wrathofhahn

I was reading an article on the washington times and they actually made an interesting point the average anglo saxon US person has more Indian ancestry then she does. I don't know if she ever benefited from it that is clearly a democrat talking point the fact of the matter is she claimed something that isn't true she didn't claim her grand daddy grandma x10 was an Indian she claimed she was. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/warren-may-be-less-native-american-average/ A 2014 study by Harvard University and 23andMe found that European Americans tested overall for 0.18 percent Native American ancestry, while Ms. Warren’s results show she has anywhere from 0.09 percent to 3 percent (1/64 is 1.5). Can anyone not see this difference? Like I said I have slightly less then one percent afrikan blood. If I claimed to be a minority as a result of that you do realize that would be a lie right? Warren at best according to her DNA test between 0.09-1.5 percent Indian blood that is not enough for any tribe to recognize her ancestry. She is not Indian or a minority. Period. Actually you can remove the 1/512. I used the math from CNBC which is wrong. It's actually 1/1024 or or roughly 1/11 of one percent. It also doesn't match her claims it actually at best is 1/64.

Show me the tribe that would recognize her Indian ancestry with 1/512 blood quantum or 1/5 of one percent Indian DNA. It's ridiculous and it's an obvious prediction to make from anyone who understands genealogy/ And her original ancestry claim was 1/32 per notorious right wing website slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-1-32-native-american-how-many-people-have-that-heritage.html Somehow the argument changed from proving she lied on her form - she did, to claiming she was 1/32 Indian - still not enough to qualify under blood quantum laws, to now proving she has any blood at all and apparently 1/512 settles that requirement. I honestly don't care other then the fact it's obvious she abused the system and claimed herself a minority. I just find it all funny I still do "you can't criticize me I'm 1/512 cherokee" ROFL

That was the story she concocted after being questioned by her claiming native status or more specifically a minority on her application of AALS and having Harvard list her as a "woman of color". These are legal definitions with very specific answers you can not claim yourself native with 1/512 of your DNA native. I actually got my test back recently and it said less then 1% of my DNA was Afrikan. Do I get to claim minority status too?

And in fairness to them they may have since changed the way they do polls. I haven't opened up the PDF and seen exactly what their methodology was just in the past they've been caught engaging in questionable practices which is why I choose to take theirs with a grain of salt. To each their own Here is the video I mentioned earlier like I said their polls are often skewed like rasmussen but to each their own.

It actually isn't correct she claimed that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. That would make Warren 1/32nd Native American which is the same standard Native Americans use to establish ancestry. If her ancestor is 10 generations back, that means she's just 1/512th Native American or in other words 1/5 of one percent. Which wouldn't absolve her at all of misusing Indian status. In fact it only makes it more comical.

For me not at all just confirmation on how corrupt these programs are and the fact they should be done away with entirely.

I have no idea of their motivations but I was watching a segment on MSNBC and they were interviewing Steve (their polling expert) not-going to spell his last name and he basically said the same thing CNN polls are skewed by their questionable methodology wait to see if another confirms the result before getting excited. So it's not a left-right thing at least it shouldn't be. As far as the Blue Wave I don't think it's a question of whether the democrats get seats just how many and I'd rather figure that out with accurate information

What you posted is nonsense first of all CNN polls are not well respected because they fudge with the numbers. Two, national polls while interesting are not necessarily applicable to local races. They also poll everyone not just likely voters they also adjust the results according to ethnicity. You can see their polls on realclearpolitics they are always skewed regardless of the what they are polling. If you want to get a general idea of how a race is going realclearpolitcs does sort of a graph of where all the individual races stand and the trendline.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/house/2018_elections_house_map.html

But they can't stop them the majority with the exception of possibly 2-3 will be confirmed anyways.

It would further a certain narrative and most of the democrat fortunes in these red states are falling as it is. Not to mention they need to go back and campaign also if the theory is the Democrats are not going to take back the senate what does fighting really accomplish? They'll just be confirmed later hell they don't even have the votes to block them now the best scenario is they delay a couple until after the election. Schumer made the smart decision, really the only decision. I don't get the anger towards him at all first of all he threw his red state democrats under the bus in a failed attempt to stop Kavanaugh. That didn't work but it least had a small sliver of a chance of success. Fighting these nominees does nothing for democrats

The reason why I didn't respond until now because I read this and there really is nothing to discuss. The concept of states exist for a reason and that is mainly the understanding that people living in Iowa have different life experiences, local issues, and shared values then that of someone in California. California and NY already have an outsized role versus other states. California/New York congressmen make up 20 percent of the house, 16 percent of the electors. 4x more then the average state electorally and 5x in house. So don't tell me about the poor person in California or NY who is disenfranchised if you are a citizen of those states your local issues and shared values are already given more weight nationally then people living anywhere else in the Republic. As far as the rest goes I just having fun because according to your one person one vote idea then why have winner take all that seems to be disenfranchising people as well and if you went off proportional representation Obama gets a simple majority in congress. You probably don't get Obamacare. You also don't get the end of slavery either because Lincoln only won slightly less then 40 percent of the vote.

Schumer is getting desperate it looks like Republicans may GAIN 2-3 seats in the senate. Right now RCP has it 50-44 with 6 tossups. Those 6 tossups are mostly in red states Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada. The Dems need to make a graceful exit because after Kavanaugh having redstate dems not campaign to try block even more nominees that most denizens of their state want probably wouldn't play well.

They blame everyone else it seems. It's also nonsense I would think Gary Johnson who received roughly three times the vote of the Jill Stein caused more hurt to Trump then Stein did to Hillary. The libertarian party platform was tailor made for the never trumpers. Limited government. Open borders. Low taxes. No regulation. Yet, somehow Hillary and her surrogates suggested these people cost them the election. They never were going to vote democrat. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/11/20/the-gops-growing-libertarian-problem/?utm_term=.9896c190b814

The party split before the election. You guys are being obtuse you want to pretend the Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats are not all Democrats fine.

This is nonsense the founders knew exactly what they were doing when they did it and what the ramifications were versus rural-urban and contrary to what has been posted otherwise there has always been cities and there has always been rural. If anything the divide was even greater at the time. But besides all that if Democrats want change they should go through the constitution like everyone else. I tend to think it works well and democrats only seem concerned after they lose an election I didn't hear Obama after beating McCain offer to consult Republicans despite winning less 60 percent of the vote. I mean if you go straight off the vote (proportional representation) he wouldn't have had a majority in congress. Where does this majoritarian streak end? Are you really advocating a system in which 14% of the counties decides how 86% of the rest of the country lives because that is the percentage of America voted for Hillary by county and don't tell me that is fair. What does Sanfran or NYC citizens know or care about what is happening in west Virginia or OK? The founders designed a system where every voice would be heard and the concerns of the people living in these small states couldn't be ignored but wouldn't be given equal weight to the more populous states. That was a feature of the constitution not a bug and it was also demanded by many of these states before rejoining the union. I for one think it's important that a candidate who says they want be president have national appeal beyond just California and NYC. For all this talk of Trump doing this or doing that he was a national candidate. He won roughly 2649 counties to Hillary to 503. He won 30 states to Hillary 20. Trump was a national candidate Hillary was not. He deserved to be president on that basis and the EC worked exactly as the founders intended.

The plan for me anyways would be to sign a whole bunch of IFA. Trade Abreu and Garcia even if you don't get a ton back. Then sign some veteran guys to shorterm deals looking to have bounceback seasons. Maybe take on a body or two like we did with Soria via trade. Maybe you get some surprises these veterans are going for nothing via FA now so it's no risk we have the spots no reason to waste them on a bunch of youngish 4A guys who can't play then when the midseason rolls around if they are playing well we can move them at the deadline or just cut our losses and call up some of the guys in the minor leagues. I would have liked to seen us do more of this last year. After next year we should have a much better idea where the holes are. I suspect we'll be in the market for pitching.

I was speaking total but yeah it would be worth it that is what the dodgers and the teams that spend big in IFA. They snap up all the talent then go in the penalty box for two years. Which is what we should do.

Are we finally out o the penalty box and able to sign some good young cuban and dominican boys? I would much rather spend 40-50 million on that on a bunch of fools gold like Machado or Harper both of which clubs were nowhere near close to making the playoffs with them n the roster. This team needs multiple players it has holes everywhere signing either of those guys would be stupid and probably result in further dumb decisions down the line.

They were more then clear what it meant. It was part of the contract with some of these smaller states to rejoin the union they were worried about the very same thing you are suggesting now that their voice would not be heard and drowned out by the larger states. So they created the senate to make sure every state is heard. The Congress to be more representative of the general population. The framers were clear also of why they did this and that was to create a series of check and balances. Like I implied earlier the difference would be you would essentially be changing the form of government to a majoritarian democracy while pretending to be still a republic and it would violate the guarantee clause. That doesn't mean it can't be changed but it's hard to see how it would be allowed without a constitutional amendment. I suspect it will be challenged and decided by the supreme court eventually. Why is it important to discuss the roots of something no longer in effect? The 3/5th clause wasn't the root EC it was part of the discussion around the EC at that time and it was actually the North who demanded it worried that the south would have much more power as a result of the African American population living in the south now being counted as "whole" persons. He lost the popular vote if you use common sense and consider the two democrats well democrats which I do. Also his share of the total vote was less then 40%, 39.8 to be exact. Trump won 46.1 share of the total votes cast for reference. So according to how democrats want to decide elections now Abraham Lincoln would have never been president. Just something to think about.

If the NPIV was ever attempted to be implemented it would be brought before the supreme court. I am not an expert on this subject I've read some arguments for and against but I find it hard to believe the court to allow a scheme to subvert the intentions of the framers in-regards to the EC in such an obvious way without an amendment to the constitution. It would also likely violate the guarantee clause of those states who didn't join the pact. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." The other major issue as of right now it's not binding in any way which means states can choose to selectively enforce it. Like I said I find it hard to believe it survive a challenge in front of the supreme court but am not an expert. That compromise is no longer in effect and hasn't since the 14th amendment. Those two bottom of Lincoln were the Democrat party.

Worked for Abraham Lincoln people forget he lost the popular vote. Cortez says the EC has it's roots in slavery and it does in abolishing slavery. Besides it's an actual fools errand you would need to make a constitutional amendment you will never be able to get the necessary support. So like I said earlier instead of complaining the system is rigged and it isn't the Republicans are operating under the same set of constraints as it relates to the EC and Senate they need to find a way to appeal to voters in those states. Or continue to rage. I vote rage

No you are not. First of all her extra vote total can be attributed to ONE state California in fact it can be more then attributed she won California by 4.3 million she won the popular vote by 2.8 million. What I'm saying is the current system suits the US well and was designed that way. It actually encourages you to run a national campaign on the issues that are important to all Americans rather then just run up vote totals among your supporters in metropolitan areas. Almost all large countries (geographical) are run in this manner. Proportional representation is not the norm among civilized developed nations and almost all the countries where it is implemented do not have the rural-urban divide seen in larger countries. The complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

The founders were clear that they believed in states rights and one of the ways to empower states and it's citizens is to give them a seat at the table which is why every state even Wyoming gets two senators. People talk about Clinton vote total that difference could easily be explained in one state California. Meanwhile 84 percent of the counties of the entire united states voted for Trump. How can she claim she ever had a mandate from America when she was whole heartedly rejected by the majority of the country? She had a mandate from two states New York which she won by 1.737 million and California which she won 4.3 million. That is one of issues I have with the politicians is they do an extremely poor job defending the existing system and explaining why it's important that every state be heard the democrats would rather the forgotten men and women stay forgotten and entire states become ignored. Just focus on the big metopolian areas and pretend whole communities and less populous states don't exist. I'm glad the founders devised the system they did which is fair to smaller states and the citizens that live there.

In frankenstein case it wasn't just the womens word. There was photo evidence of him groping women as they slept and he never issued blanket denials he just said he remembered what happened differently And I think most reasonable people agree if there is convincing evidence whether that be in the form of photo evidence like Franken or someone else comes forward who claims to have seen it happen (Judge changes his story) then they are more then willing to revisit things. When people say "give him the presumption of innocence" that doesn't mean they need to be convicted it means that there needs to be more then just an allegation especially one that had as many holes as Fords. Everyone's standard of how much evidence they need to see before believing the allegations is different but what makes it such a powerful argument in Kavanaugh case there was none literally nothing. No photos. Not corroboration. No documented previous behavior. Nothing. In the old days the newspapers had standards and this would have never been allowed to run past the editor. They actually found corroboration in their reporting instead of just printing stories and saying well we don't know couldn't corroborate anything the person said but you decide. The name on the first page of the paper meant something. We now live in an era where the only difference between the National Enquirer and the NYT is the name and who works there.

Huh? I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of that at all that would be a separate argument. I just saw a poster post an article where the writer suggested rather then trying to fight for middle America and the heartland they instead decide to take their marbles and go home then build some sort of progressive utopia. I just thought people might be interested in what that map would look like if it were based off 2016. Going back to what you said earlier the framers were clear they did not want America to be run by a couple of metropolitan areas. They wanted America and Congress to work for everyone. So democrats have either two choices they wallow in self pity of how they don't get to govern America by running up the vote totals in deeply blue pockets of the country or they start being a national party again. Their choice.