SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TideGlider who wrote (986572)12/10/2016 11:06:39 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
longnshort
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1570548
 
Obama’s Second Term Was a Complete Failure

nationalreview.com

Every December, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post picks the biggest political loser of the past year.

In 2013, Cillizza’s selection was Barack Obama. He cited the botched rollout of Healthcare.gov, the NSA domestic-surveillance scandal, the IRS’s targeting of tea-party groups, and the continuing questions about the administration’s actions before, during, and after the attack on Americans in Benghazi.

In 2014, Cillizza’s selection was Obama, again. The midterm elections went abysmally for Democrats, the threat of ISIS became much clearer, Russia moved into Ukraine, and former CIA director and secretary of defense Leon Panetta painted an unflattering portrait of the president’s leadership in his memoirs.


In 2015, Cillizza picked two co-“winners,” Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. The reasons were obvious. By December 2015, it was clear Bush’s odds of winning the nomination were small and shrinking quickly. Clinton, meanwhile, looked likely to emerge bloodied from the Democratic primaries after a tougher-than-expected fight with Bernie Sanders.

This year, Cillizza assessed the surprising post-election political landscape and selected “ The Democrats”:

The Democrats may be effectively locked out of power in all three branches of government for years. At the state level, after last month’s elections, they’ll control only 16 governorships and 13 legislatures.

This year, punctuated by Hillary Clinton’s loss, exposed the remarkably shallow depth of the Democratic bench. The size of the Republican primary field — for which the GOP was relentlessly mocked — was also a sign of the party’s health up and down the ballot. Democrats simply didn’t have the political talent to put forward 17 candidates (or even seven). That’s partly because there’s been limited opportunity to move up in the leadership ranks. Pelosi (Calif.) and Reps. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and James E. Clyburn (S.C) have had a death grip on the party’s top congressional slots for a very long time. It’s also partly because the Democratic farm system is hurting.

Lined up one after another, Cillizza’s picks create a broader narrative: President Obama’s second term has been a terrible failure for the country. A nation that is pleased with the status quo — a nation that feels prosperous, safe, and confident about the future — doesn’t choose to roll the dice with Donald Trump.

Jonathan Chait’s ill-timed forthcoming book argues that “in the eyes of history, Barack Obama will be viewed as one of America’s best and most accomplished presidents.” CNN’s Fareed Zakaria recently offered a two-hour special concluding that America failed its president: “It remains unclear if the country was ready for Barack Obama’s vision.”

These are strenuous efforts to avoid the obvious: Obama’s ideas didn’t work. He failed to deliver what he promised.

If Obama’s policies had improved the economy, people would feel confident about their ability to find new and better jobs, buy houses, pay for their children’s educations, afford retirement, and live with a financial cushion. If the Affordable Care Act had lived up to its name, people would feel more reassured about their ability to get the medical help they need at a price they can afford. If Obama’s counterterrorism policies worked, Americans wouldn’t have been left shuddering at attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando and Boston and Chelsea.

With the Obama administration having already tried its ideas and generated “meh” results at best, Democrats found themselves strangely quiet about some of their traditional issues in the 2016 cycle. Hillary Clinton and her allies could run on “protecting” the Affordable Care Act, but not on overhauling it. Her main economic proposal was a minimum-wage hike. There was no allegedly outrageous war for oil to protest.

By 2016, what stirred the passions of the Democrats’ most vocal activists was a grab bag of niche issues: the Black Lives Matter movement, the rights of transgender Americans, the latest microaggression or pop culture phenomenon that enraged the Social Justice Warriors.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans dealt with real problems. Meth and opioid addiction tore through small towns like a storm. Decades of unchecked illegal immigration changed the dynamics of the workforce. Endless promises of education never came to fruition; the traditional path of life, of a steady, well-paying job, a home, marriage and children seemed like a naïve dream. Millions of Americans who had voted for Democrats in the past felt forgotten, abandoned, mocked, and sneered at.

The Democrats didn’t just have a bad year. Whether they can ever bring themselves to admit it or not, they’ve had a bad term.

— Jim Geraghty is National Review’s senior political correspondent



To: TideGlider who wrote (986572)12/10/2016 11:11:53 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1570548
 
LIBTARDS have ZERO RESPECT for indigenous people and their cultures.

==========================================================


Jennifer Lawrence Blasted Over Story About Desecrating Sacred Hawaiian Rocks

December 9, 2016

Jennifer Lawrence is making headlines again – and this time it’s got nothing to do with the patriarchy. During a recent interview on The Graham Norton Show, Lawrence – clutching a glass of wine and laughing uncontrollably – shared an anecdote about rubbing her butt on sacred rocks while filming in Hawaii.

“They were sacred rocks,” she said. “I dunno, they were ancestors, who knows. You’re not supposed to sit on them. I, however, was in a wetsuit for this whole shoot. Oh my god, they were so good for butt itching!”

Fellow guest Chris Pratt laughed nervously beside her – but the ‘Hunger Games’ actress was just getting started.

“One rock that I was butt-scratching on ended up coming loose,” she continued. “It was a giant boulder and it rolled down this mountain and it almost killed our sound guy!”


[fbv]1301870016500080[/fbv]

It didn’t take long for that clip to go viral, at which point Lawrence – once praised by liberals for her (false) claim that women consistently make less in Hollywood – became the butt of criticism.

Meanwhile, several commenters have spoken out in praise of Chris Pratt for his clearly uncomfortable reaction to Lawrence’s antics.

Conservatives, of course, have been increasingly described as intolerant over the past several weeks. Funny how it was the ultra-liberal Jennifer Lawrence who made headlines for disrespecting another culture while conservative Chris Pratt watched on in horror.

Hillary Clinton – who was very quick to praise Lawrence for her rant about gender inequality – has yet to comment on this particular issue. Lawrence has since issued an apology via Facebook, insisting she “meant absolutely no disrespect to the Hawaiian people.”


milo.yiannopoulos.net

Sources:
Vanity Fair
Louder With Crowder
Daily Wire



To: TideGlider who wrote (986572)12/10/2016 12:29:15 PM
From: koan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1570548
 
So you are happy about Trump getting rid of medicare and social security?

Yes, I will survive, but millions of poor and middle class won't survive without great suffering.



To: TideGlider who wrote (986572)12/10/2016 3:21:41 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570548
 
They are made by many makers. Just make certain you get a heavy barrel. Most any modern one would be heavy now. The reason I like the M-14 or M1A1 civilian model is the incredible accuracy and it does pack a wallop. Due to the length and weight they aren't great for beating the bush. Much like the M-4 has replaced the various M-16 models. It is shorter, lighter and has many extra functions.
I have no intention of buying any, but I've always wanted to shoot some of them.....shooting at a commercial range is very expensive and we don't have any here. So I look at You Tube demo's...for all kinds of weapons and aircraft. There is an annual tank competition held in Russia or Ukraine, the US doesn't participate. It gets boring after a 1/2 hour or so, the TV production is terrible....

You want the accuracy of an M-1 or M-14 for your bedroom? The M-4 seems to be more like a submachine gun for close quarters fighting but very modernized.... Most big city police depts have make the switch..