NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Maister]

Well, I'd have a much easier time following this train of thought if all of those who spent copious amounts of time defending the 2nd Amendment spent as much time defending the 4th Amendment. But far too often I see that particular amendment ignored by those same folks. "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?". All I look for is consistency. And it's not there.

Agreed. One has to go through some pretty ridiculous interpretive gymnastics to conclude the 2nd Amendment is NOT an outdated artifact from the 18th Century. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Boatloads of gun fetishists are fond of quoting the latter half of that clause but conveniently ignore the whole first part about why the Founders considered it necessary. Heck when we take it literally at face value I would argue it would be more unconstitutional NOT require a firearms registration. Put it this way, it's essential for a well regulated militia to know how many able bodied citizens will show up to the village green when the boots of marching enemy soldiers draw nigh and the patriotic bugle call sounds. The Quartermaster will need to know how many barrels of powder must be provided? And which citizen soldiers lack a socket bayonet to affix should the colonel order a charge? Which patriots possess their own carbines to harry enemy batteries with when the volunteer dragoon company mounts its' steeds? Heck, forget flintlocks and cap and ball, let's just consider the modern logistical nightmare the supply officer faces when you consider Steve's AR-15 uses 5.56 mm ammo, and Jimbo's Kalishnikov uses 7.62 mm, and Tyrone's Glock requires 9 mm, and Lisa's 12 gauge needs....No, a WELL REGULATED MILITIA must know what numbers, weapons capabilities, and logistical requirements are needed and available. To that end, the armorer and quartermaster must have their lists and a firearms registry is essential for the officers to provide the most effective defense the miitia can.

 

[DVD]

Here is my proof that my right to a car should not be infringed to the same degree as my right to arms.

In writing the constitution the founders knew freedom of movement between states was fundamental. So much so that it didn't need explicit enumeration. There are several places in the constitution that give me the right of travel. Try life, liberty, and property in the 5th or article 4, the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges...of citizens of several states. No one argues the right to travel between states.

The Court declared freedom of movement is a fundamental right and states cannot inhibit people from leaving by taxing them. (Crandall v Nevada) This implies you cannot inhibit my travel between states.

At the time of all the rulings horse and buggy was the mode of travel. We all know cars have replaced that as the modern mode of travel. Since the ruling implied that my right by unlicensed vehicle (horse) should not be inhibited. Why should my right to modern transit by inhibited through foolish things like licensing and registration. Why is there a database tracking how many vehicles I have? If travel is so fundamental that it need not be explicitly enumerated, why is my right to a car so heavily regulated.

To prove my point, I am not required to be licensed to operate a tractor. I can even operate that tractor across state lines. If a tractor is basically 4 wheels driven by an engine, what is the difference between that and a car.

Yes I know how incredibly flawed my argument is, but is it any more flawed than the gun argument. My right is so fundamental it doesn't need to be listed. Arms needed to be listed. Think about it. For more fun research right to travel and sovereign citizens.

Also consider these old court rulings which basically give states the right to regulate travel and invalidate my argument:

[FONT=&quot]The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . .
[/FONT]Hendrick v. Maryland[FONT=&quot] 235 US 610 (1915)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property.
[/FONT]Hess v. Pawloski[FONT=&quot] 274 US 352 (1927)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.
[/FONT]Reitz v. Mealey[FONT=&quot] 314 US 33 (1941)[/FONT]

 

[michaelskis]

Well, I'd have a much easier time following this train of thought if all of those who spent copious amounts of time defending the 2nd Amendment spent as much time defending the 4th Amendment. But far too often I see that particular amendment ignored by those same folks. "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?". All I look for is consistency. And it's not there.

I can see where you would think that and I agree. Personally, there are a host of things that I think a person should be able to keep private, but there are other things that I don't care if it is public or not. To my knowledge, I don't think that I have had a reason to defend the 4th Amendment in here, although I have defended the 10th amendment several times. I will defend the entire bill of rights and almost all of the other Amendments. I cam not a big 16th, 17th, or 18th Amendments, but at least the 18th was repealed.

As for privacy, I think a lot of it has to do with the confines of one's dwelling. If a police officer wants to search my car that is parked in my driveway, not an issue. But if they want to search my home office or my garage and the door is closed, they will need a warrant to do so. If they want to record my every movement from the moment I step foot outside of my house to the point I return to my house, I don't have an issue with that. But if they want to record me inside my house, that I have an issue with.

 

[Hink]

I can see where you would think that and I agree. Personally, there are a host of things that I think a person should be able to keep private, but there are other things that I don't care if it is public or not. To my knowledge, I don't think that I have had a reason to defend the 4th Amendment in here, although I have defended the 10th amendment several times. I will defend the entire bill of rights and almost all of the other Amendments. I cam not a big 16th, 17th, or 18th Amendments, but at least the 18th was repealed.

As for privacy, I think a lot of it has to do with the confines of one's dwelling. If a police officer wants to search my car that is parked in my driveway, not an issue. But if they want to search my home office or my garage and the door is closed, they will need a warrant to do so. If they want to record my every movement from the moment I step foot outside of my house to the point I return to my house, I don't have an issue with that. But if they want to record me inside my house, that I have an issue with.

So when you show up to a gun show, gun range, or gun event, they can track you and make sure you have registered the gun you are in possession of.

Good. Glad we now agree that there is no reason that shouldn't be supported, even by those clearly blinded by the 2nd Amendments glory.

 

[bureaucrat#3]

I really have started to think of the 2nd Amend in relation to a poorly written sign ordinance. I wasn’t around when it was written. I think the text says something different than the old codgers who were here when I showed up. Seems archaic to me and doesn’t reflect modern application. I think we are probably using it in a way that wasn’t intended, but the records from that time are fairly spotty. I know its not going anywhere. I’d love to fix it, if nothing else to make it actually reflect the way we use it and hopefully improve it, but I don’t trust the current council (congress) to not let the sign guys (special interest) do whatever they want.

 

[Gedunker]

This article from The Atlantic has an excellent discussion of both the language and the history of the Second Amendment. I have always believed the language choppy and archaic and clearly not the basis for people to own firearms willy nilly as some would have us believe.

 

[kjel]

I can see where you would think that and I agree. Personally, there are a host of things that I think a person should be able to keep private, but there are other things that I don't care if it is public or not. To my knowledge, I don't think that I have had a reason to defend the 4th Amendment in here, although I have defended the 10th amendment several times. I will defend the entire bill of rights and almost all of the other Amendments. I cam not a big 16th, 17th, or 18th Amendments, but at least the 18th was repealed.

As for privacy, I think a lot of it has to do with the confines of one's dwelling. If a police officer wants to search my car that is parked in my driveway, not an issue. But if they want to search my home office or my garage and the door is closed, they will need a warrant to do so. If they want to record my every movement from the moment I step foot outside of my house to the point I return to my house, I don't have an issue with that. But if they want to record me inside my house, that I have an issue with.

Privacy is waning at this juncture in time. I can view your home using Google Street View, I can find out if there are registered sex offenders in any neighborhood and their address, I can likely find your property tax/assessment record online, your mortgage & deed, who your relatives are, where you have lived in the past, find out if you've filed bankruptcy, if you have a criminal record, etc. etc.

As pointed out in an earlier post, the Las Vegas terrorist legally purchased his arsenal so what could have been done? Thanks to the Patriot Act I have to fork over my drivers license to the pharmacist in order to purchase Sudafed and I can only purchase a certain amount in a 30 day window on the premise that I might be cooking meth somewhere. Thanks to the Shoe Bomber terrorist I've had to remove my shoes every time I get on a plane since 2001 and xrayed. Thanks to the OKC terrorist if I were to purchase 100 lbs of fertilizer the ATF wouldn't waste any time paying me a visit. Thanks to the OCC, if I wire transfer funds over a certain amount I have to provide a disclosure form detailing why and where and to whom it is going.

The ATF and local LEO should be able to tell who is amassing a stockpile of weapons and do their due diligence.

Warrants are still a thing last time a checked.

 

[michaelskis]

This article from The Atlantic has an excellent discussion of both the language and the history of the Second Amendment. I have always believed the language choppy and archaic and clearly not the basis for people to own firearms willy nilly as some would have us believe.

I find it disappointing that they did not bring up Federalist Paper 46 and several other documents and opinions from people like William Rawl, James Madison, Supreme Court Justice Story who wrote Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833, and the Tennessee Supreme Court decision Andrews vs State in (1871).

This anti-gun concept is somewhat new in the history of the United States. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was so that people would be able to arm them selves for personal protection from foreign or domestic invaders and to keep the Federal Government from getting so powerful (as had happened in Great Britain) that the people could not defend themselves from their own government. That is why the limits in Federalist Paper 46 were put into place.

 

[DVD]

I think that's where a lot of the pro gun argument is falling on deaf ears. We need guns in case the government gets to big and we can't fight back. People are no longer worried that the government will take over the world and the government isn't exactly afraid of an armed militia coming in to take control. What are we, some kind of 3rd world country planning a coup? That argument is kind of dead. Besides, you do understand the military has better weapons including these things called tanks. I mean look at Waco. If the government wants you gone, you're gone.

 

[Hink]

I think that's where a lot of the pro gun argument is falling on deaf ears. We need guns in case the government gets to big and we can't fight back. People are no longer worried that the government will take over the world and the government isn't exactly afraid of an armed militia coming in to take control. What are we, some kind of 3rd world country planning a coup? That argument is kind of dead. Besides, you do understand the military has better weapons including these things called tanks. I mean look at Waco. If the government wants you gone, you're gone.

Yea, but if I live in a bunker and eat spam I will WIN!!

I also like the argument of the Bundy's who think they "won". Nope. If the government wanted you out of that park, they would have moved you. They tried to get you to leave alive. They did that too. You are welcome. If the government wanted you gone, you would have been gone.

 

[The Terminator]

I am tacitly supporting Cynthia Nixon from Sex and the City for NY Governor. Because why the hell not. better than Cuomo!

 

[michaelskis]

I think that's where a lot of the pro gun argument is falling on deaf ears. We need guns in case the government gets to big and we can't fight back. People are no longer worried that the government will take over the world and the government isn't exactly afraid of an armed militia coming in to take control. What are we, some kind of 3rd world country planning a coup? That argument is kind of dead. Besides, you do understand the military has better weapons including these things called tanks. I mean look at Waco. If the government wants you gone, you're gone.

I am just pointing out that people keep making outlandish accusations about the intent of the second amendment and that it was never for private citizens to own weapons... however writings at the time show that it was. Personally, I have them for 3 reasons. Personal and family safety, recreation, and hunting.

As for what the government has... they would never use tanks... Drones are cheaper.

 

[Richmond Jake]

Trump said Amazon uses “our Postal System as their Delivery Boy.”

It’s in their mission:

“The Postal Service mission is to provide a reliable, efficient, trusted and affordable universal delivery service that connects people and helps businesses grow.”

 

[Hink]

Trump said Amazon uses "our Postal System as their Delivery Boy."

It's in their mission:

"The Postal Service mission is to provide a reliable, efficient, trusted and affordable universal delivery service that connects people and helps businesses grow."

I would love to see the USPS work without Amazon packages. That has to be a large portion of their income these days. Who sends letters?

 

[Maister]

I am just pointing out that people keep making outlandish accusations about the intent of the second amendment and that it was never for private citizens to own weapons... however writings at the time show that it was.

Speaking as one who is evidently making 'outlandish accusations' about the intent of the Second Amendment I feel compelled to respond. FP 46 is probably one of the most frequently cited and mis-interpreted sources used in the Eternal Gun Control Debate.
FP 46 deals with the primacy of the federal government over the states. At one point Madison makes the argument that in the unlikely event a Federal tyrant(s) ever got elected and decided to use a Federal army to enforce its will, the state militias collectively could whoop that federal army's ass. But again he's referring to well regulated militias operated by the states individually. Nowhere does Madison mention individuals owning guns for personal safety which seems to be what gun ownership is mostly about these days, not volunteering to serve in a state's defense force.

The Second Amendment is all about militias. You know, military officers ordering lines of men to fire volleys at thine enemies. That's what the Amendment explicitly says and that's what FP46 briefly discusses. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[Hink]

I think the answer is the 28th amendment:

1. Defines your right to bombs, tanks, guns, etc. for pleasure.
2. Defines your right to marry people.
3. Requires term limits for congress.
4. Defines that corporations are not people. Also limits campaign financing.


Or we could just update the old thing. You know, so it actually covers topics that are relevant today, in context to today. Then in say, 200 years, we could do that again. Oh, with that said, why not:

5. Require that the Constitution be update once every 100 years, so technology can be introduced and we don't have to have activist judges determine what was meant by people who had no context to the world we now live in.

I mean or we could just argue about the meaning of a letter written in 1788 to determine what our world in 2018 should be like....

 

[JNA]

script quote from Caddyshack ?

 

[JNA]

Is the Sinclair Media story scary ? 8-!

 

[DVD]

Sadly, I normally trust my local news. Mostly because they just report the basic information without much spin. Even the local Fox channel. There was an accident here, the state governor did this or that and here's a nice story about a llama.

 

[michaelskis]

Speaking as one who is evidently making 'outlandish accusations' about the intent of the Second Amendment I feel compelled to respond. FP 46 is probably one of the most frequently cited and mis-interpreted sources used in the Eternal Gun Control Debate.
FP 46 deals with the primacy of the federal government over the states. At one point Madison makes the argument that in the unlikely event a Federal tyrant(s) ever got elected and decided to use a Federal army to enforce its will, the state militias collectively could whoop that federal army's ass. But again he's referring to well regulated militias operated by the states individually. Nowhere does Madison mention individuals owning guns for personal safety which seems to be what gun ownership is mostly about these days, not volunteering to serve in a state's defense force.

The Second Amendment is all about militias. You know, military officers ordering lines of men to fire volleys at thine enemies. That's what the Amendment explicitly says and that's what FP46 briefly discusses. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

And was the general definition of well regulated and the definition of militia in the 1700's? I ask because I don't think it meant what you think it meant.

 

[Maister]

And was the general definition of well regulated and the definition of militia in the 1700's? I ask because I don't think it meant what you think it meant.

I understand very well what a well-regulated militia was in the 18th century. And I understand what a well-regulated militia is today too. They are very different creatures. My point was that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, being as it was intended as a vehicle for promotion/perpetuation of a model of defense based on militias organized by the respective colonies (and later states), as opposed to maintaining standing armies - which the Founders considered nasty European inventions not to be trusted at the time. Proponents of the Amendment today have appropriated it for very different reasons than those enumerated in the 18th century, and to maintain otherwise requires some impressive interpretive gymnastics in order to get there.

I'll second Hink's suggestion that we have another Constitutional Convention to address these sorts of discrepancies and issues.

 

[michaelskis]

I understand very well what a well-regulated militia was in the 18th century. And I understand what a well-regulated militia is today too. They are very different creatures. My point was that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, being as it was intended as a vehicle for promotion/perpetuation of a model of defense based on militias organized by the respective colonies (and later states), as opposed to maintaining standing armies - which the Founders considered nasty European inventions not to be trusted at the time. Proponents of the Amendment today have appropriated it for very different reasons than those enumerated in the 18th century, and to maintain otherwise requires some impressive interpretive gymnastics in order to get there.

I'll second Hink's suggestion that we have another Constitutional Convention to address these sorts of discrepancies and issues.

There is zero question that the NRA has their own narrative and they don't represent gun owners. Beyond that, the question that I pose to you is this:
Do you think that I should be able to own guns and if so, what do you consider the limit of what I can own? How many is too many and what type is too powerful or deadly... however you want to define it? I am so curious what Hink would say.

 

[Hink]

There is zero question that the NRA has their own narrative and they don't represent gun owners. Beyond that, the question that I pose to you is this:
Do you think that I should be able to own guns and if so, what do you consider the limit of what I can own? How many is too many and what type is too powerful or deadly... however you want to define it? I am so curious what Hink would say.

The question isn't if you should be able to own guns. The question is does the 2nd Amendment actually say anything about you being able to own guns for fun. It doesn't. It speaks very directly at the concept of defense against government tyranny and regulated militias.

We have had some pretty activist judges (who claim to be "constitutionists" or "orginalists") dance pretty hard to make it make sense in todays world. The fact is, gun ownership is "given" by the courts, not the constitution. You want to hold the 2nd Amendment high, as though it supports your narrative, but in my world view, it actually makes your argument really, really weak.

Either you think that the document was written in a time that has no bearing to today's world, or you think that it is a living document. That leaves two options:

A. Original Document, meant for 1700s - The document doesn't take into account the world we have today, and the guys who wrote it had ALL kinds of different points of view on a world that was much less dynamic than it is today.
B. Living Document. Stop holding on to the "framers", papers written to a second cousins widow, or other documents from that past that don't matter. The document needs to be looked at in the eyes of the world today. In that light, we should allow militias to have nukes, because that is litterly the only way you are defending yourself against our government.

Both options are just efforts in futility, because the obvious answer here is that neither A, nor B. are tenable to the world we live in today. We need to re-establish what we believe in. We need to have strong regulations (which are still possible under the current 2nd amendment) that do not grant people handguns by birth. And change the culture. It isn't guns that kill people, it is guns in people's hands that kill people. We just don't need them like we did in the 1700's, to protect our liberty, or the 1800's to hunt for our food. The government will kill me if they want. I can call chinese at 2am if I am hungry. I don't need them for protection or food. Most people want them for fun. I get that, but that is a very different discussion than being granted it by right, or by obligation.

 

[Maister]

I'm not going to wade into the gun control debate any further (it's not good for me to do so on Cyburbia for several reasons) but will conclude by saying that in my opinion to reduce school shootings it will require a multi-prong approach. This will mean:
1. Reduction in the sheer number (and probably type) of guns out there (perhaps a buyback like Australia did)
2. Actual means of enforcement where gun-free zones exist (you know, with things like metal detectors and a guard)
3. Improved mental health screening and treatment (although I hasten to add there is no direct correlation between school shootings and mental illness - if this were truly a mental health issue we would expect to see mass shootings in every other country because mental illness is present in roughly the same rates across the world and school shootings appear to be an almost uniquely American phenomenon) but that said, improvements in mental health care certainly won't hurt.
4. Adequate public funds provided for the public study of gun violence
5. Implementation of an actual computer database/registry of firearms to track the movement of weapons (both legal and illegal)

 

[gtpeach]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned that should be is that focusing on mental health is not the end all be all and probably creates a lot of red herrings. Keep in mind that our understanding of mental illnesses is constantly improving. It will create a lot of problems to draw the lines for some mental illnesses versus others.

Should people with mild anxiety disorders be allowed to have guns? People who experience depression? Eating disorders? Tourette's syndrome? OCD? ADD/ADHD? SAD? A lot of these disorders are common things that people in the U.S. have that allows them to still live a fairly normal existence and can be controlled through medication and behavioral management. But I could see cases made where all of these could also put one at increased potential of misusing a weapon. Trying to define which mental illnesses create additional danger and to what extent one can experience a mental illness/disorder without being considered an additional risk is going to be very sticky and subjective. It could also potentially create an additional incentive for people who need mental health intervention to not seek it.

I realize focusing on mental health concerns seems like an easy policy change to target, but I think if we ever tried to implement it to a significant extent, we would run into a lot of issues with constitutionality.

 

[Richmond Jake]

Pruitt "...is doing a great job." "We've got your back." Dead man walking. Kiss of death.

 

[Gedunker]

You know the shit is getting real when the Feds get a search warrant for your private attorney. I might need some popcorn for this show.:h:

 

[AG74683]

You know the shit is getting real when the Feds get a search warrant for your private attorney. I might need some popcorn for this show.:h:

I don't think it's really been stressed enough how BIG of a deal it is. That search warrant had to go through so many parties, plus it was a "no knock" warrant. It came from the office of the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, which is arguably one of the highest regarded federal attorney districts in the country. The DoJ has so many hoops to jump through to get a warrant on just a regular attorney's office, to get one for the personal attorney of the President is insane. The probable cause here must be ironclad, and is directly related to evidence which is almost certainly not covered by attorney client privilege (IE statements from Trump to Cohen about committing a crime).

Muller better have a plan ready for when he gets removed from his position, because it's coming soon.

 

[Planit]

The FBI raids were based on search warrants obtained by a federal judge via the US Attorney of the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, a Trump appointee. Berman is also a former law partner of Rudolph Giuliani, one of Trump’s early supporters and advisors.

This adds bigly more to the issue.

 

[DVD]

All cabinet members not currently being investigated please raise your hands.

 

[Hink]

The FBI raids were based on search warrants obtained by a federal judge via the US Attorney of the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, a Trump appointee. Berman is also a former law partner of Rudolph Giuliani, one of Trump’s early supporters and advisors.

This adds bigly more to the issue.

Berman recused himself. Which confuses this even more. So it goes back to the Attorney General's Office? This is crazy.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Muller better have a plan ready for when he gets removed from his position, because it's coming soon.

I'm certain he had a plan the moment he was appointed. I think ever since Nixon, special counsels have that possibility front-of-mind.

 

[Richmond Jake]

Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller are gone. This week?

 

[Planit]

Berman recused himself. Which confuses this even more. So it goes back to the Attorney General's Office? This is crazy.

And with the recusal by Berman the developer’s son, the referral from Mueller is being handled by the deputy U.S. Attorney, Robert Khuzami.

Deputy U.S. Attorney Khuzami is a Republican and even spoke at the 2004 Republican convention in support of George W. Bush.

But that will only make it harder for Trump to say he is the victim of Democrats.

 

[DVD]

And with the recusal by Berman the developer’s son, the referral from Mueller is being handled by the deputy U.S. Attorney, Robert Khuzami.

Deputy U.S. Attorney Khuzami is a Republican and even spoke at the 2004 Republican convention in support of George W. Bush.

But that will only make it harder for Trump to say he is the victim of Democrats.

Read this as a sports announcer. Much more fun.

With the recusal by Berman he passes it to Khuzami.
Khuzami hits up Bush.
That'll just make it harder for Trump to score on the Democrats here at the Washington Dome.
And it's Mueller taking the shot...

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Read this as a sports announcer. Much more fun.

With the recusal by Berman he passes it to Khuzami.
Khuzami hits up Bush.
That'll just make it harder for Trump to score on the Democrats here at the Washington Dome.
And it's Mueller taking the shot...

The real question is, which sports announcer's voice do you use in your head? Mine now defaults to Vin Scully.

 

[Bubba]

The real question is, which sports announcer's voice do you use in your head? Mine now defaults to Vin Scully.

Keith Jackson

 

[AG74683]

But that will only make it harder for Trump to say he is the victim of Democrats.

His supporters too. I still can't fathom why anyone continues to stand by Trump, but alas they are still out there. Someone posted on FB the other day something like "If only the FBI focused this much on Hilary's emails!". My eyes about rolled out of my head.

Paul Ryan choosing to step aside should serve as a red flag for the GOP. He's abandoning that sinking ship early.

 

[Hink]

Someone posted on FB the other day something like "If only the FBI focused this much on Hilary's emails!". .

I still want to say... is she President? It is like they wanted her to be President so they can use that against the D's.

Remember when it was said that Bush isn't President anymore, so the D's shouldn't use that against the R's? Now Hilary wasn't even elected and the R's are trying to use it against the D's.

I love politics. :lmao:

 

[Planit]

Paul Ryan choosing to step aside should serve as a red flag for the GOP. He's abandoning that sinking ship early.

AND it's not just PRyan, as of today there are 43 House Rs not running for their own seats again (& 19 Ds).

This article from CNN outlines who is going away...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-retirement-tracker/index.html

I particularly like the graph towards the end of the article that depicts 'tRumps popularity in retiring members district vs. how often they voted with him' - all but one of the retiring Rs voted with tRump between 80% & 100% of the time.

 

[MD Planner]

And the real bummer in all this is that the Dems will manage to screw it up and find an equally shitty candidate to further divide the country. It's all there for them on a platter and they don't know what to do.

 

[AG74683]

And the real bummer in all this is that the Dems will manage to screw it up and find an equally shitty candidate to further divide the country. It's all there for them on a platter and they don't know what to do.

I honestly don't even know who they could bring out that would elicit a super positive response. JKIII was a huge letdown after the SOTU. I was all in on Bernie, but honestly I don't think hes the candidate to lead the masses. I'm not at all sold on Booker, he seems a little slimy to me. Still on the fence with Castro too. To me at least, I think Tulsi Gabbard would push all the right buttons and get a similar response that Bernie did. Hickenlooper would also be an interesting candidate.

 

[gtpeach]

I honestly don't even know who they could bring out that would elicit a super positive response. JKIII was a huge letdown after the SOTU. I was all in on Bernie, but honestly I don't think hes the candidate to lead the masses. I'm not at all sold on Booker, he seems a little slimy to me. Still on the fence with Castro too. To me at least, I think Tulsi Gabbard would push all the right buttons and get a similar response that Bernie did. Hickenlooper would also be an interesting candidate.

I like Cory Booker. But usually it ends up being someone I wouldn't expect that ends up getting some momentum.

 

[arcplans]

Honestly if the dems do win back the house (likely will take the senate), I honestly don't know who they would throw up for speakership. I hope it isn't Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, they have to do better than Pelosi. Anybody.. shit a alexa would be better than Pelosi.

 

[Richmond Jake]

Honestly if the dems do win back the house (likely will take the senate), I honestly don't know who they would throw up for speakership. I hope it isn't Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, they have to do better than Pelosi. Anybody.. shit a alexa would be better than Pelosi.

It's unfortunate that The World's Foremost Authority, Professor Irwin Corey passed last year. Excellent person. Best man for the job.

 

[michaelskis]

I have zero faith that the next speaker will unify the Country. Things will not get better as long as we have the current system in place. The only way for things to improve is when you get money and lobbyists out of DC. But I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Hink]

Honestly if the dems do win back the house (likely will take the senate), I honestly don't know who they would throw up for speakership. I hope it isn't Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, they have to do better than Pelosi. Anybody.. shit a alexa would be better than Pelosi.

I bet many D's will follow the Connor Lamb strategy of bashing Pelosi. The D's need to kick the old guard out and look for new young leadership. They can sell that. The fact that the D's want to sell their progressive nature with old fuddy duddies in charge is ironic to me. (please note I understand fuddy duddies can be progressive, I am talking about optics here)

 

[Planit]

A school district is arming their teachers with souvenir mini bats for protection, but they are going to lock them away for security purposes...

https://deadspin.com/pennsylvania-school-district-arms-teachers-with-dinky-b-1825178573




Also I guess you heard that a teacher at StonemanDouglas HS volunteered to be armed at school. He left his loaded gun in the bathroom where a homeless man found & fired it. Ugh!



*****************************************************************

Do Not Put Pelosi or Schumer as Speaker if the Dems win it. That will be as bad as running Hillary because it was her "turn"

 

[AG74683]

Also I guess you heard that a teacher at StonemanDouglas HS volunteered to be armed at school. He left his loaded gun in the bathroom where a homeless man found & fired it. Ugh!

Wait, what? What bathroom? One in the school? Why was there a homeless man in the school bathroom? So many questions here.

 

[Planit]

Wait, what? What bathroom? One in the school? Why was there a homeless man in the school bathroom? So many questions here.

THAT is one of my very first questions when I read this.