James Lankford

[tulsabug]

The broad brush attitude you present is a major contributor to the divisiveness in our country.

okay - they're that and a side of Susan Collins who is always sooooo concerned but that then just falls in line with the rest of them. Most of the Republican party is just Trump and religious zealots who only want rights for white America and then only for straight white rich evangelical Christian Americans - the remainder are independents who just whine that "this isn't the party that I remember" but are too lazy to change their registration. The percentage of registered Republicans who won't acknowledge Jan 6th was an attempted coup or that Joe Biden is the legitimate President is in the single digits. The divisiveness in this country is the Republican party - full stop. Let me ask you - you seem like an intelligent lucid individual - is the current Republican party representing both your personal interests and also your hopes for our country and if so what are your interests? And if not why are you still a Republican?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I hope "you Democrats" can nominate someone i, as a Republican, can vote for.  I got a phone call today for my father (deceased in Jan 2001) asking for my support for some wacko supporting Donald Trump.  I told whoever it was that I will NOT support anyone continuing to support the "Donald". I continue to be a Republican trying to support someone not a right wing religious wacko that is still basically a conservative.  The Republican party needs to divest itself from the right wing religious wackos and Donald Trump.  There is room for a conservative party but not Trumpism.  Whew!

You missed that boat...Obama was almost a decent representation of a moderate Republican along the lines of Reagan (without the criminal activity, though.)  He even advanced an idea supported by Reps that Dems jumped on the train over...it's called Obamacare in some circles.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The broad brush attitude you present is a major contributor to the divisiveness in our country.

How about an example of one that isn't what tulsabug said.   Romney maybe...

[Red Arrow]

How about an example of one that isn't what tulsabug said.   Romney maybe...

Maybe Liz Cheney who just got booted by the idiot Trumpsters.  I kind of liked the Gov from Ohio in 2016, Kasich.  He never endorsed Trump.
Paul Ryan has come out against Trump.  https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/28/ex-speaker-paul-ryan-to-republicans-reject-donald-trump-2nd-rate-imitations/

[Red Arrow]

You missed that boat...Obama was almost a decent representation of a moderate Republican along the lines of Reagan (without the criminal activity, though.)  He even advanced an idea supported by Reps that Dems jumped on the train over...it's called Obamacare in some circles.

No boat missed here.  Obama was a decent human being but I would not call him a nearly moderate Republican. At least he wasn't a Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren. He did a few things that Bush II was trying like cash for clunkers which created an artificial demand for new cars which resulted in a sales slump later and reduced the pool of used cars for the economically disadvantaged.  I admit he inherited a bad situation but "his" plans led to a slow recovery.  Keep in mind that I lost a job due to the turn down in manufacturing at the end of the Clinton regime.  I think Obama was a bit naive on foreign policy but not as abrasive as Trump. Trump was correct that some of our trade policies were not in our favor but his "solutions" were not the great deal that he thought they were.  At best, they were marginally better.  Obamacare.... You gotta pass it to find out what's in it (Pelosi) and you can keep your doctor.  I don't have a problem with mandating health care but Obamacare did not reduce the cost of healthcare in the USA, at least not my employer sponsored healthcare.  (I am now retired and on Medicare.) Trump was wrong to remove the mandate for healthcare coverage. Everyone needs some skin in the game.  That's how "insurance" works.  I joked about voting for Bernie so I could get free stuff... but I never really believed in it.  If we want a single payer system in this country, it will have an awful transition.  Medicare is barely funded, in yours and my case, in spite of having paid into the system for about 40 years or more.  That implies that younger folks will need to pay for single payer under age 65 while paying for Medicare for when they are over 65.  All the get your $144 back ads for Medicare Advantage plans involve "network" doctors.  My experience with my mother's situation, first after her insurance changed plans, second after her doctor retired, is that I NEVER want to deal with "network" health plans.  That also includes my personal experience with Aetna and doctors not being in-network.  Plus, one of my mother's friends who is in the healthcare business told me she would personally come and shoot me if I enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.  OK, a bit of an exaggeration.   Final thought, you cannot make the "rich" pay for everything.  I haven't checked for a few years but if you take everything (100%) of everything the excessively rich make, you still cannot pay for everything the "Democrats" want to do.  The money just isn't there. The middle class is going to take a hit.

[Red Arrow]

okay - they're that and a side of Susan Collins who is always sooooo concerned but that then just falls in line with the rest of them. Most of the Republican party is just Trump and religious zealots who only want rights for white America and then only for straight white rich evangelical Christian Americans - the remainder are independents who just whine that "this isn't the party that I remember" but are too lazy to change their registration.

Not lazy.  I cannot align with the Democratic Party and changing to Independent is essentially throwing away my vote.  I believe in closed primary elections as the parties nominate who they want for their party.  Maybe not so popular anymore but I don't care.  Do the Democrats want a bunch of Republicans nominating someone in the primaries the Democrats know cannot win?  I am NOT talking about voter fraud, just an organized effort to tank an election by legitimate cross party voting.  I cannot change the Republican party back to what it was decades ago by deserting it.

The percentage of registered Republicans who won't acknowledge Jan 6th was an attempted coup or that Joe Biden is the legitimate President is in the single digits.

Have a credible link?  I don't feel like researching that.  I'm sure the number of Trumpsters are significant but you will have to come up with something other than a partisan statement.

The divisiveness in this country is the Republican party - full stop.

If you really believe that, there is no reason to continue this conversation.  You are drinking the Liberal/Democratic Cool-Aid.

Let me ask you - you seem like an intelligent lucid individual - is the current Republican party representing both your personal interests and also your hopes for our country and if so what are your interests? And if not why are you still a Republican?

The current Republican Party has some difficulties, no doubt.  I believe that, for the most part, the GOALS of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are similar.  The difference is how to get there. With the exception of Trump and the religious wacos, I believe the Republican Party still has better ways to achieve common goals than the Democratic party.

For example: In the mid-70s, my father had the opportunity to hire day workers for more than just minimum wage.  He had a difficult time finding workers since they were making benefits while unemployed almost (within a few $/hour) as much as working.  We are seeing a similar situation now that Covid is declining of people needed for jobs that won't work for only a few $ more per hour than not working.  I TOTALLY supported helping these folks during the pandemic but it's time to get back to work.

[Hoss]

Not lazy.  I cannot align with the Democratic Party and changing to Independent is essentially throwing away my vote.  I believe in closed primary elections as the parties nominate who they want for their party.  Maybe not so popular anymore but I don't care.  Do the Democrats want a bunch of Republicans nominating someone in the primaries the Democrats know cannot win?  I am NOT talking about voter fraud, just an organized effort to tank an election by legitimate cross party voting.  I cannot change the Republican party back to what it was decades ago by deserting it. 
Have a credible link?  I don't feel like researching that.  I'm sure the number of Trumpsters are significant but you will have to come up with something other than a partisan statement.If you really believe that, there is no reason to continue this conversation.  You are drinking the Liberal/Democratic Cool-Aid.The current Republican Party has some difficulties, no doubt.  I believe that, for the most part, the GOALS of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are similar.  The difference is how to get there. With the exception of Trump and the religious wacos, I believe the Republican Party still has better ways to achieve common goals than the Democratic party.

For example: In the mid-70s, my father had the opportunity to hire day workers for more than just minimum wage.  He had a difficult time finding workers since they were making benefits while unemployed almost (within a few $/hour) as much as working.  We are seeing a similar situation now that Covid is declining of people needed for jobs that won't work for only a few $ more per hour than not working.  I TOTALLY supported helping these folks during the pandemic but it's time to get back to work.

My biggest problem with the Republican party in the last 20 years or maybe a little more is their social stances and wanting to regulate how women police their own bodies.  Their obsession with overturning Roe v Wade has always been a little concerning.  Does that mean I approve of abortion.  I don't.  But, for the party who claims to be the party of small government they sure don't have a problem with the government regulating how women along with their physicians make decisions about what is best for them.  And now the voter restriction bills that so many states are passing or are attempting to pass is another thing.  Fiscally, I line up kind of in the middle.

[Red Arrow]

My biggest problem with the Republican party in the last 20 years or maybe a little more is their social stances and wanting to regulate how women police their own bodies.  Their obsession with overturning Roe v Wade has always been a little concerning.  Does that mean I approve of abortion.  I don't.  But, for the party who claims to be the party of small government they sure don't have a problem with the government regulating how women along with their physicians make decisions about what is best for them.  And now the voter restriction bills that so many states are passing or are attempting to pass is another thing.  Fiscally, I line up kind of in the middle.

I don't like abortion but I accept that it will happen.  It happened before Roe v Wade. It will continue if Roe v Wade is overturned.  Maybe allowing sex education in junior high school is a better alternative to repealing Roe v Wade. (Remember, I didn't grow up in the Bible Belt.)

I have no problem with proving who you are when voting as long as it is no $ cost.  Your free, non-photo, voter ID is good enough and accepted in OK.  If you vote absentee in OK, the Notary is not allowed to charge to verify who you are.  You can deliver your ballot in person if you want to save the postage to mail it but that would probably cost more than the postage.  I have not investigated options for the disabled.  The recent, blatantly obvious attempts at voter restrictions in other states are unacceptable.

Fiscally, I believe I am a bit right of middle but still basically in the middle.  I believe a person should have some responsibility for their well being.  Government help should be available for extenuating circumstances beyond reasonable control.  Here is some interesting reading on the US Income Tax of 1913: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913  The minimum wage needs to go up but if you are happy with a skill set of flipping burgers, it doesn't bother me if you have to work more than 40 hours per week.  People in the food industry that get sub-minimum wage because they get tips, need to be bumped up to full minimum wage.  What about the people living on Social Security?  There are some income tax advantages for Social Security income but the $1543/month average is only about $8.90/hour based or a 40 hour work week. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaeffect.html

[patric]

The Republican Party's unflinching loyalty to former President Donald Trump is facing a fresh test in Oklahoma, where the state GOP chairman has endorsed a primary challenge to Sen. James Lankford, one of the most conservative members of the Senate.

The state chairman, John Bennett, who before securing the top party post in April was best known for anti-Islamic rhetoric and suggesting that Hillary Clinton be executed, is backing Jackson Lahmeyer, a Tulsa pastor and political newcomer, over the incumbent Lankford.

It's an unusual alliance that has left some GOP operatives aghast because party chairs typically stay neutral in primaries, especially those involving established incumbents. But it comes as Lankford has refused to repeat falsehoods about the 2020 election and support Trump's claims that the election was stolen.

The endorsement also offers the latest example of how Republicans are grappling with their view of the former president and whether fidelity to him should be a litmus test.

"We have to have men and women of courage, men and women of integrity," Lahmeyer said in an interview with NBC News. "Unfortunately, right now in the state of Oklahoma, we're lacking that."

Lahmeyer, who is 29 but will be the constitutionally-mandated age of 30 to serve in the Senate before the election, said Lankford embarrassed the state on Jan. 6. Lankford announced that day that he would object to the counting of Arizona's votes, but then reversed and withdrew his objection after a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol to try to stop the certification that Biden won the election.

The final straw, Lahmeyer added, was when Lankford later apologized to Black constituents for questioning the outcome.

In other states, the threshold for challenging or rebuking a Republican deemed as disloyal to Trump has been higher — a vote to impeach or convict Trump. Lankford voted to acquit Trump during the impeachment trial.

In Oklahoma, Lahmeyer's campaign comes as Bennett's state party continues to consider a resolution to censure Lankford and the state's other GOP senator, Jim Inhofe, "for failure to delay the certification of fraudulent electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election." The resolution, advanced by the Osage County Republican Party, is on the agenda for the state committee's July 17 meeting.

Lankford, 53, declined a request to comment. Even with the state party chairman actively campaigning for his opponent, he has endorsements from dozens of top Oklahoma Republicans, including Gov. Kevin Stitt. Lankford's supporters note his wide margins of victory in a 2014 special election and 2016 campaign for a full term and are confident his reliably conservative policy principles will outweigh any shortcomings he has with Trump die-hards.

"Receiving over 900 votes of Republicans in the state convention to be chairman is not equivalent to the hundreds and thousands of votes that James Lankford won in a Republican primary and the hundreds of thousands of votes he won in general elections," Chad Alexander, a past Oklahoma GOP chairman, said.

Besides Bennett, Lahmeyer also boasts an endorsement from Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and later was pardoned by Trump. Flynn is one of the most vocal promoters of election falsehoods, going as far as suggesting a military coup to overthrow the Biden administration — remarks he walked back after criticism. He recently appeared at a Lahmeyer event.

Several Republicans familiar with Oklahoma politics said the state party is unlike those in other states where a governor or senator may install their pick as chair and, as a result, their goals are not always aligned. Stitt, the Republican governor, has not been involved in party chair races.

One senior Republican operative said Bennett's ascension to party chair and backing of Lahmeyer shouldn't be seen as evidence of a change in the state's voters, but more of a political fluke indicative of internal party dynamics.

"I don't think there's any grand change in the Republican Party, per se, in Oklahoma."

The operative, who requested anonymity to speak openly about a sensitive intraparty conflict, is among those who believe Bennett's endorsement is inappropriate.

"I never got involved in primaries," Alexander, the former state chair, said. "No state chairman should get involved in primaries. When you start with divisiveness, you're never going to bring unity, and the party should support whoever the Republican Party voters nominate."

Lahmeyer argued that Bennett was open about wanting to change the party.

"Some are calling it a hostile takeover," he added. "I don't see it as a hostile takeover, but we are taking the party back. Keep your eye on Oklahoma. There's a storm brewing down here."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/fight-over-trump-loyalty-okla-gop-chairman-endorses-sen-lankford-n1273269

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just when you think this state can't get any more ignorant, they pull one of those "Hey, y'all...hold my beer and watch this..." moments.

[patric]

U.S. Sen. James Lankford kept up his attack on the Biden administration's immigration policy on Friday, this time with Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado at his side.
Lankford reiterated several points he covered in Washington earlier this week, and Regalado talked about the dangers of smuggled illegal drugs and the "hypocrisy" of COVID-19 recommendations and restrictions.
Regalado replied that it is hypocritical to "implement some of the most stringent COVID policies on our citizens, yet we will not be enforcing them on people coming into this country illegally."


https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/watch-now-lankford-regalado-call-biden-immigration-policy-hypocrisy-in-double-team-on-president/article_4e190d86-eb1d-11eb-ad1d-d3cf7ef4b8d7.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

The minimum wage needs to go up but if you are happy with a skill set of flipping burgers, it doesn't bother me if you have to work more than 40 hours per week.  People in the food industry that get sub-minimum wage because they get tips, need to be bumped up to full minimum wage. 

The problem with that take on minimum wage is that corporate America has been hard at work driving down the minimum wage for decades!   It peaked in 1968 in real   buying terms.  Since that time it has decreased more than 40% in buying power - that is a real cut of 40+%.   That is where the $15 an hour we keep hearing about comes from.  If you adjust the numbers from 1968 until now - it comes out just under $15 an hour.

Even people in the middle and upper middle class have experienced very small wage growth relatively speaking - Engineers certainly didn't increase much over those years!  Yeah, the absolute numbers were bigger, just like min wage, but the relative increases were pretty much stagnant.  And MOST of the people in this country have experienced cuts to real pay.

While CEO's and officers of companies have accelerated in compensation by many times the speed of light!  Plus HUGE tax cuts to boot!  Hundreds of times as much in real terms as they got over that time.

[Red Arrow]

The problem with that take on minimum wage is that corporate America has been hard at work driving down the minimum wage for decades!   It peaked in 1968 in real   buying terms.  Since that time it has decreased more than 40% in buying power - that is a real cut of 40+%.   That is where the $15 an hour we keep hearing about comes from.  If you adjust the numbers from 1968 until now - it comes out just under $15 an hour.

About $2.71 under at $12.29/hr.  $31,200 per (2080 hour) year at $15/hr vs. $25,563 at $12.29/hr.  Difference of $5636/year or about a 22% increase over 1968.   If 1968 was so great, let's make min wage $12.50/hr.  Target at 101st & Memorial has a sign on the door indicating they are hiring new associates at $15/hr.
https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/items/1968-united-states-minimum-wage

This inflation calculator has $1.60 in 1968 as worth $12.75 now.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Even people in the middle and upper middle class have experienced very small wage growth relatively speaking - Engineers certainly didn't increase much over those years!  Yeah, the absolute numbers were bigger, just like min wage, but the relative increases were pretty much stagnant.  And MOST of the people in this country have experienced cuts to real pay.

I cannot disagree with that.

While CEO's and officers of companies have accelerated in compensation by many times the speed of light!

Yep, they are paid WAY too much.

Plus HUGE tax cuts to boot!  Hundreds of times as much in real terms as they got over that time.

Percentage cuts work that way.  You can't give a $50,000. tax cut to someone making $25,000 per year.

[heironymouspasparagus]

About $2.71 under at $12.29/hr.  $31,200 per (2080 hour) year at $15/hr vs. $25,563 at $12.29/hr.  Difference of $5636/year or about a 22% increase over 1968.   If 1968 was so great, let's make min wage $12.50/hr.  Target at 101st & Memorial has a sign on the door indicating they are hiring new associates at $15/hr.
https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/items/1968-united-states-minimum-wage

This inflation calculator has $1.60 in 1968 as worth $12.75 now.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm


I cannot disagree with that.

Yep, they are paid WAY too much.

Percentage cuts work that way.  You can't give a $50,000. tax cut to someone making $25,000 per year.

Ok, start with $12.75 then.  And since everyone else that counts, meaning CEO's and Officers of Corporate America, have made hundreds of times those increases, the lowest should start to gain a little, too!  After all, the big pay guys got it riding on the backs of the little guys.


We are not talking anywhere NEAR $50,000 cuts for those guys - it is nowhere near percentage cuts.  We are talking $$Millions and for 700 or so, Billions, in tax cuts.  Has been going on for decades.  Even some of the richest of the rich have conscience enough to say it is wrong and they should be paying much more!   Reagan was supposed to be the "gold standard" for business type stuff - just go back to what the levels were when he left office.  ALL the deficit problems would be solved and the debt would actually start to be paid off.  Like when Billy Bob was President....


You said, "Percentage cuts work that way.  You can't give a $50,000. tax cut to someone making $25,000 per year."
We could go back and do what Richard Nixon proposed - the one and only good thing he ever talked about, but didn't follow up on - If someone makes less than the poverty level, take the difference, divide by 12, then send back to employee in monthly payments through the year.

[Red Arrow]

Ok, start with $12.75 then.  

I wouldn't fight that.

We are not talking anywhere NEAR $50,000 cuts for those guys - it is nowhere near percentage cuts.

Surely (not Shirley) you can understand that was just an illustration, not an actual example.

Reagan was supposed to be the "gold standard" for business type stuff - just go back to what the levels were when he left office.  ALL the deficit problems would be solved and the debt would actually start to be paid off.

As I remember, Reagan had the incremental rates lowered but he eliminated a lot of deductions.  Federal revenue actually went up but spending went up even faster.

Like when Billy Bob was President....

Billy Bob was lucky enough to ride the dot-com bubble.  Manufacturing was declining near the end of his 2nd term.  I lost an engineering job in manufacturing due to lack of business at that time. I almost voted for Algore so the Dems could take credit for the failing economy.

We could go back and do what Richard Nixon proposed - the one and only good thing he ever talked about, but didn't follow up on - If someone makes less than the poverty level, take the difference, divide by 12, then send back to employee in monthly payments through the year.

We will have to agree to disagree here.  Are you (presumably) talking about a single job (per household) at 40 hours per week?  I would be willing to help support them if they were pursuing an education to increase their skill set.