Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 02:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a plain fact that Democrats lower the deficit while Republicans increase it. Republicans talk about reducing the debt; then explode it with military spending and tax breaks for those who don't need them on the basis of the false trickle-down theory. It is also a fact the Democrats are in favor of raising taxes to pay for social programs, and Republicans want to increase the deficit so that money won't be spent on those social programs.

The insurance is indeed available to all of us, when it's needed. Admittedly there are still problems with the welfare system, as when incentive to work is taken away when benefits are taken away due to finding employment. But welfare has been so greatly reduced since Reagan and Clinton/Gingrich, that it is now just a scapegoat used as a slogan to persuade heartland folks like you to vote Republican.

The Republicans are dedicated to lowering health care costs paid for by the government payment system, and the effect of this in years past has always been for health care costs paid by everyone to raise through the ceiling. That's why reform was finally attempted in 2009. Only a government run payment program and the large pool of patients that it provides can keep costs down for everyone. If Obamacare raised your costs, it's because the reform didn't go far enough because moderate Democrats like those you could support watered down the reforms in 2009.

I don't claim to know for sure whether the seats that flipped Democratic in 2018 will flip back. The majority were in blue and purple states, so there won't be that many which flip back. As gerrymandering is reduced and the people choose their politicians instead of the reverse, Democrats will gain a lot of seats like they did in CA, AZ and PA when this was done. Whether the Democrats win the presidency in 2020 will depend on whether the Democrats can avoid choosing a loser, but which at the moment they seem intent on doing. I have described this a lot here already. Coattail effects could happen in the congressional elections.

Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? ....

I posted the stats on this in the Election 2018 thread, at least regarding how many districts flipped in which colored states. 

Several seats flipped in CA that were on the edge of blue urban/suburban areas. This was true nationwide, according to reports; many suburban college-educated districts flipped blue. In red states, between 6 and 8 urban and suburban areas flipped blue. In Texas, a mostly-rural district with border-with-Mexico towns is still barely Republican pending a recount, and hasn't been called. Two other suburban districts there flipped. In Georgia one suburban Atlanta district flipped that had held on in a recent special election, and another one there is not called yet in which a Republican is leading by 900 votes. In Florida, two districts flipped in the extreme south of the state. In PA, 4 seats flipped blue and one red because gerrymandering ended and the voters could choose their politicians instead of Republican politicians choosing their voters. Iowa flipped two seats, Virginia 3 and New Jersey 4. In your state, two seats flipped to red (one in the "mining area") and two to blue.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-14-2018, 06:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? I live in one of those areas that flipped. I can tell you this, the Democrat who represent me has two years to cut a deal with the Republicans or she's gone in 2020. I didn't vote for her or the Republican she defeated. I voted for the Independent to wake up the Republican leadership. As I mentioned before, I didn't view the house as a major priority in this election. I viewed the Senate as the priority in this election. The Republican house needed a boot in the ass for its healthcare debacle. Like I said, Republicans are different than Democrats when it comes to failing to serve our interests. We'll accept a Democrat for a couple of years to get what we want in the long term. Unfortunately, blue voters don't have that luxury.

It seems natural for everybody to expect the country to flow their way, that everyone will see things from their perspective.  I'm as guilty as anyone.  How long before people notice that the economy tanks every time the Republicans apply voodoo economics?  A few more storms have hit the south?  While the Democrats have nominated a black and a woman, and this lost them about the whole deplorable vote, will the Republicans be that lucky forever?  Trump will have two more years in office, which will give him time to amplify the see saw flip?  The voters that made the southern strategy work are aging out of the voter pool?

We'll see.  The Democrats are facing a mighty see saw.

Bob, I don't expect blue voters to start flowing our/my way. I expect red voters who live in blue areas who no longer have representation to start flowing our way and I expect red areas to start doing what blue areas are doing which blues are viewing as acceptable. I expect red areas to start ignoring blue laws and I expect the blues in those areas to start flowing you way as a result. I used to tell blues, I'll take one worker/ quality individual over ten welfare recipients/idiots (I'd be willing to trade 10 welfare recipients for one worker) any day. Yes, I'm willing to sacrifice mass quantity for fewer quality related people. If you don't see the value in that move then you're in trouble long term. So, this is what I see happening over the next decade as America continues positioning itself for the upcoming 4T. You shouldn't believe what the elites are telling you about us, you should be listening what we're telling you about us and you should be seeing how effective we are about they way we tend to operate and how intelligent we are as individuals and how much more common sense we have than the average blue. You're fortunate, you generally don't hear much coming from us.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-15-2018, 03:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 02:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a plain fact that Democrats lower the deficit while Republicans increase it. Republicans talk about reducing the debt; then explode it with military spending and tax breaks for those who don't need them on the basis of the false trickle-down theory. It is also a fact the Democrats are in favor of raising taxes to pay for social programs, and Republicans want to increase the deficit so that money won't be spent on those social programs.

The insurance is indeed available to all of us, when it's needed. Admittedly there are still problems with the welfare system, as when incentive to work is taken away when benefits are taken away due to finding employment. But welfare has been so greatly reduced since Reagan and Clinton/Gingrich, that it is now just a scapegoat used as a slogan to persuade heartland folks like you to vote Republican.

The Republicans are dedicated to lowering health care costs paid for by the government payment system, and the effect of this in years past has always been for health care costs paid by everyone to raise through the ceiling. That's why reform was finally attempted in 2009. Only a government run payment program and the large pool of patients that it provides can keep costs down for everyone. If Obamacare raised your costs, it's because the reform didn't go far enough because moderate Democrats like those you could support watered down the reforms in 2009.

I don't claim to know for sure whether the seats that flipped Democratic in 2018 will flip back. The majority were in blue and purple states, so there won't be that many which flip back. As gerrymandering is reduced and the people choose their politicians instead of the reverse, Democrats will gain a lot of seats like they did in CA, AZ and PA when this was done. Whether the Democrats win the presidency in 2020 will depend on whether the Democrats can avoid choosing a loser, but which at the moment they seem intent on doing. I have described this a lot here already. Coattail effects could happen in the congressional elections.

Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? ....

I posted the stats on this in the Election 2018 thread, at least regarding how many districts flipped in which colored states. 

Several seats flipped in CA that were on the edge of blue urban/suburban areas. This was true nationwide, according to reports; many suburban college-educated districts flipped blue. In red states, between 6 and 8 urban and suburban areas flipped blue. In Texas, a mostly-rural district with border-with-Mexico towns is still barely Republican pending a recount, and hasn't been called. Two other suburban districts there flipped. In Georgia one suburban Atlanta district flipped that had held on in a recent special election, and another one there is not called yet in which a Republican is leading by 100 votes. In Florida, two districts flipped in the extreme south of the state. In PA, 4 seats flipped blue and one red because gerrymandering ended and the voters could choose their politicians instead of Republican politicians choosing their voters. Iowa flipped two seats, Virginia 3 and New Jersey 4. In your state, two seats flipped to red (one in the "mining area") and two to blue.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire state of California ends up blue. But then again, I'm not going to be surprised when California implodes either and California ends up like Yugoslavia. We need a failed American state that we can effectively use as an example during the 4T. As far as I can see, you're on track to be that state. Right now, you're state is down there with the lowly red state of Mississippi. So, the Democratic gerrymandering that took place in PA worked in the Democrats favor as it was expected. Come on, gerrymandering ain't all that bad as long as it works in the Democrat's favor. How is the Democratic law breaking going in Florida? You have to admit, law breaking ain't all that bad as long as it works in the Democrats favor. Yeah, that's the kind of party that I want to be part of someday. Actually, that's the kind of party, I WANT TO DESTROY.

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2018, 03:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 06:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? I live in one of those areas that flipped. I can tell you this, the Democrat who represent me has two years to cut a deal with the Republicans or she's gone in 2020. I didn't vote for her or the Republican she defeated. I voted for the Independent to wake up the Republican leadership. As I mentioned before, I didn't view the house as a major priority in this election. I viewed the Senate as the priority in this election. The Republican house needed a boot in the ass for its healthcare debacle. Like I said, Republicans are different than Democrats when it comes to failing to serve our interests. We'll accept a Democrat for a couple of years to get what we want in the long term. Unfortunately, blue voters don't have that luxury.

It seems natural for everybody to expect the country to flow their way, that everyone will see things from their perspective.  I'm as guilty as anyone.  How long before people notice that the economy tanks every time the Republicans apply voodoo economics?  A few more storms have hit the south?  While the Democrats have nominated a black and a woman, and this lost them about the whole deplorable vote, will the Republicans be that lucky forever?  Trump will have two more years in office, which will give him time to amplify the see saw flip?  The voters that made the southern strategy work are aging out of the voter pool?

We'll see.  The Democrats are facing a mighty see saw.

Bob, I don't expect blue voters to start flowing our/my way. I expect red voters who live in blue areas who no longer have representation to start flowing our way and I expect red areas to start doing what blue areas are doing which blues are viewing as acceptable. I expect red areas to start ignoring blue laws and I expect the blues in those areas to start flowing you way as a result. I used to tell blues, I'll take one worker/ quality individual over ten welfare recipients/idiots (I'd be willing to trade 10 welfare recipients for one worker) any day. Yes, I'm willing to sacrifice mass quantity for fewer quality related people. If you don't see the value in that move then you're in trouble long term. So, this is what I see happening over the next decade as America continues positioning itself for the upcoming 4T. You shouldn't believe what the elites are telling you about us, you should be listening what we're telling you about us and you should be seeing how effective we are about they way we tend to operate and how intelligent we are as individuals and how much more common sense we have than the average blue. You're fortunate, you generally don't hear much coming  from us.

1. There are 'blue areas' in 'red states' (Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Beaumont, El Paso, Laredo, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and perhaps Fort Worth and Corpus Christi in Texas, as an example in one state), and 'red areas' in some 'blue' states (most rural areas in Minnesota). Renters tend to see the landlord as a grabber of a big chunk of income, and property owners see the tax collector as the big grabber. If one went to public schools, went to Cal-Berkeley and got a degree in electrical engineering and attribute personal success to the intellectual growth that your college experience allowed, then one may see the government making one and your landlord in Silicon Valley as an exploiter. If one had a bad time in public schools because some schoolmarm criticized your bad grammar, got a job as an auto repairman in rural Kentucky, and owns a home, then the tax collector is the gouger. Landlord?  What landlord?

2. For many in Blue America, Donald Trump reminds them of the capitalist that they love to hate -- the landlord. Other capitalists may have established the company for which you work or providers of innovative products and other useful objects, and entertainment. If one is a software engineer in Silicon Valley, the landlord is probably an inferior in educational achievement, let alone technological prowess. The landlord probably inherited housing that one now rents that cost $35K a unit to build back in the 1970s and now costs you $35K a year to rent. That heir may have effectively majored in 'partying' at "Kegger State" before dropping out while on academic probation, and makes more than the software engineer by leasing a few dozen units two a captive market because housing is scarce. The landlord pays low property taxes because the property is valued as it was in the late 1970s for purposes of taxation, which explains how awful K-12 public education is in California. The low taxes create an incentive to not tear down old rental properties and replace them with newer properties that would be assessed more. The rent is too d@mn high, and you know why.

3. What would you do with the welfare recipients?  Maybe I don't want to know.  Welfare is often a transitory reality. People typically have an incentive (fuller participation in the consumer society, which allows more fun and more choice) to go from welfare to work. They might also have personal problems to solve -- like getting away from an  abusive spouse, getting rehabilitation for substance abuse, dealing with a medical crisis, having an infant to take care of, getting job training when otherwise unemployable, or going to a place where there are genuine opportunities.  The transition could include part-time work that does not fully meet personal needs.

4. The Republican Party needed a sharp kick to the derriere for going along with Donald Trump, someone completely unsuited as a leader of the biggest enterprise of all (even his business expertise is too limited and largely irrelevant to the government) and as a politician. Republicans who saw Donald Trump as the means of transforming America into a pure plutocracy needed to find that most peoople have loyalties to themselves or their immediate family above the enrichment of economic elites who see workers as livestock at best and vermin at worst. The Republican Party did well enough with the Tea Party and would probably be faring better if it had not gotten Donald Trump as President. What we liberals saw in Trump in 2016, more voters saw since he became President.

I can say this now: prospects look bleak for the Republican Party in 2020.  even the most cautious predictive model that I have for the Presidency (Trump losing all states in which the total vote went against him in the 2018 Congressional election, which assumes that there will be no D-leaning increase in the total vote in 2020) projects the Democrat winning 284 electoral votes, the result of flipping Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to just about any Democrat.  Add to this, Democrats have only eleven of thirty-three House seats to defend, only two of those in states that Trump won in 2016. Doug Jones will probably go down to defeat because he won under freakish circumstances unlikely to be repeated in one of the most Republican states in America. The other is Gary Peters, who won his Senate seat in Michigan during a Republican wave election in 2014 and was the only Democratic Senator to have won an open Senate seat that year. That is strong.

Polls indicate that Donald Trump is political poison. The scandals keep emerging, and I expect similar results with each scandal. Just as his credibility in approval ratings recovers a  bit as the news stories abate, an indictment, arrest, or conviction causes another cratering in the President's approval.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2018, 03:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 06:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? I live in one of those areas that flipped. I can tell you this, the Democrat who represent me has two years to cut a deal with the Republicans or she's gone in 2020. I didn't vote for her or the Republican she defeated. I voted for the Independent to wake up the Republican leadership. As I mentioned before, I didn't view the house as a major priority in this election. I viewed the Senate as the priority in this election. The Republican house needed a boot in the ass for its healthcare debacle. Like I said, Republicans are different than Democrats when it comes to failing to serve our interests. We'll accept a Democrat for a couple of years to get what we want in the long term. Unfortunately, blue voters don't have that luxury.

It seems natural for everybody to expect the country to flow their way, that everyone will see things from their perspective.  I'm as guilty as anyone.  How long before people notice that the economy tanks every time the Republicans apply voodoo economics?  A few more storms have hit the south?  While the Democrats have nominated a black and a woman, and this lost them about the whole deplorable vote, will the Republicans be that lucky forever?  Trump will have two more years in office, which will give him time to amplify the see saw flip?  The voters that made the southern strategy work are aging out of the voter pool?

We'll see.  The Democrats are facing a mighty see saw.

Bob, I don't expect blue voters to start flowing our/my way. I expect red voters who live in blue areas who no longer have representation to start flowing our way and I expect red areas to start doing what blue areas are doing which blues are viewing as acceptable. I expect red areas to start ignoring blue laws and I expect the blues in those areas to start flowing your way as a result. I used to tell blues, I'll take one worker/ quality individual over ten welfare recipients/idiots (I'd be willing to trade 10 welfare recipients for one worker) any day. Yes, I'm willing to sacrifice mass quantity for fewer quality related people. If you don't see the value in that move then you're in trouble long term. So, this is what I see happening over the next decade as America continues positioning itself for the upcoming 4T. You shouldn't believe what the elites are telling you about us, you should be listening what we're telling you about us and you should be seeing how effective we are about they way we tend to operate and how intelligent we are as individuals and how much more common sense we have than the average blue. You're fortunate, you generally don't hear much coming from us.

What seems to be true, is that you underestimate blues because you think we are all dependent on government. I'm sure you know that red states get the benefit of tax money raised in blue states, which pay more and get less. I'm sure you know that smart young people in red states move out to blue states. At least that was how it was until some blue states got too expensive to live in, because they are desirable places with opportunity, whereas red states are ugly basket cases with no opportunity. Apparently when Kansas was taken over by red reactionaries, a few years ago, the people soon had enough and started voting blue. Maybe that will happen in some other red states. Already we see Texas and Arizona turning purple and maybe Georgia too. But Florida is one strange case.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2018, 04:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 03:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 02:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a plain fact that Democrats lower the deficit while Republicans increase it. Republicans talk about reducing the debt; then explode it with military spending and tax breaks for those who don't need them on the basis of the false trickle-down theory. It is also a fact the Democrats are in favor of raising taxes to pay for social programs, and Republicans want to increase the deficit so that money won't be spent on those social programs.

The insurance is indeed available to all of us, when it's needed. Admittedly there are still problems with the welfare system, as when incentive to work is taken away when benefits are taken away due to finding employment. But welfare has been so greatly reduced since Reagan and Clinton/Gingrich, that it is now just a scapegoat used as a slogan to persuade heartland folks like you to vote Republican.

The Republicans are dedicated to lowering health care costs paid for by the government payment system, and the effect of this in years past has always been for health care costs paid by everyone to raise through the ceiling. That's why reform was finally attempted in 2009. Only a government run payment program and the large pool of patients that it provides can keep costs down for everyone. If Obamacare raised your costs, it's because the reform didn't go far enough because moderate Democrats like those you could support watered down the reforms in 2009.

I don't claim to know for sure whether the seats that flipped Democratic in 2018 will flip back. The majority were in blue and purple states, so there won't be that many which flip back. As gerrymandering is reduced and the people choose their politicians instead of the reverse, Democrats will gain a lot of seats like they did in CA, AZ and PA when this was done. Whether the Democrats win the presidency in 2020 will depend on whether the Democrats can avoid choosing a loser, but which at the moment they seem intent on doing. I have described this a lot here already. Coattail effects could happen in the congressional elections.

Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? ....

I posted the stats on this in the Election 2018 thread, at least regarding how many districts flipped in which colored states. 

Several seats flipped in CA that were on the edge of blue urban/suburban areas. This was true nationwide, according to reports; many suburban college-educated districts flipped blue. In red states, between 6 and 8 urban and suburban areas flipped blue. In Texas, a mostly-rural district with border-with-Mexico towns is still barely Republican pending a recount, and hasn't been called. Two other suburban districts there flipped. In Georgia one suburban Atlanta district flipped that had held on in a recent special election, and another one there is not called yet in which a Republican is leading by 100 votes. In Florida, two districts flipped in the extreme south of the state. In PA, 4 seats flipped blue and one red because gerrymandering ended and the voters could choose their politicians instead of Republican politicians choosing their voters. Iowa flipped two seats, Virginia 3 and New Jersey 4. In your state, two seats flipped to red (one in the "mining area") and two to blue.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire state of California ends up blue. But then again, I'm not going to be surprised when California implodes either and California ends up like Yugoslavia. We need a failed American state that we can effectively use as an example during the 4T. As far as I can see, you're on track to be that state. Right now, you're state is down there with the lowly red state of Mississippi. So, the Democratic gerrymandering that took place in PA worked in the Democrats favor as it was expected. Come on, gerrymandering ain't all that bad as long as it works in the Democrat's favor. How is the Democratic law breaking going in Florida? You have to admit, law breaking ain't all that bad as long as it works in the Democrats favor. Yeah, that's the kind of party that I want to be part of someday. Actually, that's the kind of party, I WANT TO DESTROY.

California still has problems. There is still pollution in SoCal, and lack of affordable housing on the coast and homeless people there. Lots of immigrants are hard to educate. But our state government is in the black now, and so are most cities, thanks to high property values and taxes and Gov. Brown's tax increase initiative which the voters passed. Global warming is causing disasters here as everywhere else. Our legislature has a blue supermajority and a blue governor. Still, sometimes they succumb to corporate lobbies and do the wrong things. Paradise is burning; CA is not paradise. CA also still has a heritage left over from not-that-many years ago of Republican mis-rule. But I'm fairly confident that CA will often do the right things. CA doesn't always like to pay high taxes though, so free spending by politicians might not go over here, as it didn't in 2003.

Gerrymandering was practiced by both parties in the past, although the GOP took it to unprecedented levels in 2011, but the new reforms are not gerrymandering. Red voters can only see from their own perspective, and what's good for themselves individually. They can't see beyond their nose, and yet are confident they are right. They are hooked on their party and their ideologies, probably beyond all hope, as you seem to be. Otherwise, you could tell a reform from a partisan gerrymander, and a legal recount from law-breaking, but you can't. CA has 45 elected Democratic representatives in congress now (1 race still not called, but a new Dem. lead is growing) and just 8 Republicans, and Pennsylvania is back to majority blue, because the voters voted for this. Former red state AZ has a blue majority in congress now (and a blue senator) after gerrymandering was outlawed there too. The more gerrymandering is removed in blue and purple states and many red states, and districting by politicians is replaced with independent commissions, the more Democratic their representatives will be. At least for a while. It has taken a strong majority vote nationally in order for Democrats to make any gains through 2018. Once reforms are in place, the national vote will be more reflective of the strength of the parties in congress.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-15-2018, 11:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 04:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 03:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 02:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a plain fact that Democrats lower the deficit while Republicans increase it. Republicans talk about reducing the debt; then explode it with military spending and tax breaks for those who don't need them on the basis of the false trickle-down theory. It is also a fact the Democrats are in favor of raising taxes to pay for social programs, and Republicans want to increase the deficit so that money won't be spent on those social programs.

The insurance is indeed available to all of us, when it's needed. Admittedly there are still problems with the welfare system, as when incentive to work is taken away when benefits are taken away due to finding employment. But welfare has been so greatly reduced since Reagan and Clinton/Gingrich, that it is now just a scapegoat used as a slogan to persuade heartland folks like you to vote Republican.

The Republicans are dedicated to lowering health care costs paid for by the government payment system, and the effect of this in years past has always been for health care costs paid by everyone to raise through the ceiling. That's why reform was finally attempted in 2009. Only a government run payment program and the large pool of patients that it provides can keep costs down for everyone. If Obamacare raised your costs, it's because the reform didn't go far enough because moderate Democrats like those you could support watered down the reforms in 2009.

I don't claim to know for sure whether the seats that flipped Democratic in 2018 will flip back. The majority were in blue and purple states, so there won't be that many which flip back. As gerrymandering is reduced and the people choose their politicians instead of the reverse, Democrats will gain a lot of seats like they did in CA, AZ and PA when this was done. Whether the Democrats win the presidency in 2020 will depend on whether the Democrats can avoid choosing a loser, but which at the moment they seem intent on doing. I have described this a lot here already. Coattail effects could happen in the congressional elections.

Were the seats in bluer areas or redder areas? ....

I posted the stats on this in the Election 2018 thread, at least regarding how many districts flipped in which colored states. 

Several seats flipped in CA that were on the edge of blue urban/suburban areas. This was true nationwide, according to reports; many suburban college-educated districts flipped blue. In red states, between 6 and 8 urban and suburban areas flipped blue. In Texas, a mostly-rural district with border-with-Mexico towns is still barely Republican pending a recount, and hasn't been called. Two other suburban districts there flipped. In Georgia one suburban Atlanta district flipped that had held on in a recent special election, and another one there is not called yet in which a Republican is leading by 100 votes. In Florida, two districts flipped in the extreme south of the state. In PA, 4 seats flipped blue and one red because gerrymandering ended and the voters could choose their politicians instead of Republican politicians choosing their voters. Iowa flipped two seats, Virginia 3 and New Jersey 4. In your state, two seats flipped to red (one in the "mining area") and two to blue.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire state of California ends up blue. But then again, I'm not going to be surprised when California implodes either and California ends up like Yugoslavia. We need a failed American state that we can effectively use as an example during the 4T. As far as I can see, you're on track to be that state. Right now, you're state is down there with the lowly red state of Mississippi. So, the Democratic gerrymandering that took place in PA worked in the Democrats favor as it was expected. Come on, gerrymandering ain't all that bad as long as it works in the Democrat's favor. How is the Democratic law breaking going in Florida? You have to admit, law breaking ain't all that bad as long as it works in the Democrats favor. Yeah, that's the kind of party that I want to be part of someday. Actually, that's the kind of party, I WANT TO DESTROY.

California still has problems. There is still pollution in SoCal, and lack of affordable housing on the coast and homeless people there. Lots of immigrants are hard to educate. But our state government is in the black now, and so are most cities, thanks to high property values and taxes and Gov. Brown's tax increase initiative which the voters passed. Global warming is causing disasters here as everywhere else. Our legislature has a blue supermajority and a blue governor. Still, sometimes they succumb to corporate lobbies and do the wrong things. Paradise is burning; CA is not paradise. CA also still has a heritage left over from not-that-many years ago of Republican mis-rule. But I'm fairly confident that CA will often do the right things. CA doesn't always like to pay high taxes though, so free spending by politicians might not go over here, as it didn't in 2003.

Gerrymandering was practiced by both parties in the past, although the GOP took it to unprecedented levels in 2011, but the new reforms are not gerrymandering. Red voters can only see from their own perspective, and what's good for themselves individually. They can't see beyond their nose, and yet are confident they are right. They are hooked on their party and their ideologies, probably beyond all hope, as you seem to be. Otherwise, you could tell a reform from a partisan gerrymander, and a legal recount from law-breaking, but you can't. CA has at least 3/4 Democratic representatives in congress now, and Pennsylvania is back to majority blue, because the voters voted for this. Former red state AZ has a blue majority in congress now (and a blue senator) after gerrymandering was outlawed there too. The more gerrymandering is removed in blue and purple states and many red states, and districting by politicians is replaced with independent commissions, the more Democratic their representatives will be. At least for a while. It has taken a strong majority vote nationally in order for Democrats to make any gains. Once reforms are in place, the national vote will be more reflective of the strength of the parties in congress.

Dude, I actually was looking it at both ways or looking at it objectively. You forget, I'm not a Republican or a political activist or someone connected with the conservative movement. I'm a independent voter who tends to vote Republican these days. OK, let me get this straight, when the Republicans gerrymander districts in their favor it's gerrymandering which is bad. But, when the Democrats of Pennsylvania do it, it's reform which ain't bad or the same thing in your opinion and the opinion of most Democrats. OK. You're either stupid for taking that position with me or you're stupid for thinking I'm not smart enough to view that as bullshit. I don't like you Eric and you better pray that I'm not the one who you are reliant upon to survive. PB has an excuse for his issue with reasoning and his inability to recognize obvious signs the he should pick up when communicating with another human of equal or greater standing when it comes to knowledge and ACTUAL use of intelligence.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-15-2018, 11:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: California still has problems. There is still pollution in SoCal, and lack of affordable housing on the coast and homeless people there. Lots of immigrants are hard to educate. But our state government is in the black now, and so are most cities, thanks to high property values and taxes and Gov. Brown's tax increase initiative which the voters passed. Global warming is causing disasters here as everywhere else. Our legislature has a blue supermajority and a blue governor. Still, sometimes they succumb to corporate lobbies and do the wrong things. Paradise is burning; CA is not paradise. CA also still has a heritage left over from not-that-many years ago of Republican mis-rule. But I'm fairly confident that CA will often do the right things. CA doesn't always like to pay high taxes though, so free spending by politicians might not go over here, as it didn't in 2003.

Gerrymandering was practiced by both parties in the past, although the GOP took it to unprecedented levels in 2011, but the new reforms are not gerrymandering. Red voters can only see from their own perspective, and what's good for themselves individually. They can't see beyond their nose, and yet are confident they are right. They are hooked on their party and their ideologies, probably beyond all hope, as you seem to be. Otherwise, you could tell a reform from a partisan gerrymander, and a legal recount from law-breaking, but you can't. CA has at least 3/4 Democratic representatives in congress now, and Pennsylvania is back to majority blue, because the voters voted for this. Former red state AZ has a blue majority in congress now (and a blue senator) after gerrymandering was outlawed there too. The more gerrymandering is removed in blue and purple states and many red states, and districting by politicians is replaced with independent commissions, the more Democratic their representatives will be. At least for a while. It has taken a strong majority vote nationally in order for Democrats to make any gains. Once reforms are in place, the national vote will be more reflective of the strength of the parties in congress.

Dude, I actually was looking it at both ways or looking at it objectively and taking both perspectives into account. You forget, I'm not a Republican or a political activist or someone connected with the conservative movement. I'm a independent voter who tends to vote Republican these days. OK, let me get this straight, when the Republicans gerrymander districts in their favor it's gerrymandering which is bad. But, when the Democrats of Pennsylvania do it, it's reform which ain't bad or the same thing in your opinion and the opinion of most Democrats. OK. You're either stupid for taking that position with me or you're stupid for thinking I'm not smart enough to view it as bullshit. I don't like you Eric and you better pray that I'm not the one who you find yourself reliant upon for survive. PB has an excuse for his issue with lack of reasoning and his inability to recognize obvious signs the he should pick up on when communicating with another human of equal or greater standing when it comes to knowledge and ACTUAL use of intelligence and common sense.

How do we get the blues into one boat? We allow the blues to continue what their doing in their areas and gradually begin changing laws/ ignoring federal laws in our areas and leave it to nature to take it's coarse. I agree, California almost all blue these days. I saw that a Democratic Senator defeated her Democratic opponent and kept the seat in the hands of the Democratic Party. Tell her good job. How long do you think it will be before New York and the northeast are the same way as California with Democrats running against Democrats for Senate seats? How long do you think it will be before middle America decides they'd better off on their own vs being ruled by those regions? Like I said, war can be avoided by simply giving us our flag and our Constitution. Well, you keep opening those arms to immigrants and the immigrants we'll be sending your way and don't forget to allow the immigrants who are on their way there now. I think Trump should say fuck it, and let them enter California by the thousands/millions. I'd even suggest that he should bull doze your wall. I mean, who cares, California is damn near all blue and it's only going to be blues who are going to be hurt or destroyed by the overwhelming population increase and all the costs associated with them. Shit, at least the American Indians fought for their lands.

[David Horn]

(11-12-2018, 08:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: There is a difference between funding roads, police forces, fire departments, the military and so forth and the funding of people primarily associated with the Democrats. Right now, the vast majority still views, still speaks and still acts as if government funding is associated with money that grows on trees or a debt that we won't have to answer and are so how or another immune to financially. In a decade or so, the American view of government funding is going to begin to drastically change whether we want it too, whether we'd like it too, whether we are able to comprehend and accept it or not.

The real money spent by government goes to three places: entitlements, which are earned benefits paid in advance by the recipients of the benefits like any other insurance benefits, military and security spending, and interest on the debt. If you take the time to see how they are structured, you'll see that most are intended to enrich the rich and not the "people primarily associated with the Democrats".

[Classic-Xer]

(11-16-2018, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 08:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: There is a difference between funding roads, police forces, fire departments, the military and so forth and the funding of people primarily associated with the Democrats. Right now, the vast majority still views, still speaks and still acts as if government funding is associated with money that grows on trees or a debt that we won't have to answer and are so how or another immune to financially. In a decade or so, the American view of government funding is going to begin to drastically change whether we want it too, whether we'd like it too, whether we are able to comprehend and accept it or not.

The real money spent by government goes to three places: entitlements, which are earned benefits paid in advance by the recipients of the benefits like any other insurance benefits, military and security spending, and interest on the debt.  If you take the time to see how they are structured, you'll see that most are intended to enrich the rich and not the "people primarily associated with the Democrats".

I know what you did to earn your retirement benefits. You did the same thing I've been doing since I was 16 years old and able to drive legally. I'm not talking about those benefits or the people receiving those benefits. I'm talking about the people who are receiving free healthcare. I'm talking about the people who are receiving free daycare. I'm talking about the people who are living in subsidized housing. I'm talking about the people we're not supposed to talk about these days.

I'm going to give some information about Republican voters. The majority of the Republican voters are about as religious as you, Bob and PB. The majority of them don't go to church on a regular basis. The majority of them don't pay much attention to what Evangelicals have to say and don't listen religious radio stations and so forth. However, the bulk of them are firm believers in God and have a strong faith in God. Now God ain't quite the same as Jesus, God can be unsympathetic and down right mean. Any hoo, if you and I were to meet on a battlefield, you're adversary wouldn't be worried about what Jesus thinks or how Jesus feels and so forth. Of coarse, if we were to meet on a battlefield, your association with evil would already be determined and proven beyond all doubt. So the killing, you're killing and so forth would be justified and sanctioned by both Jesus and God. Japan was largely a Godless world. Nazi Germany was largely a Godless world. Both were leveled and bombed without mercy by the American right with the assistance of the American left ( The Democratic party). The American has always been the force for freedom in this country. The American right has always been force for the defense of freedom in this country. You have been given a glimpse as to how large the American right is in this country because the American right showed up in force during the 2016 election. Think about this, there are 60 some million members of the American right that both parties have little influence and no control over at this time in American history. Do you really want to fuck with that at this point of our history? I don't think it would be wise knowing who those people are and how much power and money they can bring to bare and topple a blue regime or several blue regimes that are dotted across the country? Would the American right do it? Yes, it would do it just like it has done it before in the past. The far left are more or less viewed as guests in our country. BTW, I think your leadership understands this but you wouldn't think so by the way they talk. A few moves and Nancy P would be a poor woman with no power what so ever and she would most likely prefer to kill herself than accept living out her life in a tent like her poorest subjects are doing right now. Queen Hilary was defeated by the American right alone with hardly any support from the GOP. Yes, the GOP are in trouble. Yes, the GOP have an issue with the American right. Yes, the Republican party has things to think about in regards to the minor loss it took in the the house and the Democratic fill ins who are occupying Republican seats that were lost by weak candidates or uglier candidates. I have to say, Seneca is a very attractive woman.

[Eric the Green]

You and your fellow reds, of which you are a good representative here (and I'm glad for that), don't think people should get medicaid if they are poor. You don't think healthcare is a right. But the Declaration of Independence which is the birth document of our country says people have a right to life. That means they have a right to health care. If some people don't pay for it, then it is just another form of insurance that would be made available to you if need be. And whether you realize it or not, you need that insurance. Your business might go belly up if your politicians and the business tycoons you respect cause another depression. Those who are employees can be fired or laid off at any time. Not to mention the disasters that are increasing at great pace thanks to the climate change that your politicians and tycoons have imposed upon us, and which could wipe out you and your fellow reds at any time. You are proud of your self-reliance, and you don't want to admit you might need help someday.

The facts are well known that the "red" people go to church more often, as well as more of them are believers. Many blues like me believe in God and go to church too, as well as many of us who don't; but we don't think our church should be imposing its outdated moral doctrines and dogmas on the rest of us, and your red guys do precisely that.

As for war, the Democratic Party used to be the war party, but alignments changed in the sixties because of the American war in Vietnam, so now Democrats are predominantly the peace party, and the record on that is clear. But the reds of the USA still want to kill unbelievers for Christ, just as Muslim and other fanatics do. But I agree that Nazis and Commies were largely godless; Materialism is no guarantee of peace and ethics, just as dogmatic religion is not.

You overestimate the extent to which the people in the red and purple areas agree with you, and you claim that you guys are the real Americans and we blues are guests. But just as Beto said while campaigning against Cruz said, the people don't have to settle for the old Texas values; many of them have new liberal values. And he campaigned on those, and got within 2.6% of the majority vote in a red state. Younger people and those who have parents from abroad are becoming a new America. You might say that immigrants and youth are not real 'mericans, but you might not win the vote on that. In CA and other blue states they have already lost that vote, and some states are getting more blue too. Will the people make progress, and live up to the highest American ideals, as Beto invited people to do, or will they go back to the cynical and stingy, fearful ways of your older heartland whites-only America that Ted Cruz advocates? Time will tell.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2018, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 11:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: California still has problems. There is still pollution in SoCal, and lack of affordable housing on the coast and homeless people there. Lots of immigrants are hard to educate. But our state government is in the black now, and so are most cities, thanks to high property values and taxes and Gov. Brown's tax increase initiative which the voters passed. Global warming is causing disasters here as everywhere else. Our legislature has a blue supermajority and a blue governor. Still, sometimes they succumb to corporate lobbies and do the wrong things. Paradise is burning; CA is not paradise. CA also still has a heritage left over from not-that-many years ago of Republican mis-rule. But I'm fairly confident that CA will often do the right things. CA doesn't always like to pay high taxes though, so free spending by politicians might not go over here, as it didn't in 2003.

Gerrymandering was practiced by both parties in the past, although the GOP took it to unprecedented levels in 2011, but the new reforms are not gerrymandering. Red voters can only see from their own perspective, and what's good for themselves individually. They can't see beyond their nose, and yet are confident they are right. They are hooked on their party and their ideologies, probably beyond all hope, as you seem to be. Otherwise, you could tell a reform from a partisan gerrymander, and a legal recount from law-breaking, but you can't. CA has at least 3/4 Democratic representatives in congress now, and Pennsylvania is back to majority blue, because the voters voted for this. Former red state AZ has a blue majority in congress now (and a blue senator) after gerrymandering was outlawed there too. The more gerrymandering is removed in blue and purple states and many red states, and districting by politicians is replaced with independent commissions, the more Democratic their representatives will be. At least for a while. It has taken a strong majority vote nationally in order for Democrats to make any gains. Once reforms are in place, the national vote will be more reflective of the strength of the parties in congress.

Dude, I actually was looking it at both ways or looking at it objectively and taking both perspectives into account. You forget, I'm not a Republican or a political activist or someone connected with the conservative movement. I'm a independent voter who tends to vote Republican these days. OK, let me get this straight, when the Republicans gerrymander districts in their favor it's gerrymandering which is bad. But, when the Democrats of Pennsylvania do it, it's reform which ain't bad or the same thing in your opinion and the opinion of most Democrats. OK. You're either stupid for taking that position with me or you're stupid for thinking I'm not smart enough to view it as bullshit. I don't like you Eric and you better pray that I'm not the one who you find yourself  reliant upon for survive. PB has an excuse for his issue with lack of reasoning and his inability to recognize obvious signs the he should pick up on when communicating with another human of equal or greater standing when it comes to knowledge and ACTUAL use of intelligence and common sense.

How do we get the blues into one boat? We allow the blues to continue what their doing in their areas and gradually begin changing laws/ ignoring federal laws in our areas and leave it to nature to take it's coarse. I agree, California almost all blue these days. I saw that a Democratic Senator defeated her Democratic opponent and kept the seat in the hands of the Democratic Party. Tell her good job. How long do you think it will be before New York and the northeast are the same way as California with Democrats running against Democrats for Senate seats? How long do you think it will be before middle America decides they'd better off on their own vs being ruled by those regions? Like I said, war can be avoided by simply giving us our flag and our Constitution. Well, you keep opening those arms to immigrants and the immigrants we'll be sending your way and don't forget to allow the immigrants who are on their way there now. I think Trump should say fuck it, and let them enter California by the thousands/millions. I'd even suggest that he should bull doze your wall. I mean, who cares, California is damn near all blue and it's only going to be blues who are going to be hurt or destroyed by the overwhelming population increase and all the costs associated with them. Shit, at least the American Indians fought for their lands.

No, it is just as I said. Reform was made, gerrymandering was not done by the Democrats in CA, AZ and PA, but districts were drawn by independent commissions, which allowed people to vote for their politicians instead of vice versa. You can't tell a reform from a partisan gerrymander, and a legal recount from law-breaking. You vote to keep big money considered as free speech, and thus keep our politicians locked into special interests. 

You forget again that I myself am quite willing to separate from your red states, if that's what the people want to do, and that I would not join or support a war to keep you in the union if you want to leave, and that I might support such a war if it's us blues who want to leave and you reds who want to impose your red regime upon us. How many times do I need to say this, so you don't have to keep repeating your threat to separate from us blues, since I regard it as a promise and not a threat?

[pbrower2a]

(11-16-2018, 12:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (to David Horn)

I'm going to give some information about Republican voters. The majority of the Republican voters are about as religious as (David Horn) , Bob and PB. The majority of them don't go to church on a regular basis. The majority of them don't pay much attention to what Evangelicals have to say and don't listen religious radio stations and so forth. However, the bulk of them are firm believers in God and have a strong faith in God.

I have known plenty of conservatives who mock televangelists. Hucksters and charlatans, they really offer nothing. I have found clergy useful in consoling the afflicted, alleviating grief, guiding people in trouble, and visiting people in bad medical situations. I'm not saying that such is a high intellectual enterprise, but it can certainly be necessary. If it takes some Bible reading to give comfort to someone in a desperate situation, I have done it. Then again, I am a good actor, so I can pretend to faith that I do not have. It goes with Asperger's syndrome; I must act just to seem normal. If someone wants to do real good for lots of good people without getting paid well, and is willing to live in miserable places, then clergy is a good career choice.

I have no idea of how I would behave if I were in great fear of death. I did experience what some people thought a possible coronary, but once I found that I was out of danger I could even joke about the situation. Something like terminal cancer or final stages of congestive heart failure? Nobody knows then until it is too late.

Quote:Now God ain't quite the same as Jesus, God can be unsympathetic and down right mean. Any hoo, if you and I were to meet on a battlefield, you're adversary wouldn't be worried about what Jesus thinks or how Jesus feels and so forth. Of coarse, if we were to meet on a battlefield, your association with evil would already be determined and proven beyond all doubt. So the killing, you're killing and so forth would be justified and sanctioned by both Jesus and God. Japan was largely a Godless world. Nazi Germany was largely a Godless world.

Nazi Germany was anything but godless. Hitler was for all practical purposes god, and Christianity was for most Germans a sentimental attachment that the Nazis tolerated. We need remember that evil people can pretend to do the Lord's Work, and good people will do the Lord's Work without knowing that they do so -- if there is a God that they do not believe yet exists anyway.

Jesus could be as harshly judgmental as anyone, as in casting demons into the Gadarene swine and sending the swine (and the demons) to their doom, and of course disrupting the corrupt dealings of the money-changers on the Temple Mount. He warned that He could break up families between those with Faith and those without. Likewise, those who failed to follow him would be damned.

I am satisfied that atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians can be just as moral as Christians at their best, and that religious identity usually connects closely to one's culture.


Both (Nazi Germany and Thug Japan) were leveled and bombed without mercy by the American right with the assistance of the American left ( The Democratic party). The American has always been the force for freedom in this country. The American right has always been force for the defense of freedom in this country.[/quote]

Liberals and conservatives think much the same of the Axis powers -- uttermost hatred. To defend the crimes of the Axis powers one must be a fascist, the sort who would love to have had the Holocaust and such atrocities as the Bataan Death March happening in an occupied America, too. But note that when I say conservatives I refer to people who believe in America's traditions of limited government  and free enterprise.

Quote:You have been given a glimpse as to how large the American right is in this country because the American right showed up in force during the 2016 election. Think about this, there are 60 some million members of the American right that both parties have little influence and no control over at this time in American history.

The Right includes old-fashioned conservatives and fascists (neo-Nazi and KKK scum) alike, and I do not lump them together any more than I lump liberals and Stalinists. Heck, even dogs and cats seem to have more in common.  In the first two years of the Trump Presidency, the President and Congress have neglected practically everything left of center and even the center. Polarized and partisan as American politics is today, even a 51-49 split of representation means something like a complete shutout of the relevance of the Other Side.

Quote:Do you really want to (mess) with that at this point of our history? I don't think it would be wise knowing who those people are and how much power and money they can bring to bear and topple a blue regime or several blue regimes that are dotted across the country?

Knowing that the Right successfully brought about a right-wing House majority in 2010, a Senate majority in 2014, and a semi-fascist President in 2016, we are all well. Money does not simply talk in American politics; it shouts! But with political power in a democracy comes responsibility. The 2018 House election and many gubernatorial elections have shown that the Republican Party has not exercised power wisely... and paid for such with the House majority. Donald Trump and the Republican majority in the Senate need to clean up their act lest they find themselves waking up on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 to find that someone other than Donald Trump or Mike Pence will be President and that their Senate majority has two months in which to try to pass a little of their agenda. In a democracy, power comes with responsibility. In a despotic or tyrannical regime, power comes without responsibility. Donald Trump has acted much like a despot or a dictator, and a majority of Americans -- and when 56% disapprove of a right-leaning President and Congress, that includes some conservatives -- dislike the result.

Quote:Would the American right do it? Yes, it would do it just like it has done it before in the past. The far left are more or less viewed as guests in our country.

If you are thinking of a right-wing coup -- that would take the connivance of the military. Donald Trump has been so erratic that he has raised the possibility of a military coup above zero, a dubious achievement in American history. I have no idea of what the Armed Forces would do if the President started using unconstitutional powers -- like nullifying the 2018 House election or provoking violence against elected officials. You can be thankful that not one of those bombs that a fanatical Trump supporter assembled, let alone mailed, did not kill or maim is intended target. Such would have caused make millions of Americans suspect the President. I do not know how close we liberals are to our limits of tolerating criminality by the Other Side in politics.

We have had no difficulty with seeing liberal pols get taken down for corruption and abuse of power. Elected office is no excuse for crime, and neither is proximity to power. 

Note well: we liberals have shown that we respect the rule of law by not rioting against Trump, by not doing violence, and by trusting the courts and law enforcement. A hint: Robert Mueller is not a liberal.

Quote:BTW, I think your leadership understands this but you wouldn't think so by the way they talk.  A  few moves and Nancy P would be a poor woman with no power what so ever and she would most likely prefer to  kill herself than accept living out her life in a tent like her poorest subjects are doing right now.

Nancy Pelosi has a rich pension awaiting her should her term of office come to an end, and she probably has a nice bank account that can allow her to live in San Francisco (an expensive place) in property that she or family members bought long ago when it was affordable.  San Francisco is a rich city, and people like me are priced out of it into a place that better resembles eastern Kentucky in economics than it does the paradise that is the San Francisco Bay Area. I have outgrown the miserable hick town in which I live in every way except finances -- but this is America, and money is the measure of human value in contemporary America.

Quote:Queen Hilary was defeated by the American right alone with hardly any  support from the GOP. Yes, the GOP are in trouble. Yes, the GOP have an issue with the American right. Yes, the Republican party has things to think about in regards to the minor loss it took in the  the house and the Democratic fill ins who are occupying Republican seats that were lost by weak candidates or uglier candidates. I have to say, Seneca is a very attractive woman.

The GOP is most of the American Right. It is not to be confused with the  KKK and neo-Nazi part of the American Right, but it has not done enough to denounce people who burn crosses or shout stuff like "Jews will not replace us!", let alone "Sieg heil!". As for the alleged caravan of people from countries replete with violence resulting from drug money -- I would be delighted to replace our meth fiends and other addicts with some people in the alleged caravan of Central Americans who expect to do the nastiest, lowest-paying jobs in America just to survive rather than face violence by drug gangs whose funds have been supplied by America's addicts.

Like a typical conservative I consider sobriety a virtue and believe that America would be better off without drug activity and drunkenness. Prohibition? Hello, no! My therapist has told me that an occasional beer or glass of wine can dissolve some anxiety that cripples me as a person. One is enough.

I have more faith in the current Democratic majority in the House for competence, relevance, and and electoral success. The 2018 elections to the House reflect the rise of the Millennial generation as a voting bloc, and that politicians will have to account for its views or be defeated in the next election. The Millennial generation has greatly increased its participation in elections, and I see no reason to think that a one-time event. It is liberal and rational, and that already shows in the composition of its new members of the House. Its rise in American politics will be swift as Silent and first-wave Boomer politicians go into retirement or die off.

The split in the popular vote for House seats is about the same as the split in the popular vote between Obama and McCain in 2008. I do not expect a dip in voting in 2000, and although I expect a dip from 2020 to 2022 that dip will not be so precipitous as the one from 2008 to 2010. The Religious Right and the Tea Party will both be smaller, and I do not expect any conservative current among the Millennial generation.The Senate? Sure, Republicans on the net gained some seats, but that better reflects the distribution of those seats than the sentiment of voters.

Little bodes well for the Republican Party in 2020. The President is highly unpopular, and by objective assessments of professional historians, he is doing little good. Republicans will have about as many vulnerable Senate seats in 2020 as Democrats did in 2018, and with an electorate at least as liberal-leaning in 2020 as in 2018, I can easily see Democrats with an effective majority in the Senate as of January 3, 2021. That is 50-50 because I expect Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee for President, and I expect him to lose to the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.

[David Horn]

(11-13-2018, 08:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... The Heartland Dem's gave you a breath of life but they turn out to be no better or no more capable or independent than the Democrats who were replaced by Republicans during the Obama years, you can expect those seats to go back to the Republicans in two years and you can expect to see Republicans who are more devoted to actually lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone who is actually PAYING FOR IT vs continuing providing it for those who are getting it for free. I don't get into playing fools games that liberals seem content with playing which is why I don't get into the Democratic party, don't get into to it's politics and don't even consider voting Democratic these days.

BTW, it's not that we forget, it's that we tend to ignore it because we understand the relationship between the blues and the systems that so many are now reliant upon these days. You see, we don't have and are not entitled to receive the so-called insurance that you often claim to be equally beneficial/ available for all of us.

OK, so your real issue is being screwed-over with crappy insurance (ACA) that's worse than the crappy insurance (Medicaid) supplied to the poor. To an extent, it's worked that way because the opposition (GOP) made sure it does, yet your expected solution is better-cheaper private insurance that the GOP will miraculously provide. Ain't happening! The simple reason: healthcare is expensive, so someone has to pay for it. Everyone can get sick or injured. Running the system through private providers and private insurance makes it even more expensive. So the only insurance you'll be getting that's cheap is insurance that covers healthy people … until they get sick. Nothing will get you destitute faster than a major illness and insurance with low caps and no guarantees of future coverage.

BTW, even the uninsured receive healthcare, typically through the emergency room -- the most expensive kind. Hospitals can't say no; it's a law of long standing. So leaving the poor to die on the streets isn't an answer either. The only real answer involves a single payer (or single provider) that can negotiate on behalf of everyone and hold prices down. I don't see your friends in the GOP going for that. It would crimp the pockets of the healthcare, drug and insurance companies that pay to keep them in office. It will be a miracle if the Dems can do it, and they favor it by overwhelming margins.

[David Horn]

(11-14-2018, 01:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's the point of bringing up a path that ISN'T legally available to us now? Food for thought?  I think most people understand that government services aren't free. The only folks who don't seem to understand that services aren't free are those who seem more likely to vote Democratic. Guess what, public education costs money and if the results tend to suck or don't meet our expectations then private education may become the preferred option for our half of the country.

Just like healthcare, education costs money, and private schooling is only less expensive if it's no inclusive.  Yes, you can send your bright, well behaved mainstream children to schools that specialize in bright, well behaved and mainstream, but all children need an education, or they become future problems that are only solved by prison -- a much more expensive "management" alternative. 

Betsy DeVos thinks all children should be schooled privately.  Betsy DeVos is a Billionaire.  Go figure. 

[Classic-Xer]

(11-16-2018, 05:18 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 01:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's the point of bringing up a path that ISN'T legally available to us now? Food for thought?  I think most people understand that government services aren't free. The only folks who don't seem to understand that services aren't free are those who seem more likely to vote Democratic. Guess what, public education costs money and if the results tend to suck or don't meet our expectations then private education may become the preferred option for our half of the country.

Just like healthcare, education costs money, and private schooling is only less expensive if it's no inclusive.  Yes, you can send your bright, well behaved mainstream children to schools that specialize in bright, well behaved and mainstream, but all children need an education, or they become future problems that are only solved by prison -- a much more expensive "management" alternative. 

Betsy DeVos thinks all children should be schooled privately.  Betsy DeVos is a Billionaire.  Go figure. 

Well, your refusal to even consider it pretty much guarantees that poor kids remain trapped in shitty public schools with shitty learning environments and probably end in prison. Oh well, I can't do much to help them out of their situation other than vote Republican at this point. Yes, she's a billionaire who wasn't born poor in a shitty part of Chicago or LA where her parents only choice was to send her to shitty public school because there was no other options available that they could afford.

[David Horn]

(11-17-2018, 04:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 05:18 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 01:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's the point of bringing up a path that ISN'T legally available to us now? Food for thought?  I think most people understand that government services aren't free. The only folks who don't seem to understand that services aren't free are those who seem more likely to vote Democratic. Guess what, public education costs money and if the results tend to suck or don't meet our expectations then private education may become the preferred option for our half of the country.

Just like healthcare, education costs money, and private schooling is only less expensive if it's no inclusive.  Yes, you can send your bright, well behaved mainstream children to schools that specialize in bright, well behaved and mainstream, but all children need an education, or they become future problems that are only solved by prison -- a much more expensive "management" alternative. 

Betsy DeVos thinks all children should be schooled privately.  Betsy DeVos is a Billionaire.  Go figure. 

Well, your refusal to even consider it pretty much guarantees that poor kids remain trapped in shitty public schools with shitty learning environments and probably end in prison. Oh well, I can't do much to help them out of their situation other than vote Republican at this point. Yes, she's a billionaire who wasn't born poor in a shitty part of Chicago or LA where her parents only choice was to send her to shitty public school because there was no other options available that they could afford.

My own grandchildren attend private school because the public schools in their community are sub-par.  By taxing and spending too little, communities and entire states make that inevitable.  It wasn't always that way.  My public school education in a rusty blue-collar upstate NY city produced world class musicians and debaters -- not something one associates with the lower middle class.  Again, it was the direct result of local and state citizens being willing to dig-in and pay for quality.  In what universe will today's Republicans do that or anything equivalent?  DeVos only cares about transferring tax money to private charter schools, no matter how shitty and overpriced.  I don't see a solution there.

[David Horn]

(11-16-2018, 12:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: The real money spent by government goes to three places: entitlements, which are earned benefits paid in advance by the recipients of the benefits like any other insurance benefits, military and security spending, and interest on the debt.  If you take the time to see how they are structured, you'll see that most are intended to enrich the rich and not the "people primarily associated with the Democrats".

I know what you did to earn your retirement benefits. You did the same thing I've been doing since I was 16 years old and able to drive legally. I'm not talking about those benefits or the people receiving those benefits. I'm talking about the people who are receiving free healthcare. I'm talking about the people who are receiving free daycare. I'm talking about the people who are living in subsidized housing. I'm talking about the people we're not supposed to talk about these days.

And who are these despicable people? The largest single group are children, but let's ignore that for a minute. The second largest group are the elderly, mostly retirees with health problems that have impoverished them. The third largest group are the non-elderly disabled, many with diseases that can't even be managed well, to say nothing of actually cured. In short they're screwed. Now back to the children, they are typically in the foster system, and the subsidies allow foster families to raise them. If you eliminate that option, then plan on opening a crap-load of orphanages. Which brings us to the smallest group by far: the able adults. Almost all of them collect some form of benefit for just long enough to get on their feet -- a few months to a year. They then rejoin the earning class, paying taxes to reimburse the benefits they received earlier. The only exception is Medicaid, which supports the elderly poor and children. Also included are low-earning adults -- because the alternative is having them clogging the ER of every hospital. Much of this could be fixed with a rational minimum wage law.

Classic-Xer Wrote:I'm going to give some information about Republican voters. The majority of the Republican voters are about as religious as you, Bob and PB. The majority of them don't go to church on a regular basis. The majority of them don't pay much attention to what Evangelicals have to say and don't listen religious radio stations and so forth. However, the bulk of them are firm believers in God and have a strong faith in God. Now God ain't quite the same as Jesus, God can be unsympathetic and down right mean. Any hoo, if you and I were to meet on a battlefield, you're adversary wouldn't be worried about what Jesus thinks or how Jesus feels and so forth. Of coarse, if we were to meet on a battlefield, your association with evil would already be determined and proven beyond all doubt. So the killing, you're killing and so forth would be justified and sanctioned by both Jesus and God. Japan was largely a Godless world. Nazi Germany was largely a Godless world. Both were leveled and bombed without mercy by the American right with the assistance of the American left ( The Democratic party). The American has always been the force for freedom in this country. The American right has always been force for the defense of freedom in this country. You have been given a glimpse as to how large the American right is in this country because the American right showed up in force during the 2016 election. Think about this, there are 60 some million members of the American right that both parties have little influence and no control over at this time in American history. Do you really want to fuck with that at this point of our history? I don't think it would be wise knowing who those people are and how much power and money they can bring to bare and topple a blue regime or several blue regimes that are dotted across the country? Would the American right do it? Yes, it would do it just like it has done it before in the past. The far left are more or less viewed as guests in our country. BTW, I think your leadership understands this but you wouldn't think so by the way they talk.  A  few moves and Nancy P would be a poor woman with no power what so ever and she would most likely prefer to  kill herself than accept living out her life in a tent like her poorest subjects are doing right now. Queen Hilary was defeated by the American right alone with hardly any  support from the GOP. Yes, the GOP are in trouble. Yes, the GOP have an issue with the American right. Yes, the Republican party has things to think about in regards to the minor loss it took in the  the house and the Democratic fill ins who are occupying Republican seats that were lost by weak candidates or uglier candidates. I have to say, Seneca is a very attractive woman.

I left this entire quote in place because, frankly, I don't' understand it at all. America is not some anointed nation sent into the world to do good. What good we do is based on the good will of Americans, not some god-force coursing through our veins. But we are also capable of much ill, and the Right is the source of more ill than any other. Where we are we have been before. Today's Right is similar to the Know Nothings of the 1850s -- unwilling to know the bad because it might force them to address it. I'm not a Cassandra, because I can't say I see the future, but I can see the past. It didn't go well last time, and another ACW, of whatever shape or form, is no panacea for anything.

[Eric the Green]

(11-17-2018, 04:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 05:18 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 01:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's the point of bringing up a path that ISN'T legally available to us now? Food for thought?  I think most people understand that government services aren't free. The only folks who don't seem to understand that services aren't free are those who seem more likely to vote Democratic. Guess what, public education costs money and if the results tend to suck or don't meet our expectations then private education may become the preferred option for our half of the country.

Just like healthcare, education costs money, and private schooling is only less expensive if it's no inclusive.  Yes, you can send your bright, well behaved mainstream children to schools that specialize in bright, well behaved and mainstream, but all children need an education, or they become future problems that are only solved by prison -- a much more expensive "management" alternative. 

Betsy DeVos thinks all children should be schooled privately.  Betsy DeVos is a Billionaire.  Go figure. 

Well, your refusal to even consider it pretty much guarantees that poor kids remain trapped in shitty public schools with shitty learning environments and probably end in prison. Oh well, I can't do much to help them out of their situation other than vote Republican at this point. Yes, she's a billionaire who wasn't born poor in a shitty part of Chicago or LA where her parents only choice was to send her to shitty public school because there was no other options available that they could afford.

Back before Reaganomic cynicism took over this country, and Gen X bought into it, public schools were excellent. It never occurred to any of us boomers growing up that public schools were inherently shitty and had to be replaced with private schools or charter schools. It could also be the concern among whites of too many other kinds of children coming into these schools, and the busing controversy. And language and poverty problems happen with these kids. In recent times public schools have been underfunded in some communities and disrespected, and thus perform poorly. But in many blue and purple states and in more-wealthy neighborhoods public schools are still respected and funded well and perform well. It's just a matter of intention and willingness to adjust to changing demographics.

I don't even vote for local parcel taxes anymore because I want to see all districts funded equally. But in my district parcel taxes always get 2/3 vote anyway and they are well-funded and perform well. I get their mailings and they seem to be proud of their accomplishments.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-17-2018, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't even vote for local parcel taxes anymore because I want to see all districts funded equally. But in my district parcel taxes always get 2/3 vote anyway and they are well-funded and perform well. I get their mailings and they seem to be proud of their accomplishments.

My sister, back in the 70s, attending the University of Massachusetts at the time, had to listen to a black girl saying how lousy the local Rockland MA school system was. Naturally, Sally pointed out she had a 4.0 average at Zoo Mass, that how good a school was depended on how much work one was willing to put into it. The instructors in suburban Rockland would work if a kid was putting some effort into it, but often would let kids not trying go. You couldn't help a kid who was not trying.

But I would tend to agree. While I never married, never had kids, I never begrudged the spending and taxes required to give kids the same chance I had back in the day. You can lead a horse to water, and I made sure there was lots of water available. I'm not so pushy on making the horse drink.