any right leaning refupeas

*again. The perception is that the "good and correct information is out there" that makes your opinion and stance "correct." Yet others are somehow either unable or unwilling to access and accept it. I do find information in alot of places- one of them here. But I assure you- I am not any more uninformed or misinformed than "the Peas." I miss the days when Time, Newsweek and US News and World report along with 5 minutes of news were all you needed to "know what was going on." Somehow I missed both the ice cream and the mustard scandals. Perhaps recognizing that there is also information out there, just as good and correct, that I view as correct.

I too have family members off the rails, foaming at the mouth and chomping at the bit to support Trump no matter what he does. It makes me sad. But just like another Pea (sorry.. to many random names to remember them all) who had a student who was clearly "not open to the Word of politics" and wouldn't "change", they are still kind, and good people. They are not rapists, and misogynists. They are not racist and they are certainly the type of people who fought in the Vietnam war, rather than the type that protested it (I don't see that as bad.) I also have different family members who headline read and link articles incessantly that are either bait headlines and intended to be satire (such as Pelosi offered to end the shutdown if all rights to private firearms were revoked.) Fake as can be, and people use their platform to whip dummies that don't cross reference  and actually read into a frenzy. So, if the few token conservatives you keep in your circles (because they are the older generation and likely parents) are that way, please be aware there are other conservatives that can and do read, use reason and don't think like that. But, since family members have been marginalized over a vote, friends have been marginalized over a vote, hell, you're even being told alot of PEAS choose not to engage you.. how would you know reasonable people exist?

One particular "Trumper" I know is a very important person to me. She is known as Grandma in her entire neighborhood of low income white, black and mixed race people. Everyone knows they can go to her home for a meal, gas money or a ride to work. As another Pea said, she'd be dismissed from the White Supremacist group application based on a photo of her last family reunion? Yeah, same here. But yet, she loves Trump. Feels he is going to "shake up DC" actually get things done and by damn.... I don't know if she's wrong. The problem is... I'm not sure I agree with the "getting things done" as being PROGRESS. 

PolitiFact

The Secure Fence Act Of 2006 authorized the building of or enhancing exsisting  walls along roughly 700 miles of the Southern Border.  Yes Clinton, Obama, and other  Democrats voted for it.

Having said that, the Democrats are opposed to building the wall along the entire Southern Border as trump proposes. That is today, no one knows what he is going to want tomorrow.    They believe there are better ways of securing the border then trashing the countryside and pissing off more Americans by taking their land to build the wall.  Fun fact, out of the land grab of 2006 to build the existing walls/fences, there are stil, all these years later, 90 court cases still pending.

There is a difference whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

The link above is the PolitiFact article that gives the claim the Democrats supported the wall, now they don’t a “half true”.  As always there is more to the story.

For giggles, here is an outline of what The Secure Fence Act covered.

From Congress .gov - HR 6061 - The Secure Fence Act Of 2006.

“Shown Here:
Public Law No: 109-367 (10/26/2006)
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 14, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

Directs the Secretary to report annually to Congress on border control progress.

Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to direct the Secretary to provide at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending: (1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry (requiring installation of an interlocking surveillance camera system by May 30, 2007, and fence completion by May 30, 2008); (3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas; (4) from five miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to five miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (5) 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry (requiring fence completion from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry by December 31, 2008).

States that if an area has an elevation grade exceeding 10% the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including surveillance and barrier tools.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) study and report to the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the necessity, feasibility, and economic impact of constructing a state-of-the-art infrastructure security system along the U.S. northern international land and maritime border; and (2) evaluate and report to such Committees on U.S. Customs and Border Protection authority (and possible expansion of authority) to stop fleeing vehicles that enter the United States illegally, including related training, technology, and equipment reviews.”

[/quote]

Annnnnd. You respond with an attack on Hillary's appearance because you can't defend the utter hypocrisy of your statements.

Hillary Clinton: Wellesley College, Yale Law School, an accomplished track record of civil engagement and service well before she married Bill Clinton.

Melania Trump: nude model, faked education, married to a man several years her senior whom she appears to detest.

I didn't expect anything more from you.

Hahahaha
Wow. Well.. as someone that had to drive around in a HMMWV with no canvas in an area with notorious winters involving weeks below zero and lake effect snow.... As someone responsible for maintaining uptime of command reportable medical equipment in our unit that had recently served in Somolia and was unable to get parts and tools due to that "balanced budget" it was very much poorly executed. Likely at levels Clinton himself never saw, but it clouded that presidency for me long before he took advantage of Monica Lewinsky on the national stage.

No argument that Bill is a sleazeball. Today, his actions with Monica would and should be disqualifying. In the 90s, however, we weren't quite so enlightened. Any of us. I was groped and subjected to filthy talk in the oil and gas business as a young secretary in the 90s. No one thought anything of it. Thank goodness times have changed.

Still, no, I don't think we can hold Hillary to today's standards of consciousness in her reactions to any of the women Bill messed around with.

Hillary has admitted she should have fired Burns Strider.

Do you honestly believe that any sane person - a mother of a daughter - would laugh joyously about having gotten a rapist acquitted? Really? I mean, really? Just ponder that for a second.

If you don't want me to question your sources, perhaps don't come in here repeating all the same made up nonsense that the right has been using to smear Hillary from day one. It's mostly been thoroughly debunked. And where it hasn't, typically y'all are frothing over something she did that would have gotten a shrug if she were male.

Seeking asylum is legal at ports of entry all around the world, including here ... People who seek asylum are not here illegally. Those who ask for asylum here, almost always appear at their immigration court hearing. Very few skip the hearings.

Perfect example why threads get tanked.   it's always HRC this, President Obama that....any discussion of what is currently happening politically, conservatives drag it right back to Bill did this 20 years ago, HRC did this, President Obama did that....


It is so hypocritical too, of what MangyMutt/blitzgirl is posting about women being silenced when our current potus, and the ENTIRE GOP refused to allow accusers of Brett Kavanaugh be heard.   the GOP effectively obstructed and went on to victimize those who were already victims.   Such sanctimonious bullshit from the right, per usual.

Perhaps this is why many of the older Trump supporters (women as well as men) are willing to over look his mouth and the obnoxious things he says. They grew up ignoring such things. Or blaming the woman.

In the late 50's, my mother as a teen told her mother that her biological father had raped her over years, her mother poo pooed her. Mom told someone else. Do you know what my Grandmothers response was? "Mother's name... do you know how much trouble you've caused around here?" My mom is in her 70's and extremely depressed and this still comes up. People don't just get over it. My mother didn't endure being mocked and the butt of the joke by an entire world. My step daughters bio mother retained custody of her younger half sister that was molested by the mothers boyfriend for longer than anyone would admit. Let me tell you- some mothers of daughters aren't exactly "motherly." 

They grew up on various iterations of Kennedy and these things were not considered disqualifying or even bad character, you're right. It was just the way it was. They were the decision makers in the 70's, 80's and 90's and set the stage for not being so enlightened, and remaining so. And let's not forget, Hillary is one of them. 

I am the same age as Monica Lewinsky. It was never ok. We were more enlightened than that. I was in the military in the midst of the basic training scandals during this same time (no one was ever inappropriate with me- that I know of.) I did have a boss who was sleazy when I was in my 30's (in the 00's) I didn't report him, but I didn't fall too far into the trap. Interestingly, I was moved along once someone else decided to speak up on my behalf.  I probably should have reported him. In this climate, I probably would have, but back then, it still stung that Monica Lewinsky was painted to be a *hore and Bill Clinton remained president. 

Where did you question my sources? If you did, I paid it no mind. It's irrelevant anyway. You don't know me. You don't even know which "y'all" I am other than I'm a never Hillary voter. Right or left, I don't think anyone should say it's ok. It was in the past, so it's ok. No big deal. The part that makes me so visceral about Hillary Clinton is she pretends to care and identify with women. And she doesn't. And her supporters seem to think that should be ok. That I should vote for her just because I'm a woman. No thanks. She is nothing like me. But I don't see the need to smear her, I won't put her on a pedestal either. Certainly not elevated to the office of the President of the United States.

I think you need to learn to differentiate between rumor, slander, braggart and actual attacks. LOL

When exactly was he a sexual predator? When did he "attack" a woman running for POTUS? The word "attack" has really become watered down methinks. 

You do the #buttrump well

You know, when will we base the merits of a person on who they are, and quit the butObama, butHillary, butTrump but but but but... I agree. Trump is absolutely an ass. Without a single solitary doubt. But he's not Hillary. 

Are you kidding? Everything always comes back to butthisperson. Always.

I was responding to someone saying why would someone not vote for Hillary because her husband cheated on her and she stayed. I was clarifying that *my choice* which was mine to make, is not to vote for a woman that vilified the victims of high profile abuses of power and downright rape. Who allowed her senior adviser to remain on staff, knowing he'd also abused women. 

It had nothing to do with her husband cheating on her and her staying. These things are things for which she had control and the power to do better. It was adding salt to the wound to then run on a women's rights platform. No.

Nice name calling   I suppose that has nothing to do with why threads get tanked? Someone expresses an unpopular opinion and they then get told others know better. They get called names and they get made fun of. Back to the question.... why don't the more conservative Peas share their opinions?

Even if you don't like it, it's my opinion. And my vote is equal to yours. Just because yours is louder, doesn't make it more valid or important.

Objecting to people abandoning the topic in favor of personal attacks is not victim culture and you interpreting it as such is the problem.

That isn't what she did. It isn't what you are doing. Personal attacks are not politely pointing out facts.


As long as some of you consistently resort to personal attacks and then pretend we're objecting to nothing more than you providing facts, we're doomed.

I'm Canadian, and here I am considered centre-left. To some Americans, especially those on the right & centre-right, I'd be considered pretty far left, I think. But the far left here doesn't like me, because I support some of the rules around able bodied folks being required to look for work, for example.

I decided to peek in here, starting from the bottom up.

Cyc - seems reasonable

Mollycoddle - True statements


And then, I dared scroll up. What a mistake.  

Yep. Making my point for me...thanks!