lostfan

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 11:49 AM) The filibuster was just an accident of history from when John Q. Adams was rewriting the Senate rules in the early 1800's, and nobody even really "discovered" this One Weird Trick To Halt All Laws That Senators HATE! for years/decades. People act like it was some deliberate mechanism or that it's built into the Constitution or something rather than just a parliamentary procedure quirk. It's not even IN the Consitution IIRC.

Simpson-Bowles was something everyone praised in public but nobody actually supported. It's something you either have to support in total or you don't support at all, but people would cherry-pick and say "our deficit plan is in line with the Simpson-Bowles proposals." Democrats would support the parts that had tax increases, Republicans would support the parts that had spending cuts.

The Senate filibuster was never intended to be used the way that the Republicans have used it since 2008. The Senate is already set up that way by design, and especially now considering the Democrats need 7-8 million more votes to have a majority in the House. That SHOULD be a full-blown mandate, but it ends up just being a thin temporary majority for the Dems.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) If the Democrats take back the Senate, what do you guys think the odds are for: 1) Abolishing the filibuster for SC nominees 2) Abolishing the filibuster entirely After the stunt the Republicans pulled this year with Garland, I think Dems are about done playing by those rules.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 11:16 AM) Court ordered registration be extended six more days due to Hurricane Mathew in Florida. That's a common-sense thing really. I think if Trump had a more robust GOTV presence in Florida, Rick Scott wouldn't have even thought twice about extending it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 10:34 AM) Some scary-crazy from Maine's LePage, saying that we need to counter Obama's autocracy with an authoritarian power from Trump. And some creepiness from Trump: You're not supposed to actually USE the word "authoritarian." You're also not supposed to lie about imaginary black and Hispanic drug dealers invading your lily-white state to impregnate your precious white women and say you have proof, but your proof says those drug dealers are mostly white so you invent racial resentment out of nothing, but... baby steps.

I am getting sick of talking about wikileaks in this election cycle. Whenever they publish anything, probably 90% of people (that might be too conservative, it's probably more) who talk about it don't actually read any of it themselves and have no intention of ever doing so, but they feel knowledgeable enough to discuss it and they make a lot of noise. Of the small percentage of people who actually DO read the documents, they are looking for something to take out of context, with full knowledge that other 90% will parrot 2-3 sentence excerpts all over social media as "proof" of something they already wanted to believe. The "everyday Americans" thing was already discussed, so another example is HRC saying "you need a public position and a private position." She got mocked everywhere for bringing up Lincoln but if you read the speech transcript that literally is what she was talking about. Another example: "DNC officials are racist and said they wanted to do taco bowl outreach with Hispanics." If you read that e-mail exchange it's very obvious what was happening there, two people who work for the DNC (who are themselves Hispanic) were mocking Trump's taco bowl tweet. When people do this, and it's most people, it's impossible to take them seriously. There's just no point. I leave them where they are.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 04:46 PM) This is definitely spot on. Part of this, however, is that the difficulties of getting by on a day-to-day basis are much more difficult for those in the poverty cycle. Couple of easy examples from my career: When I was a prosecutor, and I handled misdemeanor courts, the people on the lower end of the income spectrum were much more likely to bring their kids to court because they didn't have reliable childcare. They were more likely to miss a court date because they didn't have reliable transportation. They were more likely to end up coming back to court over and over because they failed to make the payments required on their speeding ticket or what not. When I was doing debtor bankruptcy work, it was the same thing. The people at the lowest end of the poverty spectrum, and with kids, have a harder time getting by. If they are working minimum wage, they have to deal with crappy scheduling that they have no control over. It's more likely they don't have reliable transportation, so they end up missing work, or their commute is significantly longer. If something throws a wrench into the schedule, they have to scramble for childcare because that's a thing that is absurdly expensive. If you want to make a dent in the poverty cycle, there need to be resources available so that the kid of a single parent who works 12 hours a day doesn't end up with their kid behind the 8-ball. It's crappy that the choice in the poverty cycle is frequently working or spending time reading to their kids. Bernie Sanders said something like "being poor is expensive" and this is part of what he meant.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) It is exactly why they didn't smear him until later on in the campaign. They KNEW they could destroy him, and they wouldn't have to run on any platform at all. They do have a platform though. She talks about it almost every day. It's just... well, Trump.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:54 PM) McCain's illegitimate black baby smear in 2000 primary Big reason why McCain himself was uncomfortable with going too negative against Obama (his loose-cannon running mate notwithstanding). He knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of those smears and he wouldn't be responsible for it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. I read that as raBBit piggybacking off what I said. "They will keep making more obvious statements as though it was a revelation."

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:40 PM) Why wouldn't we think he was serious? Who falsely brags about sexual assault? Trump already admitted on Howard Stern that he would barge into the dressing rooms of Miss USA contestants to see them naked. This isn't a guy who gives a s*** about what women want. They're sexual objects. He does whatever he wants and knows he has enough power/money to get away with it. I would've been shocked if this was, say, Tim Tebow doing this. But Trump? Yes he is exactly who he's saying he is. Of COURSE he gropes women.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) I agreed with your POV and perhaps rambled a bit from where I started...Sorry? I wasn't directing my sentiment at you personally. IE, it's not my place to say who should or shouldn't be having sex with whomever as long as it's a.) adults and b.) consensual. This whole Bill Clinton (from the right) and Trump (from the left) are rapists is ridiculous. Powerful people have sex a lot more and are subjected to people trying to gain from them. Until one of them gets convicted or even tried of something, it is stupid. You are not a rapist for saying something. You are not automatically a horrible person for having sex with someone else when you're married (details matter). Every person being accused of something is not automatically guilty if you disagree with their politics. Progressive sexual ethics is based on consent, whereas conservative sexual ethics is based on religious values. That means they find different things unacceptable for different reasons. Example: polyamorous relationships are okay because everyone involved is a consenting adult. But to conservatives that's a sin, so it's a no-go. Same with homosexual relationships. Pedophilia is never permissible because the child can't consent. Same for conservatives because their religious values say so. So there is no disagreement about it. All of this tends to get lost in translation.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:25 PM) Here's the thing. HRC is flawed...some of the recent revelations coming out about the DNC and Clinton campaigns vs. Bernie Sanders and his (young) supporters makes me cringe. She's much cozier with the banks and free trade tenets than she lets on in public, for example. The difference in the two campaigns is one side is mostly divided on ideological grounds (Hillary is a one percenter), that's mostly an economic argument about what we truly believe about the efficacy of income redistribution in America. On the other side, you have roughly 1/3rd of the likely Republican voters filled with hate and vitriol for foreigners, for black people (especially Obama), for Hispanics, for the LGBT community, misogynistic attitudes towards women, etc. Greg, you may feel ethically/morally that HRC is corrupt and even should be arrested, but, as an American...can you honestly not see the difference? Is it simply that being branded a racist for being Republican (and not a Trump supporter) is what upsets you the most, being lumped in with the deplorables now instead of being able to hide behind a veneer of Ayn Rand rugged individualism and self-reliance? Or perhaps you perceive the Democrats as hating religion/God, and youbelieve that's worse than the different "ism" versions of hate coming out of the Trump campaign? Honestly how'd people not know this about Hillary/banks? (Fresh Prince pun not intended.) She was a senator from New York, that's a major part of her constituency. Did people really think she was going to have an adversarial relationship with them?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:19 PM) On Twitter? f*** Twitter. Like you said, keyboard warriors. Racists are the scum of the earth. How could any man stay married or marry a racist woman? And how could a racist woman marry or stay married to a racist man? You answer a question for me pls. Are u confident Hillary will help anybody but the 1 percenters? She's just as bad as Trump. And her supporters aren't as vocal cause they merely love her cause of her name. They know there's nothing to brag about with her. There's no reason to be optimistic about America's future with her. WIth Trump there may be no future. We'll probably be nuked w/in 2 years. I just wish Hillary supporters would be honest and tell me, yes, she is awful as well. Hillary is going to be mostly the same as Obama, except substituting her own political baggage for his. Same exact domestic policies, going to run into the same hurdles Obama's did against Republicans in Congress.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:14 PM) This is a gross generalization and probably taking politics a bit too far. I've obviously made it known I detest HRC but I've family members who adore her. I would never say the country is a better place without her supporters. That's taking politics too personal There are plenty of people who despise HRC just as much as you despise Trump. There's a chunk of people who are either "anyone but Hillary" or "anyone but Trump." There are also a lot of Republicans who are Republican because they work hard, provide for themselves and get nothing from the government. Even someone as ridiculous as Trump couldn't get them off the GOP ticket. I'm talking about people who are literally neo-Nazis. I don't really feel much of an impulse to coddle them with fake deference and respect tbh.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) What are Trump supporters saying? I know he wants stop and frisk which is ridiculous. Trump is awful. My point is Hillary is too and we are all in this together. She isn't going to help blacks one iota. She isn't going to help anybody but the 1 percenters. I have nothing against Democrats. I told u all I vote Democrat when the Repub. candidate blows and the Democratic candidate is even OK (Obama). Oh I forgot, nobody believes me. I have nothing against Demos, but reading this thread makes me think Demos HATE Repubs. It's too much to summarize. Outright hostility. I would feel physically unsafe if I didn't know they were mostly cowards and keyboard warriors but still.

QB passing yards mean nothing. Nothing at all. Fantasy football has people thinking they're points. No.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:16 PM) This whole confrontational process (on both sides) has just degraded the entire electoral process. Instead of an intelligent presentation of ideas and ideals, it has degraded into name calling and who can create the most effective meme's. The personal attacks portion of the process has led to the deepening of division in this country and the lack of trust in the other side. Instead of ideas, we get labels. It is historically embarrassing. I am reminded of where we have come since the Gettysburg address. In its time the Address was scandalous for its shortness, many political speeches were hours long events, complete with depth of thought, and sourcing of materials. Today we have gotten to the point where if the text can't fit on a picture, it isn't noticed. Typically I hate the whole good ol' days crap, but this is one way that we really have degraded ourselves. Despite having a world of information instantly at our fingertips, people get their news through memes and headlines. f*** people, wake up. I wrote this on Facebook back in the summer. Thomas Jefferson: everyone, I will write a document outlining the principles for why we are breaking from the Crown, and then we will enumerate these rights- John Adams: wait, before you get that far you should know that in 240 years no one will actually read these documents. Jefferson: what? Why? Will we fail with literacy and education? Adams: Actually no, they are far more literate than us and have access to information at levels unfathomable to us. It's because they only digest information via photographs with short phrases on them. Benjamin Franklin: he's right. They share these pictures somehow on magical devices constructed from aluminum and glass that fit in their pockets. Adams: the phrases may or may not even be true. In fact most of them don't really have a point, they just mock politicians they don't like. Jefferson: f*** it, nevermind, what's the point of this? Let's all just go home. King George can just have our tax money, this isn't worth it.

I don't really get into this whole "calling someone what they are is as bad as them being whatever it is they are" game. A significant number of Trump supporters are garbage people who the political process (and the whole country, really) would be much better off without.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) They are on CNN blaming rap music for the downfall of "American Values." no joke. Yeah, that one's about standard.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) I can't believe some of the comments on here from Democrats on this thread. Do you staunch Democrats ever look in the mirror and realize Republicans are fellow Americans? Some people act like Republicans are the scum of the earth. We are all in this together. My feeling is the enemies are not members of a certain party but the 1 percenters and the business leaders who dump on the little guy every day of every week (middle class) to give those one percenters cars, boats, mansions, vacation mansions. Trump and Hillary are both 1 percenters. The middle class gets hit with declining health benefits, more cost for health benefits, low paying jobs, RIDICULOUS costs for college. We need somebody who cares about the middle class. Hillary and Trump? You are fooling yourselves if you think either one of them care about the middle class. You don't know what it's like being a black person reading comments from Trump supporters, do you? Like you have no idea. It's actually terrifying.

Adding to my other post: People (Republicans too) keep saying Reince Priebus is a weak leader, and maybe he is, but what's he supposed to do? Trump won the primaries fair and square, and convincingly so. He can't just disavow his party's nominee as the party chairman, the voters will go into open revolt and it would destroy the party.

The GOP has always been aware of those people and it's always made them uncomfortable, they've just been able to keep them at arm's length for the most part with their usual combination of controlling media coverage and big-money fundraising. The impulse for GOP primary voters has always been to want "the most conservative" candidate (whatever the f*** that means) because contenders like McCain and Romney lose by being not conservative enough," not because Obama actually beat both of them. The professional Republicans know that's bulls***, so they prefer someone like Bush or Rubio. Trump was immune to both fundraising being denied and the ability to get media coverage, so they broke through. It's going to be hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, because his fans (at least for now) are loyal to HIM, not the party. That's why Paul Ryan is twisting in the wind and Cruz is flirting with career suicide. Trump doesn't really need Ryan, but Ryan needs him.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) I've made pretty clear I despise Trump, but I feel the need to point out two things from the debate. One, the moderators were friendlier to Clinton than Trump, though I was glad they called them both out on a few things. Two, the last question, Trump actually answered, where Clinton gave a complete non-answer. That all said... holy crap, Trump STILL doesn't have the slightest idea how government works, how foreign policy works, or how leadership works. Wow. Continues to amaze. Also, side note - I really, really, really hate that people defending Trump are conflating lewd but consensual conduct with condoning sexual assault. These things are miles from each other. I don't honestly care that Trump had affairs, and that would not be a serious factor in my decision on who to vote for. How are people not getting that? This is what I was talking about a few posts up. People think this about the fact that Trump said something dirty, and used the word "p****" when he wasn't supposed to. That's not the point at all. The whole Lewinsky affair for example was 100% inappropriate but it was completely consensual, in fact SHE was aggressively pursuing HIM. "50 Shades of Grey" was an official GOP talking point all of them were using in unison the past few days. The problem with that is the whole relationship with the main characters involves a contract and there was never any non-consensual sex. The most recent defense I heard was "Clinton is hypocritical to criticize Trump because she admires Beyonce and Beyonce had lyrics saying her husband f***ed her good so she takes his ass to Red Lobster." Ummmmm no. Not. The. Same. Thing.