In March 1980, Roman Catholic bishop of San Salvador Oscar Romero was serving mass and during the service he was assassinated. In 1997, John Paul II declared Romero a Servant of God. He was declared a martyr by Pope Francis in 2015 and was later beatified.
The assassination of bishop Romero was later attributed to Roberto D’Aubuison. D’Aubuisson was an extreme right wing politician. He had the backing of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. On CBN, Robertson praised D’Aubuisson and the mass murderers of nearby Guatemala.
You can google D’Aubuisson together with Falwell and Robertson and get some interesting hits.
I made an assertion to a friend that Obama has left Trump in better shape than Bush left to Obama, and my friend that I’ve known since college, and whom I had asked to be my best man in 1989, decided to unfollow me on Twitter. I do not think it is controversial at all to say that Obama is leaving Trump in better shape than Bush left Obama. I think it is simple numbers.
Economics is half math and half philosophy. The philosophy part is where an economist tries to predict or explain. The math part is purely measurements. The economic progress or lack thereof under Obama should be able to be quantified–items like the stock market performance, employment, GDP, etc. I am an engineer and don’t know hardly a damn thing about economics, but I know a few things.
For measuring the success of the stock market, people generally use the S&P 500 or the DJIA. I did a simple google search for and found a page tracking the S&P 500. The source of this data is from: http://www.cheatsheet.com/stocks/presidential-stock-market-scorecards-reagan-to-obama.html/?a=viewall
I will try to summarize from Reagan to Obama, the S&P 500 index performance under each (I’m eyeballing the graphs, the numbers are pretty close):
President Start End Growth
Reagan 370 550 49%
Bush I 550 710 29%
Clinton 710 1800 154%
Bush II 1800 980 -46%
Obama 980 2259 131% (graph ends in 2013, using actual value from 9 Dec 2016)
So, under Bush II, the S&P decreased by 46%, and under Obama the S&P increased by 131%. Which is better a decrease of 46% or an increase of 131%? I would say the latter. I know my 401k is up about 170% or close to it. (I am not a savvy investor, I have made contributions to my 401k that has caused some of the growth.)
Not for Hillary or Trump–God no. I decided to vote for Johnson. I did not want to leave my vote for president blank and therefore be subject to simple tampering. I also figured, what the hell, maybe if he gets enough votes the funding will help towards a third party–even though I think he is slightly nuts. In the end, since my state will without a doubt go to Trump, my vote was probably worthless anyways.
I think there should be another selection that says “abstain” so that the ballot card cannot be tampered with.
This probably is common knowledge especially since I figured it out on my own, but if you don’t know….
Certain online papers like the New York Times or Washington Post limit non-subscribers to 10 articles a month. But, it can easily be bypassed. To get unlimited articles, when you see an article on an online newspaper or magazine, right click on the link and click “open in new private window”–or whatever it might be your browser. That is the message for Chrome.
So if you click on links this way, the website will always think it is your first visit to the website.
I am not casting a vote for Trump, Hillary, Johnson, or Stein. If there is a spot to write in a candidate, I will put in Bernie, but otherwise, I am not casting a vote for any of these unqualified people.
I do not live in a battleground state, so I can afford to take this stance. My state will go to Trump. Of that, I have no doubt. If I had to make a choice for Trump or Hillary, I might hold my nose and vote for Hillary. But, since my vote won’t effect the electoral college, it doesn’t matter.
Trump is not even remotely qualified. He was able to tap into the anger of the Republican base and that’s why he’s their candidate. He is basically a confidence man and self promoter. I think of him as an orange Kardashian. His business success is mostly a myth. Ask his investors if they would invest again… I am married to a Mexican…as if I would even consider voting for him based on what he has said. Trump is a total piece of shit.
Hillary could have been qualified, but she disqualified herself with her mistreatment of classified information. I had jobs where I had to safeguard classified information. If I had done what she had done, I would have at minimum lost my job and had my security clearance taken away forever. More than likely I would face prison time and huge fine. My career as a DoD employee would have been over.
Gary Johnson is a joke. He’s qualified to be my weed dealer–if I smoked, which I don’t. He seems to lack the knowledge of world events needed to be president.
Jill Stein is qualified to run for town council which is the only elected office she has held.
Trump brought up Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults in his apology. I don’t know what an unbiased source of accurate information for his alleged assaults might be, but lacking anything better, here are some links from Wikipedia:
I left off Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Elizabeth Gracen because those were consensual affairs.
The most often said response by Trump supporters is that, “…but Clinton raped a woman.”
I’ve read the accounts. I don’t think a court of law would probably find either Broaddrick or Paula Jones credible sources. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen as they said, but they are not very believable persons. Under oath, Broaddrick denied that she was raped by Bill Clinton. Years later she later said under oath that Clinton did rape her. Which one is the truth? Not easy to know. Very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton was guilty. During the Clarence Thomas hearings, when it came to he said she said allegations, Republicans took the side of their nominee. Again, not clear who was telling the truth.
Paula Jones is similarly not a credible person. The claim is that Clinton exposed himself to her. There are no witnesses. Just his word and her word. She used her settlement money to get plastic surgery to enhance her breasts and then appeared in Penthouse magazine. At that point, even Ann Coulter, her lawyer, gave up on her.
It would be nice if Bill Clinton was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t believe it can be said he is either innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is totally muddy.
One definition of insanity that is often heard is, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting to get different results.” That is what the Republicans want to do with the economy.
One of the most common gripes Republicans have is about the debt. It is at almost $20 trillion, and yes, that number in itself does seem insane. Some economists tell us that it isn’t horrible because our debt payments as a percentage of the GDP are very reasonable–thankfully to very low interest rates. It still makes me nervous. If interest rates rise, then our debt payments will go up to. If rates exploded, it could sink us. So, it is perfectly sane to be worried about it.
Republicans often gripe and say “Obama has doubled the national debt.” On that account, they are right, too. However, I make no bones about it when I say they are insane.
Why would I say that?
It is because of their solution to the debt problem. Their solution is what former President George H. Bush called “voodoo economics”. Voodoo economics is also known as Reaganomics and supply side economics.
So what is their plan?
According to Trump and Pence, they want to cut taxes and follow Reagan’s economic plans. Why is that insane? Well, under Reagan, the national debt tripled from $1 trillion to $2.9 trillion.
So, to fix a problem like the national debt doubling in 8 years, the Republicans want to repeat a scheme that tripled it in 8 years. Under what logic is that not insane?
Cops are criminals. They are murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers…and some, I assume, are good people.
Does that bother you? What if I say, “white people are murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers…and some, I assume, are good people.” Does that bother you? If that bothers you, but Trump saying similar things about Mexicans doesn’t bother you, then guess what? You are a racist or a Republican–of which these days I can’t tell much of a difference.
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
‘Cause I’m in need of some restraint
— Sympathy for the Devil, Jagger&Richards
- Ex-Oklahoma deputy Robert Bates guilty of killing unarmed suspect
- Oklahoma state trooper accused of rape resigns
- Former Tulsa police officer’s corruption convictions upheld on appeal
A month or two ago when that criminal Brock Turner got a slap on the wrist for sexually assaulting a woman at Stanford, I wrote on Facebook that I thought there were common sense things women could do to lessen their odds of being raped. The woman who was raped was really stupid–she got blackout drunk at a college house party. In my mind, that is a very foolish thing to do and I said so. Yada, yada, yada…a bunch of people were incensed and accused me of “victim blaming” which is total bullshit. Bullshit because I don’t excuse Brock Turner’s actions, and I think he should have the book thrown at him.
Now, let’s come to Terence Crutcher. Some of these same white women say, “if he would of only kept his hands up and not reached inside his car, he’d still be alive. It’s his fault they shot him. He didn’t comply.” In some respects they are correct. If he had kept his hands up or laid on the ground, he’d likely still be alive. However, they are also wrong and hypocritical. Just because he did not keep his hands up and did not comply with the officer’s orders, it did not give the officer the right to kill him in the street. The officer only has a right to shoot if his life or another’s life is in danger.
So to summarize, saying the attacker is completely guilty and that the woman could behave differently to lessen her chance of rape is victim blaming. But, to say the shooter is innocent and the victim is totally to blame, is not victim blaming–it’s just simple logic to many racist white women. I find that to be hypocritical.
What has been more disturbing for me in the week since the Terence Crutcher shooting is following it on Facebook. Social media is awful. At least some people have been refreshingly honest by saying, “the only good nigger is a dead nigger.” Yeah, I actually saw that one from some poster in North Carolina or South Carolina.
But, what is more common than calling him a “nigger” is calling Mr. Crutcher a “thug”. It’s a respectable word white people can use instead of saying “nigger”. Why is Mr. Crutcher or another black man a “thug”? What, because he’s black? White people say, “no, but what about his criminal record?” Well, plenty of people were saying it before his criminal record came out. When people began saying it, all we knew about Crutcher was the videos and the police statement that he reached in the window–testimony that is now doubtful.
Well, “what about his drug use? Doesn’t that make him a thug?” Do you call Elvis a thug? What about Johnny Cash or Waylon Jennings? What about Willie Nelson? Is he a thug? Or, are they white? Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson have criminal records for drugs. Every famous person that has met Willie Nelson has a story about how much dope he smokes. But, he’s white–so he’s not a “thug”.
Who’s the real “thug” in this story? What about Betty Shelby? She is a person who shot and killed an unarmed man. What is more thuggish than that? The Tulsa district attorney thought it was unjustified and filed charges. But, no one will ever call her that.