Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Can we belay all of the griping and bitching and fingerpointing and move on to "what now"?

Like KIKI, I would have simply voted against Kavanaugh on political grounds. But unless something incredibly unforeseen happens, the Kavanaugh appointment is a done deal.

What does this mean for the November elections, if anything? (It may have simply polarized the men/women vote without moving the overall needle, but certainly worth a discussion.)

How do we promote the values of interests of Americans, irrespective of political party? And what ARE those, anyway? What "program" would YOU be in favor of? [/q

Now what...huh? Kavanaugh becomes a justice and the left has exposed themseves as the vie scum they are, that's what. The Dems have over played their hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

How do we promote the values of interests of Americans, irrespective of political party? And what ARE those, anyway? What "program" would YOU be in favor of?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You really believe Dems will erase a 43 Seat majority of the GoP?

---

Quote:

---

Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us.- KIKI

---

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court has spent the better part of 20 years chipping away at American democracy, from the infamous case of Bush v. Gore

---

Quote:

---

to its refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering

---

Quote:

---

to a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system (Citizens United is the best known of these, but McConnell v. FEC is probably more important)

---

Quote:

---

to the absurd Shelby County v. Holder decision in (which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem).

---

Quote:

---

On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.

---

Quote:

---

The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.

---

Can you provide some examples? Have they said so? What rulings have they made? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

---

Quote:

---

It was, however, a shot across the bow that the Republicans on the Supreme Court were no longer going to allow the people’s elected representatives* to decide for themselves what steps were and were not useful exercises of congressional authority to regulate the national economy.

The decision left a serious question as to how far the Court planned to take that new doctrine, and as long as Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was around, the answer turned out to be “not particularly far.”

But in an influential concurrence that proved to offer important hints of the shape of things to come, Clarence Thomas argued that the majority decision was written far too narrowly. The Democratic Justices who dissented from the Lopez case, Republican Thomas argued, were basically correct that the fundamental question at issue here was not so different from the one posed by lots of other federal issues.

---

Quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You really believe Dems will erase a 43 Seat majority of the GoP?

---

There have been far more dramatic House flips! I don't have a whole lot of belief in anything, but historically, it's well within the realm of possibility.

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/
111th (2009–2011) D257 R178
112th (2011–2013) D193 R242

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us.- KIKI

---

I don't know HOW we got so "blessed" by being on the (apparently) permanent list of who gets a DNC survey every two-three months, but if the questions that they ask are any indication, the DNC STILL hasn't figured out what went wrong.

I wish I had that survey here so I could refer to it, but I just mailed it off, making liberal use of the "other" option and any blank spaces I could find.

According to the survey, the DNC is concerned with ... or assumes that WE'RE concerned with ... or is trying to elevate the issues of ...

Social Security and Medicare
universal health insurance
global warming
free education
additional assistance programs
Trump and the GOP
Social issues (LGBTQ rights)
minimum wage
raising taxes
reforming Wall Street (how, not sure)

I wish I could remember the rest, but nowhere did they mention

ending our endless wars
cutting the Pentagon budget
reviving our manufacturing sector
restoring our environment
balancing our Federal and trade budgets
jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs
improving our infrastructure
restoring our Bill of Rights

They asked What is it about the Republican Party policy that you disagree with? and What is it about the Trump Presidency that disturbs you? one of the answers to that is Russia.

Next time I get one of those surveys I'll post what they contain so you can get a view of what they seem to be focusing on.

I think the thing that disturbs me ... aside from the fact that Dems seem to be as war-mongering as Repubs, if not more so ... is that they seem to have lost focus that in order to pay for all of the goodies that they want, you need a robust economy, which means production and jobs. It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You are thinking the Revulsion the Tea Party had for Obamination is a suitable template for those same voters rebelling against Tea Party Lite Trump, the first responsible President (or candidate) since the Tea Party coalesced?

Maybe your (irrational) bias is blinding your (rational) logic.

---

Quote:

---

You are supposed to send in money with those robo-mailer surveys.

---

Quote:

---

Speaking of money, you almost got to the conclusion of the point that Fiscal Conservatives focus upon: if the entire wealth of America's wealthiest 1% were confiscated (taxed at 100%), those funds would not be enough to eliminate the Federal Debt, let alone sustain the Federal Budget for another year - and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, SECOND, just OOC I did a search for Kavanaugh plus Tenth Amendment. I found NOTHING relating them to each other.

Apparently Clarence Thomas is all by his lonesome in his interpretation.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

It was, however, a shot across the bow that the Republicans on the Supreme Court were no longer going to allow the people’s elected representatives* to decide for themselves what steps were and were not useful exercises of congressional authority to regulate the national economy.

The decision left a serious question as to how far the Court planned to take that new doctrine, and as long as Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was around, the answer turned out to be “not particularly far.”

But in an influential concurrence that proved to offer important hints of the shape of things to come, Clarence Thomas argued that the majority decision was written far too narrowly. The Democratic Justices who dissented from the Lopez case, Republican Thomas argued, were basically correct that the fundamental question at issue here was not so different from the one posed by lots of other federal issues.

---

Okay, I see what you're saying.

I think what they're relying on is the section in the Constitution that says that any powers not specifically mentioned as belonging to the Federal government belongs to he states. That is the Tenth Amendment, which seems pretty clear:

Quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

I have sometimes wondered how the Federal government was able to erect such large regulatory and benefits superstructures in the face of the tenth amendment, but I think that was all based on various Congressional laws (such as the Clean Air Act) which, I'm sure, were challenged at the SC level and survived. I see a situation where some of the same old arguments may have to be re-argued all over again. I'm not sure what arguments were made the first time, but I would imagine that matters like air pollution, water pollution, banking, telecommunication etc are INTERSTATE matters which allow Federal regulation. (If these matters were devolved to the states they would wind up having to appeal to the Federal government for conflict resolution again, or would have to create their own interstate agreements to manage things.)

Kavanaugh's appointment could be troubling, but it's not that it takes away the power to regulate from our elected representatives, but shifts it to our STATE representatives instead of our Federal ones.

I would have to go back and see how programs like the Clean Air Act survived their day in court to see if the argument sounds durable enough to be "settled law". Also, to see if Kavanaugh really would be another Thomas; not sure of his previous rulings. If the programs seem shaky, the question is: Now what?

This could be solvable by amending the Tenth Amendment. In other words, there is a Congressional solution to the problem. In practice, not likely to happen.

Definitely worth keeping an eye on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You are supposed to send in money with those robo-mailer surveys.

---

Oh, that's what I've been doing wrong! I've done the exact opposite by COSTING them money ... sometimes I just tear up the survey form and send it back to them, tagging them with the postage.

Quote:

---

Speaking of money, you almost got to the conclusion of the point that Fiscal Conservatives focus upon: if the entire wealth of America's wealthiest 1% were confiscated (taxed at 100%), those funds would not be enough to eliminate the Federal Debt, let alone sustain the Federal Budget for another year - and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

---

I totally disagree with that.

---

Quote:

---

Neither of you have brought up what most Patriotic Americans are opposed to. You support Congress enacting Unconstitutional Laws in order to prove they can do so again. The Constitution protected the States, and the Individuals, from the overburdensome and omnipotent Federal Government, and it's minions, the Beureaucrats. Having unrestrained unelected creations like IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA are what you cheer for, and you wish that these, unrecognized by The Constitution, could shred the Founding Documents by overruling Officers Recognized by The Constitution such as The President.

That you cheer on the likes of Rosenstein and his wife, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Mueller, and all the other Criminals of the Deep State merely exposes you.

---

Quote:

---

You disagree with Facts?
You rely solely upon Libtard Maths?
What?
Forbes reports the wealthiest 400 for 2018 are only worth a combined $2.88 Trillion.
The remaining 206 Billionaires rack up approximately another $280 Billion, for a subtotal of $3.16 Trillion for the top 606. BLS reports the Civilian Population under 260 Million. 1% would be 2.6 Million. All except the top 606 with less than a Billion.

---

Quote:

---

and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

---

Quote:

---

In sum, the Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people.

The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers. Nonetheless, beginning in 1976, a line of cases has emerged that seems to give substantive constitutional content to the Tenth Amendment. In 1986, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that a city was required to comply with federal labor laws, and that state sovereignty interests should be protected by the participation of states in the national political process, rather than by judicially-enforced principles of federalism. However, while Garcia has never been explicitly overruled, in subsequent cases the Court has indeed found judicially-enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate states (and their political subdivisions) directly. So it is now meaningful to speak of “Tenth Amendment doctrine.” Those cases all involve action by the federal government that in some way regulates or commands state governments, such as by telling states what policies they must adopt, New York v. United States (1992), forcing state or local executive officials to implement federal laws, Printz v. United States (1997), or conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on compliance with certain conditions, South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment has not been invoked by the Court to protect individual citizens against the exercise of federal power.

Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?

---

Quote:

---

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Neither of you have brought up what most Patriotic Americans are opposed to. You support Congress enacting Unconstitutional Laws in order to prove they can do so again. The Constitution protected the States, and the Individuals, from the overburdensome and omnipotent Federal Government, and it's minions, the Beureaucrats. Having unrestrained unelected creations like IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA are what you cheer for, and you wish that these, unrecognized by The Constitution, could shred the Founding Documents by overruling Officers Recognized by The Constitution such as The President.

That you cheer on the likes of Rosenstein and his wife, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Mueller, and all the other Criminals of the Deep State merely exposes you.

---

Oh fer chrissakes, now YOU'RE arguing with the voices in your head? It seems to me that I've taken no small amount of criticism and being called a "Russian troll" BECAUSE I was criticizing Rosenstein, Brennan, Muller etc etc etc. Have you not been reading my posts for the last ... oh .... year and a half??

Quote:

---

You disagree with Facts?
You rely solely upon Libtard Maths?
What?
Forbes reports the wealthiest 400 for 2018 are only worth a combined $2.88 Trillion.
The remaining 206 Billionaires rack up approximately another $280 Billion, for a subtotal of $3.16 Trillion for the top 606. BLS reports the Civilian Population under 260 Million. 1% would be 2.6 Million. All except the top 606 with less than a Billion.

---

Again, are you arguing with the voices in your head? Did I not JUST post It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown?

It's not the part about "taxing the rich" not being enough to fill government coffers that I disagree with, it's where you posted

Quote:

---

and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

---

that I have a problem with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

---

You really believe Dems will erase a 43 Seat majority of the GoP?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/1/17914710/brett-kavanaugh-chr
istine-blasey-ford-fox-news-trump-democrats

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

---

Quote:

---

And with all of the money gone, where would the money come from, to restart any of that?
You are hoping Putin and China will buy America for cheap? Is that your solution?- JSF

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

---

More Koolaid for table 6!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You are thinking the Revulsion the Tea Party had for Obamination is a suitable template for those same voters rebelling against Tea Party Lite Trump, the first responsible President (or candidate) since the Tea Party coalesced?

Maybe your (irrational) bias is blinding your (rational) logic.

---

For some reason the link to the search results doesn't work. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/ But if you were to go to the home link http://history.house.gov and search, you'd see even more dramatic historic reversals, outside of your narrow partisan view.

For example:

53rd (1893-1895) D218 R124 (Populists (11), Independent Democrats (2), Silver (1))
54th (1895-1897) D93 R254 (Populists (9), Silver (1))

or

67th (1921-1923) D131 R302 (Independent Republican (1), Socialist (1))
68th (1923-1925) D207 R225 (Farmer-Labor (2), Socialist (1))

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

---

More Koolaid for table 6!

---

Keep laughing. All the way into a Republican super majority one day.

You Democrats just gave the GOP their long time wet dream in the Supreme Court.


Just think about how much worse it could be if Donald Trump was at least a little likable.


I mean REALLY think about that one.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

---

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.




Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.


2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.


So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

---

More Koolaid for table 6!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Democraps have never had such a Good Standard."

I'm afraid you're displaying some blatant partisan ignorance again. There were many 'flips' in the House, though not all as dramatic. Some were made by steady, incremental gains over the years, that built up to a majority, then continued on to a super-majority. Others were small nibbles at the edges of a nearly balanced House. And then, there's the fact that democrats held the House nearly continuously (4 years excepted) for 60 years, from 1935 to 1995. Republicans would have to control the House for another roughly 41 years to rival that record.

But, we're getting away from the original point. While I make no prediction on whether or not the democrats will win enough seats to gain a majority in the House, it's well within historic possibility.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It's fucking different, that's it!

Great explanation. Never ever fucking say shit about my post being duplicates.
Low fucking budget.


sgg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.


2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.


So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Are Trump voters seriously considering not voting for Trump a second time? But only if Democratic politicians stop opposing Trump’s decisions?

---

Quote:

---

I don’t think Democrats can change themselves enough to make a Trump voter switch and, most importantly, stay switched for two or more elections in a row.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Are Trump voters seriously considering not voting for Trump a second time? But only if Democratic politicians stop opposing Trump’s decisions?

---

I didn't say anything about Trump.

Quote:

---

I don’t think Democrats should change themselves to please Trump voters, to get them to switch sides.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

I don’t think Democrats can change themselves enough to make a Trump voter switch and, most importantly, stay switched for two or more elections in a row.

---

You need to stop looking at this is a Trump thing, or about "Trump Voters".

A lot of people who voted for Trump are independents and even former Liberals that had enough with the Democratic Party as it is in 2016 onward.

How many? I don't know. But as you like to bring up often, Trump lost the popular vote.

The Democratic Party doesn't need to change so much that it would steal 60 Million votes away from Trump in 2020.

It would absolutely destroy Trump if it stopped being the party of division though.


As I've said many times before, it needs to throw away identity politics as a message. You seem to be getting this. You're the only person in here with negative things to say about Kavanaugh that were based off of facts instead of feels.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

I'm gonna read your mind and tell you what is going inside there based upon what I know about real people who think the Democrats should "Throw away identity politics".

---

Quote:

---

They hate identity politics because they hate those separate identities. They think everybody should strive to be as similar as their psychology allows and everybody has got the same history and problems, approximately, taken from a curated and approved list that all humans have in common. They don't want to know about your odd language, your accented English, your peculiar culture, your crazy family, your religion, your unique problems, your idiosyncratic goals.

---

Quote:

---

They think Americans should have a common purpose that we can all agree on. They want everybody to strive to become Bland-Americans, no other kind of hyphenated-American.

---

Quote:

---

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

You Democrats just gave the GOP their long time wet dream in the Supreme Court.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Just think about how much worse it could be if Donald Trump was at least a little likable.
I mean REALLY think about that one.

---

Quote:

---

Rather think about reality - ever think about that? I mean REALLY think about that one.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Once again, you're arguing with the voices in your head. That's a REALLY bad habit which promotes a tremendous amount of misunderstanding and ill-will, and I wonder why you - or ANYone- would do that here.

---