I'm alright with the investigation as long as the results are published fairly no matter the outcome. I do think it's important to note that being registered to vote in two states is not illegal, something that Mr. Bannon knows to be true since he did it. Our voter rolls are garbage, so there is no efficient system to do something as simple as remove voters from the roll once they move to another location. If we had a modern opt-out system with information sharing, that might be different.

This seems to be true.  I was in the process of moving to Texas during the primaries last year.  I ended up voting in the NC primary.  When I got to Texas I registered in Texas.  Then I got a ballot in the mail from NC because they were doing a runoff or a re-vote or something.  I was to fill it out and mail it back.  I called the election board in NC and told them my primary residence is now Texas and I should be removed from the NC voter rolls.  She did so and asked me to just tear up the ballot.

As far as I know, if I had not called and asked to be removed, my name would still be on the rolls.  There would be nothing stopping me from voting early in Texas, then flying back to NC and voting.  Or if I didn't, somebody else impersonating me and voting under my name.  As far as I know, the states do not compare databases to look for this sort of thing.

This is a fascinating listen, if you can get past the first couple of minutes.  Gets down to the bedrock of modern liberalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Agree also.  I voted against Trump in the primary. Even now from my posts you can see my reservations about him.  But I sure voted for him against Hillary and I'm thrilled he beat her. That doesn't make me a robotic devotee.

I'm hoping Trump doesn't turn out to be just another elite insider.  The fact that he's a billionaire while talking about the rich elite ignoring the rest of us non-billionaires is, of course, not lost on me.  So either he's going to screw the rest of us and buddy up with the Democrat (and Republican) insiders, or he's going to actually fulfill his promises to not ignore us anymore.  Still cautiously optimistic.  Hillary had already proven who she was; with Trump we've at least got a chance.

I hope Mark is jealous. 

Ha ha!

I had just read hotprops incredible story over there on PoA the moral being you should respect the President whether he is the one you voted for or not, and the thread was locked for precaution, not for any actual reason.  So ironic, when the whole reason PoA was created was to escape the heavy handed censorship on the red board. So it all came over here and guess what?  The world did not come to an end because somebody said "fuck".  Or because somebody suggests you should respect the office of the President. 

How I wish somebody would smack around these snowflakes like hotprops's father smacked him around.

I was working during the majority of the speech, and got a break when it was almost over. I only got to watch the end of the speech, when Obama shook Trump's hand and said "Good Job."

A true class act.

I did read the speech while on break. Trump makes a few good points, though I'm surprised any conservatives stand by it. He won't accomplish any of those things without some (sometimes major) form of government intervention.


Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!

Yeah, he sounds like a protectionist Democrat when talking about bringing back jobs. He IS the guy for the blue collar working man now.  He took it from the Dems because the Dems forsook them and now focus on gays and illegals and Muslim refugees and animals and trees and "the planet", anything BUT the ordinary working American citizen.

The good points you agree with might be the same ones I do, that it's time to return control of the country to the people rather than the wealthy and powerful elite class. This election wasn't about liberals vs conservatives. It's about us the people vs a governing class that has become completely out of touch with us, on both sides.

Agree about Obama and Michelle during the transition. Apparently they've been gracious to the incoming couple.  But we all need to remember, Trump is NOT a conservative. He's been on the liberal side of some issues before and supported some liberals, he can befriend liberals and work with them, so I'm not surprised there seems to be some warmth there.  Not saying he won't follow through with his conservative promises to lower taxes and reduce regulations, and build a wall and build back the military, but I think he can cross over on many other things more easily than say Cruz would have, which is what earned him the hate of some Republicans.

I'm still cautiously optimistic.

All the focus on the little people is exactly what traditional Democrats were all about.  If the left weren't hypocrites, they should love Trump. But today's leftists don't care about little people, they just care about staying in power.

I think I heard Neal Boortz say they should only be allowed to buy dry beans with food stamps.  I don't go that far, but I agree with the sentiment but only as a knee jerk emotional reaction.  In reality, it would accomplish nothing and might have unintended consequences, like more riots. 

The real problem is the lack of jobs in the inner cities and as Anthony pointed out, a couple of generations that know no other lifestyle. Even if there were jobs, who knows if they'd take them when you can make so much more money being a drug pusher. The war on poverty is a failure and the war on drugs is a failure, and only created a black market in drugs to feed to prison industry.

I'm not optimistic that even Trump can bring manufacturing back to the inner cities. The idea to educate these people with the hope that they'll all become doctors, lawyers and engineers is an equally false pipe dream.  The exceptional individual may climb out that way, but not the majority.  When desegregation took the ambitious and intelligent out of the inner cities, it took the main source of cultural stability and small business employers. Those who remained could survive with factory jobs but when that left, they were left with only two choices: push drugs, or be on the public dole.

And I'm not picking on black ghettos; white hillbillies have a similar situation. Manufacturing or industry processing plants that existed in rural white areas, such as furniture, textiles, logging, mining, food packaging, have evaporated, leaving young whites in these areas with the same two choices. It's easy to say to either of these, "Well move somewhere where there's a job," but that's easier said than done when you've been raised in an atmosphere of despair. In reality, these young people cannot escape unless luck provides them with a mentor on the outside to reorient their whole outlook.  This is the "hand up" you're talking about Lucifer. But it requires the existence of a job somewhere, as well as someone willing and able to be this savior. Both are in way too short supply.

It's easy to preach about individual choice and moral accountability when you aren't part of these demographics, but they really are products of society and the system.  (Having said that, I will shoot any criminal who threatens me or invades my property, I don't care if society is to blame for his behavior.  I'm not with the SJWs who use this fact to excuse behavior. It isn't his fault, but he is a monster nonetheless, and I've a right to defend myself.)

Given the incredible stress of these lifestyles, the sugar soda probably provides a needed dopamine high.  Any who avoid the drug and gang scene probably need it, or think they do. My opinion, it would be crazy to try to solve the massive problem of poverty by silly rules like no soda with food stamps.  It would be like sticking a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging amputation.