican controlled states

Now I may not agree with the whole Democrat agenda and to be completely honest I voted third party, but the ignorance that os being spewed around here is getting quite ridiculous.

So why you are brainwashed into believing that your Republican super cities and states are superior, there are working class individuals and families that also live in extreme poverty in your awesome no wrong doing garden of edens.

Paaalease, this two party bullsnip is way out of friggin hand and I think it should be abolished and friggin buried with all of the rat carcasses.

Meanwhile enjoy your $7.25 an hour in the red zone.

Your response is a bit disingenuous to put it lightly. While anyone can cherry-pick figures for any position, facts are what truly matter. For instance, there's no reason you or anyone else would immediately lose $25k/year in pay just because you move to a "Red" State. By and large, if your position involves higher learning and you have experience, you'll command similar pay.
Let's start with some facts:

A dollar in one State does not equal a dollar in another due to the prices of goods/services. We will use you in an example. You want a nicer climate and don't want to lose your $25k. You claim that the "Red Zone" will pay $7.25 which alludes to a "Blue Zone" will pay you much more. You are patently wrong.

A dollar in the Blue State of Hawaii is only worth a whopping 86 CENTS. That same dollar in Mississippi is worth $1.15
The State Minimum Wage of HA is $10.10/hr while the State Minimum Wage in Mississippi is $8.30.

Knowing what a dollar is really worth in both of those States, we can correct the minimum wages.
Hawaii's drops to $8.68/hr while Mississippi's raises to $8.30/hr. Granted, there is still a slight difference to be had there, but this is only one example. If we move this example to a State such as NY, you'd actually be making less as a dollar there is only worth 87 CENTS with a median tax rate of 16% for those making over $45k/year. You get the gist.

Looking at the included link, you can literally see that in the "Red Zone", your dollar goes way further than in the "Blue Zone" and taxes in those places either don't exist, or are far smaller in comparison. Hence, you may be making less an hour, but will still be able to live exactly the same, or better.

247wallst.com...

It is also just a FACT that Democrat controlled cities are cesspools of crime and violence. Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Memphis....the list goes on and on. Republicans certainly don't control "Eden", however, it's a lot closer to heaven than any Democrat controlled city. Just look at what is happening in NYC with De Blasio in charge! Wannabe thugs running around throwing water on police...and Liberals say NOTHING about it. Meanwhile, if that were to happen in say, Kansas City, it would not be tolerated.

So please, move to a "Blue Zone". You'll be warmer. You'll make bank (only it won't be worth squat). You can also step over homeless people and dirty needles on your way to work and try to dodge thugs throwing water at police. Hell, there'll probably even be an "Orange Man Bad" rally attended by 10 idiots that still live with their parents. You can all sing Kumbaya and even invite the local illegal immigrant family of 50 over for dinner. Ahhh….sounds super.
Meanwhile, us "less edumakated" Bible thumpers will be just fine watching all of you altruistic wizards of smart whip yourselves into a frenzy over how the very people that provide you with your income should have to pay more in taxes...thereby making you expendable. Liberals are such a joke...but the punchline isn't funny at all.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

You point out I missed somethings, funny that the last series of holes you pointed out, I did in fact suggest a possible action to overcome it. Meaning any possible holes could be closed... if people wanted it bad enough.

Human history is full of people and governments trying to correct problems, especially corruption, and failing miserably. As long as there is incentive to legislate one way or another to enrich ones self, it will happen. That's the whole point I'm making. Yes, you can come up with ways to prevent it, but that will just lead to new ways of being corrupt. People are very creative and great at problem solving, especially when it comes to power and money.

But yes, until people care about corruption, nothing will change. In fact, it will get far worse.