So, the question of the day is – are you more morally bankrupt if you fall behind Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Comment, but remember this is a moderated post so if your comments are out of line or you are looking to belittle someone, your comments will be deleted.

Cory Gardner has crazily lost touch, can't even answer a question. And it matters!

This.....In its entirety! This, Colorado! THIS!

Written by Steve Benen (I claim no credit for this, I'm just reposting as text only because it MATTERS!), link to the article is cory-gardner-and-the-willing-suspension-the-facts

Rep. Cory Gardner’s (R-Colo.) “personhood” problem long ago stopped being simply about his support for a radical piece of legislation. As his U.S. Senate campaign has unfolded in Colorado – a race the far-right candidate is now actually favored to win – Gardner has instead been dogged by questions about his integrity, his character, and his competence, all because of this key issue.

To briefly recap, the Republican congressman has spent much of his career supporting personhood, which would ban all abortions and common forms of birth control. Gardner dropped his longtime support for the policy at the state level, but continues to champion the policy at the federal level. Asked to explain, the right-wing Coloradan routinely says there is no federal personhood bill – though our eyes and reality say differently – and that the legislation does not say what it plainly says.

Last night, Kyle Clark, a reporter for the NBC affiliate in Denver, pressed Gardner on this in ways no one else has:
“You continue to deny that the federal Life Begins At Conception Act, which you sponsor, is a personhood bill to ban abortion, and we are not going to debate that here because it’s a fact. Your co-sponsors say so; your opponents say so; and independent fact-checkers say so.

“So let’s instead talk about what this entire episode may say about your judgment more broadly. It would seem that a charitable interpretation would be that you have a difficult time admitting when you’re wrong, and a less charitable interpretation is that you’re not telling us the truth. Which is it?”
Gardner dodged the question, saying the federal legislation is “simply a statement that I support life.” This claim, unfortunately, is a rather brazen lie.

The reporter, aware of reality, pressed further. “Why does no one else think that?” Clark asked. “That’s what we’re getting at.” Gardner dodged again, insisting he’s already answered these questions.

Clark, to his credit, stuck with it. “What I’m asking you about here is what appears to be the willing suspension of the facts. People who agree with you on the issue of life think you’re wrong about how you describe the bill. Everybody seems to have a cohesive idea about what this is – with the exception of you. And I’m wondering, what should voters glean from that?”

Gardner dodged again, saying people have different opinions about reproductive rights, which is true, but completely unrelated to what he was asked.

This matters. A lot.

I can appreciate why some, especially on the right and at the Denver Post’s editorial page, may find this focus excessive. There’s no shortage of important issues in the 2014 elections, and investing considerable time and energy on one part of the GOP congressman’s work as a legislator may seem unnecessary. At first blush, it’s not an unreasonable point.

But that’s what made Kyle Clark’s questioning so worthwhile: this isn’t just about personhood. Cory Gardner championed radical legislation to remove women’s access to abortion and forms of contraception. Then he lied about it. Then he lied about it some more. Asked to explain himself, the Republican won’t apologize for his often shameless dishonesty, and can’t coherently justify why his claims so plainly contradict reality.

In other words, this may just be one issue among many, but it’s offering the public a chance to learn who Cory Gardner really is, what he does, and why kind of politician he’d be if elected to the Senate. As Clark’s line of questioning suggests, the challenge for Colorado voters is asking what else the congressman isn’t telling the truth about.

Privatization definitely loses touch with he people it is meant to support

Another link, another example of tea party candidates screwing over their constituents....

a-red-privatization-horror-story

Don't let this happen in Colorado! Don't lose touch!

Yes, this is Salon, but I repost it because I don't want to see the same thing happen in Colorado.  Vote Udall and Hickenlooper!

scott_walker_fighting_for_his_political_life_as_voters_reject_his_callous_policies

Republicans can't face facts, and really lose touch in 6 ways

I didn't write this, this is from the Rolling Stone, way back in April 2014.  They say it as well as I could, so total credit goes to them.  I'm only passing this along for you to read.  ENJOY!

six-studies-that-show-everything-republicans-believe-is-wrong

SCOTUS Losing Touch with the "People" that this government represents?

Well, here we are at Independence Day. What does this day represent to me now that we have a couple of decisions from the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS in case you don't know the acronym)? Well, there were actually 2 decisions that came down yesterday that focus on individual liberties VS corporate liberties.

If you look at the 2 decisions, they are very much pro corporation (something that the current SCOTUS has shown themselves to be over more than a few years). The second of the 2, the decision on whether individuals that benefit from collective bargaining of Unions, was less watched or spoken about. Essentially, Unions that fight for better wages and treatment of employees could charge to recover fees spent in court or otherwise even to the non-union employees that benefited from the fight. This essentially will weaken the union ability to fight for betterment of their members. We will see what the long term affect is, but I worry that this again weakens their ability to collectively bargain for wage increases, benefits, etc. Again, very pro-business, very anti-individual.

The other of the two seems to be the most vocally discussed, especially across multiple social media platforms. This was the "Hobby Lobby" case. At the heart of the matter, this case was not about religious freedom, it was about access to healthcare. I read a number of posts from friends on social media, both supporting and reviling the decision. Because it appears to be about religion, it has inflamed both groups. But, again, I say it is not about religion or religious freedom, it is how businesses have the ability to pick and choose what laws they do or do not need to follow.

The Hobby Lobby folks decided that they did not want to be forced to pay for certain insurance coverages. I get that, and there is an out for religious organizations for sure. But businesses that serve a large and diverse workforce need to not only think of what they may or may not want to support, from their own beliefs, but need to consider what their potential employees may want or need. In a number of comments I saw over the past few days, Here is the one that popped up the most - "(I, We, They) can get free healthcare and birth control by going to the free clinic" - my response to that is - "You understand that the Conservative party is trying to defund those clinics, right? What happens when your free birth control is no longer free, especially when your company or organization will not allow you to sign the exemption form to allow your insurance company to actually provide you your insurance for free" because even that is against their beliefs. And if you think that can't happen, then guess what, it already did.

Get ready! Political idiocy is about to begin

Well, it is now time for political season to kick into gear.  Time to have some fun!  Check out the old posts while I bring the blog up to speed.  And follow me on Twitter @losttouchwith or on Tumblr as losttouchwith.   Enjoy this link as an example! http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/americans-for-prosperity-buzzfeed-obama-mark-udall-aurora

Obama not losing touch, but gun advocates want you to think so.....

After the wonderful speech that President Obama gave yesterday in Denver, some of the more conservative news organizations pitched the idea that he was complaining about feeling "constrained" by the constitution. As is always the case with anyone who seems to express a viewpoint about gun control (control, not confiscation, not denial of access, etc), it was taken way out of context.

Here is what was said by the President:

One last thing I'm going to mention is that during this conversation -- I hope you don't mind me quoting you, Joe. Joe Garcia, I thought, also made an important point, and that is that the opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what's being proposed and nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government.

You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself from the government." "We can't do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away."

Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. (Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.

And so, surely, we can have a debate that's not based on the notion somehow that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of Aurora or Newtown or Columbine have grieved. We've got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion. And it's important for all of us when we hear that kind of talk to say, hold on a second. If there are any folks who are out there right now who are gun owners, and you've been hearing that somehow somebody is taking away your guns, get the facts. We're not proposing a gun registration system, we're proposing background checks for criminals. (Applause.)

Don't just listen to what some advocates or folks who have an interest in this thing are saying. Look at the actual legislation. That's what happened here in Colorado. And hopefully, if we know the facts and we're listening to each other, then we can actually move forward.

The section in question is in paragraph 3, and the president is not deriding the fact that he is constrained, he is highlighting and applauding the fact that the constitution was set up to limit government powers. So, for those of you who think that this president is all about taking away your rights, be a little smarter. Educate yourself. Understand the issue. Recognize the fact that the states with the least amount of gun laws affecting access to guns are also some of the states with the highest death rates due to guns.

In Colorado, by the way, I can still have my gun if I want to, so no-one has taken away my right to bear arms. Be educated, don't be a sheep and follow the NRA one liners, become your own informed participant in the political process.

Makers VS Takers, losing touch with who really grows the economy

I was wondering today if the whole makers vs takers argument that has permeated the air during and even after the election really does show us how out of touch we all are.

My premise - do we have it backward? Are the people at the top of the chain really "makers"? It seems to me that they might be the takers. Think of it this way, they are the ones taking the money from their companies and placing it on the sidelines, so are they really making the economy move? I don't think so.

On the other hand, the defined "takers" are the ones that without question put more than 50% (and sometimes all 100%) of their earned revenue (take home pay) back into play in the economy.

So, let's turn the conversation around folks. The takers are the folks that do not contribute their revenue back into the equation. By not sharing more of their wealth and compensation, by meeting a bottom line that is exclusively set up to take more for them and their shareholders, by taking their money offshore or placing it in tax shelters designed to limit or remove the bulk of the revenue/profit from the economy at large, they are TAKING away the ability for the economy to bounce back. And by placing their money on the sidelines, they and only they will benefit as the economy grows stronger.

Then, on the other side, the folks that could help the economy to move, the folks who could be spending and investing more, the folks that need a job and are not able to contribute unless the folks holding onto the $ put them back into the mix, these are the folks that could MAKE the economy move.

I think we've lost touch with what and who make and take from the global economy, and until the upper echelon believe this, then we'll still run into the same old problem.

Lost Touch - Was anyone really listening today?

For those of you that are unsure about what the President discussed today, or didn't read the transcript, here is my abridged version (and I'm paraphrasing and quoting directly, so pay attention because I switch back and forth):

Paraphrasing - Hello Everyone, I'm standing with a few of the kids that wrote to me asking for something to be done. Because they can't vote, I am their voice.

Paraphrasing - Here is some of what I can legally do through Executive Actions (and what I'm about to sign):
1) Toughen current gun laws
2) Give law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence.
3) Allow government agencies to once again study the best ways to reduce gun violence, and whether violent media also plays a part.

MY NOTE - You can read all 23 of the Executive Actions at the bottom of this post.

Paraphrasing - Here is what I can't do, but what Congress has authority to do (and they need to hear your voices and from you since we are a government by representation, or it won't be done):
1) Pass universal background checks into law
2) Restore a ban on assault style weapons (and this is a direct quote - "And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to “listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [military-style assault] weapons.”")
3) Congress needs to help, rather than hinder law enforcement by toughening laws around criminals who sell guns to other criminals

Another direct quote - "This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty -- not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever." Translated by me - there are people out there that make tons of money every time you buy a gun, and so they don't want to see tougher access passed.

And another direct quote - "This is the land of the free, and it always will be. As Americans, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights that no man or government can take away from us. But we've also long recognized, as our Founders recognized, that with rights come responsibilities. Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same. We don’t live in isolation. We live in a society, a government of, and by, and for the people. We are responsible for each other. The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate, and all the families who’ve never imagined that they’d lose a loved one to a bullet -- those rights are at stake. We’re responsible." My take - There are other rights that we all have that are just as important as the second Amendment, so let's make sure they all work together and not against each other.

MY THOUGHTS - In all of the above I don't see anywhere where he is stating that all guns be outlawed. I see him recognizing the second Amendment and recognizing its validity. I do see him asking for us (as did the children who wrote to him) to try real hard to get Congress to act and for reasonable measures to be taken by Congress. And I see a tack that shows acting on 3 fronts - the 3 fronts that I've posted about before - tighten current laws, strengthen mental health support services, and limit what guns can be made available.

Here are the 23 exec actions in case you want to read them all:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."