Aside from the obvious thing with a very similar quote about Nixon's election, there's something else going on here. And that is simply this: do you expect people who support trump to be open about it? We've had the IRS targeting people in opposition groups (ie, the Tea Party) for 6 years now. Other government agencies have been involved in other cases. Individuals have been audited and had their private financial affairs exposed publicly for simply asking questions of a candidate at a meeting the candidate set up. The Republican Party leadership has openly stated things like "We will destroy the Tea Party." That is evidence of a bipartisan conspiracy by those in power against those they should be representing.
And in that political environment, you wonder why people are reluctant to come out in support Trump without the protection of some sort of anonymity, whether an online pseudonym or a pollster who will presumably anonymize their published results?
Of course anyone who moves in Left circles won't dare announce that they like him.
If he wins, some of them might admit voting for Trump, but not until then.
Socialist Bernie proposes doubling the national debt
We have $18 trillion in debt now, and Bernie wants to spend as much again. Is he nuts? Where does he think the money will come from?
In his defense, though, Obama has already doubled the national debt, and it's worked out pretty well for him. Unfortunately, accumulating debt is one of those things that seems relatively simple and painless, until you wake up one morning and apply for more debt to pay off your old debts, and the bank says "No, you may not have any more money." And then everything goes to hell.
This won't fly, Ben. Americans aren't fond of having second-class citizens, which that broad a "guest worker" program without voting rights or welfare entitlements but paying taxes would be. Further, many people would prefer to remain illegal rather than become legitimate workers that have to pay taxes, because much of the illegal labor is based on wages that come under the table to avoid the tax man and without that tax-free status, the job would not exist at all. It simply is not worth the taxes and the paperwork to hire someone legitimately to do a job that pages less than minimum wage even before you take out the taxes.
For those illegals who managed to land a better level of professional job, allowing them to stay as "guest workers" does nothing to reduce the damage to the job market. The tech industry is already suffering after a decade of wage stagnation due to abuse of the H1-B system of legal guest workers.
The fact is, "you can stay and become legal" is amnesty, whether the people can vote or not. And while that deal might have sounded good when the Democrats presented it to Reagen, we've learned since then that promises to secure the border will never be carried out.
I want nothing to do with Windows 10, but I have a lot of games that like Windows 7 just fine. If you run windows you pretty much need to have automatic updates turned on to avoid getting eaten alive by viruses. But I do not feel the need to "upgrade" to an operating system that is basically a giant piece of spyware itself.
But Microsoft cannot respect my choice to avoid Windows 10. Instead they are intent on eating up several gigabytes of disk space without my consent on my own damn computer.
I run Linux because I want to be in control of my computer's actions.
I really want to get excited about this, but I know the Roberts court will kowtow to Obama again, so why bother? Even if the House wins the case, all that will be blocked are repayments for insurance policy risk corridors that have already been made. Will the courts claw the money back from insurers? Will they go out of business? Unlikely. They might raise prices, which would just feed the demand for single-payer from people who don't want to pay for their own health care.
States still oppressing political opponents via tax rules
The Democrats want donor lists so they can target political opponents personally. It is very difficult for a single individual to stand up to a coordinated attack from the left's media-driven criticism mobs. The targets are isolated, publicly humiliated, and financially destroyed until they apologize and switch sides. And since the attack is directed at a specific individual, it's harder for others to leap to their defense.
In my childhood, I was a fan of the admittedly and deliberately masculine and borderline psychotic James Bond as penned by Ian Fleming and the similarly-scripted character placed in far more absurd situations on the silver screen. When Fleming passed, the authors who tried to carry his torch failed to hold my attention, but the movies did a reasonably enjoyable, if somewhat incoherent, job of keeping the flame alive. I was initially a fan of the reboot; Casino Royale was excellently amoral. Later movies did not live up to the initial promise, but remained entertaining, even as the actor's anti-gun BS dampened any enthusiasm I might have felt for the franchise.
But with the above, I think I'm done. A Bond tied down and nagged to death by a girlfriend (and remember, in-canon, the foundation for his inability to commit is the death of his wife!), surrounded by anti-smoking messages and friends nagging him about not being gay-friendly enough, is not a Bond that can express the things that fans want him to express so that they can, vicariously, share the experience through fantasy. Or to put it another way, a henpecked Bond is not a fun Bond.
When this stunning bit of social-justice-warrior entryism fails to keep fans who have followed the franchise for decades coming back to see and read the latest adventures of the pathetic pussy-whipped ex-icon, they'll probably claim the character was old, outdated, out of touch, and that modern people just aren't interested anymore.
The above is definitely underselling the case. We don't have any proof of involvement by the White House because:
1) Lois Lerner and about 20 of her closest friends and colleagues had their emails and other computer records deleted, scratched, shredded, recycled, degaussed, destroyed, and lost.
2) Lois Lerner twice pled the 5th amendment before Congress on this matter.
3) The White House is refusing to release records of requests for taxpayer information made under Presidential signature, though a judge has recently ordered this information to be released.
4) The FBI is sitting on its investigation. The DC DA has already declined to prosecute Lerner, which he announced on his last day before retiring.
5) The inspector generals normally responsible for investigating corruption have had their investigative authority castrated under Obama, to the point that they have sought legislation from Congress to remedy the restrictions.
These people seem to think that if they can write a clever enough bill, we won't notice what it does. The truth is, at this point we don't care what it does. We know they are lying, and we aren't going to trust any of them.
He's resigning because he knows he would lose a vote of confidence in the House soon, and it's better to fall on your own sword than be forced out. It's easier to sell your ability to lobby effectively if you leave voluntarily and put a good spin on it. And, of course, he's already been paid for whatever ends up in the continuing resolution we're going to get instead of a budget again this year, so he can't step down until that passes. (I wonder if the House Republicans have the balls to shut down the government until after Boehner steps down and negotiate then?)
And on another topic: "unruly conservatives"? That constitutes both a clear demonstration of biased reporting AND an admission the Boehner was not a conservative. In truth, he was at best a middle-of-the-road type who cared for little beyond maintaining his own power. And he's likely going to be replaced by someone in the same mold, who takes their marching orders from the same people.
This should be a chance for the party leadership to realign itself with their voters, but it's more likely they will simply move another pawn into his place and continue business as usual.
He's talking about the Hugo awards puppy controversy, and he's simultaneously demonstrating an utter lack of self-awareness. Because I haven't seen any of the Puppies, sad or rabid, describing anyone as Nazis; however.
That's the only time I'm aware of that accusations of Naziism have been thrown around, and note well that Gallo is in a position of some power and influence at a major publisher of science fiction and fantasy. While, no doubt, some random person on the internet who considers him or herself a puppy supporter can be found to have said similarly intemperate things, prominence does matter.
So, George, call out your own side rather than trying to lump the bad acts of your friends onto your enemies.
As for the other terms. I'm not going to play social justice warrior terminology games. Just not. I'll call them as I see them, and I will describe someone whose self-image involves fighting for social justice as a social justice warrior, and if they are bullying people in the process, I'll use that term. If they are a Maoist, a communist, a socialist, I will use those terms as well, and I will be the judge of whether they fit appropriately or not, because I won't submit to tone policing. I write what I think and to hell with being told to shut up.
Stop kicking puppies, George. It makes you look like a bully.
Rather than asking Congress to pass a law to provide government funding for transgender medical procedures, which the Constitution requires originate from Congress, Obama is doing things differently. He's having his HHS department issue regulations requiring insurance companies to add these measures to all of their policies -- measures needed by a tiny fraction of the population. So everyone with a medical insurance policy is going to pay for these procedures now, without any opportunity to decline or even vote through their representatives. They will pay in the price of their medical insurance going up, and they will pay again when those insurance companies come to the government to make up the money they are losing on Obamacare. (Yes, there is a provision in Obamacare allowing for "reimbursement" of financial risks).
I have nothing against people who are confused about their gender, but I think that the problem is that they are confused about their gender, not that they need expensive and publicly funded cosmetic surgery to make their physical body match their mental self-image. If they really feel they need that surgery, they can pay for it themselves; I have no objection to that.
I do object to being required to pay for such treatment, however indirectly, and I object to the end-run around appropriate Constitutional process.
If the American economy was humming along at full employment, desperate for unskilled (but trainable) workers to manufacture goods, people who were willing to work hard to become Americans, then high levels of immigration would make sense. Historically, that has been the condition of America: lots of room, lots of economic growth, and little in the way of a safety net for people to relax in.
The interesting thing here is that the IRS is reporting each of these things like it is discovering them for the very first time. Yet Congress has been looking for Lerner emails for years now. Either the people providing those emails to Congress are entirely separate from (and not talking to) the people searching for Lerner emails via the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit, or the IRS failed to discover these materials in prior searches.
Regardless, now that the IRS has learned it can destroy criminal evidence while that evidence is under Congressional subpoena without legal consequences, we can be pretty sure they will provide nothing damaging. Whether it exists or not.
There's no such thing as friendly fire. If someone is shooting at you, react appropriately. If they are buying attack ads against the person leading the Republican primary field because he is so popular they are afraid to have their candidates challenge him directly, consider the possibility that they are not your friends.
I'll call out point 3 as the most important. Right now we have the illusion of choice; we can vote on local and state law enforcement officials, or the politicians who appoint them. But usually that's not a very granular system, so abuses at the state level can't be addressed locally, and even if you vote out the county sheriff, you're not voting out the local police -- you'll likely get a new sheriff and most of the old police with a new boss. The new boss will have similar self-interest to the old boss and will likely end up in similar policies, given the incentive structure.
If we could actually have competing bids for law enforcement services by different companies, changing the law enforcement service you hired would actually mean something. It might mean the difference between a polite knock on your door and a 3am SWAT raid that shoots your dog, grenades your kid, and sends you to prison based on planted evidence.