Clarence Thomas dishonesty

[Hawktawk]

Thomas has been caught red handed having accepted gifts and lavish vacations worth millions , trips on a yacht and private jet over a 20+ year period of time and not reported any of it at all.

The guy is some Billionaire Republican mega donor who collects hitler artifacts as a hobby. In reading about this I've learned there is NO FORMAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR SCOTUS JUSTICES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. However it appears he has violated rules and broken trust and should resign or be removed. I've come to loathe this branch. Too powerful. Too easy to stack. Now corrupt as hell.

[RiverDog]

Thomas has been caught red handed having accepted gifts and lavish vacations worth millions , trips on a yacht and private jet over a 20+ year period of time and not reported any of it at all.

The guy is some Billionaire Republican mega donor who collects hitler artifacts as a hobby. In reading about this I've learned there is NO FORMAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR SCOTUS JUSTICES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. However it appears he has violated rules and broken trust and should resign or be removed. I've come to loathe this branch. Too powerful. Too easy to stack. Now corrupt as hell.

There's not much that can be done about it, though. The only way to remove a SCOTUS justice is through the impeachment process, and in the entire history of our country, only one has ever been removed, and that was in 1804.

[Hawktawk]

Oh I get that river . Just venting . But if Thomas ever had a shred of jurisprudence it’s long gone . Right wing shill . He’s no Scalia . He’d resign for the good of the court if he were an ethical man .

[RiverDog]

Oh I get that river . Just venting . But if Thomas ever had a shred of jurisprudence it’s long gone . Right wing shill . He’s no Scalia . He’d resign for the good of the court if he were an ethical man .

Keep in mind that the justices don't have any governing power. All they can do is vote thumbs up or thumbs down on an issue that is put before them, and Thomas has just one vote out of nine. Although I'm in complete agreement with you about Thomas, I don't see this revelation as having any tangible effect on the court. It's not going to change the way he would have voted as he's going to take the conservative side on every issue.

At 74, Thomas is the oldest SCOTUS justice, so there is a chance that he could resign/retire if there were enough pressure on him. But he probably won't do it under a Democratic administration and Democratic Senate.

[NorthHawk]

Judges (or anyone with some seniority) can influence others who might be on the fence on issues. Sometimes that's all it takes to make hugely impactful decisions.

[RiverDog]

Judges (or anyone with some seniority) can influence others who might be on the fence on issues. Sometimes that's all it takes to make hugely impactful decisions.

I'm not sure how much of a pecking order there is on the SCOTUS bench, but it seems to me that they're pretty independent. Kavanaugh, for example, broke with the conservatives, of whom were led by Thomas, over the pro Trump election lawsuits. Neil Gorsch has broke with them on several issues, including this one:

When Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch broke from his conservative colleagues last month on a case related to tribal sovereignty, he didn't just disagree with them — he bashed their entire understanding of Native law and all but accused them of contorting the law to reach an outcome they wanted.

And those aren't the only cases.

The beauty about the Supreme Court is that they're completely untouchable by anyone, including their colleagues, so they are not as subject to the types of pressures and influences that you're referring to. It's a completely unique situation, at least in this country. I have no worries that Clarence Thomas will improperly influence any of the justices. Heck, even Chief Justice Roberts is having a difficult time keeping his conservative justices from wandering off the reservation.

Bottom line is that I'm not the least bit worried about Clarence Thomas unduly influencing any of his fellow justices. Whether they be conservative or liberal, they all seem to be pretty independent thinkers.

[Hawktawk]

I think the 6-3 court is far outside the American mainstream and particularly the republicans have used incredibly unamerican tactics blocking Garland 440 days then jamming the little cultist Barrett through with 30 million votes cast . The institution sucks , irretrievably broken . That Thomas who would be in jail for tax evasion and accepting improper benefits were he doing any other government job will face no punishment shows how Fd up it is . I hate it worse than any other branch of government .

[RiverDog]

I think the 6-3 court is far outside the American mainstream and particularly the republicans have used incredibly unamerican tactics blocking Garland 440 days then jamming the little cultist Barrett through with 30 million votes cast . The institution sucks , irretrievably broken . That Thomas who would be in jail for tax evasion and accepting improper benefits were he doing any other government job will face no punishment shows how Fd up it is . I hate it worse than any other branch of government .

What you're talking about in your first sentence is a problem with the nomination process, not the court itself, and I agree completely with you. I would be all for a Constitutional amendment that specifies in more detail what the nomination process should look like. If they don't want to hold hearings 3-6 months prior to an election, then get it in writing. Mandate the time frame in which the Senate is to hold hearings. If they refuse to hold hearings, then require an up or down vote be taken without them. If the POTUS doesn't want to make a nomination, hoping that an election will flip the Senate to his party, then let the Senate do it for him. What McConnell was able to do was absurd, and that's coming from a conservative guy.

And yeah, it sucks that Thomas can get away with what he has done. But I am all for setting a high bar for impeaching a SCOTUS justice. If it wasn't set so high, you know damn good and well that the party in power would be impeaching judges over trumped up charges just so they could get this or that issue through the court.

You're never going to be able to design the perfect system that satisfies everyone and addresses every possible situation. The Supreme Court is much like what Winston Churchill once said about democracy: "It's the worst system in the world. Except for all others." We'd be jumping from the frying pan into the fire if we were to go with some other system.

[I-5]

Who says Thomas can 'get away with what he's done'? I don't think it's a done deal. When was the last member of SCOTUS we heard that was accepting unreported gifts of this magnitude, or any magnitude for that matter? He has no defense for his actions or inactions, other than he has incredibly poor discernment. Ironic? Nah.

In his own defense, Thomas dug the hole even deeper:

- He claimed the donor was a close personal friend of 25 years...problematic, since he became a Supreme Court Justice 30 years ago.

- Thomas pointed to '"colleagues and others in the judiciary" advising him he needn't disclose the lavish gifts...really, Clarence? Like who exactly advised you?

[RiverDog]

Who says Thomas can 'get away with what he's done'? I don't think it's a done deal. When was the last member of SCOTUS we heard that was accepting unreported gifts of this magnitude, or any magnitude for that matter? He has no defense for his actions or inactions, other than he has incredibly poor discernment. Ironic? Nah.

In his own defense, Thomas dug the hole even deeper:

- He claimed the donor was a close personal friend of 25 years...problematic, since he became a Supreme Court Justice 30 years ago.

- Thomas pointed to '"colleagues and others in the judiciary" advising him he needn't disclose the lavish gifts...really, Clarence? Like who exactly advised you?

Oh, I agree completely about Thomas. Heck, at my former place of work, we fired people for accepting gifts from vendors and had to report in writing anything with a value greater than $25. You couldn't let them pick up the bill for a dinner unless you got a copy of the receipt. If it were me, I'd kick Thomas to the curb so fast it'd make his head swim.

But the problem is how to discipline him. The only option is impeachment, and that requires a 50% +1 vote in the House and a 2/3's vote in the Senate.

[I-5]

Would you agree with me that if Thomas was a liberal justice who committed the same offenses, he'd have a greater chance of being impeached by fellow dems? They don't protect their own the way the conservatives do...and that's a good thing for the country imo. If only it were that way across the board.

[RiverDog]

Would you agree with me that if Thomas was a liberal justice who committed the same offenses, he'd have a greater chance of being impeached by fellow dems? They don't protect their own the way the conservatives do...and that's a good thing for the country imo. If only it were that way across the board.

I don't see that the Dems would be any quicker to turn on a liberal justice than the R's would a conservative, at least not to the point where they'd vote for impeachment. They'll both take whatever action is politically expedient. They certainly didn't raise an eyebrow on any of the Clinton's conflicts of interest.

Like I said earlier, the biggest problem with SCOTUS is the nomination procedure, not the court itself. From Mitch McConnell's manipulating hearings around the elections to Diane Feinstein and the Dems behavior at the Kavanaugh hearings, the Senate needs to do something to reform their nominating process.

[Aseahawkfan]

Would you agree with me that if Thomas was a liberal justice who committed the same offenses, he'd have a greater chance of being impeached by fellow dems? They don't protect their own the way the conservatives do...and that's a good thing for the country imo. If only it were that way across the board.

I'm not sure what proof you have of this.

Kennedy's were protected for all types of breaches of behavior. Democrats protected Bill Clinton. Democrats protected Hilary Clinton when she torpedoed Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Democrats didn't do anything to Pelosi for the insider trading her husband was obviously engaged in. They haven't done much to anyone in their party including Hunter Biden for his ethical breaches. Only lamb I saw tossed to the slaughter was Al Franken, who didn't deserve it.

Both parties protect their own and I don't know why you think the Democrats somehow do it less.

Hell, the D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was re-elected with Democratic support in D.C. after he lost for being indicted and went to prison for drug charges.

Both parties covered up the Jeffrey Epstein stuff given he was well documented to have spent time with several Democratic supporters as well as Republicans including Trump and Clinton.

D.C. has rules. Both parties follow them and have tons of dirt on each other. Step outside the rules too much, then they might toss you to the public slaughter. Stay within the rules, both parties will circle the wagons and let you get away with a lot.

[Aseahawkfan]

Thomas should be impeached and removed. Likely won't be, but maybe forced to retire behind the scenes if a Republican wins the next election. Mitch McConnel's entire claim to fame has been stacking the court. I doubt he removes one of his conservative justices unless he can replace him with another conservative.

[RiverDog]

Thomas should be impeached and removed. Likely won't be, but maybe forced to retire behind the scenes if a Republican wins the next election. Mitch McConnel's entire claim to fame has been stacking the court. I doubt he removes one of his conservative justices unless he can replace him with another conservative.

Yes, I would vote for impeachment, too, simply based on principle. If a person making $50k a year can lose their job over a conflict of interest, the same should go for the highest court in the land.

But in reality, it isn't going to make any difference in the court's decisions. It's a much larger issue with legislators, as they can influence policy decisions. All SCOTUS does is give a thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever is put before them.

[NorthHawk]

But in reality, it isn't going to make any difference in the court's decisions. It's a much larger issue with legislators, as they can influence policy decisions. All SCOTUS does is give a thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever is put before them.

But if Biden gets to put a new Judge in place of Thomas, it could begin to balance out the power of the minority now influencing the courts and maybe have less societal turmoil as a result.
He's only 1 of the members, but some of the others might be swayed at times and Roberts could regain some sense of direction over that Court even though he's a Conservative.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yes, I would vote for impeachment, too, simply based on principle. If a person making $50k a year can lose their job over a conflict of interest, the same should go for the highest court in the land.

But in reality, it isn't going to make any difference in the court's decisions. It's a much larger issue with legislators, as they can influence policy decisions. All SCOTUS does is give a thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever is put before them.

Won't affect much, but still be nice to see some of these political figures answer for their scumbag behavior. Seems at this point politicians use their power to curry favor with the wealthy and increase their wealth with rare exception.

I'd like to see Trump in jail. Hunter Biden prosecuted. Clarence Thomas removed. Congress barred from stock trading any stock which government money they vote for forms a substantial amount of their revenue. More transparency, less of this finding out after the fact corruption and such.

[Aseahawkfan]

But if Biden gets to put a new Judge in place of Thomas, it could begin to balance out the power of the minority now influencing the courts and maybe have less societal turmoil as a result.
He's only 1 of the members, but some of the others might be swayed at times and Roberts could regain some sense of direction over that Court even though he's a Conservative.

Most conservatives no longer consider Roberts a conservative. I hear as much crying from the Republicans when the so called conservative court makes a ruling they don't like, especially Orange Loon.

[I-5]

Proof? How many Democrats tried to talk Franken out of resigning? Rather, it was leaders of his own party that essentially forced him out. The accusations against him, even if they were to be true, are a drop in the bucket compared to the unsavory behavior the 45th POTUS has been associated with. Or Gaetz.

[RiverDog]

Proof? How many Democrats tried to talk Franken out of resigning? Rather, it was leaders of his own party that essentially forced him out. The accusations against him, even if they were to be true, are a drop in the bucket compared to the unsavory behavior the 45th POTUS has been associated with. Or Gaetz.

First of all, Thomas's scandal involves a conflict of interest, Franken's was a sex scandal, so let's compare apples to apples. Besides, I'm not sure if Franken is a good example, anyway. You're talking about offending a solid Democratic voter constituency, ie biting the hand that feeds him. Plus, Minnesota had a Dem Governor who would appoint his successor, and Franken wasn't that popular in the state to begin with, barely winning his first term after a very controversial election, winning by .01%. It's pretty easy to dump someone like that.

What's a better example, IMO, is the Clintons and their many conflicts of interests and unsavory behavior. Here's just one example:

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal notes that while the (Clinton) foundation also forswore donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was helming the State Department, "that didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows." Specifically:

One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.

All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/388324/

I'm sure that you'll admit that the Secretary of State has a little more influence over policy decisions than does a single SCOTUS justice. And it didn't stop the Dems from nominating her in 2016.

So please, let's not get into a pissing contest over which party is more corrupt than the other. It would be a "My stepsister isn't as ugly as yours" type of argument.

And I'm not comparing anyone to #45 or his pack of loonies.

[NorthHawk]

Most conservatives no longer consider Roberts a conservative. I hear as much crying from the Republicans when the so called conservative court makes a ruling they don't like, especially Orange Loon.

That pretty much tells you how far to the right the Republicans have gone. And it's the minority of extremists that are pushing that direction, but the others in that party are too weak or scared/cowardly to push back.

[RiverDog]

Most conservatives no longer consider Roberts a conservative. I hear as much crying from the Republicans when the so called conservative court makes a ruling they don't like, especially Orange Loon.

That pretty much tells you how far to the right the Republicans have gone. And it's the minority of extremists that are pushing that direction, but the others in that party are too weak or scared/cowardly to push back.

Roberts has never been a hard-liner conservative in the same mold as Alito and Thomas. The change has been in how he's been perceived once Kennedy retired, Roberts inherited the ideological center of the court, and as more conservatives have been added to the bench.

And while I agree that the hard line conservatives are pushing the party to the right, the same can be said about hard line liberals pushing their party to the left.

[NorthHawk]

Not true at all about the left pushing to the left. At least not to the point that they've been successful.
What has happened is the R's went far right then demanded the D's come to a compromise - which meant moving to the right. The R's kept doing it and here we are.
The D's are all talk but no action as part of their base actually believes in a lot of the the Rs BS both socially and economically.

[RiverDog]

Not true at all about the left pushing to the left. At least not to the point that they've been successful.
What has happened is the R's went far right then demanded the D's come to a compromise - which meant moving to the right. The R's kept doing it and here we are.
The D's are all talk but no action as part of their base actually believes in a lot of the the Rs BS both socially and economically.

Here's a good piece from the left of center Brookings Institute on how the Democratic Party has become more liberal, along with some graphics inside the article:

The current condition of the Democratic Party presents an apparent paradox. On the one hand, the party’s ideological composition has shifted to the left. In the quarter century since Bill Clinton’s first term, moderates’ share of the party has fallen from a plurality of 48% to just 35% while liberals’ share has doubled from 25% to 51%. 2020 was the first time ever that liberals constituted an outright majority of the party.

On the other hand, moderates contributed more votes to Joe Biden’s victory than did liberals, as has been the case for winning Democratic presidential candidates for decades.

The difference between these two measures is easily explained. Despite expanding by 6 percentage points since Jimmy Carter’s defeat in 1980, self-identified liberals still constitute the smallest portion of the electorate, as has been the case for four decades—as the following table indicates.

While most liberals are Democrats, many moderates are either Republicans or Independents. (In 2020, nearly half of Independents described themselves as moderate, compared to just 20% who think of themselves as liberal.) Biden did slightly better among liberals and Democrats in 2020 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, but he did much better than she did among moderates and Independents. He increased the Democrats’ share of the moderate vote from 52 to 64%, expanding their margin from 12 percentage points to 30 points. And he increased Democrats’ share of Independents from 42 to 54%, turning a 4-point loss in 2016 into a 13-point advantage in 2020.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... -the-left/

[mykc14]

Not true at all about the left pushing to the left. At least not to the point that they've been successful.
What has happened is the R's went far right then demanded the D's come to a compromise - which meant moving to the right. The R's kept doing it and here we are.
The D's are all talk but no action as part of their base actually believes in a lot of the the Rs BS both socially and economically.

I think the extremes of both parties are problematic and our current political climate is creating a great divide between the two. The average Republican and Democrat 20 years ago were close enough ideologically that they could easily work together. That's not the case now, but to say that the Republican's are the cause of this is just not true. Both parties are equally to blame, in fact if you look at the late 90's the average Republican moved so far left they really would have been considered moderates. As the Republicans moved left the average Democrat also moved left. Really the average Democrat has done nothing but move left since the mid 90's. Republicans began to move to the right and Democrats began to move further left. The major issue is that we are so far apart that ideologically we can't work together. We need a great unifier and we need it quickly.

This is a pretty interesting article discussing the change in American political values over time.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts ... 1994-2017/

The original charts come from Pew Research:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/in ... 1994-2017/

It is really interesting to see what happens when you look at "politically active" people.

[RiverDog]

I think the extremes of both parties are problematic and our current political climate is creating a great divide between the two. The average Republican and Democrat 20 years ago were close enough ideologically that they could easily work together. That's not the case now, but to say that the Republican's are the cause of this is just not true. Both parties are equally to blame, in fact if you look at the late 90's the average Republican moved so far left they really would have been considered moderates. As the Republicans moved left the average Democrat also moved left. Really the average Democrat has done nothing but move left since the mid 90's. Republicans began to move to the right and Democrats began to move further left. The major issue is that we are so far apart that ideologically we can't work together. We need a great unifier and we need it quickly.

This is a pretty interesting article discussing the change in American political values over time.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts ... 1994-2017/

The original charts come from Pew Research:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/in ... 1994-2017/

It is really interesting to see what happens when you look at "politically active" people.

I agree completely. Although you can legitimately complain that it was a good ole boys network, ie all white and all male, politicians of the 60's, 70's, and 80's literally drank out of the same bottle and slept with the same women. I've heard it said that after Congress would adjourn for the day, that they'd all head across the street into a tavern. Now, they don't speak to each other and are quite literally mortal enemies.

It's not just Congress, either. The entire country is divided, and although I tend to blame the far right, namely Donald Trump, a little more than I do the left, they're both to blame for this impasse.

[Aseahawkfan]

Not true at all about the left pushing to the left. At least not to the point that they've been successful.
What has happened is the R's went far right then demanded the D's come to a compromise - which meant moving to the right. The R's kept doing it and here we are.
The D's are all talk but no action as part of their base actually believes in a lot of the the Rs BS both socially and economically.

Most Rs are not far right.

This is almost all political manipulated by the media in both parties.

Do you ever look at what each party is selling the other party as?

1. Immigration: Rs sell the Dems as the party of no enforcement and open borders. The Dems rarely push back against this. Most Rs want the laws followed and respect for the borders.

Dems sell the Rs as anti-immigrant and they want no immigration. Lots of Rs are married to immigrants, have mixed children, and want reasonable border enforcement with no real hate towards immigrants.

But reasonable people don't make for good TV.

2. Crime: Dems are the defund the police party who want to legalize drugs and let them run wild in America.

Republicans are racist, pro-cop militants looking to have unfair law enforcement.

Most Rs and Dems don't fall into either category. Dems don't like living in crime ridden neighborhoods any more than Rs, but reasonable changes to law enforcement get sold according to party lines.

We could go on and on about what each side is selling. Bottom line is political media keeping people divided helps keep voters firmly in each party viewing the other side as stupid, bad for the country, and unable to have discussions about changes that would improve the nation.

[Aseahawkfan]

Proof? How many Democrats tried to talk Franken out of resigning? Rather, it was leaders of his own party that essentially forced him out. The accusations against him, even if they were to be true, are a drop in the bucket compared to the unsavory behavior the 45th POTUS has been associated with. Or Gaetz.

Way to cherry pick while ignoring all the other cover ups and Democratic scandals.

[NorthHawk]

Most Rs are not far right.

This is almost all political manipulated by the media in both parties.

All you have to do is look at the legislation that has been passed from the local level to past presidencies. How much of the extreme agenda has been opposed by 'Moderate Republicans'? Not a whole lot, and they could put an end to this kind of stuff, but refuse to do so. The conclusion that has to be made is they are complicit in this agenda. Economically there's no question the country has been moved far from center to the right. It's been a slow progression and the results are what we see today with the huge gap between the extremely rich and the average working person trying to get by.

[I-5]

Way to cherry pick while ignoring all the other cover ups and Democratic scandals.

You asked for an example. I gave a huge example that affected national politics and involved multiple power players. Show me examples of similarly prominent Republicans turning on their own and letting them fall. I’m open to learning. Thanks.

[RiverDog]

Way to cherry pick while ignoring all the other cover ups and Democratic scandals.

You asked for an example. I gave a huge example that affected national politics and involved multiple power players. Show me examples of similarly prominent Republicans turning on their own and letting them fall. I’m open to learning. Thanks.

Depending on your POV, you can look at Franken's situation in two different ways, of which you parroted the Dem/lib spin. Another POV could be that the Dems didn't have the balls to defend Franken because they were deathly afraid of the blow back from women's groups, so they left him to the wolves. And as I pointed out, Franken wasn't all that popular and the Dems controlled the governorship, so they weren't going to lose the seat and would still have the advantage of the incumbency when the special election was held.

Besides, you're comparing apples with oranges. The OP was about Clarence Thomas's dishonesty, his conflicts of interests, not about sex scandals, which admittedly don't carry as much weight with Republicans as it does Dems because they're not as big of a constituency as they are with the Dems. It's not about morality, it's about votes....for both parties.

I suggested that Thomas's current scandal wasn't as bad as Hillary Clinton's because a single SCOTUS justice can't influence policy decisions the way a SOS can.

[Aseahawkfan]

All you have to do is look at the legislation that has been passed from the local level to past presidencies. How much of the extreme agenda has been opposed by 'Moderate Republicans'? Not a whole lot, and they could put an end to this kind of stuff, but refuse to do so. The conclusion that has to be made is they are complicit in this agenda. Economically there's no question the country has been moved far from center to the right. It's been a slow progression and the results are what we see today with the huge gap between the extremely rich and the average working person trying to get by.

And if you look at the left, you don't see a moderate agenda either. So not sure what you're talking about or what you consider moderate.

In Washington State, they are once again trying an assault weapons ban with a nebulous idea of what an assault weapon is.

Laws have been passed changing what were once serious property crimes to misdemeanors so certain property crime acts are no longer felonies. But setting the theft threshold at 1000 dollars for a felony is horsecrap encouraging shoplifting and property crime.

Then the lack of serious drug enforcement for heroin and the overlooking of homeless encampments in major cities.

You think the legislation being passed is what? Moderate left? Many of us view it as completely unreasonable and ridiculous legislation meant to create a very unpleasant living environment. We don't want heroin addicts begging outside of stores. We don't want constant shoplifting and worrying about property crime. We're tired of the thieves and such taking advantage of laws that make their behavior misdemeanor crimes. They can steal up to a 1000 dollar TV and get a slap on the wrist? That is not what many Americans consider moderate.

That doesn't even begin to mention the prepubescent transgender crap. A prepubescent kid should not be receiving hormone therapy for being "misgendered." How is that even entering their head unless they have access to social media with no limitations from their parents? Then you have Democrats supporting this? Yet if my kid came up to me and said, "Hey, I want to be a bodybuilder now. Can you get me some steroids?" The left would flip out as that was extreme.

So you have these Republicans that vote for what they consider the only politicians offering a more sensible approach to governance and this is what you get because the policies by the left are anything but moderate.

And I'm not sure what you mean by center economic policies. Democrats seem to have the attitude they're owed something. The left never bothers to try to appeal to people like myself. You know hard working people that grew up in poor families but decided to save, invest, and manage money intelligently so they didn't end up living paycheck to paycheck because they blow money on crap, engage in a lot of vices, don't work hard, don't learn a quality skill, and manage their health, finances, and life badly.

Do the Democrats have any requirements for their help? Do you to have show any sort of sense of financial responsibility? Or do we have to accept the lie...and yes it is a huge lie...that we're all somehow subject to being used by the wealthy? I literally am proof of this complete horsecrap lie. I do not accept that America doesn't provide an environment where an intelligent person managing their money well even if from a poor family can't live well. I literally do this. It's not even that hard. You can save, invest, and find jobs and income very easily in America with even moderate effort. Yet Democrats are constantly trying to claim exploitation by wealthy parties, even though I and many of my friends with moderate incomes have done just fine by following very simple, easy to follow financial principles of save money, buy a home or other solid asset, put in work, and build wealth over time.

Why don't Democrats teach this at all? Why are they constantly trying to sell us that we're exploited, need higher taxes, and are all poor? It's just horsecrap. Democrats need to show they have standards of expected behavior for financial management before they expect us all to toss in our money we managed intelligently to fix what are not financial issues, but issues of personal responsibility with the citizens.

I don't care if you want to spend your time smoking dope and playing video games at home or parents want to let their kids live at home smoking dope and playing video games, but I don't want to have to pay for that garbage with tax money when I don't engage in that behavior. It's not morally right. It shows Democrats are not first expecting smart financial management from citizens before they sell them on the tax and spend fixes for their economic issues.

I'm a very reasonable person. I don't like what a lot of the Republicans are doing. But claiming the Democrats are moderates is completely horsecrap. They are not and haven't been for some time. You might find a few moderates in each party, but the overall parties are driven by special interests and extremists with political media selling conflict to keep these groups voting for the party that seems less insane to them.

I'd be quite happy to vote for politicians offering what I want to see. I'd be open to gun reform somewhere between "Ban all the bad weapons" to "No gun limitations at all." Neither fits the 2nd Amendment or manages weapon ownership in the way a free nation should. As I stated I seriously need to see higher expectations and standards of behavior expected by the Democrats. I know the Republicans behave just as badly, but they at least give some lip service towards behavioral standards. I'd rather see some real behavioral standards upheld and not just the lip service or lack of anything by both political parties.

The governance by these two parties sucks. All I see from both political sides supporters is people who think they're better than the other side, while nothing real is getting done to make America a better place to live. Just a bunch of yapping with no real movement on policies to improve things or maintain American cultural standards, financial standards, or much of the inherent ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the nation was built to encourage.

[RiverDog]

All you have to do is look at the legislation that has been passed from the local level to past presidencies. How much of the extreme agenda has been opposed by 'Moderate Republicans'? Not a whole lot, and they could put an end to this kind of stuff, but refuse to do so. The conclusion that has to be made is they are complicit in this agenda. Economically there's no question the country has been moved far from center to the right. It's been a slow progression and the results are what we see today with the huge gap between the extremely rich and the average working person trying to get by.

And if you look at the left, you don't see a moderate agenda either. So not sure what you're talking about or what you consider moderate.

In Washington State, they are once again trying an assault weapons ban with a nebulous idea of what an assault weapon is.

Laws have been passed changing what were once serious property crimes to misdemeanors so certain property crime acts are no longer felonies. But setting the theft threshold at 1000 dollars for a felony is horsecrap encouraging shoplifting and property crime.

Then the lack of serious drug enforcement for heroin and the overlooking of homeless encampments in major cities.

You think the legislation being passed is what? Moderate left? Many of us view it as completely unreasonable and ridiculous legislation meant to create a very unpleasant living environment. We don't want heroin addicts begging outside of stores. We don't want constant shoplifting and worrying about property crime. We're tired of the thieves and such taking advantage of laws that make their behavior misdemeanor crimes. They can steal up to a 1000 dollar TV and get a slap on the wrist? That is not what many Americans consider moderate.

That doesn't even begin to mention the prepubescent transgender crap. A prepubescent kid should not be receiving hormone therapy for being "misgendered." How is that even entering their head unless they have access to social media with no limitations from their parents? Then you have Democrats supporting this? Yet if my kid came up to me and said, "Hey, I want to be a bodybuilder now. Can you get me some steroids?" The left would flip out as that was extreme.

So you have these Republicans that vote for what they consider the only politicians offering a more sensible approach to governance and this is what you get because the policies by the left are anything but moderate.

And I'm not sure what you mean by center economic policies. Democrats seem to have the attitude they're owed something. The left never bothers to try to appeal to people like myself. You know hard working people that grew up in poor families but decided to save, invest, and manage money intelligently so they didn't end up living paycheck to paycheck because they blow money on crap, engage in a lot of vices, don't work hard, don't learn a quality skill, and manage their health, finances, and life badly.

Do the Democrats have any requirements for their help? Do you to have show any sort of sense of financial responsibility? Or do we have to accept the lie...and yes it is a huge lie...that we're all somehow subject to being used by the wealthy? I literally am proof of this complete horsecrap lie. I do not accept that America doesn't provide an environment where an intelligent person managing their money well even if from a poor family can't live well. I literally do this. It's not even that hard. You can save, invest, and find jobs and income very easily in America with even moderate effort. Yet Democrats are constantly trying to claim exploitation by wealthy parties, even though I and many of my friends with moderate incomes have done just fine by following very simple, easy to follow financial principles of save money, buy a home or other solid asset, put in work, and build wealth over time.

Why don't Democrats teach this at all? Why are they constantly trying to sell us that we're exploited, need higher taxes, and are all poor? It's just horsecrap. Democrats need to show they have standards of expected behavior for financial management before they expect us all to toss in our money we managed intelligently to fix what are not financial issues, but issues of personal responsibility with the citizens.

I don't care if you want to spend your time smoking dope and playing video games at home or parents want to let their kids live at home smoking dope and playing video games, but I don't want to have to pay for that garbage with tax money when I don't engage in that behavior. It's not morally right. It shows Democrats are not first expecting smart financial management from citizens before they sell them on the tax and spend fixes for their economic issues.

I'm a very reasonable person. I don't like what a lot of the Republicans are doing. But claiming the Democrats are moderates is completely horsecrap. They are not and haven't been for some time. You might find a few moderates in each party, but the overall parties are driven by special interests and extremists with political media selling conflict to keep these groups voting for the party that seems less insane to them.

I'd be quite happy to vote for politicians offering what I want to see. I'd be open to gun reform somewhere between "Ban all the bad weapons" to "No gun limitations at all." Neither fits the 2nd Amendment or manages weapon ownership in the way a free nation should. As I stated I seriously need to see higher expectations and standards of behavior expected by the Democrats. I know the Republicans behave just as badly, but they at least give some lip service towards behavioral standards. I'd rather see some real behavioral standards upheld and not just the lip service or lack of anything by both political parties.

The governance by these two parties sucks. All I see from both political sides supporters is people who think they're better than the other side, while nothing real is getting done to make America a better place to live. Just a bunch of yapping with no real movement on policies to improve things or maintain American cultural standards, financial standards, or much of the inherent ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the nation was built to encourage.

Don't forget student loan forgiveness. If giving $10K-$20K to a married couple making a quarter million dollars a year isn't part of an extreme agenda, I don't know what is.

[Aseahawkfan]

Don't forget student loan forgiveness. If giving $10K-$20K to a married couple making a quarter million dollars a year isn't part of an extreme agenda, I don't know what is.

I'll give a crap about that when the corporate tax breaks and welfare stop. I don't hear you complaining about the government spending billions to make sure billionaires with their money in SVB bank don't lose any money from the mismanagement of that bank.

Good old Democrats that claim they really care about the working folk. And good old Riverdog really caring about that student loan forgiveness all those students should pay for, while he quietly sits there saying nothing while millionaires and billionaires with their money in badly managed banks get bailed out for far more than 10,000 dollars.

Once you start caring about the corporate welfare, then you can talk about the 10,000 some decent income working folk are getting...oh wait, they aren't getting it. The Republicans are blocking that, while both parties are all in to make sure all those millionaires and billionaires with money in failed banks to due terrible money management are made whole.

Lots of screaming about how unfair it is for student loan forgiveness for regular people, not a peep when millionaires and billionaires get bailed out far beyond what the deposit insurance is supposed to pay. Birds tweeting and roses for the Democrats when they take care of the rich making sure bad business management is never punished in this nation.

But Riverdog's gotta make sure those with student loans justly pay those funds back, while people with serious money are well protected from losing it due to any kind of financial mismanagement. We can't have that, can we?

The Democratic voters just keep on voting for the Democrats believing they care more about the working folk than they do the wealthy. Republican voters keep on voting for Republicans believing they practice free market capitalism.

Did I miss that bank bailout thread Riverdog posted angry about all the billions of dollars to be paid to failed bank depositors using government funds? I don't see that thread? Where is it RD? Where'st he angry thread with all the Republicans on this forum pissed off about government money bailing out people who don't need it or deserve it? It's real unfair.

[RiverDog]

Don't forget student loan forgiveness. If giving $10K-$20K to a married couple making a quarter million dollars a year isn't part of an extreme agenda, I don't know what is.

I'll give a crap about that when the corporate tax breaks and welfare stop. I don't hear you complaining about the government spending billions to make sure billionaires with their money in SVB bank don't lose any money from the mismanagement of that bank.

Good old Democrats that claim they really care about the working folk. And good old Riverdog really caring about that student loan forgiveness all those students should pay for, while he quietly sits there saying nothing while millionaires and billionaires with their money in badly managed banks get bailed out for far more than 10,000 dollars.

Once you start caring about the corporate welfare, then you can talk about the 10,000 some decent income working folk are getting...oh wait, they aren't getting it. The Republicans are blocking that, while both parties are all in to make sure all those millionaires and billionaires with money in failed banks to due terrible money management are made whole.

Lots of screaming about how unfair it is for student loan forgiveness for regular people, not a peep when millionaires and billionaires get bailed out far beyond what the deposit insurance is supposed to pay. Birds tweeting and roses for the Democrats when they take care of the rich making sure bad business management is never punished in this nation.

But Riverdog's gotta make sure those with student loans justly pay those funds back, while people with serious money are well protected from losing it due to any kind of financial mismanagement. We can't have that, can we?

The Democratic voters just keep on voting for the Democrats believing they care more about the working folk than they do the wealthy. Republican voters keep on voting for Republicans believing they practice free market capitalism.

Did I miss that bank bailout thread Riverdog posted angry about all the billions of dollars to be paid to failed bank depositors using government funds? I don't see that thread? Where is it RD? Where'st he angry thread with all the Republicans on this forum pissed off about government money bailing out people who don't need it or deserve it? It's real unfair.

Come on, man! Even Forrest Gump knows that two wrongs don't make a right.

I didn't ask you to give a crap, I was adding to your reply to North Hawk that the student loan forgiveness program was part of an extreme Democratic agenda. But so long as you feel intent on going another round on it, I'll give you a couple of real-life examples of some of the reasons why I'm vehemently opposed to it.

My daughter went through 7 years of college, 5 at EWU and 2 at a community college. Since she was a baby, we had been saving for her education. When she was 5 years old, I signed up for monthly installments on a pre-paid tuition in a state sponsored program called GET, or Guaranteed Education Tuition. I was single at the time with just the one income, but over the years, I was able to put away enough credits to pay for her tuition for all but her last year of college. Since her mom was claiming her as a dependent on her tax return and was considered low income, we were able to get some grant money to cover most of her room and board expenses. Her mom supplied her with a car, a 10-12 year old Honda Accord and paid for the insurance. Plus, her grandma wanted to do something to help, so she kicked in and bought her books for her each quarter. My daughter was very thrifty, didn't go on any spring break vacations and worked during the summers as an in home care giver to make enough money to take care of any additional expenses. She graduated from college, completed two years of nursing school and became an RN. She had to take out a relatively small loan, around $5K, but she quickly paid it off before she assumed any other debt.

So you tell me: How fair is it to my daughter and her family, who did everything right by saving for her education and conserving on expenses on much, much less than the $1/4 million annual income, even when you adjust it for inflation, that Biden wants to give a $10-$20K handout to?

And I can guarantee you that there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other families that over the years, that were in very similar circumstances and got our kids through college with a minimal amount of debt. It's a hugely unfair act.

Another case in point: My nephew, now an MD, is completing his residency in Portland and is eligible for the bailout. $10K-$20 represents about 3%-5% of what he owes in student loans. Do you honestly think that piddly ass amount is going to make a difference? It's laughable. What good does it do to forgive that small of a percentage if it isn't going to result in any kind of noticeable improvement in one's financial situation? t's a complete waste of money.

If we're going to throw around that kind of money, rather than giving it away to those that don't need it, I'd rather give it to first time home buyers with incomes less than $50k. Perhaps that would help with some of the homeless problem. Or plow it back into the colleges and use it to give more scholarships and grants to those that need them.

[Aseahawkfan]

Come on, man! Even Forrest Gump knows that two wrongs don't make a right.

I didn't ask you to give a crap, I was adding to your reply to North Hawk that the student loan forgiveness program was part of an extreme Democratic agenda. But so long as you feel intent on going another round on it, I'll give you a couple of real-life examples of some of the reasons why I'm vehemently opposed to it.

My daughter went through 7 years of college, 5 at EWU and 2 at a community college. Since she was a baby, we had been saving for her education. When she was 5 years old, I signed up for monthly installments on a pre-paid tuition in a state sponsored program called GET, or Guaranteed Education Tuition. I was single at the time with just the one income, but over the years, I was able to put away enough credits to pay for her tuition for all but her last year of college. Since her mom was claiming her as a dependent on her tax return and was considered low income, we were able to get some grant money to cover most of her room and board expenses. Her mom supplied her with a car, a 10-12 year old Honda Accord and paid for the insurance. Plus, her grandma wanted to do something to help, so she kicked in and bought her books for her each quarter. My daughter was very thrifty, didn't go on any spring break vacations and worked during the summers as an in home care giver to make enough money to take care of any additional expenses. She graduated from college, completed two years of nursing school and became an RN. She had to take out a relatively small loan, around $5K, but she quickly paid it off before she assumed any other debt.

So you tell me: How fair is it to my daughter and her family, who did everything right by saving for her education and conserving on expenses on much, much less than the $1/4 million annual income, even when you adjust it for inflation, that Biden wants to give a $10-$20K handout to?

And I can guarantee you that there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other families that over the years, that were in very similar circumstances and got our kids through college with a minimal amount of debt. It's a hugely unfair act.

Another case in point: My nephew, now an MD, is completing his residency in Portland and is eligible for the bailout. $10K-$20 represents about 3%-5% of what he owes in student loans. Do you honestly think that piddly ass amount is going to make a difference? It's laughable. What good does it do to forgive that small of a percentage if it isn't going to result in any kind of noticeable improvement in one's financial situation? t's a complete waste of money.

If we're going to throw around that kind of money, rather than giving it away to those that don't need it, I'd rather give it to first time home buyers with incomes less than $50k. Perhaps that would help with some of the homeless problem. Or plow it back into the colleges and use it to give more scholarships and grants to those that need them.

Fix the other far, far, far worse wrong before you complain about non-millionaires getting a 10,000 dollar pittance. You don't even post a thread on it. Literally a far worse overreach of government power and far more money than a student loan program, but here you are complaining that regular working folk are somehow getting some unfair benefit while crickets when the rich are getting taken care of.

You have all this BS about what's fair and unfair for working people or folks making a decent income as you call it getting a lousy 10 thousand back, but you got this weak ass "two rights don't make a wrong" argument for rich people getting bailed out for putting their money in a select bank doing risky investments to generate a higher rate of return on their deposited money.

Until you fix the wrong that keeps on happening whether lower tax rates, tons of tax breaks for the wealthy, and people getting bailed out making millions and billions, seems you only expect working class people to do what is "fair" and uphold the moral rightness of the nation. Wealthy people getting constantly bailed out to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money you don't post a thread about it and the political media for either party barely covers it.

You wonder why some of us believe in conspiracies. Because they are happening in the open, in front of your face, but you don't believe them because they aren't getting reported on.

But right now the Republicans and Democrats behind the scenes got a bunch of calls from billionaire friends to bail their asses out for their risky high rates of return at a specialized bank that is going to be bailed out by tax payer dollars and you're trying to make sure those folks who didn't have parents wealthy enough to pay for the education without loans don't get their 10,000 dollars while rich millionaires and billionaires are getting bailed out for putting their money in a bank making risky bets on the stock market.

So how about you fix that wrong rather than worrying about a measly 10 k to people who didn't get born to rich enough parents? How about that?

[RiverDog]

Fix the other far, far, far worse wrong before you complain about non-millionaires getting a 10,000 dollar pittance.

No. You fix what you can fix, and let other problems take care of themselves. You don't refuse to fix the squeaky door because the roof needs to be replaced.

And how do you know that the money is going to non-millionaires? The threshold is $.25M in annual income, not net worth. It's very possible that we're giving a lot of that money to millionaires, or those like my nephew who will in a very short amount of time become millionaires.

[NorthHawk]

Don't forget student loan forgiveness. If giving $10K-$20K to a married couple making a quarter million dollars a year isn't part of an extreme agenda, I don't know what is.

And giving billionaires $750 Billion per year in tax breaks isn’t?
At least many of those with education loans need relief.

You’re being hoodwinked by the extreme right into believing that it’s a good deal.
The last 40 years have provided the largest transfer of wealth in history and the people getting screwed have been convinced that it’s in their best interest to give it away.

That’s the extreme agenda.

[RiverDog]

Don't forget student loan forgiveness. If giving $10K-$20K to a married couple making a quarter million dollars a year isn't part of an extreme agenda, I don't know what is.

And giving billionaires $750 Billion per year in tax breaks isn’t?
At least many of those with education loans need relief.

You’re being hoodwinked by the extreme right into believing that it’s a good deal.
The last 40 years have provided the largest transfer of wealth in history and the people getting screwed have been convinced that it’s in their best interest to give it away.

That’s the extreme agenda.

It looks like you need the same "two wrongs don't make a right" lesson. You don't use abuses in one part of the system to justify abuses in another.

And as far as some people in need getting that money, you're right. Some are. But why not simply lower the threshold to $50/$100K? The median household income in the US is $70K. It wouldn't have been hard. Do you honestly think that a married couple making a quarter million dollars a year, within the top 5% of all household incomes, needs a $10k break on a student loan?

You guys complain about billionaires getting tax breaks and the disparity between the haves and have nots, but you're completely OK with giving $10K to someone in the top 5% of all wage earners.

[mykc14]

And giving billionaires $750 Billion per year in tax breaks isn’t?
At least many of those with education loans need relief.

You’re being hoodwinked by the extreme right into believing that it’s a good deal.
The last 40 years have provided the largest transfer of wealth in history and the people getting screwed have been convinced that it’s in their best interest to give it away.

That’s the extreme agenda.

Couldn't it be argued that minimum wage being moved up to almost $16 an hour in liberal states is a far left agenda that doesn't seem to be opposed by the Dems? ASEA gave you a ton of examples of Dem's not opposing far left agenda items. Both sides do it, that's the whole issue. A perfect example can be seen in a Bill Washington State just passed (Senate Bill 5599). This Bill will allow the state to take control of kids who want "Gender Affirming Care" without parental consent or even knowledge. A 9 year old kid who thinks they are trans can run-away, be taken to a "host-home" and receive hormone blockers and eventually surgery without a parent even knowing where they are. EVERY Democrat voted YES on this Bill. Wouldn't this qualify as extreme left ideology? The problem is people who point the finger one way. It's all the Democrats fault... it the extreme right's fault. No, it's both parties and they are both doing everything they can to manipulate us so that they can stay in power and make as much money off of us as possible. If you can't see the negative effects of liberal agenda in liberal states that is an issue.