Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Soxbadger]

9 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Huh? I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of that at all that would be a separate argument. I just saw a poster post an article where the writer suggested rather then trying to fight for middle America and the heartland they instead decide to take their marbles and go home then build some sort of progressive utopia. I just thought people might be interested in what that map would look like if it were based off 2016.

Going back to what you said earlier the framers were clear they did not want America to be run by a couple of metropolitan areas. They wanted America and Congress to work for everyone. So democrats have either two choices they wallow in self pity of how they don't get to govern America by running up the vote totals in deeply blue pockets of the country or they start being a national party again.

Their choice.

I dont think most Democrats wallow in self pity.

The Republican rule benefits most of the elite in the metropolitan areas. You think lower taxes hurt me? You think stocks going gangbusters didn't help my 401k?

The reason im a Democrat is because i hope for other people to have the same access and chance as me. Because i don't want govt legislating religion, i want more personal freedom etc.

The Kavanaughs of the world are who i grew up with, same as the Trumps. They are just going to rig the game more for people like me. 

Id rather the world was better, but tomorrow i wake up fine. Its the good people in the red states i worry about. They can't see the snake oil is poison.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

41 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Huh? I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of that at all that would be a separate argument. I just saw a poster post an article where the writer suggested rather then trying to fight for middle America and the heartland they instead decide to take their marbles and go home then build some sort of progressive utopia. I just thought people might be interested in what that map would look like if it were based off 2016.

Going back to what you said earlier the framers were clear they did not want America to be run by a couple of metropolitan areas. They wanted America and Congress to work for everyone. So democrats have either two choices they wallow in self pity of how they don't get to govern America by running up the vote totals in deeply blue pockets of the country or they start being a national party again.

Their choice.

Well, everyone who counted, white landowning males. 

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

I dont think most Democrats wallow in self pity.

The Republican rule benefits most of the elite in the metropolitan areas. You think lower taxes hurt me? You think stocks going gangbusters didn't help my 401k?

The reason im a Democrat is because i hope for other people to have the same access and chance as me. Because i don't want govt legislating religion, i want more personal freedom etc.

The Kavanaughs of the world are who i grew up with, same as the Trumps. They are just going to rig the game more for people like me. 

Id rather the world was better, but tomorrow i wake up fine. Its the good people in the red states i worry about. They can't see the snake oil is poison.

https://eand.co/why-america-stayed-a-backwards-society-and-collapsed-while-the-world-grew-and-prospered-f1b32a413276?source=email-778470e473a0-1538867325915-digest.reader------0-50------------------4d49b46c_ca07_44a7_883e_85e1f3236229-24&sectionName=ranked

This author posits the theory that America “succeeded” largely due to Jim Crow laws and forced segregation (legalized apartheid)...and has seen falling overall middle class incomes since 1971 as the rest of the world started catching up after rebuilding at the end of World War II.   Europe and Canada, etc., deliberately chose more egalitarian societies with a wider social safety net and generous health care benefits.

[pcq]

6 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

I dont think most Democrats wallow in self pity.

The Republican rule benefits most of the elite in the metropolitan areas. You think lower taxes hurt me? You think stocks going gangbusters didn't help my 401k?

The reason im a Democrat is because i hope for other people to have the same access and chance as me. Because i don't want govt legislating religion, i want more personal freedom etc.

The Kavanaughs of the world are who i grew up with, same as the Trumps. They are just going to rig the game more for people like me. 

Id rather the world was better, but tomorrow i wake up fine. Its the good people in the red states i worry about. They can't see the snake oil is poison.

The Dems may capture a participation trophy that resembles a donkey wearing Ted Cruz's head. The original would be mounted above the fireplace at the Texas hunting lodge where Anton Scalia dreamed his last dreams. 

[Dick Allen]

Susan Collins didn’t need a hearing or sham FBI investigation to call for Al Frankenstein to resign. Just the woman’s word.

[Y2HH]

10 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

Both sides benefit from the relationship.

That being said if the minority keeps ignoring the majority then the relationship isnt as beneficial. Id have to go through the agricultural output, but California and Illinois are nothing to scoff at. And im not sure where Wisconsin would go.

The main crux of my point is that map doesnt mean much. There are more people in the blue than the red.

I dont think the US will split, but i think the blue may start to get fed up with a govt that isnt in synch with the majority.

Not to mention are Trump Republicans even Republicans? The Republican party of the past was for free trade, less govt etc.

The new Republican seem to be against all of that, and they want a big govt to restrict your freedoms.

Who really supports that?

At least you seem rational in your thoughts. It’s often hard to converse when one side takes a very hard right or left stance and it becomes an all-or-nothing argument, which I don’t find grounded in reality.

[wrathofhahn]

41 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Susan Collins didn’t need a hearing or sham FBI investigation to call for Al Frankenstein to resign. Just the woman’s word.

In frankenstein case it wasn't just the womens word. There was photo evidence of him groping women as they slept and he never issued blanket denials he just said he remembered what happened differently

And I think most reasonable people agree if there is convincing evidence whether that be in the form of photo evidence like Franken or someone else comes forward who claims to have seen it happen (Judge changes his story) then they are more then willing to revisit things. When people say "give him the presumption of innocence" that doesn't mean they need to be convicted it means that there needs to be more then just an allegation especially one that had as many holes as Fords.

Everyone's standard of how much evidence they need to see before believing the allegations is different but what makes it such a powerful argument in Kavanaugh case there was none literally nothing. No photos. Not corroboration. No documented previous behavior. Nothing. In the old days the newspapers had standards and this would have never been allowed to run past the editor. They actually found corroboration in their reporting instead of just printing stories and saying well we don't know couldn't corroborate anything the person said but you decide. The name on the first page of the paper meant something.

We now live in an era where the only difference between the National Enquirer and the NYT is the name and who works there.

Edited October 7, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Y2HH]

8 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

I dont think most Democrats wallow in self pity.

The Republican rule benefits most of the elite in the metropolitan areas. You think lower taxes hurt me? You think stocks going gangbusters didn't help my 401k?

The reason im a Democrat is because i hope for other people to have the same access and chance as me. Because i don't want govt legislating religion, i want more personal freedom etc.

The Kavanaughs of the world are who i grew up with, same as the Trumps. They are just going to rig the game more for people like me. 

Id rather the world was better, but tomorrow i wake up fine. Its the good people in the red states i worry about. They can't see the snake oil is poison.

Yes, but even in largely democratic areas this just isn’t the reality, just look at the difference between the haves and have nots in Chicago.

When Democrats were in majority control almost nothing like this occurred.

[pcq]

10 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

I dont think most Democrats wallow in self pity.

The Republican rule benefits most of the elite in the metropolitan areas. You think lower taxes hurt me? You think stocks going gangbusters didn't help my 401k?

The reason im a Democrat is because i hope for other people to have the same access and chance as me. Because i don't want govt legislating religion, i want more personal freedom etc.

The Kavanaughs of the world are who i grew up with, same as the Trumps. They are just going to rig the game more for people like me. 

Id rather the world was better, but tomorrow i wake up fine. Its the good people in the red states i worry about. They can't see the snake oil is poison.

The Dems may capture a participation trophy that resembles a donkey wearing Ted Cruz's head. The original would be mounted above the fireplace at the Texas hunting lodge where Anton Scalia dreamed his last dreams. 

That time I alluded to Trump the future dictator and was reassured that he was just like Obama.

Me and Mitch McConnell. Three minutes bare hands.

Susan Collins. Where can I send donations to her retirement. What a wimpy weasel. 

[Dick Allen]

2 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

In frankenstein case it wasn't just the womens word. There was photo evidence of him groping women as they slept and he never issued blanket denials he just said he remembered what happened differently

And I think most reasonable people agree if there is convincing evidence whether that be in the form of photo evidence like Franken or someone else comes forward who claims to have seen it happen (Judge changes his story) then they are more then willing to revisit things. When people say "give him the presumption of innocence" that doesn't mean they need to be convicted it means that there needs to be more then just an allegation especially one that had as many holes as Fords.

Everyone's standard of how much evidence they need to see before believing the allegations is different but what makes it such a powerful argument in Kavanaugh case there was none literally nothing. No photos. Not corroboration. No documented previous behavior. Nothing. In the old days the newspapers had standards and this would have never been allowed to run past the editor. They actually found corroboration in their reporting instead of just printing stories and saying well we don't know couldn't corroborate anything the person said but you decide. The name on the first page of the paper meant something.

We now live in an era where the only difference between the National Enquirer and the NYT is the name and who works there.

Look at the photo again. He wasn’t touching her, and he, like Kavanaugh, denied anything inappropriate happened. 

[Dick Allen]

18 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

Do you honestly have a sliver of a doubt had the Democrats had the votes they wouldn't have done the same for Garland? Reid already opened that door once. The real problem for Democrats isn't tradition or process it's the fact they've been losing elections repeatedly in the senate and have lost the American heartland and become almost a strictly coastal party.

I read somewhere where a writer stated well why doesn't America just break up at this point. Well if it did this is what the map would look like based on the 2016 election:

In other words in 2016 the Republicans won approximately 2,600 counties to Democrats 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. The real challenge for the Democrats moving forward is to figure out a way to still keep it's base while at the same time figuring out a way to appeal to Americans living outside coastal cities.

The 51 senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh represent approx. 140 million Americans. The 49 who were opposed represent 180 million Americans.

[Balta1701]

7 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

In frankenstein case it wasn't just the womens word. There was photo evidence of him groping women as they slept and he never issued blanket denials he just said he remembered what happened differently

And I think most reasonable people agree if there is convincing evidence whether that be in the form of photo evidence like Franken or someone else comes forward who claims to have seen it happen (Judge changes his story) then they are more then willing to revisit things. When people say "give him the presumption of innocence" that doesn't mean they need to be convicted it means that there needs to be more then just an allegation especially one that had as many holes as Fords.

Everyone's standard of how much evidence they need to see before believing the allegations is different but what makes it such a powerful argument in Kavanaugh case there was none literally nothing. No photos. Not corroboration. No documented previous behavior. Nothing. In the old days the newspapers had standards and this would have never been allowed to run past the editor. They actually found corroboration in their reporting instead of just printing stories and saying well we don't know couldn't corroborate anything the person said but you decide. The name on the first page of the paper meant something.

We now live in an era where the only difference between the National Enquirer and the NYT is the name and who works there.

You and the Republicans have been totally unwilling to do that with the Yale case where it seems like literally their entire class knew that one went down and there's email chains from the whole summer of former Yale students wondering if that was going to come out.

[BigHurt3515]

7 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

The 51 senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh represent approx. 140 million Americans. The 49 who were opposed represent 180 million Americans.

Maybe they should start to move to the red states and your party would never lose! 

[Jose Abreu]

Rewarding conspicuously unstable rapists? Who cares, our party WON!!! 

[wrathofhahn]

On 10/7/2018 at 11:38 AM, Dick Allen said:

The 51 senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh represent approx. 140 million Americans. The 49 who were opposed represent 180 million Americans.

The founders were clear that they believed in states rights and one of the ways to empower states and it's citizens is to give them a seat at the table which is why every state even Wyoming gets two senators.

People talk about Clinton vote total that difference could easily be explained in one state California. Meanwhile 84 percent of the counties of the entire united states voted for Trump. How can she claim she ever had a mandate from America when she was whole heartedly rejected by the majority of the country? She had a mandate from two states New York which she won by 1.737 million and California which she won 4.3 million.

That is one of issues I have with the politicians is they do an extremely poor job defending the existing system and explaining why it's important that every state be heard the democrats would rather the forgotten men and women stay forgotten and entire states become ignored. Just focus on the big metopolian areas and pretend whole communities and less populous states don't exist. I'm glad the founders devised the system they did which is fair to smaller states and the citizens that live there.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Dick Allen]

22 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

The founders were clear that they believed in states rights and one of the ways to empower states and it's citizens is to give them a seat at the table which is why every state even Wyoming gets two senators.

People talk about Clinton vote total that difference could easily be explained in one state California. Meanwhile 84 percent of the counties of the entire united states voted for Trump. How can she claim she ever had a mandate from America when she was whole heartedly rejected by the majority of the country? She had a mandate from two states New York which she won by 1.737 million and California which she won 4.3 million.

That is one of issues I have with the politicians is they do an extremely poor job defending the existing system and explaining why it's important that every state be heard the democrats would rather the forgotten men and women stay forgotten and entire states become ignored. Just focus on the big metopolian areas and pretend whole communities and less populous states don't exist. I'm glad the founders devised the system they did which is fair to smaller states and the citizens that live there.

 

The founders had no clue each Senator in WY would represent about 600,000 people, while each Senator in CA would represent over 19,000,000. Please. Your  vote shouldn't count 30 times more because you live in WY vs. CA.

 

She won the popular vote by over 3,000,000.  Again, I don't know why someone who lives is CA vote s/b less valuable than someone who lives in some small county in IA.

 

As far as I know, the federal tax rates are the same for taxpayers in every state.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

29 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

The founders were clear that they believed in states rights and one of the ways to empower states and it's citizens is to give them a seat at the table which is why every state even Wyoming gets two senators.

People talk about Clinton vote total that difference could easily be explained in one state California. Meanwhile 84 percent of the counties of the entire united states voted for Trump. How can she claim she ever had a mandate from America when she was whole heartedly rejected by the majority of the country? She had a mandate from two states New York which she won by 1.737 million and California which she won 4.3 million.

That is one of issues I have with the politicians is they do an extremely poor job defending the existing system and explaining why it's important that every state be heard the democrats would rather the forgotten men and women stay forgotten and entire states become ignored. Just focus on the big metopolian areas and pretend whole communities and less populous states don't exist. I'm glad the founders devised the system they did which is fair to smaller states and the citizens that live there.

 

States rights is only a thing when it benefits your party.  See also the Trump admin suing the state of California over wanting to have higher standards on things like net nuetrality.

[StrangeSox]

43 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

The founders were clear that they believed in states rights and one of the ways to empower states and it's citizens is to give them a seat at the table which is why every state even Wyoming gets two senators.

People talk about Clinton vote total that difference could easily be explained in one state California. Meanwhile 84 percent of the counties of the entire united states voted for Trump. How can she claim she ever had a mandate from America when she was whole heartedly rejected by the majority of the country? She had a mandate from two states New York which she won by 1.737 million and California which she won 4.3 million.

That is one of issues I have with the politicians is they do an extremely poor job defending the existing system and explaining why it's important that every state be heard the democrats would rather the forgotten men and women stay forgotten and entire states become ignored. Just focus on the big metopolian areas and pretend whole communities and less populous states don't exist. I'm glad the founders devised the system they did which is fair to smaller states and the citizens that live there.

 

Acres aren't people.

The Senate was late 18th century political horse-trading and compromising, not some system handed down by philosopher god-kings. Madison even called it a "lesser evil." We don't see this repeated at the state level, and in fact it's expressly forbidden. We don't see other democracies duplicating this structure.

 

[Soxbadger]

People are people. To say she was rejected by the majority is false. People in California and NY are people. You cant just discount them. Just like Democrats cant discount people in red states.

Clinton was approved by the majority of the people in the United States. That is a fact. 

In the current political system having the majority of people doesnt necessarily mean you are victorious. But that doesnt negate the fact that the majority of voters picked Clinton. 

[pettie4sox]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

The founders were clear that they believed in states rights and one of the ways to empower states and it's citizens is to give them a seat at the table which is why every state even Wyoming gets two senators.

People talk about Clinton vote total that difference could easily be explained in one state California. Meanwhile 84 percent of the counties of the entire united states voted for Trump. How can she claim she ever had a mandate from America when she was whole heartedly rejected by the majority of the country? She had a mandate from two states New York which she won by 1.737 million and California which she won 4.3 million.

That is one of issues I have with the politicians is they do an extremely poor job defending the existing system and explaining why it's important that every state be heard the democrats would rather the forgotten men and women stay forgotten and entire states become ignored. Just focus on the big metopolian areas and pretend whole communities and less populous states don't exist. I'm glad the founders devised the system they did which is fair to smaller states and the citizens that live there.

 

So because a couple of the most populated states voted for her, her vote total is invalid?  Am I reading this correctly?

[StrangeSox]

On 10/6/2018 at 4:52 PM, Soxbadger said:

Counties are arbitrary lines, same with states. More people voted Democrat in the last 3 elections, time will catch up to Republicans, its inevitable.

Fun fact: more people voted for the Democrat than for Republican in 6 of the past 7 elections.

 

 

 

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, pettie4sox said:

So because a couple of the most populated states voted for her, her vote total is invalid?  Am I reading this correctly?

No you are not. First of all her extra vote total can be attributed to ONE state California in fact it can be more then attributed she won California by 4.3 million she won the popular vote by 2.8 million. What I'm saying is the current system suits the US well and was designed that way. It actually encourages you to run a national campaign on the issues that are important to all Americans rather then just run up vote totals among your supporters in metropolitan areas.

Almost all large countries (geographical) are run in this manner. Proportional representation is not the norm among civilized developed nations and almost all the countries where it is implemented do not have the rural-urban divide seen in larger countries. The complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

Edited October 8, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

No you are not. First of all her extra vote total can be attributed to ONE state California in fact it can be more then attributed she won California by 4.3 million she won the popular vote by 2.8 million. What I'm saying is the current system suits the US well and was designed that way. It actually encourages you to run a national campaign on the issues that are important to all Americans rather then just run up vote totals among your supporters in metropolitan areas.

Almost all large countries (geographical) are run in this manner. Proportional representation is not the norm among civilized developed nations and almost all the countries where it is implemented do not have the rural-urban divide seen in larger countries. The complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

 

The current system requires you to go after a few states and forget about the rest of them. There are a handful of swing states that get pandered to, and the rest of the states dont really matter.

Who cares if its 1 state or a million states? More people voted for her. That is a fact.

Now the ultimate outcome of 2016 led to some pretty shitty results for the US, but it happens in life, just like upsets happen in sports. Politics is a long game, not a short one. Republican's got a good bounce in 2016, but their actions clearly show that they arent so confident in the future. You can only fight the inevitable for so long. 

[Dick Allen]

15 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

No you are not. First of all her extra vote total can be attributed to ONE state California in fact it can be more then attributed she won California by 4.3 million she won the popular vote by 2.8 million. What I'm saying is the current system suits the US well and was designed that way. It actually encourages you to run a national campaign on the issues that are important to all Americans rather then just run up vote totals among your supporters in metropolitan areas.

Almost all large countries (geographical) are run in this manner. Proportional representation is not the norm among civilized developed nations and almost all the countries where it is implemented do not have the rural-urban divide seen in larger countries. The complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

So you are saying votes in California shouldn’t count the same as votes in Wyoming or the Dakotas....

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So you are saying votes in California shouldn’t count the same as votes in Wyoming or the Dakotas....

No hes suggesting the Democrats do a fools errand of chasing votes in stats they are unlikely to win. That is actually one of the mistakes Hillary made. Instead of just focusing on WI, MN, PA and FL. She started to branch out into GA, NC and TX, believing that in some world she could win those states too.

Its like Hawk used to say, youre gonna win 60, youre gonna lose 60, its what you do with the other 42 that matter.