Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Well, short of some crazy wack jobs assassinating Supreme Court justices and turning real life into a Grisham/Clancy/Dan Brown thriller, there isn’t anything left to do except wait for 2020 and make vague intimations of changing the Constitution to make it possible to recall/impeach individual S.C. justices for unspecified “criminal acts.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/gop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer/index.html

How the Dems got outplayed (once again) on Kavanaugh

Got outplayed = the Electoral College and an angry minority that is ok with people's votes counting less than their as long as they're black/mexican/not currently being raped.

[Y2HH]

59 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Got outplayed = the Electoral College and an angry minority that is ok with people's votes counting less than their as long as they're black/mexican/not currently being raped.

This is like complaining home runs shouldn’t count after you enter a game knowing the rules and you lose by a home run.

It’s a crybaby talking point.

Maybe campaign harder in “states that don’t really matter, because we always win them anyway” next time.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

This is like complaining home runs shouldn’t count after you enter a game knowing the rules and you lose by a home run.

It’s a crybaby talking point.

Maybe campaign harder in “states that don’t really matter, because we always win them anyway” next time.

And that's the abuser talking point. 

[Y2HH]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

And that's the abuser talking point. 

Let’s be real, after the dems crushed Sanders for the chosen one, she thought Donald Trump was a joke opponent so she didn’t even try ... she made the worst rookie mistake possible in underestimating her opponent, so she phoned it in and lost ... and this is the result for the Democratic constituents.

That election should have been a slam dunk, so crying about the electoral rules after the fact is silly when the party undid itself.

Also, the simple majority to appoint judges is also a Democratic folly that’s now biting them in the ass, unless Kavanagh somehow doesn’t get appointed today.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Let’s be real, after the dems crushed Sanders for the chosen one, she thought Donald Trump was a joke opponent so she didn’t even try ... she made the worst rookie mistake possible in underestimating her opponent, so she phoned it in and lost ... and this is the result for the Democratic constituents.

That election should have been a slam dunk, so crying about the electoral rules after the fact is silly when the party undid itself.

Also, the simple majority to appoint judges is also a Democratic folly that’s now biting them in the ass, unless Kavanagh somehow doesn’t get appointed today.

Yeah because the Republicans would have totally followed that rule if the Democrats hadn't changed it. I mean, following tradition and rules, fairness, that's totally an accurate and apt way of describing how they've treated the Supreme Court seats and it's clearly only the Democrats who are unfair. Now that's the kind of honest commentary I expect from an average Republican.

[Y2HH]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah because the Republicans would have totally followed that rule if the Democrats hadn't changed it. I mean, following tradition and rules, fairness, that's totally an accurate and apt way of describing how they've treated the Supreme Court seats and it's clearly only the Democrats who are unfair. Now that's the kind of honest commentary I expect from an average Republican.

Likely true, but they didn’t have to because the dems changed that rule for them.

So I see, when your party does it, it’s okay because it’s for the greater good, but if the other party does it, it’s underhanded and cheating and evil!

Again, this is b****ing about rules your own party employed or knew about before the process began.

[Y2HH]

I thought the Kavanagh vote wasn’t until 5pm eastern, did they already confirm him?

I’m seeing reports they did.

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Well, short of some crazy wack jobs assassinating Supreme Court justices and turning real life into a Grisham/Clancy/Dan Brown thriller, there isn’t anything left to do except wait for 2020 and make vague intimations of changing the Constitution to make it possible to recall/impeach individual S.C. justices for unspecified “criminal acts.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/gop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer/index.html

How the Dems got outplayed (once again) on Kavanaugh

Like I said in the other post Kavanaugh in many ways was a fig leaf to that wing he was not a deplorable far from it. Yale educated. Top of his class. Served in the Bush admin. Spent years in public service. Democrats showed that none of that matters and tried to destroy him anyways with spurious accusations.

As the wall street journal editorial board put it: The Kavanaugh fight isn’t about Trump. We’re all deplorables now

"Brett Kavanaugh isn’t part of Mr. Trump’s New York menagerie, or some Steve Bannon insurgent. The judge is the epitome of the GOP legal establishment, a Supreme Court nominee from central casting. He went to the best schools and served his apprenticeship among legal elites including a clerkship with former Justice Anthony Kennedy.

With these credentials Judge Kavanaugh would have been on any Republican’s short list for the Supreme Court. He could have been Jeb Bush’s nominee, or John Kasich’s, though Mr. Kasich in the ambitious ebb of his career now tilts with the anti-conservative left against Mr. Kavanaugh. In 2012 the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin wrote that Mr. Kavanaugh would have been Mitt Romney’s “most likely first nominee” for the High Court. Mr. Toobin, who loathes conservatives, meant it as a warning.

Mr. Trump’s nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh is a credit to the process he established to win the election and govern with conservative support. He sought the help of legal elites on the right, led by the Federalist Society, who compiled an impressive list of potential nominees. This isn’t a rogue judicial operation to choose presidential cronies. It is the gold standard for legal talent that believes in the original meaning of the Constitution. It’s hard to see how any GOP President would have done better, and others have done much worse.

Yet this is precisely why Democrats and the left have set out to destroy Judge Kavanaugh—not in legal philosophy or competence, which they knew was a political loser, but as a human being, a spouse and father. They need to destroy him personally with accusations but no corroboration, as they tried with Clarence Thomas, so they can deny the open Supreme Court seat to a judicial conservative.

Republicans are well aware of Mr. Trump’s excesses and falsehoods. But they have also come to understand that the resistance to him isn’t rooted in principle or some august call to superior character. They know Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her history of deceit. Voters know this is about the left’s will to power by any means necessary.

Republicans across America can see, and certainly their Senators voting on Judge Kavanaugh should realize, that the left hates them as much or more than they loathe Mr. Trump. Conservatives understand that, for the American left, they are all deplorables now."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-never-conservatives-1538608630

 

[wrathofhahn]

33 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah because the Republicans would have totally followed that rule if the Democrats hadn't changed it. I mean, following tradition and rules, fairness, that's totally an accurate and apt way of describing how they've treated the Supreme Court seats and it's clearly only the Democrats who are unfair. Now that's the kind of honest commentary I expect from an average Republican.

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. Edited October 6, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Dam8610]

34 minutes 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.

That's not a challenge. It's a decision the Democrats have to make. The Democrats have to consciously and publicly decide to be the party of the people that will institute desperately need public services and utilities and defend those newly created institutions from Republicans who will rail against them and vow to destroy them. That, combined with follow through on that promise, would establish Democrats as the ruling party for a generation. Refusal to do it will result in the eventual Republican sundering of our country.

[Soxbadger]

1 hour 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 red parts cant exist without the blue paying for them. The blue can exist without the red.

Look at which states have positive balances with the federal govt and which states survive on govt handouts.

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

[pcq]

This country makes me physically ill. No we won't get a fair election to fix anything. We have evil terrible people deciding our country's future. 

[caulfield12]

1 hour 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.

However, in addition to having more population, blue states also have higher GDP per person. The average GDP per person for a blue state is $55,194 and the average GDP per person for a red state is $48,725. The blue states also have a much deeper lineup in terms of GDP. Seven blue states have GDP's over $500 billion- California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey. Only one red state has a GDP over $500 billion- Texas. In fact, Texas produces 27% of the entire GDP of the red states. Among the blue states, although California produces $670 billion more GDP per year than Texas, it still only constitutes 20% of the GDP of blue states.

This image, like the ones that adjust the map for population, provides a different perspective than the typical election result maps that show the geographic space in which each party wins. This image also makes it clear how ridiculous the Republican's contention that Republicans are generally "makers" and Democrats are generally "takers" is. To be clear, we don't know from this data how much of the GDP is created by Republicans in each state vs. Democrats in each state. But, many of the most liberal cities and states have the highest GDP's per capita. For example, in the most recent mayoral election in San Francisco (2011), the two Republican candidates combined received 0.5% of the vote, and San Francisco has one of the highest GDP's per capita of any city. Clearly, we do not live in a country where either party has a monopoly on "makers" and if anything, the more liberal areas tend to have a slightly more productive citizenry.

These results are consistent with the general tendency for the economy to perform better under Democrats. It is also consistent with the correlation between education and economic productivity at the state level.

See more graphs about: GDP   

[caulfield12]

59 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

The red parts cant exist without the blue paying for them. The blue can exist without the red.

Look at which states have positive balances with the federal govt and which states survive on govt handouts.

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

And it’s REALLY hard to believe the GOP wants to limit immigration, which is the ONLY potential way to balance outgoing monies for SS, Medicare and Medicaid with declining incoming revenues.   Of course, a majority of the retired or retiring Baby Boomers are white, while a majority of the younger workers supporting them in the next 20-30 years will be non-whites.

Edited October 6, 2018 by caulfield12

[Y2HH]

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

The red parts cant exist without the blue paying for them. The blue can exist without the red.

Look at which states have positive balances with the federal govt and which states survive on govt handouts.

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

And the blue states would starve to death without the red ones.

So no, they can’t exist without the red ones.

They kind of need each other.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Y2HH

[caulfield12]

12 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

And the blue states would starve to death without the red ones.

So no, they can’t exist without the red ones.

They kind of need each other.

Not really.  The blue states could just buy soybeans from Brazil, dairy from Canada, etc.

How do you think Japan survives despite limited amounts of farmland?

The irony is the overall costs to consumers would actually be less if you take away the government farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs on food imports.

 

And the majority of those farms are not run by the middle class, they’re run by huge agribusiness corporations.  Individuals in the farm economy only represent 2-4% of those Red States.

[Y2HH]

5 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Not really.  The blue states could just buy soybeans from Brazil, dairy from Canada, etc.

How do you think Japan survives despite limited amounts of farmland?

The irony is the overall costs to consumers would actually be less if you take away the government farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs on food imports.

 

And the majority of those farms are not run by the middle class, they’re run by huge agribusiness corporations.  Individuals in the farm economy only represent 2-4% of those Red States.

Yes, really.

The US agriculture industry is integral to the world, whether you know that or not is irrelevant.

This is just a stupid argument now.

You can’t just add 350 million more people to the worlds food needs while removing the US red state agricultural industry from the equation. That’s insanity and famine in the making, and it’s actually kind of hilarious you’re oblivious to this.

Who owns the farms is irrelevant, the people farming them live in those “red states” we apparently don’t need.

This is just ... wow.

Okay, I’m out, there is no sane discussion to be had here. This is why I stopped posting here in the first place.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Y2HH

[caulfield12]

18 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Yes, really.

The US agriculture industry is integral to the world, whether you know that or not is irrelevant.

This is just a stupid argument now.

You can’t just add 350 million more people to the worlds food needs while removing the US red state agricultural industry from the equation. That’s insanity and famine in the making, and it’s actually kind of hilarious you’re oblivious to this.

Who owns the farms is irrelevant, the people farming them live in those “red states” we apparently don’t need.

This is just ... wow.

Okay, I’m out, there is no sane discussion to be had here. This is why I stopped posting here in the first place.

It’s equally insane and disengenuous to put up a county by county map of the US and ignore population density and GDP...or the fact US districts and territories like DC and Puerto Rico have no say in the S.C., while Wyoming played a role equal to California with under 1 million residents.

Should we go by which states spent more on/for Medicaid costs and related deaths for opioid addictions?

At any rate, Rabbit will come to your rescue and bemoan the tenor of Filibuster.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/opinions/kavanaugh-confirmation-margaret-chase-smith-opinion-gergen-piltch/index.html

David Gergen has worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations and is as moderate/pragmatic as it gets.

 

But if she wanted to keep bipartisanship alive and find the best possible outcome for the Supreme Court and country, why did she not also condemn the egregious mistakes of her own party, the party that now controls all three branches of government? She should have criticized her fellow Republicans for the withholding of documents and the empty FBI "investigation." 

 

She should have decried the GOP's rush to judgment and ignoring of Ford's own right to due process. Surely, she should have rejected President Trump's ugly taunting of Ford and the awful theory put forth that another man was the one guilty of Ford's assault.

 

To use such a pivotal moment, with all the eyes and cameras on her, to critique just one side and cast doubt on Ford's words was not what Americans needed. Citizens and politicians alike needed to hear an honest accounting of how this process became so ugly. We needed to be reminded not only of the way Democrats tried to block Kavanaugh but also of how Republicans blocked Merrick Garland (one of the most qualified nominees to the Supreme Court) without giving him a hearing at all.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#red-vs-blue

Red States are far more dependent on the Federal government than Blue States

 

 

[Jose Abreu]

Gotta love misleading maps to try to persuade you that counties with a few hundred people are just as important as counties with millions. 

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Gotta love misleading maps to try to persuade you that counties with a few hundred people are just as important as counties with millions. 

If US House districts were as big as their contribution to the economy

 

[Soxbadger]

3 hours ago, Y2HH said:

And the blue states would starve to death without the red ones.

So no, they can’t exist without the red ones.

They kind of need each other.

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?

Edited October 7, 2018 by Soxbadger

[ptatc]

4 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

The red parts cant exist without the blue paying for them. The blue can exist without the red.

Look at which states have positive balances with the federal govt and which states survive on govt handouts.

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

You have it backwards. The red feeds the blue. The blue would starve without the red. The red would do just fine without the blue. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by ptatc

[wrathofhahn]

3 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

Gotta love misleading maps to try to persuade you that counties with a few hundred people are just as important as counties with millions. 

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.

[Soxbadger]

36 minutes ago, ptatc said:

You have it backwards. The red feeds the blue. The blue would starve without the red. The red would do just fine without the 

Currently thats not how it works. If it did then red states would pay more than blue states.

And you can always import crops. Prices may go up, but many countries rely on outside crops.