Supreme Court Decisions

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

On Obama:

Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:

The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.

The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.


This comports with my view of how Obama handled the economy (and the crisis he inherited): not perfect, but okay. Good enough to avert total disaster and allow a recovery. Republicans fought him on some things he wanted to do. Some moderate Democrats did too. For that reason I'm not entirely on board with the idea that "Obama had total control and could have gotten whatever he wanted!" It should go without saying that someone like Joe Lieberman was not totally on board with the Obama agenda, despite also being a Democrat.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

On Obama:

Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:

The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.

The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.


Wiaf m.o.

Proven wrong, throw out a word salad and exit
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/krugman-the-stimulus-tragedy.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kjkbear said:

Another Bear said:

Huh? WHAT? Trump has majorities in both houses and the SCOTUS. That's FULL CONTROL and yet he can't pass any legislation.

Trump is both incompetent and unqualified plus he has hired a bunch of grifters, liars and cheats. (See Pruitt).


What did you disagree with another? okaydo, without referring to supermajorities by name, said Obama only had control for four months. His points only were valid with reference to supermajorities. So I corrected what he said. That's no defense of Trump, but one thing Trump will never have for a minute is a supermajority in the Senate. Obama had one for two years. And Trump is completely ineffective. No one doubts this.


You are making stuff up. Obama had a Senate supermajority for only two months.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/krugman-the-stimulus-tragedy.html
thanks for posting. I guess we will see a string of vague objections from Dajo. Krugman was wrong about how weakly the Obama economy performed, Krugman was wrong when he said the stimulus was too small, Krugman was wrong that stimulus was also evil tax cuts, Krugman was wrong when he said the Obama stimulus will have a chilling effect on use of stimulus in the future. All things I said, so that must be wrong. While I argued the stimulus had some effect in stabilizing the economy, I have not seen the evidence of long term benefits that Krugman suggests, and the vast majority of economists do disagree with him. He fails to address that a lot of the stimulus was not spent or resulted in lower state spending and instead debt reduction. Also, while the stimulus had green projects (beside the infamous one that made the news), most of incentives, which importantly included dropping NEPA and CEQA review in order to fast green projects, came in different legislation and regulation changes. But the fact that stimulus helped the recession from getting worse matters. Like I said it isn't black or white.

BTW, his analysis of European austerity programs is dead on IMO.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

On Obama:

Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:

The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.

The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.


This comports with my view of how Obama handled the economy (and the crisis he inherited): not perfect, but okay. Good enough to avert total disaster and allow a recovery. Republicans fought him on some things he wanted to do. Some moderate Democrats did too. For that reason I'm not entirely on board with the idea that "Obama had total control and could have gotten whatever he wanted!" It should go without saying that someone like Joe Lieberman was not totally on board with the Obama agenda, despite also being a Democrat.
I don't disagree. There will always be people in your party with different views. I attribute his inability to push through more stuff when the Dems had power in Congress somewhat to Obama's relative inexperience. He probably should have sucked-up or punished some key Democrats, and given some moderate Republicans pork or whatever they wanted to have them on board. He probably was never going be Johnson or Reagan in terms of legislative manipulation, but Clinton is a good example of someone that could compromise in a way that he got legislation through, until the impeachment threat ruined the relationship with the Congressional GOP.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

On Obama:

Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:

The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.

The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.


Wiaf m.o.

Proven wrong, throw out a word salad and exit
go read the tax code so you know what your talking about.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/krugman-the-stimulus-tragedy.html
thanks for posting. I guess we will see a string of vague objections from Dajo. Krugman was wrong about how weakly the Obama economy performed, Krugman was wrong when he said the stimulus was too small, Krugman was wrong that stimulus was also evil tax cuts, Krugman was wrong when he said the Obama stimulus will have a chilling effect on use of stimulus in the future. All things I said, so that must be wrong. While I argued the stimulus had some effect in stabilizing the economy, I have not seen the evidence of long term benefits that Krugman suggests, and the vast majority of economists do disagree with him. He fails to address that a lot of the stimulus was not spent or resulted in lower state spending and instead debt reduction. Also, while the stimulus had green projects (beside the infamous one that made the news), most of incentives, which importantly included dropping NEPA and CEQA review in order to fast green projects, came in different legislation and regulation changes. But the fact that stimulus helped the recession from getting worse matters. Like I said it isn't black or white.

BTW, his analysis of European austerity programs is dead on IMO.
Say what you will about me, but I've never been accused of being vague before
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

On Obama:

Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:

The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.

The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.


Wiaf m.o.

Proven wrong, throw out a word salad and exit
go read the tax code so you know what your talking about.
Go read the Articles of Confederation so you know what you're talking about.

Seriously, you're jumping around and I have no idea what you are talking about. I've been purposefully staying away from theoretical discussions about the early Obama Administration and stimulus, etc. because right now in America it's like arguing philosophy while the house burns down. I have been objecting to factual errors. You should stop making them.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But...but...HILLARY's EMAILS!

Earth to GOP...Obama is gone. The Clintons are gone. Meanwhile Trump is setting on killing NATO, pissing off our allies, praising dictators and getting ready to tank the economy on purpose...BUT HILLARY.

Talking about or blaming Obama is the same deal. It's part of the Nazi GOP playbook:

A) Dodge, deflect, shift blame, move the goal posts...Change the subject
B) Blame the victim, play the victim (often in the same sentence)
C) Lie, make shtt up...call credible sources fake
D) ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK...
E) Mix, repeat.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

But...but...HILLARY's EMAILS!

Earth to GOP...Obama is gone. The Clintons are gone. Meanwhile Trump is setting on killing NATO, pissing off our allies, praising dictators and getting ready to tank the economy on purpose...BUT HILLARY.

Talking about or blaming Obama is the same deal. It's part of the Nazi GOP playbook:

A) Dodge, deflect, shift blame, move the goal posts...Change the subject
B) Blame the victim, play the victim (often in the same sentence)
C) Lie, make shtt up...call credible sources fake
D) ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK...
E) Mix, repeat.


You forget he is ready to tank the medical insurance system. I mean that. W-T-F is he thinking by stopping insurance payments? If the insurers go down, there will be chaos that is not a ladder.

Your right Obama and Clintons are gone. You know us Cal intellectual types just want to debate.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

But...but...HILLARY's EMAILS!

Earth to GOP...Obama is gone. The Clintons are gone. Meanwhile Trump is setting on killing NATO, pissing off our allies, praising dictators and getting ready to tank the economy on purpose...BUT HILLARY.

Talking about or blaming Obama is the same deal. It's part of the Nazi GOP playbook:

A) Dodge, deflect, shift blame, move the goal posts...Change the subject
B) Blame the victim, play the victim (often in the same sentence)
C) Lie, make shtt up...call credible sources fake
D) ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK...
E) Mix, repeat.


You forget he is ready to tank the medical insurance system. I mean that. W-T-F is he thinking by stopping insurance payments? If the insurers go down, there will be chaos that is not a ladder.

Your right Obama and Clintons are gone. You know us Cal intellectual types just want to debate.
Agree on the insurance system accessment...W.T.F.

Also agree on the debating. That's a Cal thing and this board reminds of staying up late and arguing while at Cal. It was a sport and it was fun watching it and participating...and a great procrastinator.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Golden One said:

dajo9 said:

Golden One said:

wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

That would be a very shrewd move by Trump. Can't believe Collins and Murkowski would oppose a female nominee. And it would be fun to see Feinstein, Harris, and the feminists oppose her.
Comments like this show you don't really understand Democratic thinking or feminism. Feinstein, Harris, etc. would have no problem opposing her because her values are bad.
Total B.S.! Personal ambition is more important than values to Harris; Feinstein is more unpredictable, but she has never been big on values. Is there really such a thing as "Democratic thinking"? I never viewed the party as uni-dimensional.


Comments like this show your comments on Democrats are worthless
So, are you saying that Democrats are uni-dimensional, or that they are worthless?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

[He probably should have sucked-up or punished some key Democrats, and given some moderate Republicans pork or whatever they wanted to have them on board. He probably was never going be Johnson or Reagan in terms of legislative manipulation, but Clinton is a good example of someone that could compromise in a way that he got legislation through, until the impeachment threat ruined the relationship with the Congressional GOP.
I'm skeptical that Obama could have gotten any Republicans on board with his major agenda items no matter what he tried. McConnell's record demonstrates that he is indeed willing to stonewall everything until he gets exactly what he wants. Not some compromise with Democrats, but what he wants.

Things were a bit different in the 90s. We hadn't gone as far down the road of partisan polarization yet, though thanks to what started there (Gingrich, Whitewater, impeachment) that is where we wound up.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/2010
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders? The key is to hold your own guys (which would have won the day early on for Obama), and take some guys from the opposition. For example, Gorsuch got 3 Democratic Senators, and Shumer is as good as McConnel (if not better) at maintaining a solid party voting block. If on one of Shumer's objective isn't to make Trump a one term President, the Dems should get someone else.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

dajo9 said:

Golden One said:

dajo9 said:

Golden One said:

wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

That would be a very shrewd move by Trump. Can't believe Collins and Murkowski would oppose a female nominee. And it would be fun to see Feinstein, Harris, and the feminists oppose her.
Comments like this show you don't really understand Democratic thinking or feminism. Feinstein, Harris, etc. would have no problem opposing her because her values are bad.
Total B.S.! Personal ambition is more important than values to Harris; Feinstein is more unpredictable, but she has never been big on values. Is there really such a thing as "Democratic thinking"? I never viewed the party as uni-dimensional.


Comments like this show your comments on Democrats are worthless
So, are you saying that Democrats are uni-dimensional, or that they are worthless?


I'm saying that I'd like for you to tell us when you stopped beating your wife
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders?
Hell No! This line of thinking is exactly what is wrong with this country and why the country is as polarized as ever. A well functioning government should be the first and foremost priority of every member of congress and the presidency. We as a people should not even be using the term 'opposition party' it should be 'minority party', and the majority and minority should be able to work together on common goals for the betterment of the country. It should not be the 'we are going to do this because we have 51% of the senate and will therefore force a bunch of majority-only bills through the legislative process' way, AND the minority party should not dedicate themselves solely to the obstruction of that process. There has to be a middle ground, and a middle road, and it will take both parties to stop acting in such a partisan manner, and work on the common goals again. A compromise can be found for a wide array of issues. I mean how many members of congress blatantly lie out of loyalty to the president. It is ridiculous.

Furthermore, I find it quite ironic that the people that most want the Washington gridlock to stop is also the demographic that vote in the most extreme and least cooperative congressman.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders? The key is to hold your own guys (which would have won the day early on for Obama), and take some guys from the opposition. For example, Gorsuch got 3 Democratic Senators, and Shumer is as good as McConnel (if not better) at maintaining a solid party voting block. If on one of Shumer's objective isn't to make Trump a one term President, the Dems should get someone else.
The objectives of any leader changes when it becomes PARTY over COUNTRY. The GOP obstructionism is detrimental to a fully operating government and democracy, or work for the best interest of the its people. Boehner (Ryan) and McConnell are NOT providing leadership (or doing their job) if nothing gets done. The GOP got the name "THE PARTY OF NO" because they don't do anything, don't pass legislation...instead they just say NO.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders?
Hell No! This line of thinking is exactly what is wrong with this country and why the country is as polarized as ever. A well functioning government should be the first and foremost priority of every member of congress and the presidency. We as a people should not even be using the term 'opposition party' it should be 'minority party', and the majority and minority should be able to work together on common goals for the betterment of the country. It should not be the 'we are going to do this because we have 51% of the senate and will therefore force a bunch of majority-only bills through the legislative process' way, AND the minority party should not dedicate themselves solely to the obstruction of that process. There has to be a middle ground, and a middle road, and it will take both parties to stop acting in such a partisan manner, and work on the common goals again. A compromise can be found for a wide array of issues. I mean how many members of congress blatantly lie out of loyalty to the president. It is ridiculous.

Furthermore, I find it quite ironic that the people that most want the Washington gridlock to stop is also the demographic that vote in the most extreme and least cooperative congressman.
The partisan issue gets to the issue of gerrymandering. The issue SCOTUS (getting back to the OP) basically punted.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders? The key is to hold your own guys (which would have won the day early on for Obama), and take some guys from the opposition. For example, Gorsuch got 3 Democratic Senators, and Shumer is as good as McConnel (if not better) at maintaining a solid party voting block. If on one of Shumer's objective isn't to make Trump a one term President, the Dems should get someone else.
The objectives of any leader changes when it becomes PARTY over COUNTRY. The GOP obstructionism is detrimental to a fully operating government and democracy, or work for the best interest of the its people. Boehner (Ryan) and McConnell are NOT providing leadership (or doing their job) if nothing gets done. The GOP got the name "THE PARTY OF NO" because they don't do anything, don't pass legislation...instead they just say NO.
And the party of no right now is the Dems.. Part of the problem is the current and last President are not good at manipulating the different factions in Congress.

But I disagree about the role of congressional leaders. Their objective is to advance their party and its platform. It used to be that you had to compromise to achieve this. With safe districts, that is far less true.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders? The key is to hold your own guys (which would have won the day early on for Obama), and take some guys from the opposition. For example, Gorsuch got 3 Democratic Senators, and Shumer is as good as McConnel (if not better) at maintaining a solid party voting block. If on one of Shumer's objective isn't to make Trump a one term President, the Dems should get someone else.
The objectives of any leader changes when it becomes PARTY over COUNTRY. The GOP obstructionism is detrimental to a fully operating government and democracy, or work for the best interest of the its people. Boehner (Ryan) and McConnell are NOT providing leadership (or doing their job) if nothing gets done. The GOP got the name "THE PARTY OF NO" because they don't do anything, don't pass legislation...instead they just say NO.
Un, who's saying "NO" now. It's the Democrats. This is not a one-sided issue.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

"Here's John Boehner offering his plans for Obama's agenda: "We're going to do everything and I mean everything we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Politico, 10/28/201
Isn't that the objectives of the opposition leaders? The key is to hold your own guys (which would have won the day early on for Obama), and take some guys from the opposition. For example, Gorsuch got 3 Democratic Senators, and Shumer is as good as McConnel (if not better) at maintaining a solid party voting block. If on one of Shumer's objective isn't to make Trump a one term President, the Dems should get someone else.
The objectives of any leader changes when it becomes PARTY over COUNTRY. The GOP obstructionism is detrimental to a fully operating government and democracy, or work for the best interest of the its people. Boehner (Ryan) and McConnell are NOT providing leadership (or doing their job) if nothing gets done. The GOP got the name "THE PARTY OF NO" because they don't do anything, don't pass legislation...instead they just say NO.
And the party of no right now is the Dems.. Part of the problem is the current and last President are not good at manipulating the different factions in Congress.

But I disagree about the role of congressional leaders. Their objective is to advance their party and its platform. It used to be that you had to compromise to achieve this. With safe districts, that is far less true.
Not if it's PARTY over COUNTRY, like the current GOP. Once the GOP went RUSSKIE, it became party over country. Also offering up BAD POLICY like the trade war, wanking on NATO is bad for the country especially if it's used for political leverage and advancement of one party.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

And the party of no right now is the Dems.. Part of the problem is the current and last President are not good at manipulating the different factions in Congress.
Not entirely true. Democrats have publicly offered compromises on some things (for example, DACA protections in exchange for border wall funding). Trump has rejected them.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Which party is more to blame for political polarization? It depends on the measure


https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/which-party-is-more-to-blame-for-political-polarization-it-depends-on-the-measure/%3famp=1
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't have a big problem with political polarization. It's natural if two sides have very different views of government. The 130 years after the Civil War will, I think, prove to be an exception during which region was often more important than party. Southern Democrats and northern urban communities were in some kind of weird alliance. People say Reagan was great at crossing party lines in Congress but in reality, a huge portion of Congressional Democrats were conservative Southerners. Same with LBJ who was actually working with a bunch of Northern liberal Republicans. The old alliances did not make sense.

The issue was resolved when Northern Democrats and Republicans (and some liberal Southerners) forced Civil Rights on the South and the South largely switched parties and took over the Republican Party (and I mean took over - in the 1980's half my California family was Republican. Now there are none. It's been a complete value shift).

What I have a problem with is the Republican usage of Congressional oversight to abuse law enforcement and instigate criminal investigations solely for political purposes. At the same time, they turn a blind eye to criminality on their own side of the aisle. This is a completely one-sided issue, as you have not seen Democrats abuse this power in the short time they've been in power in Congress since the transformation I described above. This has been the norm since the rise of Newt Gingrich. You also see widespread strategies for voter suppression and gerrymandering predominantly by Republicans (as opposed to one-off instances from the Democrats).

This is a new thing in American politics but I actually think it's the norm for how Southerners run government - they were just out of power for so long that us Northerners did not see the abuses they find as standard operating practice. In reality, Southerners operated slave states and then Jim Crow states for the first 200 years of this country. They aren't really interested in majority governance. They are interested in power and establishing the predominance of their culture. Plenty of Northern Republicans are happy to go along with this because it's good for their pocketbooks.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Democrats would be crazy to do anything with Trump at this point. Win the House and you'd hold some cards. Win the Presidency and the Senate and do what he did. This romantic center everyone pines over is gone.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wrote my post above and immediately afterward stumbled on this article:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17546170/supreme-court-donald-trump-nominee

The article notes that by 2040 it is estimated that 30% of the population will choose 70 Senators. I can envision a Presidential campaign running on an agenda of letting states leave the Union to escape that kind of oppression. A kind of reverse-Lincoln to save freedom for the American people.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I wrote my post above and immediately afterward stumbled on this article:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17546170/supreme-court-donald-trump-nominee

The article notes that by 2040 it is estimated that 30% of the population will choose 70 Senators.
Translation:
70% of US population will live in the top 15 states.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Regarding the demographics used to achieve that figure I have two questions:

1. Young women specifically are overwhelming liberal, while young men are somewhat split. Going forward, as the baby boomers die off, and the millenials age, do their politics shift at all?

2. I personally know several people that left my company (in SF) to move to other states where they could afford to buy a house and have the stereotypical 1950's era American Dream. And it is true that the population increase within California is largely driven by international immigrants moving into the state, while it is the people born and raised in California that are moving out. Native Californians tend be more liberal, do they change the dynamics of the states they move to? I feel Colorado is quickly becoming a consistent liberal state.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I can envision a Presidential campaign running on an agenda of letting states leave the Union to escape that kind of oppression. A kind of reverse-Lincoln to save freedom for the American people.
Seriously doubtful!

1) it's not like 30% of the nation controls the electoral college, which is made up mostly based upon population (435 + 100 + 3). The advantage of "land" is not nearly so great.
2) a president who felt it was still unfair would surely seek to alter the rules so that a president is elected by Popular Vote rather than Electoral College.
3) if there was to be continued claims of "unfair" that 70% of senate is controlled by an ever shrinking percentage of the country, well, we'll cross that bridge in the future. You and I will likely be gone by then.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Regarding the demographics used to achieve that figure I have two questions:

1. Young women specifically are overwhelming liberal, while young men are somewhat split. Going forward, as the baby boomers die off, and the millenials age, do their politics shift at all?

2. I personally know several people that left my company (in SF) to move to other states where they could afford to buy a house and have the stereotypical 1950's era American Dream. And it is true that the population increase within California is largely driven by international immigrants moving into the state, while it is the people born and raised in California that are moving out. Native Californians tend be more liberal, do they change the dynamics of the states they move to? I feel Colorado is quickly becoming a consistent liberal state.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
And younger people are getting their news sources, cultural influences, from liberal centric big cities.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

dajo9 said:

I can envision a Presidential campaign running on an agenda of letting states leave the Union to escape that kind of oppression. A kind of reverse-Lincoln to save freedom for the American people.
Seriously doubtful!

1) it's not like 30% of the nation controls the electoral college, which is made up mostly based upon population (435 + 100 + 3). The advantage of "land" is not nearly so great.
2) a president who felt it was still unfair would surely seek to alter the rules so that a president is elected by Popular Vote rather than Electoral College.
3) if there was to be continued claims of "unfair" that 70% of senate is controlled by an ever shrinking percentage of the country, well, we'll cross that bridge in the future. You and I will likely be gone by then.
Regarding #1, that is why a President could be elected by a majority that felt it had lost its ability to govern.
Regarding #2, There is virtually no chance that the small states would accept such a measure. It would be easier to start a Civil War then to make this happen.
Regarding #3, With what happened to Merrick Garland, I think the bridge is visible if not foreordained.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.