March 10, 2016 6:00 AM HomeMorning ReadsMorning Reads – Thursday, March 10, 2016 Morning Reads – Thursday, March 10, 2016 By Jessica Szilagyi Morning Reads 23 Comments On this date in 1876, Alexander Graham Bell made the first successful call with the telephone. He spoke the words “Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you.” Peaches Tech kids are wimps. Earl Ehrhart be damned. The Mexican American Defense and Educational Fund is suing the University System of Georgia. Them liquor laws, though. Do you own a pro-life pregnancy center? You get tax dollars. Jimmy Carter Indoctrination in the Army? Clinton loves children and non-criminals. “The penalty for poverty should not be death.” The government decides who dies for forever in China. Wall Street is propped up by profits? Sweet Tea Progress of medical miracle stalled. Penguin swims 5000 miles every year to visit friend. “Hot mug shot” guy is out of prison and on to modeling Share this:TwitterFacebookTumblrRedditEmailPrint Related About Author jszilagyi5 23 Comments John Vestal The willingness to travel 5,000 miles for a Brazilian?….that’s impressive. March 10, 2016 6:51 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus Not wanting to carry a gun is wimpy? I think one could make the case that being so scared of everything that you want to carry a gun with you everywhere is the wimpy behavior. I guess carrying a weapon makes you feel strong anyway. March 10, 2016 7:10 AM Log in to Reply Jack Fitz Why stop at college campuses? I don’t see why elementary schools or middle schools should be discriminated against no being able to carry guns. Does the Bill of Rights stop at the 4-square court? I think not. These 4th graders have a right to defend themselves against foreign invaders. Also why stop at guns? I don’t understand why someone should be denied their right to carry an RPG on the way to a ChemE exam. It just makes no sense… March 10, 2016 7:59 AM Log in to Reply MattMD_actual See, this is the whole point. You cannot have a permit for a concealed weapon until you are 21. Once you take out the students who live in the dorms or graduate housing and the students who are under 21 we are talking about a very small relative population of people who are eligible under the law to be armed. Let me tell you a little secret when I lived in Home Park and had to walk back up north at night: I had a .380 within reach. The Tech piece was a histrionic editorial written by a doe in the woods. I fully support any person over 21 who has a CCP to carry at Tech or any other school in the USG. March 10, 2016 7:45 PM Log in to Reply Charlie Earl be damned? Earl is winning. March 10, 2016 8:51 AM Log in to Reply John Vestal *NOTE* – shameless self-promotion/solicitation follows. Proceed at own risk. YMMV. This year’s St. Baldrick’s head-shaving fundraiser to help close the YUGE funding gap in the research conducted specificallly for childhood cancers is this Sunday, March 13, at The Harp Irish Pub in Roswell. The Harp is located in the Plaza at Roswell Shopping Center, just east of GA400 on Holcomb Bridge Rd. The festivities get under way (officially) at ~1:00PM (DST – don’t forget to spring forward Saturday night!), with MY team…Team Spider Monkey…slated as the first to go under the clippers! 1:00….so you have a whole 30 minutes of drinking time even before the shavings begin! Hope to see you there, but…even if you can’t make it, PLEASE consider supporting The St. Baldrick’s Foundation by clicking here and donating! No amount too small (or too large!) Thanks!! John March 10, 2016 9:21 AM Log in to Reply Three Jack Cam Newton or Mitt Romney, who is the biggest sore loser? After the Super Bowl, Newton displayed a lack of sportsmanship for the entire world to see. In his defense, it did happen in the moment immediately after the game so he might be forgiven for the reaction depending on future actions. But still it continued the notion that Camster thinks he is above everybody else, the Superman complex he singularly displays after every TD. In the case of Mitt Romney, he had 4 years to lick his wounds and reflect on why his team lost. After such an extended period of reflection, one would expect a certain amount of modest decorum going forward. But not Mitt and his band of floppers who have resurfaced to lead an unseemly attack against the current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. The lineup of antagonists includes Mitt, Stuart Stevens who led the failed Romney for President campaign and Katie Packer who was 2nd in command during the unbelievable loss to Obama 4 years ago. This is the team chosen by GOPers to take on Trump, a group that does not know what it means to win. March 10, 2016 10:00 AM Log in to Reply Three Jack Cam Newton or Mitt Romney, who is the biggest sore loser? After the Super Bowl, Newton displayed a lack of sportsmanship for the entire world to see. In his defense, it did happen in the moment immediately after the game so he might be forgiven for the reaction depending on future actions. But still it continued the notion that Camster thinks he is above everybody else, the Superman complex he displays after every TD. In the case of Mitt Romney, he had 4 years to lick his wounds and reflect on why his team lost. After such an extended period of reflection, one would expect a certain amount of modest decorum going forward. But not Mitt and his band of floppers who have resurfaced to lead an unseemly attack against the current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. The lineup of antagonists includes Mitt, Stuart Stevens who led the failed Romney for President campaign and Katie Packer who was 2nd in command during the unbelievable loss to Obama 4 years ago. This is the team chosen by GOPers to take on Trump, a group that does not know what it means to win. Mitt is not Superman. His unsportsmanlike actions of late prove this along with showing why he did not win in 08 or 12. He like Cam thinks he is above everybody else (remember the 47% comment uttered while in a room full of rich donors). Neither is as good as they think in their own conceited minds. Soon enough, Mitt and his cohorts will come to the stark realization that they no longer matter. Can’t happen fast enough. March 10, 2016 10:14 AM Log in to Reply Three Jack Sorry, didn’t mean to post twice. March 10, 2016 10:18 AM Log in to Reply gcp Watched part of the Hilly/Burnie Univision Debate last night. Surprisingly, Mr. Ramos and the other moderators asked many good, intelligent questions. Hilly’s response (or non response) was to avoid answering difficult questions while Burnie tried to reconcile past votes with his current policy. On immigration the candidates agreed the border was secure, deportations should be reduced or eliminated and illegals should get an immediate “path to citizenship” which is mostly the same failed 1986 policy that gave us the current mess. March 10, 2016 10:37 AM Log in to Reply John Konop Below is an article from the Huffington Post a left leaning publication. Hillary is not doing well in the rust belt, which is why they are scared of Trump. You add a popular Kasich to the ticket it could be lights out for Hillary. Here’s How Donald Trump Could Become President If he succeeds in the Rust Belt, look out …..But Trump has a perfectly plausible path to the presidency as a Republican. If he makes it to the White House, he’ll get there by taking the Upper Midwest back from the Democratic Party. When President Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012, he ran up the score in the Electoral College, winning 25 states, good for 332 total electoral votes. His victory was thorough. He only needed 270 electoral votes to win, and President George W. Bush had taken just 286 in his 2004 re-election. To secure the presidency, Democrats only have to win the Northeast, the West Coast, and the Upper Midwest, including Iowa. Obama did far better, carrying every swing state in the country, including Florida and Virginia in the South, and Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the West. But even with that massive margin, Obama could have been undone by victories for Republican rival Mitt Romney in just four states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Together, those four Rust Belt states account for 64 electoral votes. Even if Floridians, Iowans, Coloradans and all of the other swing states had gone to Obama, his failure to capture the Upper Midwest would have been enough to hand the White House over to Romney………. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-donald-trump-becomes-president_us_56cb5429e4b0928f5a6c9ead March 10, 2016 10:48 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope States Democrats probably won’t lose regardless of who is on the ticket Minnesota – Has gone for the Democrat in every election since 1972. Iowa – Outside of 2004, has gone for the Democrat in every election since 1988. Illinois – Has gone for the Democrat in every election since 1992. Michigan – Has gone for the Democrat in every election since 1992. Pennsylvania – Has gone for the Democrat in every election since 1992. Wisconsin – Has gone for the Democrat in every election since 1988. Rust Belt states where Republicans have a chance Indiana – Outside of 2008, has gone for the Republican in every election since 1964. Ohio – Went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Went for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Went for Obama in 2008, 2012. Voters in the Midwest, and Upper Midwest, are, by and large, Democrats. I have a hard time believing they’re going to side with a guy that has zero trade or labor policy AND is the nominee of a party that is notoriously anti-union. Rag on Clinton if you want, but at the end of the day her economic policies aren’t all that different from those of Obama or her husband, both of them wound up doing just fine in the “Upper Midwest.” She should be fine as well. But hey, you do you, keep drinking that Trump Kool-aid. March 10, 2016 11:20 AM Log in to Reply John Konop LOL…..I am from the area, trust me like it or not, working class Dems are not buying what Hillary is selling in the rust belt. You forget Obama beat Hillary in the rust belt based on trade…..Not that Obama did anything about it….When Obama ran for re-election, Romney and Obama agreed on trade. ……..meanwhile, Obama railed on Clinton for supporting NAFTA when her husband was president. Video Watch the latest on the back-and-forth » “Sen. Clinton has been going to great lengths on the campaign trail to distance herself from NAFTA,” Obama said Sunday in Lorain, Ohio. “In her own book, Sen. Clinton called NAFTA one of ‘Bill’s successes’ and ‘legislative victories.’ ” “One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have,” he said. The weekend feud kicked off when Clinton blasted recent mailings from the Obama camp, telling a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, an Obama mailing spread lies about her positions NAFTA. Video Watch analysts discuss latest Democratic controversy » The mailer says Clinton was a “champion” for NAFTA while first lady, but now opposes it. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Citing a 2006 issue of New York Newsday, the mailer says Clinton thought NAFTA was a “boon” to the economy. The term “boon” was actually the paper’s characterization of Clinton’s stance, and not a quote from her. “Bad trade deals like NAFTA hit Ohio harder than other states. Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA,” the mailer says……… http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/clinton.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch March 10, 2016 11:52 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus Um, Obama’s not running. And if HRC gets the nomination she won’t be running against Bernie either. She would (presumably) be running against a ‘Republican’. March 10, 2016 12:40 PM Log in to Reply John Konop If Trump is the candidate, he will put her NAFTA and WTO China support in her face. The same weapon that Bernie and Obama used against Hillary and won. Trump is killing it with working class voters in the rust belt ie Reagan Dems. March 10, 2016 2:54 PM Andrew C. Pope But the remainder of the Trump/GOP platform will likely turn off these same voters. They aren’t single-issue voters, John. Republicans haven’t won Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, or Pennsylvania since HW Bush in ’92. They’re 2 for 6 in Ohio since ’92. They’ve won Iowa once since Reagan left office. They haven’t won Minnesota since Nixon in ’72. Trump ain’t Reagan, man. He’s “killing it” among white people that vote in Republican primaries… those folks are, by definition, not Reagan Democrats . You’re really reallllllly realllllllllly stretching if you think that voting trends within a Democratic primary portend voting trends in the general. March 10, 2016 3:04 PM John Konop The number one issue is jobs, and to them trade policy equals jobs. March 10, 2016 3:36 PM Andrew C. Pope Free trade trade agreements like NAFTA (and TPP) are a great wedge issue in primaries when you’re trying to carve out a position on the left. Obama and Sanders “beat” Hillary on trade because it’s a freaking Democratic primary. That does not mean that a Republican candidate with hands the size of a six year old can beat Hillary on trade. For one, free trade agreements are not a viable general election issue because, time and time again, blue collar union workers have proven to be more than a single issue constituency. These states voted for Clinton in 1996 after NAFTA was signed. They voted for Obama in 2012 after he began negotiations on TPP and T-TIP and made them a focus of his international agenda. If Republicans thought they could win these states by opposing NAFTA, TPP, etc., they would have done so. I have a really, really hard time believing that this constituency is so upset about NAFTA, TPP or any other trade agreement that they’ll willingly vote for a party that is decidedly anti-union and for a candidate without a coherent policy on trade. They may disagree with Clinton on her support for TPP and NAFTA, but they know that she’s going to give labor a seat at the table and that they have the ability to hold her accountable down the line. By virtue of having the depth of a puddle, no one knows 1) where Trump stands, 2) if he has any clue what he’s talking about, and 3) if he’ll actually do anything for labor. I’m incredibly familiar with that area of the country as well, and I can assure you, they’d rather have the devil they know than the pseudo-Klansman they don’t. Adding, Kasich, a guy that was staunchly anti-union and then became wishy washy on it in order to maintain some semblance of popularity ahead of his Presidential run, isn’t going to magically help matters. March 10, 2016 12:42 PM Log in to Reply John Konop Obama had no opponent and Romney was for the trade policy. We can see that the cross over Dem voting for Trump are working class in the rust belt. Even liberal publications like the Huffington Post pointed this out. This is why Bernie polls way better than Hillary verse Trump. March 10, 2016 2:59 PM Andrew C. Pope Show me the cross-over numbers. Seriously, show me how many Democrats are crossing over to vote for Trump. Then, show me how many of them are doing so because they legitimately support his positions and not because they think he’s the easiest opponent for the Democrats to beat in a general. Go ahead. I’ll wait. March 10, 2016 3:06 PM John Konop Btw Washington Post, The Hill….ala had similar polls they posted as well. As I said the key will be how many Republicans vote for Hillary verse coming back to the party, and supporting Trump. All the polls show once they Trump they do not leave, yet Hillary support being way softer, I am guessing via the trust issue. I do think from even reading this blog, you can see Trump issue is not with the Dems and Independents , in fact open primaries he kills it. The biggest issue he faces is within the GOP. …….So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct? A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn’t be a cakewalk. The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and “dial-test” of Trump’s first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed “likely voters” (this video shows the ad and the dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they’d cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they’d vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are “100 percent sure” of switching than the Republicans……….. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-08/new-poll-shows-donald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton March 10, 2016 3:27 PM John Konop More from the rust belt….. ………The statement supports Dr. G. Terry Madonna’s theory that at least some of the 46,000 Democrats-turned-Republican in Pennsylvania belong to a disaffected class that felt overlooked by elected leaders, or at odds with Democratic party ethos. “With the increase in support in exit polls for Trump among working class, blue-collar Democrats, it is my belief that these are people who fall into that genre,” said Madonna, who is director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster……… http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/03/ditch_and_switch_trump_may_be.html March 10, 2016 3:34 PM Three Jack ACP, John is right and I hope you reflect the mood of all dems who will regret ignoring the viability of a Trump campaign, especially if he adds Kasich to the ticket. Along with bringing Midwest blue states into contention, Trump could also put a few NE states into play that are normally safe for dems. HRC supported the trade deals that have pissed off a lot of these voters. She has some splainin to do. March 10, 2016 11:53 AM Log in to Reply Add a Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.