keepthefaith

Trump and his campaign were put under surveillance in 2016. That isn't even a question now.

Been to both of those restaurants also. We can get similar fish fry's at a few locations in Chicago area and many places in WI serve a Buffalo style fish fry. Good stuff!

Agree that federal taxation at middle class income levels and below is pretty low right now. The whole story though is the portion of the paycheck that goes to fed taxes, state taxes, health care and insurance costs, student loan debt (if they could afford to go to college), rent and car insurance. Several of these have risen faster than the rate of inflation and faster than wages which leave people with less money to spend on other things. That and hardly a payday goes by when you look at what is taken out of checks in taxes and also constantly hear that states are broke, the fed government has racked up a huge debt and that SS and medicare are grossly underfunded.

Millennials should be the most conservative generation ever. The boomers are leaving them a huge federal debt and insolvent entitlements, the lowest labor participation rate in decades, health care costs spiraling up and border and security issues. If you could put all the millennials in a room and present to them the state of their country now compared to when the boomers got out of college and in the years that followed, we'd make more conservative folks out of them real quick. The Dem party is only surviving on a complicit media and education system to push their agenda, the rhetoric from politicians and the ignorance of young voters. All you need to do now is look at the energy the dems are investing in trying to take down Trump instead of investing that same time and energy into fixing our nation's big problems. The dem party has no answers for the big issues other than more taxes, more spending and more tired and divisive tactics. Republicans are marginally better.

When most media outlets run or read the headline "Russia hacks election" for weeks, you shape public opinion. Doesn't take much to move opinions of low information voters.

If Trump is judged on his style, approach and personality (which is what the left is mostly doing), he'll be harshly judged. What he has identified as the issues he wants to fix, is pretty solid. Time will tell if he's effective or not. I'm not falling into the trap of judging his style or the meaningless faux issues that are raised by his political and media opposition. I'll judge him on progress on the big issues which is mostly math.

You're right, I don't fear that at all. Nobody in their right mind (or left mind) would think an independent prosecutor is appropriate without evidence. As far as I know, nobody in the media, intelligence or congress has presented a shred of evidence of collusion between any American and the Russians in the exposure of John Podesta's email. If further investigations find evidence, then it should be explored. Indirectly yes. Remember the Uranium deal where the dude that brokered the deal made a big fat contribution?

Serious people realize that Russia meddled in the election but did not change the outcome. Serious people hold zero belief that Trump, Sessions, Flynn or Trump's campaign had anything to do with the meddling. Serious people are laughing at the left's commitment to this non-story.

That's an incredible article. Painter's got big balls to put his name on that. Good for some laughs though.

I'm hoping for something different. I hope he prepares a powerpoint presentation with lots of numbers, graphs and charts and presents the facts on the issues he plans to address and how. I hope that he solicits help from cabinet level members of his administration to participate in the presentation and that collectively they deliver a true state of the union presentation. And if that takes 3 hours, so be it.

Yup, he's dreaming 8 years. I think many would settle for balanced budgets going forward so that $20T in debt become less of a burden as the economy grows and would make a rise in interest rates less painful.

Shocking, an Ambassador from another nation actually had meetings with elected officials in Washington.

Democrats at the ballot box. As for paying for the wall construction, it'll be funded by sponsors who pay for the ads posted on it. The numbers I've seen show that it'll break even in 12 years with significant profits in later years from the recurring revenue. This will be part of Trump's public/private infrastructure plan.

I don't care what his poll numbers say if he and his administration and this congress are effective in addressing Debt/budgets, jobs/economy, national security, illegal immigration and health care reform.

Did you hear Trump's speech last night? He was speaking to you. You got fleeced.

Maybe the Dems can grab the fiscal responsibility plank and add that to their platform. Right now their platform is more like an old rotted wood dock.

I'm not sure either of them can easily stand from a sitting position, kinda like Hillary.

Yeah he reached badly on the drugs topic.

Yes, it's tough but the large carriers who already have a footprint in most or all states will figure out it they have an advantage. Right now with the number of carriers on the decline, we've got a fedex/ups model where both companies raise rates in lockstep with each other. We've go to get more competition in health insurance.

Especially in this age of gender flexibility and shared bathrooms.

Define "we" and how much for "we" and what level of service do all get and what do "we" do if we aren't satisfied with the service? The government, because it pays diddly squat for medicaid services and a little more than diddly squat for Medicare services, would have to significantly increase it's payments for services in order to pay the average of what is being paid now. Private insurers typically pay higher rates and since many hospitals and other medical services are not for profits, there isn't a whole lot to squeeze out.

Which leads to the age old question, who pays for it and how?

I should have predicted this response.

Booker is a much better liar and exaggerator than Warren. He's more Obama-like in that regard. He'll be a factor if he wants to be. I didn't notice Perez in his comments over the weekend promising Dems that the DNC would make data security a top priority.

What part of "you took the risk of sneaking in here through the back door and that risk may not payoff" don't people understand?