patrick.net

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Remember this guy?

http://www.jameswebb.com/

He switched parties in 2006, from Republican to Democratic. He continued in the Senate until 2013, succeeded by Tim Kaine, also a Democrat.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mike Gravel.

I loved and voted for both of them.

I don't know what to do about the current state of both major parties. I return to thinking divided government prevents either major party from doing as much harm as with one party control. I would prefer to see Democrats take the Senate, but polls say that is less likely than Democrats taking the House, which would result in wasting a lot of time on TDS hearings and impeachment.

curious2 says

Goran_K says

no takers so far.

???

Perhaps I should use a hypothetical example closer to home than the actual example cited above.

Numerous judges who call themselves "conservative" say they apply the "original intent" of the Constitution, rather than its plain meaning or evident intent. They tend to become especially partisan when writing about the 14th amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. Some "conservatives" contend that the "original intent" of the 14th amendment was only to protect black people, despite abundant evidence of a broader intent to protect all persons regardless of color.

Driving a car on public roads is legally a privilege subject to state license, not a right.

Suppose a state with a white minority, e.g. California or Hawaii, decides that it will only issue or renew driver's licenses for people who are not white. If you have a "conservative" partisan judge who says the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment protects only black people, then the white people are out of luck when they try to obtain or renew a license. It hasn't happened yet, but limiting the 14th Amendment to protect only black people would obviously open the door to all sorts of discrimination against white people in states where white people are a minority. Short-sighted partisans might even welcome that as a way to punish white 'liberlas' in blue states.

Vote Republican or you will get Cancer and Die.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

curious2 says

It is also a reason to vote for divided government

Remember this guy?

http://www.jameswebb.com/


I would love to have seen Jim Webb win the Democratic nomination, but he was eliminated early on. I believe Jim Webb would have won over Donald Trump.

Goran_K says

change my mind.

No real chance of that but on virtually every environmental issue the republican position points the country and the world in the the direction of more pollution, more fossil fuel use more degradation of our air, land and water and a general attitude of business and money come first, fuck it the environment will take care of itself. Its not the culture wars so no one gets much riled up over it but ultimately it is the most important issue.

curious2 says

It hasn't happened yet, but limiting the 14th Amendment to protect only black people would obviously open the door to all sorts of discrimination against white people in states where white people are a minority

I should think the Civil Rights Act was enacted to fix such scenarios left undefined by the Constitution. The nation’s original document can’t account for all necessary laws, and was never intended to do so.

curious2 says

Perhaps I should use a hypothetical example closer to home than the actual example cited above.

Numerous judges who call themselves "conservative" say they apply the "original intent" of the Constitution, rather than its plain meaning or evident intent. They tend to become especially partisan when writing about the 14th amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. Some "conservatives" contend that the "original intent" of the 14th amendment was only to protect black people, despite abundant evidence of a broader intent to protect all persons regardless of color.

Driving a car on public roads is legally a privilege subject to state license, not a right.

Suppose a state with a white minority, e.g. California or Hawaii, decides that it will only issue or renew driver's licenses for people who are not white. If you have a "conservative" partisan judge who says the "original intent" ...

I'd agree with this point if Conservative judges have been used to legislate from the bench. This has not been the case. For leftist judges, I only need to point to ObamaCare, and Roe v Wade. Leftist have used the SCOTUS to legislate rather than interpret. Your outlier example, notwithstanding, I'd rather have more constitutionalism than judge legislators.

Tim Aurora says

Good try but that is a "I am always right" trap

View it as you see it. Democrats have lost the senate, POTUS, and SCOTUS. If you're not willing to convince centrist like me, then the Democrats have a long road to convincing people to jump on their platform to regain power.

marcus says

- Immigration - A ruse to get votes from racists and nationalists. Real motive inflation for his highly leveraged real assets.

This is not the "whataboutsim" thread.

So what is the current Democrat platform for immigration? Do you even know how to explain it?

Economy - Tarrifs are a mistake and tax cut stimulus only buys you so much

Still better than the Obama globalist economy of "jobs aren't coming back". What is the Democrat plan?

Healthcare - You have to be kidding. Policies that don't actually cover much, and no covering of preexisting coverage. Republicans have no shame.

More whataboutsim.

What is the Democrat plan? Bankrupt the entire United States making "health care a right"?

National Security - I guess it's 3 dimensional chess when you provoke a totalitarian leader and then later kiss his ass. Whatever. Does anyone else remember when all the right wing pundits jumped all over Obama for suggesting he would talk to Iraq or N.K. ?

More whataboutsim.

I much prefer the situation where Trump actually went and talked to the guy and lowered the temp, than what Obama did.... which... what did Obama do again?

K-12 education - Yeah, common core aint nearly as bad as many think, but I wouldn't mind if Trump killed it. But the whole privatization thing, with all the lies about charters, and the rigged game they are playing is total BS. On the other hand, it is true that once you mae everyone that is now middle class in to slave labor, you will be able to get teachers for much lower pay than the astronomical amount those selfish pricks think they deserve.

What is the Democrat plan? Charter schools out perform public schools across the board. Common Core has been abandoned by its own creator, Bill Gates has failed in many ways. So how would Democrats change this?

Constitutional rights (1st amendment, 2nd amendment, etc) - BS. Given a chance, Trump wants will destroy the constitution in ways that will make only white supremcists happy.

What? This isn't really a point at all. How would Democrat protect the 1st and 2nd amendment? Seems like they want both of them gone.

marcus says

Goran_K says

I am going to vote straight GOP tomorrow, change my mind.

Fuck you. Not becasue you're voting straight republican, but becasue you're such a troll.

Even the other right wing trolls don't like you.

Wow..

Amazing stuff...

Meanwhile, I'm still on permanent "Flag"... go figure...

Goran_K says

SCOTUS to legislate rather than interpret.

It was actually "conservative" John Roberts who legislated Obamneycare from the bench, to such a degree that many have called the legislation SCOTUScare or Robertscare. The phrases "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" are slogans used by "conservatives" against "liberals," but these words and phrases become so distorted as to lose all meaning. Obamneycare was not liberal, in fact errc called it HeritageFoundationCare due to the mandate idea originating in a Heritage Foundation report around 1990, and then finding its way into ClintonCare and Hillary's Plan. John Roberts legislated the final version all by himself, with no precedent nor any endorsement from any other court. Roberts' legislation from the bench changed, in a fundamental way, the relationship between the federal government and the people. It was the most arrogant judicial activism I have ever seen.

Quigley says

I should think the Civil Rights Act was enacted to fix such scenarios left undefined by the Constitution.

The civil rights acts would not address states refusing to issue driver's licenses. The hypothetical example of state discrimination against white people might seem far-fetched (at least until you consider "affirmative action"), but state discrimination against Asians would be consistent with California history. There was for years a stereotype about Asians being unable to drive. (It turned out to be related to chain migration, as one person would get a license, and then take the test for other relatives, so they got licenses without ever learning to drive.) If, in the interest of public safety of course, California were to stop issuing driver's licenses to Asians, only the 14th amendment would provide a remedy, and a "conservative" "original intent" limitation to protecting only black people would eliminate that remedy. Keep in mind, a bare majority vote can amend the California constitution, as we saw with Prop H8. What goes around, comes around: if you take away the equal protection of the laws, there is no telling who gets hit next.

curious2 says

It was actually "conservative" John Roberts

That's why I said "constitutionlism", not "conservatism". Roberts really hurts himself with his own words IMO. "[I do] not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document."

He's another "legislate" from the Bench type of judge unlike say a Scalia, Thomas, and Gorsuch. I also do not see Kavanaugh as this type, but far better than Sotomayor for instance.

I heard the Democrats are really helping the aged vote.

In Illinois and Florida they are running shuttle buses every half hour from the Cemeteries to the Polling Stations.

The Dems have gone so far to the left that:

20% of Americans being foreign born, and having 5 times more percentage of foreign born than the next two nations (Germany, Russia at 4.5%) is too little
That ICE should be abolished
That Men slapped with evidence-free accusations should be denied high office
That we need special Trans Bathrooms, but not unisex bathrooms because they safety of the strong, independent women.
It's no problem for a 5-year old girl to see a Ladypenis in the Women's Room but if she's 19 years old and a drunk college guy streaks past her, it's Patriarchal Oppression.
The Job of the US Military is to dick around the Middle East, but it's Tyranny for the US to use the Army like 99% of all countries (inc. most Democracies) use their Army, to patrol their land borders.
They wanted to get along with the USSR, and give up all our nukes unilaterally, but they can't stand the idea of talking to a capitalist Russia.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

That Men slapped with evidence-free accusations should be denied high office

D thinking is that "That Men should be denied high office" period

Tim Aurora says

Democrats lost the 2016 election but they still had more votes. At this point , the difference in beliefs is very large with Democrats feeling that the minority Trump administration ( he had less total votes than Hillary) has basically left more than half the country behind.

I think we can argue after the 2018 election ( Democrats win the house ) and see if the Democrats stand a chance to regain 2020 senate. Any more tilt to the right, some liberal states ( California , Washington and Portland) may start asking to secede and some companies start leaving the USA. Most of the Red states are poor and actually depend on Bluer states to feed them.

How many presidents have been elected just because of the popular vote? Zero. Democrats in general don't understand the government of the United States, let alone have actually read the Federalist papers.

If the Democrats don't win the house, will you admit the Democrats have a platform problem or are you going to "secede"?

I remember from my history classes the last time Democrats tried to secede they got their asses kicked and lost their slaves.

Aphroman says

People who constantly claime to know what “D” or “liberal” thinking is are a bunch of braindead closeted homosexuals. Not that there’s anything wrong with that

Which state, R or D run, required some amount of womyn on company boards?
Which party supports witch hunts of the type "he touched me 40 years ago"?
Which party supports #metoo and pussyhat nonsense?

dr6B says

Which party supports witch hunts of the type "he touched me 40 years ago"?

An Organized "Bitchhunt"

Aphroman says

Which party spits on the Constitution

Dems for sure. They want the abolish the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Aphroman says

Which party spits on the Constitution and sold our Sovereignty down the river to foreign governments in the name of childish make believe God?

spit on constitution - D's with Affirmative Action
sold Sovereignty down the river - R's to China (as in outsourcing all American knowledge to China by R-supporting companies), but I think D's are catching up on this also

This is why nobody should be voting Blue

Anyone else sob after voting? Praying for better !! #vote pic.twitter.com/EmwLTg3JFK

— Jennifer Esposito (@JennifersWayJE) November 6, 2018

The self-righteous, self-piteous, exaggerated moral supremacy

Aphroman says

Look the thing is that sitting around schools and university babysitting children is womens work. You can easily escape that crap by hulking it up like a real man, get your Capitalist on, and get a real mans job. They’re everywhere. Let the women and children have their traditional roles

So it is OK to legislatively discriminate against some groups of population, if it helps mantra that D's are better than R's?

Me too. I don't vote for retards.

Tim Aurora says

I think if the Republicans win this , they will try to change the "Roe vs Wade" and then all hell may break lose.

Absolutely not. They will talk about changing it for next 10 years but will not do it - if it is changed, there will be one less thing to energize their base.

Tim Aurora says

I think if the Republicans win this , they will try to change the "Roe vs Wade" and then all hell may break lose.

What does it matter who wins tonight? SCOTUS could overturn or limit Roe v. Wade it if they want regardless. I don't understand this thought.

I voted anything but donk.