Are all Republicans Scumbags?

[telcoman]

Of course they won't. "California " and "integrity" go together like "Howie" and "logic."

Logic is 42% of eligible US voters stayed home

https://qz.com/834704/election-turnout- ... e-in-2016/

"Of the 227 million eligible voters in the country, only about a quarter voted for Donald Trump, and a quarter for Hillary Clinton. A few voted for third-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and the rest of the electorate just opted out of the whole thing."

With Trump now battling against republicans that control the congress it is likely by the time the 2018 midterm election rolls around he will have accomplished nothing.

Thus far his promise of better cheaper healthcare. FAIL
Build the wall FAIL
Infrastructure FAIL
Immigration FAIL
Coal jobs FAIL
Tax cuts FAIL
Supreme court Success
Rolling back federal regulations to insure safe water supplies to allow more water pollution Success

Telcoman

[Rogue One]

Wow, at seven months into Trump’s presidency, you're already declaring it a failure. Also, Trump is the least popular kid at school. Time to pack it in and appoint Hillary.

Since we're compiling lists of presidential failures, here's some of Obama's (that you've conveniently forgotten about):
Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center - FAIL
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills - FAIL
Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour - FAIL
Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes - FAIL
Expand the child and dependent care credit - FAIL
Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes - FAIL
End no-bid contracts above $25,000 - FAIL
Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses - FAIL
Allow imported prescription drugs - FAIL
Double federal funding for cancer research - FAIL

FAILED PROMISE: President Obama: "My Administration Is Committed To Creating An Unprecedented Level Of Openness In Government." (President Barack Obama, "Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: transparency and open government," Press Release, 1/21/09)

FAILED PROMISE: President Obama: "Let Me Say It As Simply As I Can: Transparency And The Rule Of Law Will Be The Touchstones Of This Presidency." (President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President in welcoming senior staff and cabinet secretaries to the white house, Washington, DC, 1/21/09)

CNN's Jack Cafferty: "President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected."

Los Angeles Times Editorial: "One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama Administration has been its proclivity for secrecy."

The White House logs are "Missing the names of thousands of visitors to the white house, including lobbyists," and donors. Visitors are "routinely" listed as meeting with junior staffers when they really met with "someone higher up the chain of command," including the President himself. - Viveca Novak and Fred Schulte, "White House Visitor Logs Leave Out Many," Politico, 4/13/11

[srellim234]

Voting for either a Republican or a Democrat - FAIL

[szh]

Voting for either a Republican or a Democrat - FAIL

Z

[mixeds14]

Trump is the least popular kid at school.

Lol, did u forget already. "we going to make this a one term president". I believe that was the Republicans number 1 goal from the beginning of the Obama administration. And trump did say he and only he can fixed everything in the first few months. But to be fair, it does take a while for anything to get done thru the system and we all know that, yet he only takes credit for good things that have been a working progress from the last administration like the economy and employment numbers, remember he said is was all fake until he took office and all of the sudden he praising the numbers because he thinks he's done it at 6-7 months in. Lol..

Both party's are full of it. They do what's best for the party not for the people and voters that voted them in. It's all about what party has the most power in the government.

[Rogue One]

by telcoman » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:50 am

... Coal jobs FAIL...

Telcoman

Fact Check = FALSE

Pennsylvania Energy Company Opens Second Coal Mine During Trump-Era
The head of a Pennsylvania-based energy provider said Sunday that the Trump administration’s environmental agenda has allowed him to open a second coal company since the election.

“I think it’s a direct link,” Corsa Coal Corp. CEO George Dethlefsen told Fox News reporters, referring to the upturn in the coal industry’s fortunes and a slew of environmental regulations President Donald Trump recently peeled back.

“[T]he war on coal is over,” he added. Dethlefsen opened his first office this year in January near Pittsburgh, which is expected to generate as many as many as 100 new jobs. A second mine was shuttered five years ago but is expected to reopen in early 2018.

Coal seen a slight rejuvenation recently. Coal exports were nearly 60 percent higher in the first few months of the Trump administration than at the same time last year, according to federal data.

[srellim234]

"Notes: Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox. Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact." ___https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

[srellim234]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/02/531255253 ... re-opening

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/trumps-coal-spin/

[Rogue One]

"Notes: Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox. Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact." ___https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

YOUR POINT???

[srellim234]

My point is that you are every bit as incorrect as telco and his far left sources. Every true fact checking site has totally debunked claims you brought from that dishonest, pandering and lying to the base, interview on Fox. It is totally irresponsible to depend on them as a source of credible information.

Many of the fact sites specifically address the Corsa coal mines, the hows and the whys. The mine opening was scheduled and on the books before the election last year. Trump had nothing to do with it. It is related (as is the increase in coal exports) to the disruption in the world markets for metallurgical coal in Australia. It has nothing to do with Corsa being an energy company; it's not energy coal that is being mined there.

[AZhitman]

Voting for either a Republican or a Democrat - FAIL

THIS.

I haven't yet heard a reasonable, rational argument from anyone as to why a Libertarian POTUS wouldn't be this country's best hope (other than the evasive "unelectable" blubbering).

My investments are looking lovely thus far - but I sure as hell ain't praising POTUS for that - yet. Fact is, very little of what happens in DC affects most Americans, which is a perfect explanation for why 42% didn't vote.

Of course, the kid who ate glue in first grade has grown to retirement age and is now trucking out that number, since he's an expert on politics.

If you're not relying on anything from the 'gubmint' and you're capable of making smart decisions, you have very little need for those nitwits. AND, if they're doing something you don't like, but it doesn't materially or physically impact you, mind your own business.

No one of any consequence wants, or needs, you rallying for them. There are already measures in place to handle those matters, and all your political ranting, sign waving, Anthem-sitting and generalized bitching isn't doing anything except pissing off those of us who found a way to succeed without (or despite) the government's help.

[AZhitman]

"By the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over."
-BHO, 2013

Go ahead, look around for someone to blame.

[srellim234]

Voting for either a Republican or a Democrat - FAIL

THIS.

I haven't yet heard a reasonable, rational argument from anyone as to why a Libertarian POTUS wouldn't be this country's best hope (other than the evasive "unelectable" blubbering)....

Unfortunately, electing a third party or independent POTUS now will do us no good. Change has to come from the bottom up. In light of what happened to the previous President and what is happening to this President the two parties in Congress have proven to themselves (and their bases) they don't need to compromise with anyone. They can just sit on their hands with their war chests of money and dependable "deep pockets" donors to wait for the next election cycle. Then they have the instant argument that the White House occupant for the last four years was a "do-nothing" president and going outside the parties for a leader failed.

It's vitally important for voters to begin rejecting the two major parties from the ground up. Supporting third parties and independents in EVERY election from mayor all the way up to POTUS is the only way they are going to get the message and change will come to this government.

[Rogue One]

My point is that you are every bit as incorrect as telco and his far left sources. Every true fact checking site has totally debunked claims you brought from that dishonest, pandering and lying to the base, interview on Fox. It is totally irresponsible to depend on them as a source of credible information.

Many of the fact sites specifically address the Corsa coal mines, the hows and the whys. The mine opening was scheduled and on the books before the election last year. Trump had nothing to do with it. It is related (as is the increase in coal exports) to the disruption in the world markets for metallurgical coal in Australia. It has nothing to do with Corsa being an energy company; it's not energy coal that is being mined there.

Whoa there sparky. You need to exercise caution when citing "fact checking sites." MediaBIasFactCheck.com is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

“It turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.

“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing."

Look, I get it. You seem to think everyone even remotely connected to Fox News should be tared & feathered, hung, drawn & quartered, and dropped in a vat of acid. But as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Fox News isn't the only news outlet with a history of false, misleading or outright lies. Did you know ABC News reporter Terry Moran suggested it’s okay for news outlets to lie about Trump because he lies sometimes?

Given your sentiments about Fox News, I can't wait for your take on the news service Steve Bannon is launching to compete against Fox.

[srellim234]

The following has nothing to do with MediaBias/Factcheck.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Pretty damning for your beloved Fox and coming from another site.

Before you tee off on Politifact, check out dailynewsbin's credibility at http://scamanalyze.com/check/dailynewsbin.com.html

Also, why are you even bringing ABC into this as if it justifies the lies Fox broadcasts? I don't rely on ABC for anything and never indicated I did. You are seriously grasping at straws to defend Fox that way.

BTW, what Fox reported is still bogus, as exemplified by multiple fact check sites, mining industry newsletters and reports.

[Rogue One]

...Also, why are you even bringing ABC into this as if it justifies the lies Fox broadcasts? I don't rely on ABC for anything and never indicated I did. You are seriously grasping at straws to defend Fox that way...

Well we've gotten really off topic, but I'll respond.

I mentioned the ABC quote to indicate that there's deliberate lying to be found in nearly all news reporting agencies, a fact you seemed to be blissfully unaware of.

I don't need to defend Fox News, nor am I going to limit my posts to news sources that only meet with your approval.

If you wish to discuss the truth or lack thereof in US news outlets, then I'd suggest starting another thread.

[AZhitman]

Interestingly, a discussion Bex and I had just last night - NO media source is entirely reliable anymore... and it's a sad shift. There was a time when the shame and critique of even *remotely* missing the boat would have tanked a news anchor or reporter. But slowly, sometime in my lifetime, I think, that went away.

The blame is simple: Internet. Money is made from clicks. Clicks make money. Boring news stories don't get clicks. Advertisers bail. Revenues plummet. Heads roll.

Certainly, there are those that are far more biased than others. In fact, FOX and CNN aren't anywhere near the top of that list. But drilling down, it's difficult to find ANY reliable news source without an axe to grind or some skin in the game.

OK, back to Howie and his silly blanket statements based on what ballot someone files... Awfully ironic for a liberal to paint everyone with a broad brush, eh?

[Bubba1]

Interestingly, a discussion Bex and I had just last night - NO media source is entirely reliable anymore... and it's a sad shift. There was a time when the shame and critique of even *remotely* missing the boat would have tanked a news anchor or reporter. But slowly, sometime in my lifetime, I think, that went away.

The blame is simple: Internet. Money is made from clicks. Clicks make money. Boring news stories don't get clicks. Advertisers bail. Revenues plummet. Heads roll.

Certainly, there are those that are far more biased than others. In fact, FOX and CNN aren't anywhere near the top of that list. But drilling down, it's difficult to find ANY reliable news source without an axe to grind or some skin in the game.

OK, back to Howie and his silly blanket statements based on what ballot someone files... Awfully ironic for a liberal to paint everyone with a broad brush, eh?

I would have enjoyed that conversation. I totally agree media outlets are biased. Though when trying to measure and compare bias, you run into the same exact problem. Neither Fox News or CNN, for example, will ever admit in a chart that they are biased, so can you really trust their data? (A touch of irony ). As far as pointing the fickle finger of fate for this mess, I also blame the internet but only to a small extent. The average American citizen (us collectively) should accept most of the blame, as so many of us tend to believe only the things we want to believe without factchecking. the internet makes it easy to find silly memes or info we want to prove a point, It seems accuracy no longer matters. To make matters worse, if one goes to the effort to fact checks, there's the inevitable complaint that the fact checking is fake or biased if it disagrees with a desired results. Sheesh, and people wonder how the Russians could so easily influence an election? I know some excellent people that have gotten snookered a few times by sharing fake news without fact-checking...(ahem). But as far as unbiased media outlets go, I believe there are still a few out there that are at least less biased than others. Fox news, CNN, MSNBC and Brietbart clearly have strong biases. That can't be argued and yet people blindly believe them. But UPI, AP, Reuters, and perhaps BBC (when discussing US politics) seem a bit more balanced. Unfortunately people tend to gravitate to media sources with whom they agree, and disregard facts. Therein lies the problem. Sorry, interesting tangent. Back to political scumbags.

[srellim234]

Interestingly, a discussion Bex and I had just last night - NO media source is entirely reliable anymore... and it's a sad shift. There was a time when the shame and critique of even *remotely* missing the boat would have tanked a news anchor or reporter. But slowly, sometime in my lifetime, I think, that went away.

The blame is simple: Internet. Money is made from clicks. Clicks make money. Boring news stories don't get clicks. Advertisers bail. Revenues plummet. Heads roll...

This is exactly correct but another ugly thing happened in the process. The money factor led corporate boardrooms to start demanding that their news departments turn a profit instead of providing it as a public service. Objectivity goes out the window when the investigative reporter has to worry about how well the story will sell to partisan readers. It also goes out the window when corporate boardrooms and managers put pressure on reporters to make stories come out particular ways instead of allowing the story to lead them wherever it goes.

[AZhitman]

Joel - Agreed 100%. I suspect the "fakeness" is a continuum, rather than a yep/nope, and probably dependent on the subject matter.

Steve - No doubt. That was also considered (Cliff's notes are all I can do at midnight )

Frankly, I'm appalled at the level of illiteracy of our citizenry (not just the under-30 set either) with regard to how government operates, its purpose, what the Constitution and its Amendments actually mean, and what legal battles have been fought (and decided) based on those.

The very fact that we have two or more groups of socialist, anti-democracy "protestors" squaring off in major cities - with people actually supporting one over the other - tells me all I need to know. The populace is rocking a double-digit IQ and proud of it.

When ANYONE in government is lauded a hero for suggesting for one second that the Constitution is "outdated" or less-than-relevant, something is horribly broken... but by the same token, we're all old enough to remember when the civil penalties for untruths in advertising and media were sufficient to dissuade such nonsense.

The genpop guzzles this chicanery like a frat boy with a beer bong, and yes, sometimes even intelligent folk get fooled.

[srellim234]

...I know some excellent people that have gotten snookered a few times by sharing fake news without fact-checking...(ahem). But as far as unbiased media outlets go, I believe there are still a few out there that are at least less biased than others. Fox news, CNN, MSNBC and Brietbart clearly have strong biases. That can't be argued and yet people blindly believe them. But UPI, AP, Reuters, and perhaps BBC (when discussing US politics) seem a bit more balanced. Unfortunately people tend to gravitate to media sources with whom they agree, and disregard facts. Therein lies the problem...

You really nailed it close to home for me. My dad and I often had knock down, drag out arguments before he passed away three years ago. He was one of the most politically aware, fact checking conservatives I've ever known in my early years.He was involved in local politics both supporting and opposing the city government from time to time.

Unfortunately, FoxNews and time changed all of that. He became a "FoxNews is the gospel" believer.

I particularly remember the Sean Hannity offer to be waterboarded to prove it isn't torture issue. And offered to raise money for veterans in the process. He never did it, even when called out incessantly by Keith Olberman. Because Fox dropped any coverage of it Dad claimed it never happened. Despite showing him the tapes, multiple people talking about it, Mancow getting waterboarded because he was embarrassed by Hannity's lie, Dad still denied it.

He did that with everything Fox. Watching Bill O'Reilly was his version of going to church. At the end of the day, though, we found some things we could agree on, agreed to disagree on others and shared a beer over dinner, recognizing we both had valid but opposing views on many ways this country could be better. The disagreements were not out of animosity but out of our love for this country.

We're all partners in this together and not "either-or" enemies. THAT is what's missing from today's divisiveness. The reasonable people are being drowned out by the extremists.

I miss Dad.

[telcoman]

Pay back is a b****!

More Republican scumbags


Texas lawmakers, now bracing for Harvey, voted against Sandy spending


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/weather ... y-spending

"WASHINGTON — In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a storm that hit New Jersey and New York in 2012, eight Texas Republicans voted against increasing flood insurance, and 23 voted against emergency funding for victims.

Both measures ultimately passed the House and Senate before being signed into law by President Obama. But the history of votes against flood insurance benefiting other needy states could come back to haunt Texas members of Congress should they have to apply for federal funding themselves after Hurricane Harvey. Projected damages from the storm could reach nearly $40 billion."

"Republican Reps. Mike Conaway of Midland, Bill Flores of Bryan, Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Kenny Marchant of Coppell, Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, Randy Weber of Pearland, and Roger Williams of Austin voted no on the bill, as did former Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock.

The second bill provided $17 billion in emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy victims and communities, passing the House 241-180 and the Senate 62-36.

While Texas Sen. John Cornyn and former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison both supported a previous Senate version of the bill, Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz voted no to the House bill, taking issue with new provisions. "

With the exception of Houston Rep. John Culberson, all Texas Republicans in Congress at the time voted against the bill. All but three are still in office today."

CORRECTION, 6:58 p.m., Aug. 26, 2017: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Hurricane Sandy was in 2015. It was in 2012.


I remember it well

Telcoman

[srellim234]

telco - read my post directly above the one you just posted. You personally are a part of the problem, not the solution.

[AZhitman]

Even the moderates know liberal blather when they see it.

Steve, my pops was fairly apolitical, but conservative (retired military, born 1930, raised in NY/NJ, somewhat irreligious)... His views were pretty moderate viewed through the ens of modern politics. I suspect today, he'd lean libertarian, but vote conservative (begrudgingly).

We didn't talk a lot of politics per se, but more about the effects of decisions that were made. Especially because of my work (and his), there were always concrete examples of how things affected OUR lives. Neither of us really gave a damn about the effects on others, because frankly, that's their issue and they didn't ask for (or want) our intervention. Ergo, my amazement at the SJW tendencies of both extremes these days.

I miss my pops a ton. *cheers* to mine and yours.

[Bubba1]

Pay back is a b****!

More Republican scumbags


Texas lawmakers, now bracing for Harvey, voted against Sandy spending


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/weather ... y-spending

"WASHINGTON — In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a storm that hit New Jersey and New York in 2012, eight Texas Republicans voted against increasing flood insurance, and 23 voted against emergency funding for victims.

Both measures ultimately passed the House and Senate before being signed into law by President Obama. But the history of votes against flood insurance benefiting other needy states could come back to haunt Texas members of Congress should they have to apply for federal funding themselves after Hurricane Harvey. Projected damages from the storm could reach nearly $40 billion."

"Republican Reps. Mike Conaway of Midland, Bill Flores of Bryan, Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Kenny Marchant of Coppell, Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, Randy Weber of Pearland, and Roger Williams of Austin voted no on the bill, as did former Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock.

The second bill provided $17 billion in emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy victims and communities, passing the House 241-180 and the Senate 62-36.

While Texas Sen. John Cornyn and former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison both supported a previous Senate version of the bill, Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz voted no to the House bill, taking issue with new provisions. "

With the exception of Houston Rep. John Culberson, all Texas Republicans in Congress at the time voted against the bill. All but three are still in office today."

CORRECTION, 6:58 p.m., Aug. 26, 2017: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Hurricane Sandy was in 2015. It was in 2012.


I remember it well

Telcoman

I remember it too. I agree Cruz is a rectal aperture. But those relief bills passed Congress without his or the other Texas politician support. And they would not have passed had all Republicans acted so heartlessly. So that kinda works against your "all Republicans are scumbags" argument a bit if you think about it without your partisan glasses on. Interestingly, NJ,Ny and Pa, states that had to deal directly with Sandy's destruction, all voluntarily sent help to Texas for Harvey's on-going devastation, despite the arrogant politics.

[Rogue One]

To answer the original thread question, are all Republicans scumbags? The answer is obviously no. But there is one that I'd like to point out during the tragic flooding currently in Houston, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. He's pressing hard for federal disaster relief for Texas. That by itself is perfectly fine and should be done. However this is the same rectal aperture that voted against the same exact kind of federal emergency relief for NJ/NY during the devastation caused by super storm Sandy back in 2013. Fortunately NJ/NY and PA have all dispatched help to Texas despite their elected scumbag.

Too often in the wake of tragedies like this, advocates on both sides of the isle use the tragedy to advance a political agenda.

Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier tweeted: “Unreal. 2/3 of Sandy bill wasn’t emergency spending. It was chock-full of pork. Relief bills should be for direct relief, not pet projects.” “He voted for Sandy relief, just not the package that became law. Final incl extraneous $ for non-relief items.”

“Hurricane Sandy inflicted devastating damage on the East Coast, and Congress appropriately responded with hurricane relief. Unfortunately, cynical politicians in Washington could not resist loading up this relief bill with billions in new spending utterly unrelated to Sandy,” Cruz said in a January 2013 statement. “Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.”

“Two thirds of this spending is not remotely ‘emergency’; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 30% of the authorized funds would be spent in the next 20 months, and over a billion dollars will be spent as late as 2021,” Cruz said.

“This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have, ” Cruz said. “The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.”

[Bubba1]

I'd be interested in seeing the fine print of that relief bill to see if there was unrelated pork added...and by whom. I'm sure both sides do it. I do recognize "spend the money we don't have" argument, but it's routinely ignored by politicians on far less important wasteful stuff.

[Bubba1]

Appears the Washington post, and a few other sources examined what was in that Sandy relief bill, and Cruz' assertion about 2/3 of the bill being unrelated pork. As with most political stuff, there's far more to it than can be summed up in a soundbyte, and unsurprisingly, Cruz looks incorrect. Interesting read. And I still think Mr. Cruz is a jerk. Keep in mind he's done the very same thing (adding personal unrelated pork to bills) many times himself. So it I guess it's only a problem if it doesn't align with his local interests.

f wi w, this is one of the few times I agree with rotund rectal aperture Chris Christie, the Baron of Bridgegate, who called out Cruz on it, and said NJ will assist Texas despite Cruz coming up so small during Sandy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 8cd886ae2c

[telcoman]

If you're not relying on anything from the 'gubmint' and you're capable of making smart decisions, you have very little need for those nitwits. AND, if they're doing something you don't like, but it doesn't materially or physically impact you, mind your own business.

We're going to witness just how well your republican "gubmint' is going to work in Texas after hurricane Harvey.

Between the poor zoning with petro chemical factories located near residential areas, and the lack of flood insurance by homeowners which is only available from FEMA, an agency that most republicans love to hate, Texas will be one huge clusterf**k for many years to come.

Poor planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
Let them fix it themselves.
With over 500,000 flooded vehicles there will be many cheap used cars for sale in the near future for the stupid looking for bargains

All Texas representatives voted against aid for NY & NJ residents from Hurricane Sandy so I say f-em all

Telcoman

[srellim234]

Sorry, guys. I know this is tacky but I can't resist.

Whoever said everything is bigger in Texas was right. Even their natural disasters are bigger!