VA Dems boot Indian immigrant for White Supremacy

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Highly qualified candidate removed for rejecting socialism

It wasn’t enough to reject her because for ideological reasons, they had to add a false accusation of racism. Virginians are going to get disgusted with this sooner or later.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

128 thoughts on “VA Dems boot Indian immigrant for White Supremacy”

  1. “ There you have it – support traditional American values and get accused of racism. Every. Single. Time.”

    How traditional? 1950, 1850, 1784.

    Affordable and accessible healthcare and education and keeping the elderly from poverty are social programs, but hardly socialism. People start businesses in a vibrant capitalist economy every single day. Investors in corporations, large and small, are private owners.

    For someone in a position to influence policy to say we are socialists is ignorance or pandering. Now does that mean we need to embrace that nominee?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. She didn’t say we are a socialist country.

      In any case, Democrats have now taken the position that opposition to socialism is White Supremacy.

      Go with that, the GOP is now the party of parents and the Democrats are the party of hate and insanity.

      Like

      Reply

        1. It appears that Maga Derangement Syndrome is replacing TDS. One might wonder why Democrats are so opposed to America being great.

          What do you actually disqualifies her, other than guilt by association?

          Like

          Reply

          1. Guilt by association? It was a bit more than that.

            She is a Youngkin partisan and is aiding and abetting the GOP push to pollute the educational standards of this state with their partisanship and whitewashing of history.

            MAGA-Republicans label EVERYTHING the Democrats try to accomplish as “socialism.” Her broadside against “socialism” is a MAGA talking point. Then, she went down the MAGA-Republican CRT road with her stands against teaching the history of racism and colonialism. And her challenging the idea that our founding documents are deeply flawed. Our young people deserve the truth, not propaganda in schools.

            When someone pushes really, really stupid and/or doctrinaire ideas it is prima facie evidence that she should not have a leadership role in education.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Where does she say history should not include the wrongs of slavery?

            Not the characterization of her words by opponents, her actual words?

            What is deeply flawed in the Declaration of Independence?

            The Constitution allowed slavery, but it contains the means for amendment, and that was corrected.

            What is the justification, from her words, for labeling her a White Supremacist?

            You are driven by MAGADS to fight monsters that exist only in your projection.

            Like

          3. “Where does she say history should not include the wrongs of slavery?”

            Did she support the whitewashed version of the history curriculum that was proposed by Youngkin’s DOE? The one that public comment led to 3 or 4 positive comments out of over 700? If so, then the answer is yes.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “I found the earlier version to be distorted.”

            Stick to dentistry then. You are not an historian. Maybe you were one of the positive commenters on the curriculum completely re-written by Youngkin’s education dolts.

            Perfection is unattainable. But hiding truth will not allow even the seeking f it.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Yada. Yada. Yada.

            She is a hyper-partisan MAGA-Republican. We do not want such people in positions of power over anything, least of all education. If you think we are wrong, try to take back the Virginia Senate.

            You can stomp around on your high horse until you turn blue. I, for one, have not forgotten the many, many times you justified the treatment of the very highly qualified Merrick Garland.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Why can’t you just admit it when you are caught making things up?”

            Uh, lame. What did I make up? I gave reasons that are disqualifying as far as I am concerned. That they are not for you does not make them something I made up. Duh!

            Like

          13. “I did, but all the questionable wording was from Kaine’s wife.”

            Then you did not listen closely to what the lady herself had to say.

            She flatly denied the obvious flaws in the Constitution.

            “I do not believe that the Constitution enshrined slavery nor that it limited protections to white propertied men”

            It did both of those things. And our children need to be taught the truth about history not some flag draped MAGA mumbo jumbo.

            She went on to make a fool of herself with her simple-minded views about “socialism.” I find her comments on that subject disqualifying and ignorant and the fact you agree with them does not change that opinion.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. The Constitution did not enshrine slavery, it ignored it. It would have been better had it rejected it, but then there would have been no Constitution. It is a mistake to judge the past by today’s standards. The Constitution provided for the means to end slavery, which it did as reality permitted. I’m all for teaching our full history, but that context is part of that too.

            As for socialism, you might want to listen to her. She came here from a country that went a long way down that road, saw the failures, and backed away from it.

            I’ll value her judgment on the real experience with that topic over your utopian theory.

            Like

          15. “The Constitution did not enshrine slavery, it ignored it”

            That is a stupid falsehood. Really stupid.

            Slavery is covered in three sections of the original Constitution including the notorious 3/5th clause (Article I, Section 2), the prohibition against the Congress banning slavery (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and the provision requiring free states to return fugitive slaves to their “owners.”(Article IV, Section 2). You may not like the word “enshrined” but it was protected and not ignored. It took a river of blood to get rid of it. The fact that the treatment of slavery in the Constitution was the result of compromise does not make it any less odious.

            Her real world experience of “socialism” was in a chronically dystopian and egregiously unequal third world society. There are plenty of countries with many of the programs you people want to call “socialism” that are functional, democratic, dynamic, and free. Her opinions are ignorant MAGA-Republican nonsense.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. Keep in mind that at the time, we were an association of independent states joining for common purpose. There was a need for each state to respect the other’s law.

            Like

          18. So what? Was it compromise that got the Constitution done? If so, the it proves that what you say about compromise today is horse hockey.

            And today there is a necessity for people to respect each other’s viewpoints and needs. WIthin governing, then compromise, no matter how dirty a word it is to you, how to get things done.

            Like

          25. “Only Democrat polices discriminate based on groups.”

            Equal treatment for all is NOT discrimination against anyone. Your comment is based on the usual right wing falsehoods about protecting the rights of PEOPLE.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. I have no idea what your point is.

            Democrats think choosing Federal judges based on race and gender is good policy, and of 97 judges appointed by Biden, only 5 were white men. There is zero chance that was the result of merit.

            Republicans think choosing the best regardless of race and gender is better.

            Like

          27. Choosing QUALIFIED Federal judges that represent the American people is the policy. What is wrong with having a judiciary that looks like the rest of the country?

            Republican think choosing the best old white man is better.

            “There is zero chance that was the result of merit.”

            PROVE IT!

            Like

          28. “There is zero chance that was the result of merit.”

            There is also zero evidence that the people appointed were not equally or better qualified than those who were passed over for now. Merit is a highly subjective concept. At least the Democratic Presidents do not put people on the bench whom the ABA rates as Not Qualified.

            How many of the people you are whining about are not better qualified than the Trump appointees who got appointments instead of them. Trump appointees were 76% men. Biden appointees are 75% women. Trump appointees were 16% non-white. Biden appointees were 67% non-white. An objective observer might see Biden trying to re-balance the courts after the biased race and gender appointments made by Trump.

            https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/diversity-of-the-federal-bench/

            Liked by 1 person

          29. The field from which to choose Federal judges would be made up of State court judges and law professors. Considering the makeup of that field, Trump’s appointees would appear to represent that field far better than Biden’s.

            Assuming an equal distribution of qualification within that field, Biden would have had to go much further down the level of qualification to attain his racial and gender quotas. Such statistical disparities have been used often to prove discrimination when the skew was reversed.

            Diversity has absolutely no bearing on merit, and it is racist to allege that it does.

            Like

          30. “The field from which to choose Federal judges . . .”

            You are doing a lot of assuming. And pulling facts from your ass. So much easier than doing a little research.

            In fact, the total proportion of female judges in the country is 49.7%. Based on YOUR logic, it is clear that Trump was discriminating against women since he appointed 76% men to the federal judiciary. How much merit did he have to ignore to discriminate so blatantly?

            https://www.zippia.com/judge-jobs/demographics/

            Liked by 2 people

          32. “And again, merit alone should be the deciding factor,”
            Nope.
            It is a primary factor but it is not the only factor.

            The long-term health of the justice system is best served if able people reflecting the diversity of the population the serve are sitting on the bench. The system has to be fair and it has to be seen to be fair.

            Besides “merit” is an undefined term. In the real world, some degree of philosophical alignment with the appointing President is a key part of “merit.”

            Liked by 2 people

          33. “The system has to be fair and it has to be seen to be fair.”

            Ironically, that is the nutshell of the original Trump appeal. Not just the justice system, but the core of our national character. The working classes were ignored by the elites of both parties. Sure, there are White nationalist undertones, “replacement” theories, religious concerns, but MAGA was a reaction to a real, and perceived, sense of unfairness. “The swamp” needed to be drained so the system would become more fair to the middle and lower incomes. Sanders was appealing to the same issue with some differences.

            I agree that the judges need to reflect who we are, not who we were a century ago. For some, this is hard to accept.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          34. Judges should know and understand the law and have the integrity to stand by that knowledge regardless of their own political preferences.

            Placing race or gender ahead of that criteria is racist and sexist.

            Like

          35. “Judges should know and understand the law and have the integrity to stand by that knowledge regardless of their own political preferences.”

            Absolutely correct!

            And that is why so many reasonable people are disgusted with the parade of partisan hacks that Donald Trump put on the bench. The courts are polluted with people like Aileen Cannon and Kathryn Mizelle and will be unclean for decades.

            Liked by 2 people

          36. A computer can do what you want through AI.

            Until then, when people walk into a courtroom they will perceive justice through the system as it appears. Why do you think lawyers and prosecutors try to flavor the jury selection with people who reflect the ethnicity of the defendants?

            Dick Gregory, the racial gadfly of comedy, once quipped that American justice is obvious when you look at the docket in a courtroom. You see “just us”.

            A Black defendant in Mississippi 1950 sees an all White jury, judge, prosecutor and his own lawyer. How much faith and respect does that garner in American society, both then and now?

            Judges have to know the law, a given. But good judges also have empathy and that is critical when there is so much leeway in trial procedures and subsequent sentencing.

            You want AI? After all, such a system would consider only law, period. You went through a red light…guilty. So your wife was giving birth in the backseat and it was 2AM and not a car in sight? Not important. Next case. A woman on the bench might have a better understanding that breaking the law was justifiable and merits dismissal. Not because of her expertise in law, but because of her experience as a woman in America.

            That is justice.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          38. Funny. Biases can be introduced for now. But in the future that could be eliminated. When AI becomes independent of human control.

            Be careful what you wish for.

            Liked by 2 people

          39. So, we should place a judge on the second highest court who doesn’t know the basic structure of the Constitution because she is a Black woman and that is more important than having a white man who does.

            The idea that reflecting “diversity” should be a factor at all is racist and sexist.

            Like

          40. “So, we should place a judge on the second highest court who doesn’t know the basic structure of the Constitution”

            No, we should not do that.

            What is “racist and sexist” is making such sweeping claims based on a momentary brain freeze in a high pressure situation with an old jackass of a Senator obviously trying for a gotcha moment. The woman in question was rated “Qualified” by the ABA unlike many Trump appointees.

            And, since we are hurling labels I would say that denying that diversity is an important goal is what is “racist and sexist” in this discussion.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. All that tells us is that the ABA has surrendered its integrity in favor of partisanship and can no longer be taken seriously.

            So, if we were advancing a White male judge ahead of more qualified Black or female judges that would be racist or sexist, but not the opposite?

            Baloney That is exactly what racist and sexist are.

            Like

          42. “All that tells us is that the ABA has surrendered its integrity ”

            Uh, Bullshit. It tells us that Trump appointed nine judges – the ones found not qualified – who did not have the basic chops required of a judge. If the ABA were partisan there would have been far more “Not qualified” ratings that what actually came down. And a lot fewer “Well Qualified.”

            You are making up the affront you are whining about. You are making the racist and/or sexist assumption that Biden’s female and minority appointees MUST have stolen their position from a “more qualified” white man. Why don’t you assume that Trump’s mostly male appointees stole their position from a more qualified woman?

            Liked by 2 people

          43. The hypocrisy of the left has no limits. For decades we have been told that disproportionate under representation was proof of discrimination.

            By the statistics you presented, White men make up at least 40% of the available candidates and White women almost as much, yet White men made up just 6% of Biden’s appointees, less than 17% of their proportional representation.

            By the left’s own standards, that is proof of racial discrimination.

            If you’re going to use race as a determining factor, at least be consistent.

            Like

          44. “The hypocrisy of the left has no limits.”

            You are the hypocrite. You accuse Biden of discrimination while ignoring Trump’s record which – by the very same logic – was based on discrimination against women and minorities.

            I accept the obvious. President Biden has set out to redress decades of discrimination against women and minorities in appointments to the Federal bench. This effort is long past due.

            What I do not accept is that better qualified white men have been passed over for less qualified candidates. In this pool of people – mostly judges – almost all are qualified and there are no objective standards to say who is “better qualified.”

            Liked by 1 person

          45. Almost all are qualified? Yet one cannot remember the basic form of the Constitution and another cannot say what a woman is.

            Selecting judges by race is racism, selecting them by gender is sexism. No exceptions.

            You redress past discrimination by not discriminating, not by discriminating differently.

            Like

          46. “Yet one cannot remember the basic form of the Constitution and another cannot say what a woman is.”

            You just cannot accept that Ms. Bjelkengren had a momentary brain freeze and could not connect an article number with what it covered. Never mind her Qualified rating from the ABA and her many years on the bench. Your continuing to make this attack says more about you than it does about her. And it is not good.

            As for your attack on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson not saying what a woman is you are only displaying the childish simple-mindedness common in MAGA circles. From a legal point of view this is a complex question and she was unwilling to pander to simpletons with a simpleminded answer. And, BTW, Justice Brown Jackson is more than holding her own on the Court.

            https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/09/is-justice-jackson-the-de-facto-leader-of-progressive-originalists/

            Liked by 1 person

          47. Jackson did not say it was a complicated question, she said she couldn’t answer it because she was not a biologist, as though there was some question.

            What she was doing was dodging the question to avoid triggering the looney left trans community.

            A judge who lacks the integrity to answer truthfully if it offends people living under a delusion should be immediately disqualified.

            And a judge who has a brain freeze three times on Constitutional questions is not qualified regardless of the ABA’s partisan endorsement.

            But when race and gender are what matters, merit suffers.

            Like

          48. “. . . as though there was some question.”

            Laughable. And you claim to have a background in science? There is PLENTY of question about what makes a person a “woman.” Both in science and in law. It was a gotcha question which KBJ could have easily answered with a platitude. Instead she was honest. That is integrity whether people like you want to see it or not.

            You would have more credibility on this subject if you had ever complained about the kind of discrimination against women and minorities practiced in the past.

            Liked by 1 person

          49. Brown herself said it was a question of biology.

            A woman is an adult female human.

            Female is having X chromosomes.

            Any high school kid should be able to answer that question.

            Like

          54. “The Gender spectrum is a fashionable delusion. . .”

            And yet actual biologists think that there is a lot of ambiguity in a lot of people. And not just in their brains but in their morphology and in their DNA. Some people with “normal” DNA do not develop along expected lines. And, there are many different combinations of X and Y chromosomes – not just two.

            https://genetic.org/variations/

            You are talking out of bigotry and not science. You want your Supreme Court Justices to be as simpleminded and bigoted as you are. KBJ could have played along. To her credit, she did not.

            Liked by 1 person

          55. You keep obfuscating with gender delusions that are irrelevant to the question Jackson was asked. She was asked to define a woman, and she evaded answering claiming it was a question for a biologist.

            Gender not aligned with sex is a psychological issue, not a biological issue.

            From the biological aspect, a woman is a person with 2 X Chromosomes past the age of puberty.

            If a biological woman identifies as a Tomcat, that doesn’t change anything biologically.

            Jackson dodged the question because the true answer would not have been politically correct among her supporters.

            Like

          56. “a woman is a person with 2 X Chromosomes past the age of puberty.”

            You have that backwards. Should read . . .
            A person with 2 X Chromosomes past the age of puberty is a woman.

            Now, how do intersex people fit in your boxes?
            Trick question – there is no easy answer which is why your critique of KBJ is silly partisan nonsense.

            Liked by 1 person

          57. Chromosomal intersex people exist, but they are rare and do not define a general category.

            From a biologic standpoint, there are men and women and genetic accidents.

            And JAckson was not asked about rare genetic accidents, she was asked to define a woman, a question she dodged out of political correctness, revealing a disqualifying lack of integrity.

            Like

          58. “Chromosomal intersex people exist, but they are rare”

            Roughly 2% of the population is intersex in some way or other.
            Uncommon? Yes.
            Rare? No.

            I guess the good little Christian lady from Tennessee wanted to make sure that the new Justice would allow discrimination against that 2%.

            You accuse KBJ of lacking integrity? You know nothing about what was in her mind when she answered CORRECTLY that politically motivated question. But that does not stop the hateful slander. That says more about you, your bigotry, and your integrity than it does hers.

            Liked by 1 person

          62. “ Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural variations that affect genitals, gonads, hormones, chromosomes or reproductive organs.”

            Note “chromosomes” in the description. All the characteristics listed are physical not, as you suggest, psychological.

            As research progresses, we learn more. Epilepsy was thought to be “possession” by spirits. Leprosy used to be considered contagious. Humors used to the basis for treatments. Malaria was literally “bad air”. Pandemics brought on pogroms, usually against a minority like the Jews. Now we are learning that there may be a direct relationship between gut biomes and mental issues.

            There seems to be a divide that is centered on religion v. science as far as acceptance by many, particularly the non-scientific. Not that science is always right, but it is always seeking and learning and changes may not be acceptable to status quo comfort seekers. Religion tends to emphasize the immutable nature of God and His teachings. A comfort zone, so to speak. But if applied to reason rather than faith, then we are often forced to make uncomfortable choices. The earth does go around the sun, and that upended revealed truth as interpreted by many.

            I applaud the founders for their wisdom to keep our government secular while guaranteeing freedom of religion among its citizens. A delicate balancing act where faith and political power are often bedfellows. And IMO power based on faith is particularly pernicious as there is often no appeal to reason should a conflict arise.

            Liked by 2 people

          63. Lot’s of words, but they don’t address the issue.

            A woman remains an adult with 2 X chromosomes as a biological definition.

            Nothing religious about it.

            A woman who has her breasts and uterus removed to look more male is still a woman. A man who is surgically and hormonally altered to look more like a woman is still a man.

            We can have compassion for these confused people, and let them live their lives as they choose(so long as they do not involve children) but that does not change their actual sex.

            Like

          64. So you dismiss the definition of intersex as quoted?

            “Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural variations that affect genitals, gonads, hormones, chromosomes or reproductive organs.”

            Natural variations are real and there is no mention of psychological variations.

            That is the definition I was referring to and you keep hammering “2X chromosomes” over and over as your definition of intersex gone bad. Nice, but not the point. Natural variations occur at the chromosomal level as well.

            Liked by 1 person

          65. “We can have compassion for these confused people”

            Being “intersex” does not involve “confusion.” You are the one who is confused.

            And your referring to compassion is a joke. You have never shown ANY.

            Like

          66. Intersex is a very small group, with a chromosomal basis for their problem. No, they are not merely confused but they are very small in number.

            The much larger group with a neurotic or psychotic basis for their dysphoria are not technically intersex.

            Like

          67. “Intersex is a very small group, with a chromosomal basis for their problem. No, they are not merely confused but they are very small in number.”

            They are not THAT small in number. I and others have given you the evidence again and again but it has no effect. Intersex refers to the ~2% of people who do not fit into either sex AT BIRTH. You seem to think “intersex” and “transgender” are synonyms. They are not.

            And all this baloney because you won’t back down from your shitty slander against the integrity of Justice KBJ based on nothing but your personal prejudices.

            Like

          68. 1 in 400 0r 1 in 650 is not 2%, they are 0.25% and 0.15% respectively

            You could make a reasonable case that those rare people or neither man nor woman, but their existence does not change what a woman is from a biologists point of view.

            Jackson just dodged the question to avoid offending the Trans community which believes a man can be surgically made into a woman.

            Like

          69. “1 in 400 0r 1 in 650 is not 2%, they are 0.25% and 0.15% respectively”

            Respectively?

            There are more than 2 forms of intersex.

            Read what I wrote again (“Roughly 2% of the population is intersex in some way or other”) and read the cites with an open mind.

            Like

          72. Do you see the math problem?

            Chromosomal problems account for about 0.4% combined male and female. Your cite says they make up most of the intersex births, yet they claim 1.7% of births.

            But in any case, leaving aside intersex births, regardless of how many, women are adults with XX

            Like

          75. “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” A. France

            Same principal applies to healthcare, education and affordable, not luxurious, housing.

            Game the system? Some will, no doubt. But no more egregious than setting up charities and donations for tax breaks than keeping the money.
            (Names withheld to protect the shameless.)

            Liked by 2 people

          76. “I found the earlier version to be distorted.”

            Really? So you read the 402 page document?
            What part of it did you find distorted?

            I have not read either the old or the new version of the history standards but I have read a summary of the similarities and differences compiled by the Washington Post.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/11/16/virginia-school-history-standards-youngkin/

            Reading the changes that Youngkin intends to make I immediately remembered a key concept from 1984 . . . “Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past.”

            This re-write is a blatantly political document that puts rightwing indoctrination ahead of actual learning and understanding. Native Americans are immigrants from Asia. Harry Byrd did not exist. High school students do not need to learn about colonialism, imperialism, nationalism or racism. And, of course, slavery is not longer the root cause of the Civil War only a factor. etc. etc. etc.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Affordable and accessible healthcare and education and keeping the elderly from poverty are social programs, but hardly socialism.”

      The distinction doesn’t seem very helpful to me. It obscures the fact that social programs are funded by taxpayers. To the extent that money is an input to production, the diversion of taxpayer money into social programs exactly meets the definition of socialism: government ownership of the means of production.

      Like

      Reply

      1. …”government ownership of the means of production.””

        Numerous times you have indicated that our society and government do not produce anything. This statement comes off as contradictory to what you often say.

        Like

        Reply

        1. You don’t know what you are talking about. I have described government spending as non-product because it comes at the cost of private spending, making it non-productive on net. Some government spending — defense, Social Security, Medicare — is also non-productive in the sense that nothing is produced.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “You don’t know what you are talking about. ”

            I know what you have posted. I can comprehend words quite well.

            I note, again, that your panties get wadded when called out for your own hypocrisies.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. The source story reads like a case study in witch-hunter behavior.

    The hunt begins idealistically when a know-nothing philosopher objects to a proposed policy statement. The target responds to the objection, citing relevant real-life experience. Next thing you know, allegations are flying that the target is associated with extremism and unfit to serve in a public capacity.

    Like

    Reply

    1. It’s time to strip legislators of their immunity from libel and slander.

      Unfounded accusations of racism can be very detrimental to a person’s career, and legislators should be held accountable.

      Like

      Reply

    2. RE: “It’s time to strip legislators of their immunity from libel and slander.”

      Are they actually immune? How would we remove it?

      Like

      Reply

  3. Democrats “despise the founding of America, view the nation exclusively through the lens of racism and celebrate socialism as their preferred form of government”. Truer words have never been spoken and proven on this board over and over. The race card is the go to excuse for anything they don’t like, next to the idiotic “MAGA” accusations. I wonder why Democrats don’t campaign using these self serving idealistic character assets? They are a sure winner…

    Like

    Reply

      1. Things like running up prices for groceries at twice the rate of middle class income?

        They have been busy buying the votes of the dependent with the taxes of the working class and the debt of their grandchildren.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Nice try. The GOP proposes NOTHING, except investigations based on Fox News talking heads blather, writing history curriculums that don’t include any BAD, yet truthful, history, sunsetting SS and Medicare, supporting a party leader that has no interest in actual governing unless it is to his own personal benefit. The list goes on.

          Groceries, with the exception of eggs are starting to come down. And egg prices (which a LOT of people are concerned with and make the most noise on the news) have NOTHING to do with actual inflation. Several MILLIONS of egg laying hens had to be euthanized because of bird flu. Or is bird flu a Democratic party platform plank?

          Inflation is slowing, wages, while not keeping up CURRENTLY with inflation, are growing, infrastructure spending is getting ready to start in earnest, IF the GOP doesn’t muck it up, putting more people to work in GOOD paying jobs, drug prices for seniors are not going to bankrupt them, broadband is coming to areas that have no access today.

          Trump inherited a growing economy and screwed it up BEFROE the pandemic really blew things up. Biden is cleaning up the mess, just like every other Democrat president has had to do following a Republican.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          3. “Your history is malfunctioning, Try unplugging it and then plugging it back in.”

            Because you say so?

            What part of history did Adam get wrong?

            Trump’s imaginary boon to the economy? Nope. Trump exploded the federal deficits FOR NO GOOD REASON before the pandemic – which he bungled – set in. Before Trump came in, deficits were heading south as they should in good times. Economic malfeasance pure and simple.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “The deficit during Trump’s term didn’t exceed 4% of GDP”
            Could you be any more obvious with your cherry-picking?
            Somehow you skipped the most relevant years – the economy Trump inherited from Obama.

            And, of course, you had to fib.
            The FY 2o19 deficit was 4.6% of GDP. Per your cite. That was the FY ending September 30th, 2019. The first case of Covid in the United State was diagnosed in February 2020.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Democrats campaign on giving out other people’s money. Suckers lap it up and then realize afterwords other people’s money includes theirs.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I have known for decades that my tax dollars support spending I don’t agree with. Since I participate in the election process for our system of government, I accept that what I want may not be the same as what you or anyone else wants. After the 2016 election I was certainly disappointed, but I made several comments in which I optimistically observed that Trump may be the wake up call this country needed. Both he and Sanders had the same message: recognize the forgotten working classes. I was wrong about the eventual president, but poop happens.

          Americans are smarter than you might think. Those who support affordable healthcare, education, etc know full well that none of that is free, nor should it be. But having income determine access to quality healthcare, (or justice for that matter, another anomaly that is blatantly un-Constitutional, but I digress.) is like restricting roads to those who can afford them. People, all people, in a nation are its core “infrastructure” without which nothing else matters. As such, the healthier, better educated and decently housed citizens are, the more productive and competitive we can be.

          IMO

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. I can accept spending on things I disagree with as part of the process, my problem is spending that is not authorized by the Constitution.

            The majority supporting an unconstitutional act does not make it Constitutional.

            The impending collapse of the British National Health Service is the result of the inefficiencies of political decision making contrary to the market. The NHS has plundered the third world of its doctors and nurses in an attempt to meet staffing needs, but they are still unable to keep up with British doctors leaving the service.

            Markets are superior in allocating scarce resources to even the most sincere bureaucrat.

            Like

          2. Why do you think we need to adopt the British system, or want to?

            We can keep private interests in medical care if we ever get the stones to make changes. Incentivizing excess testing and care, private equity buying practices, torts, hugely expensive drugs prices, insurance based on employment, ignoring lifestyle responsibilities, and a food industry seemingly hell bent on killing us…these are all factors driving the prices to unsustainable levels. Plus, all of these issues have powerful connections from interests that lobby for more of the same rather than changes that affect affordability, and profits.

            We have a “free” market in healthcare, but it is really full of characters with their thumbs on the scale and intertwined with a patchwork of reforms and complexities that the average American has to slog through and hope for the best.

            Medicare, for all its flaws, is still more efficient in allocating resources under the present healthcare industry. But that does not mean we have to adapt that wholeheartedly.

            Even if we did, however, keeping doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals private is still a very viable system. Insurance can retain the control it used to have to restrain costs. Formerly, insurance groups could negotiate from a position of having customers that providers wanted. Now, private equity provider groups are snagging the best ones and then telling insurers that if they want good doctors, they have to bend. That is monopolistic power.

            Bottom line, healthcare needs to be treated as human infrastructure and not as a jewelry store.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. “Democrats “despise the founding of America, view the nation exclusively through the lens of racism and celebrate socialism as their preferred form of government”.”

      You may believe that. But the again some of the things you seem to believe in are based in hatred and your own deceit.

      Like

      Reply

    2. What “lies, phony accusations and insults”? Similar statements have been made by Presidents from both parties for decades during STOU addresses.

      If you want to really consider who is trading in lies, let us consider Rick Scott and Mike Lee. They have both proposed cutting SS and Medicare. Biden calling them out for it caused Marjorie “Cruella” Taylor Greene to call Biden a liar. The Rick Scott plan calls for sunsetting ALL federal programs every 5 years. There is no exception for SS or Medicare.

      That is just the easiest one.

      So who is really telling whoppers?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Please do show me where Scott or Lee have advocated reducing SS and Medicare for current recipients?

        When SS was created, you were eligible at 65, but the average man didn’t live to that age and the average women would draw benefits for no more than 2 years.

        Absent some adjustments, the system will collapse at some future time. The age of eligibility will have to be adjusted sooner or later, and the longer we wait, the more radical the adjustment will have to be.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. “Please do show me where Scott or Lee have advocated reducing SS and Medicare for current recipients?”

          I have already pointed out Scott’s plan to sunset all government programs every 5 years. Thee is NO EXCEPTION for SS and Medicare.

          Easiest adjustment to make to is to remove the CAP on earnings that can be taxed. Limited other adjustments may also be necessary. But in Scott’s plan, it would just disappear of Congress didn’t reauthorize it every 5 years.

          More here, about two-thirds of the way down the newsletter. (But you can read the craziness parts before the part where it shows Scott (and Lee, and Johnson, and see the links for the rest).

          https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/gaslighting-our-politics

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. But you still believe that Scott and Lee (and others) HAVEN’T advocated for reducing SS and Medicare.

            …” but that would not even come close to fixing the problem.”

            It would do much more than what SOME Republicans are suggesting.

            Like

          7. “Sander’s plan taxes investment income which is not now subject to FICA.”

            And his plan included improvements in benefits with negative effects.

            The document linked to studies the effects of each part of the plan separately. See Table A for sections 5 & 6 for the effect excluding the new tax on investment income. The benefits are substantial – not marginally important as per your dogma.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. That is still a substantial change to the structure of SS. SS was intended as a backup for those who did not save and invest, not as a disincentive to investing

            Like

  5. The association with “white supremacists” statements claimed in the piece seem a bit murky. Did Sen. Hashmi provide evidence of the association?

    I don’t like this incident one bit. But there is another theory. Maybe the Dems blocked the appointments because of Youngkin’s vetoing of several bills last year, passed in a bipartisan manner, that were sponsored by Democrats.

    Just a thought. But the rest of it is pretty ugly.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Again, I do not see where WHAT groups caused the phrasing.

        By the way, you labeled a Capitol Police officer a murderer for doing his job. SO be careful about who is throwing around what labels.

        And I did not address the labeling issue because, I think it is murky. (Which is akin to YOU claiming someone misspoke.)

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. “Kaines wife said she was aligned with white supremacists.”

            So, nobody said she was a racist. You or somebody made that up.

            Being aligned with White Supremacists goes with the territory if you are a full-fledged MAGA-Republican.

            Liked by 1 person

  6. Any writer who caps his opinion with “Democrats despise the founding of America…” needs to own up and explain.

    It also paints the “reporting” as hyper partisan and not really serious commentary.

    As far as viewing “through racism”, one must recall what the South looked like in 1963 to a visitor. “White Only”, Colored Section”, Sunset laws…no different than South Africa.

    Sure, that was in the past, recent by historical and generational standards, but when juxtaposed to the very real racial disparities in income, wealth building, home ownership, opportunities, education and healthcare it is more than obvious we have not resolved being a multi-racial country. And that is sad, since without Black slavery and cheap immigrant labor, we would not be the nation we are purported to be.

    Finally, “ I think socialism is just about as bad as communism,” Dutta replied. “It co-opts the important decisions belonging to families and individuals.”

    Affordable healthcare for all co-opts what decisions? Perhaps the decision to seek care or buy medicine versus food or rent is a what some aspire to as free market. I look at as the equivalent to broken infrastructure. We don’t demand that rural Americans cover the total cost of local roads, tunnels and bridges. That money comes from urban taxpayers and visitors. Socialism? Of course not. Neither should medical care be denied due to income.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Why not?

      The problem is that we demand the same level of medical care regardless of income.

      Food is also a necessity, but we don’t require the same level of desirability in food for all.

      We subsidize food so that everyone can afford hamburger and beans, we don’t subsidize food so that everyone can afford porterhouse steak with truffles.

      It is one thing to provide for BASIC health care but another to require the same waiting times and availability of all medical care.

      For example, we could afford to provide cataract surgery with glasses for all, but we can’t afford cataract surgery with custom ground implantable lens for everyone.

      I don’t know what you mean about roads, Roads connecting cities pass through rural areas, surely you don’t want the full cost of those falling on the flyover country they pass through. Farm to market roads serve those who eat as much as those who produce. So, what local roads are you saying city people pay for that they should not?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. You seem to be describing a version we already have. Wealthy folks already have concierge doctors, private wings of hospitals in big cities and pay out of pocket for upscale cataracts, plastic surgeries and other procedures not covered for the masses.

        So that is really not the issue. The big fear for conservatives seems to be the possibility that someone, somewhere might get medical treatment who might not deserve it in their eyes. And if that is not a fear among the right wing elite, it is the message to the MAGA crowd to get votes.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. P J O’Rourke warned, “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.”

          What he didn’t say is that the cost could be your life.

          Britain’s National Health Service is on the brink of collapse, as the inefficiencies of replacing market forces with central planning combine to drive providers away as patient demand surges.

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/nhs-uk-national-health-service-strike-costs-11675693883?mod=WSJ_JournalPodCaption

          It’s a lesson people don’t want to learn.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The UK puts its healthcare problems on public view. Ours, we sweep under the carpet.

            In spite of the problems brought on by Conservative governments starving and undermining the NHS, Britain still leads us in the overall health of its people. As do most countries with single payer systems. Plus, one of an American’s biggest fears – medical bankruptcy – is unknown in those countries. Plus, people in those countries are not tied to employment they hate because they do not want to lose coverage.

            Our system by comparison is a real dog’s breakfast of dysfunction

            That is the lesson YOU don’t want to learn.

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290168/health-index-of-countries-worldwide-by-health-index-score/

            Liked by 1 person

    1. It is worth noting that dozens of Youngkin appointments were approved, three denied, one of which lost a Republican vote also.

      But, of course, political hay is made to point out the rejections. Regardless of the reasons, legislators still have to advise and consent. At least she got a hearing. And it gives the GOP more whining points.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a comment