HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lees1975 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Tucson, Arizona
Current location: Chicago, Illinois
Member since: Wed Dec 25, 2019, 01:02 AM
Number of posts: 3,125

Journal Archives

Republican politician defends out of state corporation against local farmers and ranchers over water


A local Republican county supervisor in a small, agricultural county in Arizona defended the presence of an out-of-state corporation that has set up two large dairies in the county because in Arizona, there is little corporate regulation, they pay no taxes, and there is very little regulation of groundwater supplies. So this dairy company runs two dairy farms with about 100,000 cows, each consuming between 20 and 40 gallons of water a day, and requiring additional copious amounts of water to grow cattle feed, while the aquifer, located in a closed basin, in a desert, drops six feet per year. As wells go dry, private, small farms must spend as much as $45,000 to deepen their own wells, or haul water in.

While there's not really a whole lot that a county supervisor can do about a situation like this, she could stand with her neighbors and fellow members of the community she represents, and who elected her in the first place, and show some understanding of their plight. She could, at the very least, become an advocate for them against an out-of-state corporation that employs no locals, does very little business with local merchants and providers and pays no taxes to help with the problems they cause. She could speak up and use the influence of her position as a means through which the local farmers and ranchers could get their message to the attention of politicians who need to hear what they have to say.

But, it is too much to expect of Republican politicians, even on the local level, to stand up for the common people who have to work for a living against corporate exploitation. They just can't bring themselves to do it, even if they are members of the same community. And to save the water in the shrinking aquifer in the Willcox basin, local farmers and ranchers are going to have to set aside the conspiracy theories, the phony social agenda, and all of the lies and falsehoods and cast ballots for politicians who represent their own interests and will support their own community. And those politicians, even down at the county supervisor level, are likely to be members of the Democratic party.

Trying to figure out how Lauren Boebert got elected, and re-elected.


A close examination of Lauren Boebert's background may give some insight into a politician who doesn't seem to have the ability to settle on an identity. From the perspective of a Democrat, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to just write her off as a kook, the product of a deep red congressional district in a blue state where almost 70% of the population lives within a 90 minute drive of the state capital building in Denver. So she can easily be fodder for the mocking of her as an extremist. I'm guilty of doing that kind of writing her off myself.

There's more to it than that. I sometimes wonder if she, as a recruit to run by the GOP, is a much different person than the image she created and that the real person is coming out. I think the most sincere aspect of her politics is her being cemented to unrestricted gun ownership rights and there rest of the image, where she is awkward, ignorant of facts and inconsistent in her position, is the part she has trouble living up to. For someone who claims to be an Evangelical and has been since 2009, she exhibits almost no knowledge of doctrine or theology, or really much that would indicate she reads and studies the Bible at all. She speaks in mostly cliches in this regard.

And that's the backdrop for the latest photographs of Boebert, from a live theater production in Denver, making out with her date as if no one else is in the room, casually vaping and not really being very careful about what's being seen. Clearly, on the Republican side of the aisle, the moral and ethical standards of behavior for members of Congress have deteriorated down to nothing since Trump set the example for the party and they went ahead and nominated him anyway. It's quite an assumption that such a public display won't matter to her supporters. The closeness of her re-election bid is a clear indication that if this offended even a small fraction of those who voted for her, it will make the difference in the next election. But it doesn't appear that this is going over well at all, and if the apology now was kind of weak, I think the regrets on November 6th will be very powerful.

Romney stepping down is the end of a political era.


Personally, my own opinion of Mitt Romney as a politician got a huge boost on March 3, 2016. Driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I heard his speech at the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah warning the GOP about the danger of nominating Donald Trump as their candidate for President. Romney correctly, and with cited evidence, gave a credible attack on Trump's character and behavior, his business dealings and most of his political positions which were all over the place.

Romney said Trump was a "phony, a fraud. He's playing members of the American public for suckers. If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished."

Why waste time and cyberspace discussing nothing?


As if Republicans need something else to send voters to the other side, or keep their own supporters at home on election day, launching an impeachment inquiry, without actually having any specific, credible evidence on which to support it, like every other impeachment inquiry in history has had prior to now, will do the trick. An MSN poll that popped up yesterday shows that 57% of those in the poll think that launching this inquiry, without evidence, will lead to a Democratic sweep of elections in Congress and the Presidency.

The President's approach to this is brilliant. He's ignoring it, as the rest of us should. Oh, I'm not saying don't keep an eye on it and confront propaganda with evidence supporting the truth when it needs to be done. But the President is giving this the attention it deserves, and the media should take the hint and give it that same level of attention.

Kudos, also, to Stephanie Miller, whose handling of the issue on her talk show this morning was also brilliant. She's one of the best when it comes to communicating how insignificant and unimportant the other side's conspiracy theories look to the general public. If there's a recording of the early part of her show for September 14, I'd suggest you set aside some time to listen. If you're a Democrat, it will have you ROFL.

Christian Nationalism: How Evangelical Christianity Became a Political Religion


I love to see people within Evangelical Christianity working to set the record straight. It's a difficult job to try and undo something that is not actually built on loyalty to the faith itself, but on misconceptions and outright false doctrine that is so much a part of the identity of the Evangelical branch of the church. It is perpetuated by fear and long standing mistrust of education and information.

If it's about the economy, then Republicans are the biggest losers.

But it does seem like their narrative has shifted to controlling people's lives. They really can't be about the economy, lower taxes, increased GDP, low unemployment, economic investment that cuts into the deficit, and all of the things about which they used to shriek and flap their lips.


It makes most of them hypocrites. This is one of those times when it will bring benefits to Democrats for being the policy wonks that they are. The economy still matters to a majority of Americans and that's a win-win for Democrats.

There's no dilemma for Christians supporting Joe Biden for President


Good piece points out that it's only white, Evangelicals that are majority Maga voters. Obvious contrasts that many of them seem to miss in their idolization of Trump with their own claim of convictions and faith, but I think that betrays the fact that most of them have no real idea what they believe. When some of them start criticizing the principles taught by Jesus as "liberal talking points," it betrays their ignorance.

One of the things that keeps me anchored to the Democratic party is its willingness to be open minded and accept diversity. As Trump gets more shrill and extreme, he loses support. There are a lot of places now doing this same thing, working to split off votes along the margins when people realize that Trump and their faith aren't compatible options.

Aligning with cruelty and worldliness has been a huge hazard for Evangelicals

And it is getting worse.


I'm sick of hearing and seeing people who claim to be "conservative, Bible-believing" Christians, two catch words which mean they think their faith is superior to those they disagree with whom they label "liberal," and "who don't believe the Bible," say that they're not voting for a pastor-in-chief, they are voting for a commander-in-chief. I'd like to know where their inerrant, infallible Bible says that it is OK to choose political leaders whose lifestyle is deliberately sinful and worldly and who deny the basic soteriological doctrine of the Christian gospel. The Christians who lived in the days when the New Testament was being written could not imagine a civil government in which they got to have a say in who became head of state. Those who now push Christian nationalism and the idea that America's founders intended to start a "Christian nation" completely deny everything they say about it, along with the scripture, when they make that claim.

If the founders intended for the United States to be a "Christian nation," then why would electing a womanizing, adulterous, lying, cheating, narcissistic, vulgar, crooked, arrogant, Christ-denying, draft dodger as President be acceptable?

Desantis is a loser and President Biden is a winner and that's what we saw in Florida yesterday.


Joe Biden is President of the United States, and as part of his official duties, he visited the hurricane ravaged areas of Florida, a state that gets an awful lot of federal help, not just putting it back together after the flat sand bar that it is gets devastated by hurricanes, but also to help prop up its public welfare expenses. At a time when partisan bickering and hatred should get laid aside in favor of helping people who were affected regardless of their political affiliation, Florida's governor chose to play politics instead of doing something to benefit the people he governs. The kind of attitude he exhibited by shunning an appearance in a declared disaster area when the President is visiting is exactly why this loser is getting no traction in his campaign for President and why, in fact, he is losing to someone in his own party who is a bigger con artist and jackass than he is.

I know voters in Florida recently seem to have lost their minds, voting against themselves and their interests in the last two Presidential elections, and the last two midterms, when it comes to their state legislature and governor. In a state where there are so many people past 65 years of age, living near the coast in trailers, and who came from that large island 90 miles south, to escape oppression, the rest of the country is confused by your lack of discernment, and your tendency to elect politicians who couldn't care less about your economic status, or your personal freedom. But this week, your governor sent a clear message that he no longer cares about you. He's more interested in his campaign to get elected President of the United States and this is just one of many things he's done to tell you, Floridians, that he is only interested in using you to help him.

And that's going to cost you. It has, in fact, already cost you plenty.

Plaque honoring slaves' contribution to building a seminary placed in building named after one of

the slave masters who "owned" them.


Just a little bit ironic, I think, that a plaque which honored slaves who contributed to the building of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, was placed in a small chapel in a relatively obscure place, which was named after one of the slave masters who owned the slaves that did the work.

It would be the easiest, most natural, most Christian thing in the world for the school's administration to rename the building while dedicating the plaque. But, no. Not a big deal.

Here's a comment from one of the African American pastors who has been advocating for the placement of the plaque, and for renaming the buildings on campus:

"I understand that the descendants of the slave masters do not have that inner drive to act in the ultimate realm of spirituality by removing the names of the slave masters from the building. I recognize they just canít do it. It requires a deep level of maturity and social reckoning to do so. If the founders were abortion advocates, they would have no hesitancy in removing their names. Most Southern Baptists do not equate the evil of slavery, with the evil of abortion, but they are wrong." Dr. Dwight McKissic

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21 Next »