Miriam
they are not only prejudiced against Muslims
they are prejudiced against black people to.
They are thinks that only them religion or them ethnic group should bee in
them country and no body als.
But when they are cam in other society then,
they are want all rights for them self,
what same rights
don't let other ethnic group or religion,
typical for European.
When you talk to them you thinks this is very nice people
and they are front of you feel sorry, but when they go far way from you jus
say who care and have torly defrents opinion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 8:38 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Republican Leadership? Face It, That's an
Oxymoron!
True, but Europeans aren't really any better. They don't like immigrants and
refugees. People in England and France have always discriminated against
immigrants from Africa and certainly, they are prejudiced against Muslims.
And we wouldn't have Israel today if it weren't for the centuries of
anti-semitism in Europe. Europe has always been kind to African Americans,
however.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of abdulah aga
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:34 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Republican Leadership? Face It, That's an
Oxymoron!
To day is everything
normal.
Media from European country say that Trump hate Muslim, Hispanic and other
emigrants.
No I can say this is not Trump's faults,
this is republican strategy.
So I have to say not only republican strategy,
wi all say trump hate this or hate other.
So who's is faults for situation in USA?
Media and bof political party in USA.
When bof political party make situation what is right now with media help,
all party and many USA people was support that strategy,
and that time was competition who will more hate Muslim,
but right now when African American is in same situation and Hispanic people
all say this is racism beck time was not racism and was not Islamo phobia.
So that why I don't blame Trump for his behave.
So if you see that he lead in his campaign you can tell that Americken
people like that,
they are lake to hate other or making slaver other.
Many American people hate all who is not
white, who is not crischen,
so Eder you like or not but this is picture of USA today.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:58 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Republican Leadership? Face It, That's an
Oxymoron!
Boardman writes: "Making fun of the assortment of Republican candidates for
President as some sort of clown show is easy enough to do, which is probably
one reason so many people do it. But that sort of ridicule is so
insubstantial, so irrelevant, that it ends up serving as a form of
endorsement of the motley crew, as if, underneath it all, these are actually
serious people."
Donald Trump and Jeb Bush tussled during the most recent Republican
presidential debate, held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. (photo:
CNN)
Republican Leadership? Face It, That's an Oxymoron!
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
18 September 15
Polls suggest America might elect a joke as President
Making fun of the assortment of Republican candidates for President as some
sort of clown show is easy enough to do, which is probably one reason so
many people do it. But that sort of ridicule is so insubstantial, so
irrelevant, that it ends up serving as a form of endorsement of the motley
crew, as if, underneath it all, these are actually serious people. This
implied endorsement is reinforced by the tepid questions they are asked in
conjunction with media coverage of their mostly foolish answers to pointless
questions, as if this charade were somehow a meaningful and sober way to
choose a leader.
Actually, it's all a big joke. The participants must know it's a big joke,
but it works for them, it protects them from answering hard questions with
possibly dangerous, relevant answers, AND it lets them throw verbal cream
pies in each others' faces - what's to hate? And the media know it's all a
big joke, which works for them, pandering to ugly prejudices, treating truth
and lie as equals, and getting good ratings from pie-in-the-face lovers of
almost all opinions.
None of this is a secret. It's an open conspiracy. Any of the candidates or
reporters involved in this campy superficiality could break it down in a
moment with consistent focus on what matters rather than just what gets
laughter or emotional outburst. Covering the Republican debate of September
16, the New York Times the next day winkingly gave the game away in its
print-edition subhead:
"Talk of Ability to Lead Takes a Backseat to Sharp Attacks"
Then the story's lede said, confusingly and contradictorily, treating
name-calling as if it were a policy statement: "Determined to prove their
mettle, several Republican presidential candidates showed new aggressiveness
in lacing into Donald J. Trump on Wednesday night, seeking to elevate
themselves as leaders of substance.."
Say that again. "Lacing into" Trump is the equivalent of being a "leader of
substance?" So says the Times, speaking as the organ of the permanent ruling
class. So you're on notice: it's not only a joke, there's not only nothing
you can do about it, but you're expected to accept this absurdist theatre as
an affirmation that these people, no matter how silly or petty or nasty or
vacant in style, still have the substance to serve honorably and effectively
as President of the US.
They don't. Seriously, they don't. Is there anything in the full transcript
that makes you think any of them does?
Republican policy: expand military, destroy Planned Parenthood?
The reality of American military might is pretty simple, and has been for
decades. The American military is the most powerful and most expensive
military in the world. No one else is even close. China, at #2, spends about
a third as much as the US spends on its military. The US is alone in the
world in spending more than half its discretionary federal budget on its
military. Currently that comes to $610 billion a year. That's more than the
combined military budgets of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United
Kingdom, India, and Germany. (A different calculation puts US military
spending at $711 billion a year, more than the military budgets of the
nextthirteen countries' military budgets combined.) Looked at another way,
the US accounted for 39% of all the world's military spending in 2012, while
the combined military spending of Iran, Syria, and North Korea was less than
1% of the global total.
US military spending has more than doubled since 9/11. During the same
period, US military has participated in the longest war in US history and
several others (some ongoing), having won none of them and having little
prospect of winning any soon. Judging by recent experience, the military
option is not only too expensive, but almost entirely ineffective.
And yet Republicans (and many Democrats) want more and more military, and
they want it for no articulable purpose, they want it because they want it,
and it polls well. (There is also a longstanding, specious argument about
military decay due to the decline of military spending as a percentage of
GDP, and the like, none of which changes the reality that the military has
been expensive and all but useless - unless one argues the likely truth that
using the military option has cost more and caused more devastation than
just doing nothing would have cost.) Anyone here against more war? Nope.
Never mind any of that. The eleven Republicans in the recent debate all
spoke up in 60-second soundbite answers to a simpleminded question, saying
that they were all for more military, and more military adventurism (though
some were somewhat less aggressively adventurous than others). That's
Republican leadership, lockstep for more war, with some difference of
opinion on how much more war. Taking the prize for maximum hawk among the
lesser hawks was Carly Fiorina (whose looks got almost as much debate time
as militarism):
Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to,
because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the
other side, and we have all of that within our control. We could rebuild the
Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven't. We could rebuild the missile defense
program. We haven't. I will. We could also, to Senator Rubio's point, give
the Egyptians what they've asked for, which is intelligence. We could give
the Jordanians what they've asked for-bombs and materiel. We have not
supplied it.. I will. We could arm the Kurds. They've been asking us for
three years. All of this is within our control.
None of the ten men on the stage with Fiorina took serious issue with any of
this. When the moderator asked about the recent Russian increase of its
military presence in Syria, he framed it as "a threat to our national
security" and he omitted Putin's call for talks. No one corrected this
deceptive spin, much less did anyone suggest that talking to your
adversaries was at least as useful as talking to your friends. No one asked
how Fiorina planned to pay for this military expansion, nor even how many
billions she thought it would cost. And no one pointed out that arming the
Kurds, whose diaspora reaches into Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, looked
like a really good way to get a much bigger war going in the region, which
is maybe her point.
Rand Paul came the closest to sort of opposing more militarism, pointing out
that he would talk to Russia and China and Iran. He reminded people that he
had opposed the Iraq War and American involvement in Syria's civil war.
Unlike others, Paul said: "I don't think we need to be reckless."
America's war on drugs creates more Republican ambivalence Rand Paul
expressed outright opposition to the war on drugs, as he has for some time,
pointing out that the war on drugs is effectively a war on poor people and a
war on people of color. He argued that the federal government should have no
role in drug law enforcement, that under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution that role properly belongs to the states, leaving them free to
experiment as Colorado is doing (under the shadow of federal intervention).
Paul also nailed Jeb Bush, who admits to smoking marijuana, as one of those
privileged white kids who never had to worry about going to jail (any more
than his drug-using brother George did).
Fiorina supported Paul on the drug war. Last May, in a conference call with
reporters promoting her book, she said: "Drug addiction shouldn't be
criminalized." But she said saying that smoking marijuana was like drinking
a beer was a bad message, and that marijuana now was not the same as it was
40 years ago, which drew strong laughter from the California audience.
Fiorina referred to the story of her step-daughter in her book, where she
spoke of not seeing the signs of the step-daughter's addiction until it
killed her at age 34. Fiorina did not make any connection to her
step-daughter's going into rehab three times and working in a pharmaceutical
sales job. Nor did she make any connection between her step-daughter's
situation and her never being arrested or jailed.
When it came to the war on Planned Parenthood, the other half of the
Republicans' two-point consensus, Fiorina was on the front line, firing
wildly. She was not alone, Planned Parenthood was named 23 times in all by
her and others. She linked attacking Planned Parenthood to attacking Iran,
the first as a defense of national character, the second as a defense of
national security. Then she cited a controversial, spurious videotape and
demagogued it shamelessly, reaping sustained applause:
As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape - I
dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully
formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while
someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. This is about
the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President
Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.
No one at the debate pointed out that the videotape in question was attached
to a faked tape indicting Planned Parenthood falsely. No one pointed out
that no one knows where the video with the fetus came from or what it
actually shows or who is speaking on it. And no one pointed out that Planned
Parenthood has adamantly denied the accusations of harvesting. So Fiorina
was demonstrating her presidential ability to attack with as much solid
evidence as George Bush used to go to war on Iraq.
Republican candidates: is there any there there?
Given the conventional wisdom about Donald Trump being a showman without
qualification to be President, even though he's the leading candidate in the
polls by far, one might have expected at least one of the other Republicans
to try a more substantial tactic, like appearing to be the grown-up in the
room. Maybe some did try, but none succeeded, since being the grown-up
requires the willingness to confront reality honestly and that was rare in
this debate.
Perhaps the most hilarious detachment from reality was when Jeb Bush said of
his brother the former President: "He kept us safe." Hello, Jeb? Your
brother was in charge when 9/11 happened, your brother chose to take no
action when briefed of the imminence of an attack on the US, your brother
didn't keep us safe before 9/11 (when the information needs was available
but unconnected), and your brother has hardly made us more safe since 9/11.
George Bush squandered thousands of innocent lives and trillions of tax
dollars for the sake of strutting puffed up on an aircraft carrier. George
Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a series of devastating
deficits that have ballooned the national debt to the point where a former
chairman if the joint chiefs of staff called it "the most significant threat
to our national security."
He did not keep us safe, ever.
In a far less serious moment, Fiorina and Trump exchanged accusations that
the other was an atrocious business person and a bad manager. No factual
basis was introduced to measure the insults. The likelihood seems to be that
they were both right.
The absence of any sensible, engaged discussion of what to do about climate
change (not all the candidates are outright deniers) provoked some funny
comments on the twitternet. One featured Marco Rubio's comment, "America is
not a planet."
For all their faults, and their absence of strengths, none of the candidates
was as baldly unwilling to treat the selection of the next President
seriously as CNN. There is no excuse for CNN asking silly, irrelevant,
insubstantial questions. There is no excuse for CNN not asking questions
about the important priorities of our time. And in this day and age, there
is no excuse for CNN not fact-checking in real time, and holding the
candidates to account (they don't all tell the truth all the time). Maybe
media responsibility would make no difference, but we can't know till it's
tried.
Meanwhile, early, unofficial, and unscientific returns after the debate show
Trump farther in the lead than ever. The almost instant Drudge poll results
put Trump at 53%, followed by Fiorina at 21%. Way behind them at 6% are Ted
Cruz and Rubio, then Rand Paul and Ben Carson at 4%. At the bottom, with 1%
or less, are Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Scott Walker, and Mike
Huckabee.
Another unreliable real world indicator, the tweet count, also shows Trump
with an overwhelming overall lead by one measure. An assessment of the
debate in Forbes finds Fiorina and Ben Carson in a virtual twitter tie, with
Trump a distant third and the rest much farther back. International Business
Times also scored it for Fiorina, with John Kasich second.
Some of this is the result of self-fulfilling prophecy, as CNN managed to
give Trump the frontrunner more time than anyone else. Surely there's good
reason and many methods for CNN to give the impression of fairness and
neutrality by giving candidates close to equal time.
About an hour into the debate, Bernie Sanders tweeted: "War, war, war. When
do we get to their other major priority: tax breaks for billionaires?"
Hillary Clinton tweeted in Spanish about the right to speak any language in
the US.
This debate didn't get to tax breaks for billionaires, and there was no
question about that issue, so people could be left with the impression that
these Republicans might at least be willing to let the rich suffer in their
present condition. And if the majority of Americans end up believing enough
things that are not true, the Republicans will win the presidency in a walk.
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Donald Trump and Jeb Bush tussled during the most recent Republican
presidential debate, held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. (photo:
CNN)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Republican Leadership? Face It, That's an Oxymoron!
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
18 September 15
Polls suggest America might elect a joke as President aking fun of the
assortment of Republican candidates for President as some sort of clown show
is easy enough to do, which is probably one reason so many people do it. But
that sort of ridicule is so insubstantial, so irrelevant, that it ends up
serving as a form of endorsement of the motley crew, as if, underneath it
all, these are actually serious people. This implied endorsement is
reinforced by the tepid questions they are asked in conjunction with media
coverage of their mostly foolish answers to pointless questions, as if this
charade were somehow a meaningful and sober way to choose a leader.
Actually, it's all a big joke. The participants must know it's a big joke,
but it works for them, it protects them from answering hard questions with
possibly dangerous, relevant answers, AND it lets them throw verbal cream
pies in each others' faces - what's to hate? And the media know it's all a
big joke, which works for them, pandering to ugly prejudices, treating truth
and lie as equals, and getting good ratings from pie-in-the-face lovers of
almost all opinions.
None of this is a secret. It's an open conspiracy. Any of the candidates or
reporters involved in this campy superficiality could break it down in a
moment with consistent focus on what matters rather than just what gets
laughter or emotional outburst. Covering the Republican debate of September
16, the New York Times the next day winkingly gave the game away in its
print-edition subhead:
"Talk of Ability to Lead Takes a Backseat to Sharp Attacks"
Then the story's lede said, confusingly and contradictorily, treating
name-calling as if it were a policy statement: "Determined to prove their
mettle, several Republican presidential candidates showed new aggressiveness
in lacing into Donald J. Trump on Wednesday night, seeking to elevate
themselves as leaders of substance.."
Say that again. "Lacing into" Trump is the equivalent of being a "leader of
substance?" So says the Times, speaking as the organ of the permanent ruling
class. So you're on notice: it's not only a joke, there's not only nothing
you can do about it, but you're expected to accept this absurdist theatre as
an affirmation that these people, no matter how silly or petty or nasty or
vacant in style, still have the substance to serve honorably and effectively
as President of the US.
They don't. Seriously, they don't. Is there anything in the full transcript
that makes you think any of them does?
Republican policy: expand military, destroy Planned Parenthood?
The reality of American military might is pretty simple, and has been for
decades. The American military is the most powerful and most expensive
military in the world. No one else is even close. China, at #2, spends about
a third as much as the US spends on its military. The US is alone in the
world in spending more than half its discretionary federal budget on its
military. Currently that comes to $610 billion a year. That's more than the
combined military budgets of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United
Kingdom, India, and Germany. (A different calculation puts US military
spending at $711 billion a year, more than the military budgets of the
nextthirteen countries' military budgets combined.) Looked at another way,
the US accounted for 39% of all the world's military spending in 2012, while
the combined military spending of Iran, Syria, and North Korea was less than
1% of the global total.
US military spending has more than doubled since 9/11. During the same
period, US military has participated in the longest war in US history and
several others (some ongoing), having won none of them and having little
prospect of winning any soon. Judging by recent experience, the military
option is not only too expensive, but almost entirely ineffective.
And yet Republicans (and many Democrats) want more and more military, and
they want it for no articulable purpose, they want it because they want it,
and it polls well. (There is also a longstanding, specious argument about
military decay due to the decline of military spending as a percentage of
GDP, and the like, none of which changes the reality that the military has
been expensive and all but useless - unless one argues the likely truth that
using the military option has cost more and caused more devastation than
just doing nothing would have cost.) Anyone here against more war? Nope.
Never mind any of that. The eleven Republicans in the recent debate all
spoke up in 60-second soundbite answers to a simpleminded question, saying
that they were all for more military, and more military adventurism (though
some were somewhat less aggressively adventurous than others). That's
Republican leadership, lockstep for more war, with some difference of
opinion on how much more war. Taking the prize for maximum hawk among the
lesser hawks was Carly Fiorina (whose looks got almost as much debate time
as militarism):
Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to,
because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the
other side, and we have all of that within our control. We could rebuild the
Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven't. We could rebuild the missile defense
program. We haven't. I will. We could also, to Senator Rubio's point, give
the Egyptians what they've asked for, which is intelligence. We could give
the Jordanians what they've asked for-bombs and materiel. We have not
supplied it.. I will. We could arm the Kurds. They've been asking us for
three years. All of this is within our control.
None of the ten men on the stage with Fiorina took serious issue with any of
this. When the moderator asked about the recent Russian increase of its
military presence in Syria, he framed it as "a threat to our national
security" and he omitted Putin's call for talks. No one corrected this
deceptive spin, much less did anyone suggest that talking to your
adversaries was at least as useful as talking to your friends. No one asked
how Fiorina planned to pay for this military expansion, nor even how many
billions she thought it would cost. And no one pointed out that arming the
Kurds, whose diaspora reaches into Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, looked
like a really good way to get a much bigger war going in the region, which
is maybe her point.
Rand Paul came the closest to sort of opposing more militarism, pointing out
that he would talk to Russia and China and Iran. He reminded people that he
had opposed the Iraq War and American involvement in Syria's civil war.
Unlike others, Paul said: "I don't think we need to be reckless."
America's war on drugs creates more Republican ambivalence Rand Paul
expressed outright opposition to the war on drugs, as he has for some time,
pointing out that the war on drugs is effectively a war on poor people and a
war on people of color. He argued that the federal government should have no
role in drug law enforcement, that under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution that role properly belongs to the states, leaving them free to
experiment as Colorado is doing (under the shadow of federal intervention).
Paul also nailed Jeb Bush, who admits to smoking marijuana, as one of those
privileged white kids who never had to worry about going to jail (any more
than his drug-using brother George did).
Fiorina supported Paul on the drug war. Last May, in a conference call with
reporters promoting her book, she said: "Drug addiction shouldn't be
criminalized." But she said saying that smoking marijuana was like drinking
a beer was a bad message, and that marijuana now was not the same as it was
40 years ago, which drew strong laughter from the California audience.
Fiorina referred to the story of her step-daughter in her book, where she
spoke of not seeing the signs of the step-daughter's addiction until it
killed her at age 34. Fiorina did not make any connection to her
step-daughter's going into rehab three times and working in a pharmaceutical
sales job. Nor did she make any connection between her step-daughter's
situation and her never being arrested or jailed.
When it came to the war on Planned Parenthood, the other half of the
Republicans' two-point consensus, Fiorina was on the front line, firing
wildly. She was not alone, Planned Parenthood was named 23 times in all by
her and others. She linked attacking Planned Parenthood to attacking Iran,
the first as a defense of national character, the second as a defense of
national security. Then she cited a controversial, spurious videotape and
demagogued it shamelessly, reaping sustained applause:
As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape - I
dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully
formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while
someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. This is about
the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President
Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.
No one at the debate pointed out that the videotape in question was attached
to a faked tape indicting Planned Parenthood falsely. No one pointed out
that no one knows where the video with the fetus came from or what it
actually shows or who is speaking on it. And no one pointed out that Planned
Parenthood has adamantly denied the accusations of harvesting. So Fiorina
was demonstrating her presidential ability to attack with as much solid
evidence as George Bush used to go to war on Iraq.
Republican candidates: is there any there there?
Given the conventional wisdom about Donald Trump being a showman without
qualification to be President, even though he's the leading candidate in the
polls by far, one might have expected at least one of the other Republicans
to try a more substantial tactic, like appearing to be the grown-up in the
room. Maybe some did try, but none succeeded, since being the grown-up
requires the willingness to confront reality honestly and that was rare in
this debate.
Perhaps the most hilarious detachment from reality was when Jeb Bush said of
his brother the former President: "He kept us safe." Hello, Jeb? Your
brother was in charge when 9/11 happened, your brother chose to take no
action when briefed of the imminence of an attack on the US, your brother
didn't keep us safe before 9/11 (when the information needs was available
but unconnected), and your brother has hardly made us more safe since 9/11.
George Bush squandered thousands of innocent lives and trillions of tax
dollars for the sake of strutting puffed up on an aircraft carrier. George
Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a series of devastating
deficits that have ballooned the national debt to the point where a former
chairman if the joint chiefs of staff called it "the most significant threat
to our national security."
He did not keep us safe, ever.
In a far less serious moment, Fiorina and Trump exchanged accusations that
the other was an atrocious business person and a bad manager. No factual
basis was introduced to measure the insults. The likelihood seems to be that
they were both right.
The absence of any sensible, engaged discussion of what to do about climate
change (not all the candidates are outright deniers) provoked some funny
comments on the twitternet. One featured Marco Rubio's comment, "America is
not a planet."
For all their faults, and their absence of strengths, none of the candidates
was as baldly unwilling to treat the selection of the next President
seriously as CNN. There is no excuse for CNN asking silly, irrelevant,
insubstantial questions. There is no excuse for CNN not asking questions
about the important priorities of our time. And in this day and age, there
is no excuse for CNN not fact-checking in real time, and holding the
candidates to account (they don't all tell the truth all the time). Maybe
media responsibility would make no difference, but we can't know till it's
tried.
Meanwhile, early, unofficial, and unscientific returns after the debate show
Trump farther in the lead than ever. The almost instant Drudge poll results
put Trump at 53%, followed by Fiorina at 21%. Way behind them at 6% are Ted
Cruz and Rubio, then Rand Paul and Ben Carson at 4%. At the bottom, with 1%
or less, are Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Scott Walker, and Mike
Huckabee.
Another unreliable real world indicator, the tweet count, also shows Trump
with an overwhelming overall lead by one measure. An assessment of the
debate in Forbes finds Fiorina and Ben Carson in a virtual twitter tie, with
Trump a distant third and the rest much farther back. International Business
Times also scored it for Fiorina, with John Kasich second.
Some of this is the result of self-fulfilling prophecy, as CNN managed to
give Trump the frontrunner more time than anyone else. Surely there's good
reason and many methods for CNN to give the impression of fairness and
neutrality by giving candidates close to equal time.
About an hour into the debate, Bernie Sanders tweeted: "War, war, war. When
do we get to their other major priority: tax breaks for billionaires?"
Hillary Clinton tweeted in Spanish about the right to speak any language in
the US.
This debate didn't get to tax breaks for billionaires, and there was no
question about that issue, so people could be left with the impression that
these Republicans might at least be willing to let the rich suffer in their
present condition. And if the majority of Americans end up believing enough
things that are not true, the Republicans will win the presidency in a walk.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
