Post by: CigarBanter on October 15, 2021, 12:01:55 AM
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 12:47:00 AM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 06:00:52 AM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 06:01:36 AM
Brick House Maduro Robusto - 10/44.99; 20/85.00; 30/119.97
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 06:02:29 AM
Door #1 - CAO Pilon Robusto - 10/34.99
Door #2 - Gurkha Legend Box-Pressed Toro - 10/39.99
Door #3 - Romeo y Julieta Viejo 'R' (Robusto) - 10/49.99
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 06:20:54 AM
Morning, all. Happy Friday!Good morning, Dave.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 06:27:31 AM
Joe:They were jamming for $39 99 yesterday. They seemed to have gotten a fresh lot because we're seeing them often.
Brick House Maduro Robusto - 10/44.99; 20/85.00; 30/119.97
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 06:53:34 AM
Definitely seems like they've got some stock to unload.Joe:They were jamming for $39 99 yesterday. They seemed to have gotten a fresh lot because we're seeing them often.
Brick House Maduro Robusto - 10/44.99; 20/85.00; 30/119.97
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 07:01:19 AM
Then they ought to consider lowering the price. Just sayin'.Definitely seems like they've got some stock to unload.Joe:They were jamming for $39 99 yesterday. They seemed to have gotten a fresh lot because we're seeing them often.
Brick House Maduro Robusto - 10/44.99; 20/85.00; 30/119.97
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 07:15:24 AM
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 07:19:08 AM
If we wait them out long enough they just might do that.Then they ought to consider lowering the price. Just sayin'.Definitely seems like they've got some stock to unload.Joe:They were jamming for $39 99 yesterday. They seemed to have gotten a fresh lot because we're seeing them often.
Brick House Maduro Robusto - 10/44.99; 20/85.00; 30/119.97
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 07:21:37 AM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 07:28:35 AM
good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Morning, Dean. Thinking good non-crutch thoughts.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 07:39:56 AM
that I doubt will happen but I lose my widow care taker this weekend.good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Morning, Dean. Thinking good non-crutch thoughts.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 07:41:05 AM
good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Sorry to hear it, Dean. Hope things turn around for you.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 07:58:13 AM
the widow lady leaving helps so there's that. 🙄good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Sorry to hear it, Dean. Hope things turn around for you.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 08:09:01 AM
I obviously don't know the whole situation, but I think you'll be better off this way.that I doubt will happen but I lose my widow care taker this weekend.good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Morning, Dean. Thinking good non-crutch thoughts.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 08:09:18 AM
Oh good, I was right. :Dthe widow lady leaving helps so there's that. 🙄good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Sorry to hear it, Dean. Hope things turn around for you.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 08:19:41 AM
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 08:20:39 AM
good morning guys. doctor at 9am. wish me luck.Oh, hell, Dean. Praying over you.
bad morning happening here. well not bad just not what I expected.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 08:27:20 AM
Morning, muchachos.Morning, Raz.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 08:29:20 AM
Morning, GolfinDave.Morning, muchachos.Morning, Raz.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 08:32:45 AM
leftovers from yesterdays line up.I've always been a fan of leftovers.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 08:51:46 AM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 08:52:18 AM
Man, before I saw what you were responding to, I thought you were talking about the widow. :oleftovers from yesterdays line up.I've always been a fan of leftovers.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 08:59:06 AM
Good morning, Bret.Morning, T.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 09:01:31 AM
Don't knock it till you've tried it.Man, before I saw what you were responding to, I thought you were talking about the widow. :oleftovers from yesterdays line up.I've always been a fan of leftovers.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 09:04:33 AM
LALTSDon't knock it till you've tried it.Man, before I saw what you were responding to, I thought you were talking about the widow. :oleftovers from yesterdays line up.I've always been a fan of leftovers.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 10:07:29 AM
I think I'm going to order my next electric guitar today. It will take 6 months to finish. This is how it starts. When it's done it will look, feel, and sound like it's 70 years old.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211015/e42b308f6d0a9f316a19c4576ebf7984.jpg)
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 10:19:56 AM
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:20:45 AM
Stock market's up, Bitcoin is on the climb, I'm racking up overtime again, and a guy who's owed me money for a long time has made two payments in a row and insists they'll keep coming.
I think I'm going to order my next electric guitar today. It will take 6 months to finish. This is how it starts. When it's done it will look, feel, and sound like it's 70 years old.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211015/e42b308f6d0a9f316a19c4576ebf7984.jpg)
I think you tried to explain this to me before, but I don't understand electric guitars, their craftsmanship and uniqueness. Makes perfect sense that instruments crafted out of wood and metal have unique voices due to materials and craftmanship. But an electric guitar is electronics, just like a synthesizer is just electronics. Can't any electric guitar be electronically adjusted to sound like any other?
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 10:21:31 AM
celebratory cigar. still on crutches but I can start putting a little weight on my right foot. glad I btough my boot. home health aide will come next week to pull the staples and physical therapy will be coming to the house. I can even sit around now without the boot.I'm told the boot is better than a cast. But those boots suck.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:22:13 AM
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:25:38 AM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:26:00 AM
celebratory cigar. still on crutches but I can start putting a little weight on my right foot. glad I btough my boot. home health aide will come next week to pull the staples and physical therapy will be coming to the house. I can even sit around now without the boot.Wins all around for you and Raz, sounds like.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:26:01 AM
Clemson heading up to Rick's part of the country for a game this evening. Lets hope they remembered to pack their offense.Which reminds me, need to adjust the AVI.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:29:46 AM
There are 77 days left in the year.
Today’s Highlight in History:
On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.
On this date:
In 1783, the first manned balloon flight took place in Paris as Jean-Francois Pilatre de Rozier ascended in a basket attached to a tethered Montgolfier hot-air balloon, rising to about 75 feet.
In 1928, the German dirigible Graf Zeppelin landed in Lakehurst, N.J., completing its first commercial flight across the Atlantic.
In 1945, the former premier of Vichy France, Pierre Laval, was executed for treason.
In 1946, Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering (GEH’-reeng) fatally poisoned himself hours before he was to have been executed.
In 1954, Hurricane Hazel made landfall on the Carolina coast as a Category 4 storm; Hazel was blamed for some 1,000 deaths in the Caribbean, 95 in the U.S. and 81 in Canada.
In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a bill creating the U.S. Department of Transportation. The revolutionary Black Panther Party was founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in Oakland, California.
In 1976, in the first debate of its kind between vice-presidential nominees, Democrat Walter F. Mondale and Republican Bob Dole faced off in Houston.
In 2001, Bethlehem Steel Corp. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
In 2003, eleven people were killed when a Staten Island ferry slammed into a maintenance pier. (The ferry’s pilot, who’d blacked out at the controls, later pleaded guilty to eleven counts of manslaughter.)
In 2009, a report of a 6-year-old Colorado boy trapped inside a runaway helium balloon engrossed the nation before the boy, Falcon Heene (HEE’-nee), was found safe at home in what turned out to be a hoax. (Falcon’s parents served up to a month in jail.)
In 2015, President Barack Obama abandoned his pledge to end America’s longest war, announcing plans to keep at least 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan at the end of his term in 2017 and hand the conflict off to his successor.
In 2017, actress and activist Alyssa Milano tweeted that women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted should write “Me too” as a status; within hours, tens of thousands had taken up the #MeToo hashtag (using a phrase that had been introduced 10 years earlier by social activist Tarana Burke.)
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:30:38 AM
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Yemen’s Houthi (HOO’-thee) rebels had released two U.S. citizens as part of a complicated diplomatic arrangement.
One year ago: With their debate in Miami canceled following the president’s coronavirus infection, President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden squared off in dueling televised town halls. Biden hedged on whether he would require all Americans to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Responding to a New York Times report citing tax returns showing he had business debts exceeding $400 million, Trump said, “$400 million is a peanut,” and insisted that he didn’t owe money to Russia or to any “sinister people.” YouTube said it was taking more steps to limit QAnon and other baseless conspiracy theories that could lead to violence. The sobering musical “Jagged Little Pill,” which plumbed Alanis Morissette’s 1995 album to tell a story of an American family spiraling out of control, earned 15 Tony Award nominations as Broadway took the first steps to celebrate a pandemic-shortened season.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:35:13 AM
Singer Barry McGuire is 86.
Actor Linda Lavin is 84.
Rock musician Don Stevenson (Moby Grape) is 79.
Baseball Hall of Famer Jim Palmer is 76.
Singer-musician Richard Carpenter is 75.
Actor Victor Banerjee is 75.
Former tennis player Roscoe Tanner is 70.
Singer Tito Jackson is 68.
Actor-comedian Larry Miller is 68.
Actor Jere Burns is 67.
Movie director Mira Nair is 64.
Britain’s Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, is 62.
Chef Emeril Lagasse (EM’-ur-ul leh-GAH’-see) is 62.
Rock musician Mark Reznicek (REHZ’-nih-chehk) is 59.
Singer Eric Benet (beh-NAY’) is 55.
Actor Vanessa Marcil is 53.
Singer-actor-TV host Paige Davis is 52.
Country singer Kimberly Schlapman (Little Big Town) is 52.
Actor Dominic West is 52.
R&B singer Ginuwine (JIHN’-yoo-wyn) is 51.
Actor Devon Gummersall is 43.
Actor Chris Olivero is 42.
Christian singer-actor Jaci (JAK’-ee) Velasquez is 42.
Actor Brandon Jay McLaren is 41.
R&B singer Keyshia Cole is 40.
Actor Vincent Martella is 29.
Actor Bailee Madison is 22.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:35:36 AM
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 10:37:34 AM
What is commonly called the "electric guitar" is truly electric, not electronic. The pickups are coils that generate a magnetic field, and the string oscillating disrupts that field in chaotic ways, which causes the coils to generate a constantly changing electric current. The various components of the instrument - especially anything that touches a string - and how the instrument is constructed affect the distribution of frequencies in the electromagnetic energy produced by the instrument, which makes different instruments sound different.Stock market's up, Bitcoin is on the climb, I'm racking up overtime again, and a guy who's owed me money for a long time has made two payments in a row and insists they'll keep coming.I think you tried to explain this to me before, but I don't understand electric guitars, their craftsmanship and uniqueness. Makes perfect sense that instruments crafted out of wood and metal have unique voices due to materials and craftmanship. But an electric guitar is electronics, just like a synthesizer is just electronics. Can't any guitar be electronically adjusted to sound like any other?
I think I'm going to order my next electric guitar today. It will take 6 months to finish. This is how it starts. When it's done it will look, feel, and sound like it's 70 years old.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211015/e42b308f6d0a9f316a19c4576ebf7984.jpg)
In a sense, it's similar to vinyl LP's. Two vinyl records may look nearly identical - both are 12 inch vinyl disks, probably black, with a hole in the middle, and each having a concentric groove. But if one is a Rolling Stones record, and the other is by Luciano Pavarotti, then each will make the needle on the record player behave very differently, thus producing different distributions of frequencies, which we recognize as what makes the Stones sound different than Pavarotti.
Same basic principle - generation of electromagnetic waves.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 10:41:11 AM
Over/Under for today is 7Eleven.
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AM
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:46:04 AM
Over/Under for today is 74
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 10:53:56 AM
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:04:12 AM
Scorcher still going on at the Page.(https://miro.medium.com/max/659/1*8xraf6eyaXh-myNXOXkqLA.jpeg)
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AM
On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AM
with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AM
Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:35:50 AM
but who woundn't want to swim in the ocean? 😊Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:39:14 AM
Don't mistake me, I fully endorse your plan. You could put it on PPV and sell the hell out of it.but who woundn't want to swim in the ocean? 😊Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 11:49:32 AM
celebratory cigar. still on crutches but I can start putting a little weight on my right foot. glad I btough my boot. home health aide will come next week to pull the staples and physical therapy will be coming to the house. I can even sit around now without the boot.Can you drive?
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 11:50:31 AM
Good morning Tony, Dave, Dean, Rick and Raz.Howdy, ClemsonDave.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
Great question. Great answer. Thanks for the edjumaction, boys.What is commonly called the "electric guitar" is truly electric, not electronic. The pickups are coils that generate a magnetic field, and the string oscillating disrupts that field in chaotic ways, which causes the coils to generate a constantly changing electric current. The various components of the instrument - especially anything that touches a string - and how the instrument is constructed affect the distribution of frequencies in the electromagnetic energy produced by the instrument, which makes different instruments sound different.Stock market's up, Bitcoin is on the climb, I'm racking up overtime again, and a guy who's owed me money for a long time has made two payments in a row and insists they'll keep coming.I think you tried to explain this to me before, but I don't understand electric guitars, their craftsmanship and uniqueness. Makes perfect sense that instruments crafted out of wood and metal have unique voices due to materials and craftmanship. But an electric guitar is electronics, just like a synthesizer is just electronics. Can't any guitar be electronically adjusted to sound like any other?
I think I'm going to order my next electric guitar today. It will take 6 months to finish. This is how it starts. When it's done it will look, feel, and sound like it's 70 years old.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211015/e42b308f6d0a9f316a19c4576ebf7984.jpg)
In a sense, it's similar to vinyl LP's. Two vinyl records may look nearly identical - both are 12 inch vinyl disks, probably black, with a hole in the middle, and each having a concentric groove. But if one is a Rolling Stones record, and the other is by Luciano Pavarotti, then each will make the needle on the record player behave very differently, thus producing different distributions of frequencies, which we recognize as what makes the Stones sound different than Pavarotti.
Same basic principle - generation of electromagnetic waves.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:59:00 AM
Unfortunately, sometimes people take these things into their own hands. Yikes.Don't mistake me, I fully endorse your plan. You could put it on PPV and sell the hell out of it.but who woundn't want to swim in the ocean? 😊Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/cm/reports-uk-lawmaker-stabbed-while-125258315.html
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 11:59:54 AM
Over/Under for today is 7I got 10 today. I'm in Raz' league.
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 12:04:56 PM
Was one of them the voice of Phineas? I didn't get that one (Vincent Martella).Over/Under for today is 74
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 12:07:14 PM
not yet, but I plan on attempting it once the staples are out next week. I'd just have to remove my boot.celebratory cigar. still on crutches but I can start putting a little weight on my right foot. glad I btough my boot. home health aide will come next week to pull the staples and physical therapy will be coming to the house. I can even sit around now without the boot.Can you drive?
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 12:09:25 PM
You're almost there. Just be a little more patient.not yet, but I plan on attempting it once the staples are out next week. I'd just have to remove my boot.celebratory cigar. still on crutches but I can start putting a little weight on my right foot. glad I btough my boot. home health aide will come next week to pull the staples and physical therapy will be coming to the house. I can even sit around now without the boot.Can you drive?
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 12:10:44 PM
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 12:13:13 PM
seeing how the widow lady is making arrangements this weekend to move back in with her stepmom it'll only be a matter of time.You're almost there. Just be a little more patient.not yet, but I plan on attempting it once the staples are out next week. I'd just have to remove my boot.celebratory cigar. still on crutches but I can start putting a little weight on my right foot. glad I btough my boot. home health aide will come next week to pull the staples and physical therapy will be coming to the house. I can even sit around now without the boot.Can you drive?
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PM
Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:45:49 PM
You say that as if it's an achievement.Over/Under for today is 7I got 10 today. I'm in Raz' league.
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:14:33 PM
It was not. I actually kinda miss when the kids liked that show. LolWas one of them the voice of Phineas? I didn't get that one (Vincent Martella).Over/Under for today is 74
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PM
"Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PM
I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 02:02:12 PM
It certainly is.You say that as if it's an achievement.Over/Under for today is 7I got 10 today. I'm in Raz' league.
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Let's start this weekend!Is that an Oy recommendation?
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:16:55 PM
You overachiever you!Over/Under for today is 7I got 10 today. I'm in Raz' league.
Raz Over/Under is 10
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:17:26 PM
Cigar or weekend?Let's start this weekend!Is that an Oy recommendation?
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:19:47 PM
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PM
The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:37:32 PM
Eduardo Fernandez the founder and owner of Aganorsa Leaf was once a pizza entrepreneur. Shortly after having a successful career as a New York City banker, Fernandez left the financial world. Next, he joined his brother, Leopoldo, in Spain. The siblings started Telepizza, which is a chain of restaurants that offer Spanish tapas with New York style pizza and delivered on Vespa scooters. After turning the pizza chain into a multi-million-dollar operation, Fernandez turned his eye towards agriculture and founded Aganorsa Leaf, which is known for creating memorable premium cigars such as Casa Fernandez, Aganorsa Leaf Signature Selection ,and much more.
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 02:37:51 PM
That makes sense and is quite refreshing to hear. I will be honest. I haven't heard much, if any, of that. The folks that I encountered must have all been the hardcore you speak of.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Post by: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:44:59 PM
But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 03:08:27 PM
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 03:13:13 PM
I believe too much social media and the press feed his ego. if only he could continue his 2016 platform and pull a Biden by turning his back and walk away instead of opening his mouth.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. 👍🏻On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 03:55:13 PM
Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will.
Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democrats
Then there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 04:16:10 PM
The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will.
Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democrats
Then there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 04:24:43 PM
No, it's not a national office. But as they say, "all politics is local," and the GOP has been aggressively and rather skillfully gaining ground in statehouses for more than a decade. I predict we are going to see more of this in the next election cycle, because Democrats are believing their own press and overplaying their hand.
The American people, as a whole, are not embracing the Progressive agenda as much as Democrats and the press would like us to believe.
Post by: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 04:25:23 PM
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 04:32:40 PM
The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will.
Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democrats
Then there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
And the domonant press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook. It gets Fox news, and a host of tinier independent websites.
Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.
Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 04:35:48 PM
Hey, if she can say space lasers are controlled by Jews or whatever, I can get her initials in the wrong order.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will.
Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democrats
Then there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
And the press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook.
Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.
Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 04:46:33 PM
The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.
History, on balance, is going to be kind to Ol' Cocaine Mitch, and he's an argument against term limits. The rabid ravings of Chuckles Schumer and his followers notwithstanding, nobody but nobody in the Senate understands the legislative process - warts and all - like McConnell. Even out of the majority, and blessed with the personal charisma of the average slug, McConnell has outsized influence in the Senate, because he not only knows where the bodies are buried, he also knows all the Senate's arcane rules and how to weaponize them against the party that authored the bulk of them. And that's why his constituents keep sending him back to DC.
Post by: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 04:47:37 PM
Truth.Hey, if she can say space lasers are controlled by Jews or whatever, I can get her initials in the wrong order.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will.
Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democrats
Then there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
And the press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook.
Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.
Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.
Post by: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 07:24:26 PM
Post by: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 07:26:16 PM
Post by: Short stack on October 15, 2021, 07:36:52 PM
Truth.Hey, if she can say space lasers are controlled by Jews or whatever, I can get her initials in the wrong order.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such."Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden.Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.
At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys.
It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.
And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected.
The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will.
Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democrats
Then there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
And the press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook.
Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.
Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.
Post by: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 08:53:51 PM
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 09:22:33 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211016/ca37b8db6285880219b9d414dee5fcd3.jpg)
Post by: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 10:19:36 PM
New WorldI hope you lit it
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211016/ca37b8db6285880219b9d414dee5fcd3.jpg)
Post by: A Friend of Charlie on October 15, 2021, 10:30:33 PM
Tony. I'd be rooting for the Brewers if they were still in it. I can't get behind any of these teams left.Red Sox / Dodgers ?
Post by: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:54:44 PM
I knew I forgot something!New WorldI hope you lit it
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211016/ca37b8db6285880219b9d414dee5fcd3.jpg)
Post by: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 11:39:59 PM
lol.... I enjoyed my AJ Fernandez Bellas Artes from earlier.I knew I forgot something!New WorldI hope you lit it
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211016/ca37b8db6285880219b9d414dee5fcd3.jpg)
Post by: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 11:41:35 PM
Well I can't root for Boston or the Astro's.Tony. I'd be rooting for the Brewers if they were still in it. I can't get behind any of these teams left.Red Sox / Dodgers ?