Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 27, 2016 in Politics | 34 comments

Questions for the Democratic Party

I have some questions for the Democratic Party, questions that members of the mainstream media ought to be asking. Whether or not the Democratic Party will answer these questions remains to be seen.

#1 Why does your Party act as if it wants the USA’s southern border to be a sieve?

#2 If your Party doesn’t want the USA’s southern border to be a sieve, then why does your Party object to preventing foreigners from crossing the USA’s southern border illegally? (Preventing illegal border crossings would be the purpose of a wall built across the USA’s southern border.)

#3 Foreigners who are in the USA legally have played by the rules. Foreigner who are in the USA illegally have violated the rules. If you reward the latter by allowing them to remain in the USA without being penalized, then how would that be fair to the former?

#4 A 10/22/15 Real Clear Politics story states, “At a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan introduced e-mails that show then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya terrorism to family and the Egyptian prime minister. Jordan then questioned why she told Americans the Benghazi attack was a response to an infamous YouTube clip mocking Muslims but e-mailed it was a terrorist attack to the Egyptian prime minister and family.” So, why did Secretary Clinton give one story in public and a different story in private?

#5 Secretary Clinton’s private server contained classified information, some being top-secret information. How did that information get onto her server without her or anyone working for her violating federal law?

#6 Secretary Clinton didn’t need a private server in her home in order to conduct government business. So, other than to hide what she was doing, why did she want the private server?

#7 Here is a screenshot from a 05/31/16 story published by Rasmussen:

What makes Hillary Clinton so special that she should keep running for POTUS even if she ends up being indicted?

#8 Democrat Congressman Chaka Fattah initially refused to immediately resign from Congress after he was convicted on federal corruption charges. On 06/22/16, The Hill reported, “Rep. Chaka Fattah offered his resignation from Congress on Wednesday, but the embattled Pennsylvania Democrat intends to remain a member – and collect a salary – for several more months.” The Hill also reported, “In interviews conducted before his resignation letter, most Democrats opted simply not to comment at all, and none called for his resignation.” Why is it that congressional Democrats didn’t call for Fattah’s immediate resignation?

Eight questions are enough for now. So, what are the answers? Inquiring minds want to know.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The Moderate Voice
  • I am not the Democratic Party, but let me try to give some flippant answers to some flippant questions:

    1. Fallacious question. The Democratic Party does not want the USA’s southern border “to be a sieve.”

    2. Non sequitur (See Question 1) The Democratic Party does not object to a fair and effective immigration reform. The Republican party obstructs such.

    3. Comprehensive immigration reform does not equate to rewarding illegal immigrants or penalizing those who have played by the rules.

    4. See the Democratic Report on Benghazi just released by the minority members of the Witch Hunt committee.

    5. Can we wait for the findings of the various agencies investigating this issue before we accuse Secretary Clinton of criminal offenses?

    6. Ditto

    7. What is so un-American about “innocent until proven guilty”? There is nothing special about Hillary Clinton. If she is indicted, she should not run for the presidency and most Americans feel that way.

    8. I have not seen your indignation documented here every time Republicans stay silent on so many grievous statements and actions by Republican politicians, including — and especially — your presumptive and presumptuous presidential nominee.

    • Bob Munck

      Megadittos, Dorian.

      If she is indicted, she should not run for the presidency and most Americans feel that way.

      I don’t know about that one, though. “Innocent until proven guilty” and “indicted” is not the same as “guilty” by a long shot. Especially if you’re not a ham sandwich.

      • I understand what you are saying, Bob.

        However, an indictment — rightly or wrongly — would throw such a cloud over Hillary and her campaign that it would seriously impair both her campaign and — if still elected — her presidency.

        It is a tough one…

        • SteveK

          These hypothetical questions sound like they came straight from ‘Judicial Watch.’

        • Bob Munck

          an indictment … would throw such a cloud over Hillary

          BE CAREFUL!

          You’re giving the sitting President an element of control over the candidates that the parties nominate. Obama is unlikely to exercise that control against Clinton and I hope he wouldn’t against Trump. Of course subtle pressure on his JD not to indict is equally bad, and harder to detect.

          Unfortunately there’s no way to wean the public away from “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” attitudes. It really should be an unstated rule that the nominees of the major parties are not indicted. I realize that that’s not optimal, but it’s the best we’ve got.

      • Kevin Purcell

        My two pesos: falling in value after to a record low after Brexit:

        A ham sandwich has a higher more moral character than Hillary.

        Aristotle suggested “Moral virtue, are to be distinguished from intellectual virtues. Moral virtue has to do with feeling, choosing, and acting well.”

        I’ll prefer the ham sandwich.

        • Kevin Purcell

          My apologies for the grammatical errors. Sheesh.

        • Bob Munck

          A ham sandwich has a higher more moral character than Hillary.

          True only in comparison to the imaginary Hillary Clinton that the right wing has implanted in your head.

          You realize, I’d hope, that I was alluding to the old prosecutor’s boast that they could “indict a ham sandwich” if they wanted to.

    • Hard to take these “questions” the least bit seriously as they are not honest questions at all. They are belligerent accusations/talking points with question marks slapped on the end.

      Starting with #1 which is a lie. Democrats not only don’t want the southern border to be a sieve, it hasn’t been under Obama who, last time I checked was in fact a Democrat.

      But the major reason for less illegal immigration is better border security. Even as the economy has improved, illegal immigration continues to go down.

      We’ve more than doubled our number of border agents to more than 18,000 now.

      We spend more on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Biometric Identity Management — some $16.2 billion last year — than we do on all other federal criminal law-enforcement combined, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement, Secret Service, Federal Marshal Service and Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

      http://nypost.com/2015/05/31/behind-the-surprising-drop-in-illegal-immigration/

      • Agreed, Ballard.

        More specifically, these are “questions” cloaked in righteousness, but which by implication, innuendo, logical fallacy or by the inclusion of inaccurate or false conclusions take the form of loaded, “gotcha” question (such as “when did you stop beating your wife”) and are solely intended to attack and discredit those of opposing political persuasion.

      • dduck

        Agree.

    • During the scary years now behind us (for the time being, anyway!) the blame-the-illegals group included flare-ups about illegals coming through our southern border and finding ways to live off our Social Security, etc. But then, fortunately, actual numbers refuted the Righteous “sieve”comments. We non-migrants up here in El Norte are the ones who benefit financially thanks to Central America’s border-crashers. They pay into the system, but get no benefitsout of it.

      From the NYTimes 4/2005

      “Mr. Martínez — who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana — contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation’s public retirement system.

      “Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

      “He belongs to a big club.”

      That grand old party in the US harbors an angry cult whose motto seems to be “Don’t confuse us with facts.”

      • You bring up such a good point, Prairie, about the Big Lie that undocumented immigrants do not contribute to Social Security and Medicare. They certainly do and, in addition to providing the dirt-cheap (almost slavery cheap and slavery back-breaking – as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) labor that is building our homes, planting and harvesting our produce, etc., do not receive most of the benefits that thy have contributed to.

        It is not only a disgraceful phenomenon in El Norte, but also and perhaps especially (as I know from first-hand experience and contacts) in El Sur — the part of our nation that is particularly hateful towards these immigrants.

  • rudi

    Why doesn’t the author of this post call out Ronald Reagan? RR granted amnesty to illegals. If it was OK then, whats different today. Was Reagan a RINO?
    Reagan Amnesty

  • SteveK

    Questions for David Robertson;
    1) If we had adopted DC instead of AC for our electrical grid would the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 ever passed?
    2) What if the moon really IS made out of blue cheese?
    3) What would have happened if Hitler won the war?

    These are but three off the top of my head… So, what are the answers? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • rudi

    Illegal workers are nothing new. Before the Latinos, Chinese workers were exploited. Truman addressed the issue in 1951.
    The Problem of Migratory Farm Labor in the United States, 1948-1953
    This piece in the Atlantic addresses migrant workers. We enjoy fresh orange juice and strawberries, we just ignore the FACT that illegal migrant workers pick them at a fraction of the minimum wage.

    • rudi

      Meanwhile, the fastest-growing and most profitable segment of California’s farm economy–the cultivation of high-value specialty crops–has also become the one most dependent on the availability of cheap labor. Nearly every fruit and vegetable found in the diets of health-conscious, often high-minded eaters is still picked by hand: every head of lettuce, every bunch of grapes, every avocado, peach, and plum. As the demand for these foods has risen, so has the number of workers necessary to harvest them. Of the migrants in California today, anywhere from 30 percent to 60 percent, depending upon the crop, are illegal immigrants. Their willingness to work long hours for low wages has helped California to sustain its agricultural production–despite the loss since 1964 of more than seven million acres of farmland. Fruit and vegetable growers in the state now rely on a thriving black market in labor–and without it more farms would disappear. Illegal immigrants, widely reviled and depicted as welfare cheats, are in effect subsidizing the most important sector of the California economy.

      Will the author and his Republican friends do the back breaking labor to feed the US population?

    • Good point, Rudi.

      I just moved to a new complex that is still being built.

      The temperature outside in the baking sun has to over 130 degrees F.

      Guess who are the only ones I see working in this hell: digging holes, pouring concrete, hammering house frames, crawling over what must be unbearably hot roofs nailing in shingles, etc.?

      You guessed it, those awful undocumented immigrants, working their asses off for peanuts doing the work white young men will not do and doing it for peanuts — not raping, committing crimes, bringing drugs in, etc.

      This whole place would come to a screeching halt it these hard-working people disappeared.

      • rudi

        Thirty years ago those were union jobs. Construction was a skilled job, were Baby Boomers children could become tradesmen(women) and earn a fair living. Not any more…

        • dduck

          Yep.
          Big difference from today.

      • Kevin Purcell

        “white young men will not do and doing it for peanuts”

        Are you sure?

        When I was a young _white_ man I dug ditches, was a garbage collector off the back of a truck when we jumped off and manually dumped the cans, I picked lemons in the fields, made sandwiches, picked up garbage in parks, did domestic work, landscaping and more.

        • Kevin Purcell

          Remind us of your experience as a young white man.

          • JSpencer

            I know you’re not asking for a recitation, but as a young white man I worked so many crappy, hard, dirty, work jobs… don’t even think about encouraging me to list them all. 😉 Of course that was in the sixties and seventies. Things have changed a teeny bit since then…

          • Kevin Purcell

            Sure things have changed; we are no longer young 🙂

            <><><>

            BTW, I would find your work experience fascinating.

            <><><>

            I have a problem with ideologues (yourself specifically excepted) who start to act and talk like those they hate.

          • JSpencer

            I should make a list sometime – while my memory is still firing on most cylinders. 😉

  • JSpencer

    “Hard to take these “questions” the least bit seriously as they are not honest questions at all.” – BB

    That is my take on it as well. I am glad, however, that others have responded so appropriately.

  • dduck

    Why does she still hang out with racist sleaze AL Sharpton?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton
    BTW, I noticed DR’s last post: http://themoderatevoice.com/disagreeing-without-personal-attacks/
    hardly received any flack, although it was much better than this one with some gotcha/”when did you stop beating your wife” questions (1-3 especially), but some lingering dark shadows from HC/Obama stuff with Benghazi. The “story” about the story and what was told to us for weeks after the event.
    Just saying.

    • dduck

      As usual, crickets.

      • JSpencer

        re: the DR post about personal attacks, I read it but didn’t feel compelled to respond, probably because I assume that most here are already aware that ad hominem stuff is off limits (not to mention counterproductive). As far as HC’s association with Al Sharpton, I try to only get excited about the big stuff these days, maybe because there’s no shortage of it. Yes, HC has flaws and liabilities, if there was a likely candidate who had fewer, I’d vote for him or her, but that doesn’t seem to be an option, and I’m not one of those people who is comfortable throwing his vote away on an imagined “principle”. Anyway, that’s my 2 cents fwiw… and I grant you, it may not be much.

        • dduck

          Thanks.

  • A few things not covered by comments (or not much) but needed:

    #4: That an attack may be due to a reaction to a negative internet posting does not disqualify it from being a terrorist attack. For years a great many people have been suggesting that the Hornet’s Nest approach to terrorism is probably not wise.

    #5: If Top Secret information was on her server, that is bad. However, was it classified as such BEFORE it got on her server or afterwards?

    #8: Why should they?

  • Added to answer to question 4:

    “Inquiring minds” may want to take note of the final Republican Benghazi Witch Hunt Committee report.

    The New Yorki Times:

    Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

    The 800-page report, however, included some new details about the night of the attacks, and the context in which it occurred, and it delivered a broad rebuke of government agencies like the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in the Libyan city, and especially for maintaining outposts in Benghazi that they could not protect.

  • Slamfu

    You main assumption on the border issue is wrong to start with. The talking point is that Dems want to let everyone in and the GOP will stop illegals from crossing. As usual, the GOP talking points conflict wildly with reality. Reality is that under Obama border security was masively stepped up and we have far less illegal immigration now than we did under GWB. So basically, Obama did exactly what his detractors on this issue(such as yourself) were asking for, but they simply ignored that fact so they could continue to push a false narrative.

    As far as the server stuff goes with Clinton, sounds like she was breaking some rules there, but it also sounds like a misdemeanor in terms of screw ups, and no secrets were stolen, so while I think it’s not good, it’s no where near a dealbreaker for me. As to why I would tell her to continue running if indicted, I would say that an indictment is merely the formal process that says we will be proceeding with a trial, it is not a conviction by any means. The outcome of the trial is what would sway my opinion in this matter, not merely an indictment.

    Also, option B is Donald Trump. I would endure much to avoid having such a raving incompetent with his fingers on the big red LAUNCH button.

  • Joe Cochran

    The whole Latino/illegal immigration issue is a red herring. Latinos from Mexico and Central America ARE NOT taking jobs from U.S. Citizens, they are doing jobs that no U.S. Citizen will do. They do roofing , they do lawn work, collect garbage, bus tables, and clean toilets. They don’t take the high paying jobs in IT, Finance, or Administration. These are taken by people from India, China, and Eastern Europe. H.W. Bush refers to them as guest workers. They are also called H1B visa holders. The reason that the republican party wants to divert the attention to Mexica is because H1B visa holders save LOTS of money for big business. I myself and getting tired of being feed BS. In my opinion, Hillary is an Angel compared to Trump, And the Democratic party looks out for my interests MUCH better than the republican party

  • Pingback: Engineer Aws Alkhazraji()

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com