Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

You've been posting nothing but idiocy since about January 15, so unless your adolescent child has stolen your keyboard or you're off your meds, that is not the path you want to go down.

I haven't seen anything stupid or crazy in the remarks you've chosen to bring your, um, unique brand of "analysis" to. On the other hand, your responses have grown increasingly shrill and deranged.

You're picking fights with EVERYBODY.

You know the saying. If you meet one jerk on the way to work, you've met a jerk. If you meet jerks everywhere you go, ...

I've been posting idiocy for a lot longer than that, but who's counting?

However, its a message board. We're all here for our amusement, not because we need to be here. But, if my comments seem a little more biting lately, its because I do enjoy poking conspiracy theorists. You know, the people who think the world is under the thumb of some evil corporate oligarchy and everybody in power is in on it? If people want to post over the top theories, why can't I post an over the top response? Believe it or not, there are good people in gubmint nowadays....

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Not accusing you, but some people both love the constitution and love to change the constitution. Those two really don't jive.

But in this case, we don't need to change the constitution every time there is progress. I'd say changing the Constitution to end slavery in a nation totally divided on the issue and with countless structures in place supporting its continuation...merits constitutional change. Gay marriage...not so much. Most of society is aligned on this.

We've amended the constitution to outlaw the sale of alcohol and to clarify where in the line of succession the Postmaster General is. Yeah, I think protecting a huge number of people from traditional bigotry that still persists makes the amendment cut.

I also don't see anything wrong with both a respect for the Constitution and a desire to amend it. It seems to me that that is consistent with the rule of law. The Constitution isn't my mommy, I don't love it for its own sake. It is only as good as its content, and when it begins to pinch so much that life becomes unpleasant because the people have changed, it's time to try to change it. The Founders themselves realized this, and in fact the Founders would probably think we're nuts to never have held another Constitutional convention in 227 years. It took them 8 years to get sick of the Articles and write a whole new document. I think it was probably Jefferson (sounds like him) who thought there should be a new convention and a new document every generation.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Why is it stupid to think that people want even more income and wealth than they already have? Some want it out of pure avarice, while others may want it for the power than such riches yield them. Others accumulate vast amounts of wealth just because they enjoy pursuing the challenge of gaining said wealth, while other pursue it in order to attempt more personal good in the world. Do you really think that the Clintons aren't interested in the power that comes with more wealth? If they've proven anything, and especially through Hillary's contempt of those questioning her both while she's performing her duties in office as Sec. of State, and on the campaign trail ("Why don't you run for office, then?"), it's that she wants power. She craves it the way a termite craves wood.

You're confusing the original premise, which is that Hillary is running for office primarily to increase the family fortune. A ridiculous notion. First, that means 8 years of not earning any money beyond the 400K Prez salary. The woman is going to be 69 years old come election time, so after 8 years if that's the way it plays out there's not a lot of time to earn fat paychecks afterwards unless she stays in really good health.

Do the Clinton's want power? Who the F doesn't? Do you think Sanders, or Kasich, or anybody else running doesn't want power? The question becomes, what do each of them want to do with that power. That's the point of getting elected President, the most powerful position on Earth. Wealth accumulation for them is done. They have the money. They have about as much influence as anybody outside of government can possibly have due to their unique status. There are only 3 other living ex-Presidents. Two are in their 90's and one is a pariah. More money isn't going to increase their already considerable influence. Becoming President will.

Lastly to Kep's point, if the Clinton's are already thinking about political career for their unborn grandkids, maybe we should elect her President because that's a lot of planning.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

1) Maybe the Federal Government should not be involved in health care? Then no plan is a good plan.

2) Rover - I know you're in the tank for Mrs. Clinton, but surely having a coronation rather than a primary is not good for vetting candidates?

3) This generation wants it NOW, rather than gradual consensus change. Ramming something down the throats of the opposition may be good viscerally, but bad for acceptance. A Conservative might agree with reform, but wants acceptance then implementation, rather than implementation then acceptance.

4) Both parties have drifted towards the fringe. This is not the 1981/85 Congress and a landslide president. Things got done because both sides were willing to give a little. Nowadays, the Congress, if it is in opposituon to the POTUS, says "NO!!!". If they're both the same party, its blind obedience.

If dT wins, then we'll have a Congress as the nominal same party, but with opposite goals. It would be a rocky 4 years.

5) We need to end the gerrymander in all states. The VRA needs to be reexamined to see if it promotes the gerrymander. We need moderate candidates, not firebrands.

Anyway, this election is not anything new. We had some gawdawful presidential elections in the 1800's. Historians will study this election for years.

1- healthcare costs impact all of the economy. ACA or no the baby boomers are going to cost us more as they age up and we live longer with the aid of meds, interventions and procedures. If people aren't getting healthcare they are a drain on the economy. Emergency care, cost of chronic illness, etc. A No idea what the actual answer is but ignoring it is not really possible. (the death panel controversy is a conundrum- keep the government out of providing health care and then keep them out of talking about what happens if you decline or can't afford it)

Rover

Re your 4. Disagree. A vocal minority and sympathetic judges got homosexual marriage implemented. Legislative change, though slower, reflects the will of the people and has the benefit of acceptance then implementation. SSM, for the most part, was implementation, and you'd better like it you rascist bahstahd!

. From a legal standpoint what leg would they have to stand on to reject it. Tradition meant slaves, submissive women, etc. These were rejected even though they were the status quo. At the time they were considered radical thoughts, now advocating slavery or submissive women is not acceptable. I don't understand how legally they would have a choice. Interesting stats. The second link traces the change over yrs.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-april-16-20-2015/1673/

Do you really not remember any of that? The Clintons were on the news saying that they had to spend all of their savings and income of defense lawyers during the Kent Starr investigations and subsequent impeachment. They were asking for donations to cover those costs back in 2000, the famous Clinton Defense Fund.

Yes, Pres. Clinton made a lot of money on the speech circuit after leaving office, but he and Shrillary were claiming indigence upon the actual moment of leaving office.

No idea about what is motivating the Clintons but it strikes me that Capitalism is a religion to practice and revere unless the person you don't like is practicing it. Supply and demand is a strange thing. Seems like if you are selling Eskimos fridges and they are buying that is Capitalism and marketing at its best.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

No idea about what is motivating the Clintons but it strikes me that Capitalism is a religion to practice and revere unless the person you don't like is practicing it. Supply and demand is a strange thing. Seems like if you are selling Eskimos fridges and they are buying that is Capitalism and marketing at its best.

Actually, selling an Eskimo and a refrigerator makes sense. Selling an Eskimo a freezer, OTOH, means you have a really stupid Eskimo. Sometimes you want things to be cold, but not frozen, hence the fridge being a good thing to own. (Any Minnesotan can tell you at least one story of a case of Coke cans (or any other pop) left out in the garage all night in January where the cans no longer contained Coke come morning (my brother's ex-wife was really dumb and it became a joke about how many times it would happen that year).

 

[leswp1]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Actually, selling an Eskimo and a refrigerator makes sense. Selling an Eskimo a freezer, OTOH, means you have a really stupid Eskimo. Sometimes you want things to be cold, but not frozen, hence the fridge being a good thing to own. (Any Minnesotan can tell you at least one story of a case of Coke cans (or any other pop) left out in the garage all night in January where the cans no longer contained Coke come morning (my brother's ex-wife was really dumb and it became a joke about how many times it would happen that year).

I stand corrected

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

No idea about what is motivating the Clintons but it strikes me that Capitalism is a religion to practice and revere unless the person you don't like is practicing it. Supply and demand is a strange thing. Seems like if you are selling Eskimos fridges and they are buying that is Capitalism and marketing at its best.

Spot on! I always remember the reaction when it came out that Al Gore had accumulated a 500M fortune, mostly from selling his TV channel and receiving stock to sit on corporate boards, one of which was Apple. Nothing illegal about any of that, but when Mitt Romney earns money using insider connections he's a genius, but if Gore does it then it just has to be illegal.

 

[unofan]

1) Maybe the Federal Government should not be involved in health care? Then no plan is a good plan.

2) Rover - I know you're in the tank for Mrs. Clinton, but surely having a coronation rather than a primary is not good for vetting candidates?

3) This generation wants it NOW, rather than gradual consensus change. Ramming something down the throats of the opposition may be good viscerally, but bad for acceptance. A Conservative might agree with reform, but wants acceptance then implementation, rather than implementation then acceptance.

4) Both parties have drifted towards the fringe. This is not the 1981/85 Congress and a landslide president. Things got done because both sides were willing to give a little. Nowadays, the Congress, if it is in opposituon to the POTUS, says "NO!!!". If they're both the same party, its blind obedience.

If dT wins, then we'll have a Congress as the nominal same party, but with opposite goals. It would be a rocky 4 years.

5) We need to end the gerrymander in all states. The VRA needs to be reexamined to see if it promotes the gerrymander. We need moderate candidates, not firebrands.

Anyway, this election is not anything new. We had some gawdawful presidential elections in the 1800's. Historians will study this election for years.

1) Or, you know, it could be something the feds should've been involved with decades ago. But you want government hands off your Medicare, don't you?

2) If there's ever been a candidate more vetted than Hillary, I'd like to know who that is. She's been in the national public eye for roughly 20 years now.

3) twas ever thus. The baby boomers were and are the selfish generation, if you want to continue this fight. I'll take immediacy over selfishness.

4) While technically correct (the best kind of correct), you've fallen for the BSABSVR lie that they've moved equally towards the fringe. In reality, the dems have moved an inch to the left while the GOP has moved a mile to the right.

5) on this, we agree. Thankfully I live in a state that doesn't really have gerrymandering issues.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Peggy clutches her pearls.

I like her on Face the Nation. Usually.

 

[joecct]

In 1850, there was slavery and then there wasn't. In 1900, women couldn't vote and then they could. In 1950, blacks had no rights and then they did. Gay marriage is not the Dem party moving left. Its progress and it was popular with the people at the same time it was with the party.

The Dems positions on government, taxation, welfare, business, personal rights, etc. haven't changed...and have probably become more mainstream. The party is fairly centrist compared to today's society.

Accomplished legislatively or via judicial diktat?

 

[unofan]

Rover

Re your 4. Disagree. A vocal minority and sympathetic judges got homosexual marriage implemented. Legislative change, though slower, reflects the will of the people and has the benefit of acceptance then implementation. SSM, for the most part, was implementation, and you'd better like it you rascist bahstahd!

If we left fundamental rights up to the populace, interracial marriage would still be illegal in the South. We gave society 100 years from the passage of the 14th Amendment, and it still took a court decision.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

And the WaPo starts the Roosevelting of Liz. Jost say no, Liz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c:homepage/story

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Any Minnesotan can tell you at least one story of a case of Coke cans (or any other pop) left out in the garage all night in January

If you did it with Tahitian Treat, it would look like a suicide bomber went off.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

And the WaPo starts the Roosevelting of Liz. Jost say no, Liz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c:homepage/story

Weak article by weak pundit. I like Lizzy Warren a lot, but nothing is gained by putting two 60+ year old women who represented neighboring states in the Senate on a ticket together. What I'd like to see is Warren team up with like minded Senators and form a majority of the Dem caucus in that chamber. That way you'd avoid any more Harry Reid's as party leader.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

If you did it with Tahitian Treat, it would look like a suicide bomber went off.

Grape sodas would look more blue than purple after their explosions, so it was like someone set off a Smurf bomb.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Weak article by weak pundit. I like Lizzy Warren a lot, but nothing is gained by putting two 60+ year old women who represented neighboring states in the Senate on a ticket together. What I'd like to see is Warren team up with like minded Senators and form a majority of the Dem caucus in that chamber. That way you'd avoid any more Harry Reid's as party leader.

I 100% agree with this idea.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Grape sodas would look more blue than purple after their explosions, so it was like someone set off a Smurf bomb.

The best was when you wake up in the morning and realize that you left a can out there. You run downstairs, find the can, and see that only the bottom has expanded. http://somethingscrawlinginmyhair.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Soda.can_.frozen.before.leaking.jpg

You aren't sure if you should touch it lest it explode. So you open the garage door and chuck it like it's an unpinned grenade

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

The best was when you wake up in the morning and realize that you left a can out there. You run downstairs, find the can, and see that only the bottom has expanded. http://somethingscrawlinginmyhair.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Soda.can_.frozen.before.leaking.jpg

You aren't sure if you should touch it lest it explode. So you open the garage door and chuck it like it's an unpinned grenade

Finding the unexploded can in the morning was like waking up with a four-leaf clover taped to your arse. You have no idea how it got there, but you're thankful it wasn't worse, and rather hopeful to hear about last night's stories.

My favorite was "Kim left a can in the car this time." The rest of the phone call was me laughing at my brother.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Finding the unexploded can in the morning was like waking up with a four-leaf clover taped to your arse. You have no idea how it got there, but you're thankful it wasn't worse, and rather hopeful to hear about last night's stories.

My favorite was "Kim left a can in the car this time." The rest of the phone call was me laughing at my brother.

Oh, that would suck. I've never left one in the car. I have left one in the freezer because I was trying to cool it down fast and forgot about it. Cleaning up the ice bin isn't fun.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

I 100% agree with this idea.

Here's how I see it playing out. Its sorta like how Teapartiers will eventually take over the GOP Senate leadership and kick Itch and Cornyn to the curb.

In no way do I want a purge of center-left Dems. McCaskill, Manchin, etc all have a valuable roll to play. However Warren needs to team up with likeminded individuals already in the Senate like Franken or Sherrod Brown AND make sure safe open Dem seats elect progressives to them. Maryland is a good example this year. That's the key to Cruz' wing of the party. They've taken over seats with radicals in places where they don't have to worry about losing in the general election (Utah for example). Obviously I'd like liberals elected in contested seats as well, but if you gave me a choice between a centrist with a 50/50 chance of winning and a liberal with a 20% chance, I'd defer to the centrist. At the end of the day you need to coble together a majority. I may not have liked every position Nebraska senator Ben Nelson took, but he did help give us 60 votes for the ACA and Dodd-Frank for example.