How does Florida recover.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If there’s money to be made, I see no reason to doubt the damaged areas will be rebuilt. Are there examples where redevelopment after an disaster was curtailed or limited?

Yes. Here's one in Houston.

https://www.hcfcd.org/Activity/Addition ... ut-Program

Looks like an intelligent program.

I wonder whether it's time to attach strings on federal support?
Relocation rather than rebuild?
Resilient infrastructure?
Flood mitigation, wetlands absorption etc?

There are sound examples of developments that are resilient and energy independent, including in Florida.
Support relocation to such and not those which are doomed for further catastrophe?

Send them all the Sebring, Ocala and the Villages!

tell them they are going to have housing, food and jobs when they arrive….then drop them off at the country club and film it!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7vUvQHYc3K0

Tyrone Biggums is a go to! He talks about the “3rd street bus” in one sketch….I laughed so hard because I have taken that bus 100 times!!

My dad loved chatting u random folks in buses when he’d visit me in various cities. Cracked me up because folks wouldn’t treat him liek a deranged schizo as one should when being engaged in a conversation randomly on a bus but rather they’d engage back and share their stories. Utterly amazing. But we took buses like 1st Ave line in NYC or on Conn Ave from my crib to the zoo etc not
Below the Anacostia River prover by hunts point.

If you want to see real Americans, take a city bus. Manhattan doesn’t count.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Seems like you may be stuck in the pre 1940's, if you think things are ever going to change. Might be time for you to take off the broken record you keep repeating and move to something in this century. Once people get the taste of other peoples money, they ain't going back my friend.

Then two things:

1. Your Republican leaders need to stop making claims that small government is THE cornerstone of the Party.

2. What's left? Why would I vote Republican on a national level if they aren't small government? What doe they stand for?

They literally don't have a platform, YA. Literally. So...why would I vote for one, if THE thing that made a Republican a Republican until the year 2000....is gone?

well, the GOP also claimed to be strong defense back in the day too, so not sure the only or "THE" claim we had was for restrained government.

But your point is correct, it's amazing that the Tea Party true believers (and there were indeed many) have so totally abandoned those views in the cynical desire for power at any cost. Total hypocrisy.

I don't think it is hypocrisy; I think they saw an opening to get themselves into office and then became their completely untethered, unprincipled real selves. What has Jordan done as a legislator? What did Meadows do during his time in the House? These guys are performance artists.

[MDlaxfan76]

Seems like you may be stuck in the pre 1940's, if you think things are ever going to change. Might be time for you to take off the broken record you keep repeating and move to something in this century. Once people get the taste of other peoples money, they ain't going back my friend.

Then two things:

1. Your Republican leaders need to stop making claims that small government is THE cornerstone of the Party.

2. What's left? Why would I vote Republican on a national level if they aren't small government? What doe they stand for?

They literally don't have a platform, YA. Literally. So...why would I vote for one, if THE thing that made a Republican a Republican until the year 2000....is gone?

well, the GOP also claimed to be strong defense back in the day too, so not sure the only or "THE" claim we had was for restrained government.

But your point is correct, it's amazing that the Tea Party true believers (and there were indeed many) have so totally abandoned those views in the cynical desire for power at any cost. Total hypocrisy.

I don't think it is hypocrisy; I think they saw an opening to get themselves into office and then became their completely untethered, unprincipled real selves. What has Jordan done as a legislator? What did Meadows do during his time in the House? These guys are performance artists.

I agree re these politicians, never believed a word they said...it's the voters who were 'true believers'...until they had a better idol to worship, I guess.

[PizzaSnake]

Narrator is a little tiresome, but this offers a good explanation for why people live where they do in CONUS. Hint: it's the water, stupid...

Oh, and the irony of Lake Powell being named after a scientist who advised against the current political and governmental structures for "West" is breathtaking. Oh, and "line of aridity" is moving eastward...

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/ ... ving-east/

Terrific video. Thanks.

It supports my consistent recommendation that the Golden State Empire … uh, California … immediately launch a “special military operation” to secure virtually all of the Colorado River’s fresh water for the Imperial Province of Southern California.

I’m doing my part for water conservation by installing drip irrigation in my yard and forgoing sprinkling on weekends as well as limiting how much time the waterfalls run in my swimming pool.

DocBarrister

World doesn’t work like that

https://atlantaregional.org/natural-res ... -overview/

This is why PB is so soft and sensitive about Atlanta because like everything else we dominate Florida on this too.

ENVIRONMENT
A 3-Decade-Long Water Dispute Heads To The Supreme Court

January 7, 20206:07 AM ET
Debbie Elliot
DEBBIE ELLIOTT
Twitter
Instagram
Pinterest
Tumblr
GREG ALLEN
Twitter

Lake Lanier, a reservoir northeast of Atlanta, generates hydropower as its water is released from a dam into the Chattahoochee River. More than 6 million people depend on water from the reservoir.
Greg Allen/NPR
For three decades, Georgia and Florida have been battling over how to share a precious resource: water. Georgia has it, and Florida, which is downstream, says it's not getting its fair share. The dispute is once again headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Florida wants the justices to cap Georgia's water use. But a court-appointed special master recently rejected that idea.

More than 6 million people depend on water that starts at Lake Lanier, a reservoir northeast of Atlanta. It generates hydropower as its water is released from a dam into the Chattahoochee River.

"We generate power based on a peak demand," says powerhouse manager Cecil Quinley, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It's a big lake, covering some 60 square miles, but it fills slowly. In times of plenty, there's enough water to serve the needs of metro Atlanta plus communities, industry and farming in southern Georgia, eastern Alabama and a section of Florida's panhandle.

The problems arise when there's a drought.

"A one-year drought doesn't cause particular complications, but a three-year drought does," says Katherine Zitsch, with the Atlanta Regional Commission.

Sponsor Message

A drought from 2006 to 2008 led then-Gov. Sonny Perdue to hold a prayer meeting for rain. It also gave urgency to efforts by Florida and Alabama to fight for their share of a scarce resource that's becoming even more unpredictable as the climate warms.

After two decades of talks and lawsuits, Florida finally went to the Supreme Court in 2013, asking it to limit how much water Georgia could use.


The Flint River starts near Atlanta and meanders south to the border with Florida, passing through pine forests and providing water for small towns and lots of farmland.
Greg Allen/NPR
In Georgia, high-efficiency toilets and limits for farmers

Zitsch says Georgia has done a lot to limit its use. "It's high-efficiency toilets," she says. "It's conservation pricing, where the more water you use, the more you pay." It has worked so well that despite growing by 1.5 million people since 2000, metro Atlanta uses 10% less water.

Zitsch say the next step is to update water treatment plants so communities can reclaim water that was being lost. Gwinnett County has spent nearly a billion dollars building a plant that now gets wastewater clean enough so that it can be returned to the lake.

The Flint River is also part of the lawsuit. It starts near Atlanta and meanders south to the border with Florida, passing through pine forests and providing water for small towns and lots of farmland.

Sponsor Message

"If you want to grow a reliable, dependable quality crop," says Christopher Worsham, "it takes water. And it takes a lot of it."

Worsham's great-grandfather used mules to raise row crops here in Camilla, 50 miles north of the border with Florida. Now the family-run business, Worsham Farms, has a cavernous warehouse where pecans are sorted and bagged. Most will be shipped to China, a big market for premium Georgia pecans. Worsham also raises peanuts and corn, and they all require irrigation.


Christopher Worsham stands in his warehouse filled with Georgia pecans. Because of the droughts and the lawsuits, Georgia had to take a hard look at the water it uses for farming. It has placed a moratorium on new wells for agriculture and is requiring all farmers to move to more efficient irrigation systems.
Greg Allen/NPR
Because of the droughts and the lawsuits, Georgia had to take a hard look at the water it uses for farming. It has placed a moratorium on new wells for agriculture and is requiring all farmers to move to more efficient irrigation systems.

A short distance from the warehouse, pecan trees are lined up in rows. "This is actually where the water's coming from," says Worsham, as he bends down and points out a small black tube about the size of a straw. All his trees use this efficient drip irrigation.

For crops such as peanuts and corn, farmers have moved to low-pressure irrigation systems that use less water and lose less of it to evaporation. Most also now use soil sensors to let them know when and how much to irrigate.

"I don't see any of the other states doing it," says Worsham. Just across the state line, he says, "you can dig a well, and pump as much water, and do whatever you want."

Georgians say they're working to conserve water and are willing to compromise, but wonder if the same is true in Florida.


Apalachicola river keeper Georgia Ackerman says the water in Florida's Apalachicola Bay has declined so much that the needs of this local ecosystem are not being met.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
In Florida, estuary ecosystem faces "a slow death"

At the southernmost point of the Georgia-Florida water dispute is Florida's Apalachicola Bay, where there's not enough fresh water coming downriver to keep the estuary healthy.

"It's almost like a slow death," says Apalachicola river keeper Georgia Ackerman. "It's very difficult to watch."

She says the water has declined so much that the needs of this local ecosystem are not being met. "So it's kind of like we were taught in kindergarten. We need to share, and we need to share fairly."

Ackerman navigates an aluminum motorboat into the delta where the Apalachicola River and its tributaries empty into the bay.

"This used to be a breeding ground, you know, for shrimp and fish and crabs," says Shannon Hartsfield, president of the local seafood workers' association. "It's all changed up drastically."


The mix of salty seawater with the fresh river water flowing downstream historically has been a perfect environment for oysters. But today, Apalachicola oysters are hard to come by. After an extended drought, there was a total collapse in 2012.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
This is where the river meets the Gulf of Mexico and the tides mix salty seawater with the fresh river water flowing downstream. It's the perfect brew for what has historically been the most famous harvest here — oysters.

"Apalachicola oyster is known for half-shell oysters," Hartsfield says. "Everybody wants to eat them raw."

But they're hard to come by. Hartsfield comes from a family of oystermen and has watched the fishery decline in the last 20 years. After an extended drought, there was a total collapse in 2012. Hartsfield says it has yet to recover — going from more than 300 working oyster boats when he was a kid to about a dozen today.

"If we go through another drought that's even close to the 2012 drought, that's going to completely devastate and finish us off," he says.

As we move upriver, the vegetation changes from salt marsh to more of a wooded riverbank with towering cypress trees.


Trees line the water's edge along Florida's Apalachicola River. Millions of tupelo trees and freshwater grasses have been choked out by salt water creeping farther inshore.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
My tour guides point out what has already been lost, including millions of tupelo trees, and the freshwater marsh grasses that have been choked out by salt water creeping farther inshore.

UNESCO has recognized the region as a critical biosphere reserve.

"Without the Supreme Court giving relief to Florida from Georgia's domination of the water, we will see this ecosystem go away," says river keeper emeritus Dan Tonsmeire.

He has watched as attempts at a congressional remedy and tristate negotiations all failed to get more water downstream, leaving the question now to the Supreme Court.

Apalachicola is old Florida — no high-rise condos or big-box stores. Shops and restaurants downtown draw tourists alongside what's left of a working waterfront.


13 Mile Seafood is one of the few seafood-processing plants that are still open in the area.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
But once bustling seafood-processing plants are closed up and for sale. One of the few still in operation is 13 Mile Seafood, where workers in early December are hosing down the stainless steel shrimp-sorting table.

"It's kinda slow here now, so we're doing our maintenance," says Joseph "Smokey" Parrish, who has worked here for 37 years, overseeing the wholesale shrimp operation.

Parrish is also a Franklin County commissioner who has been embroiled in the water war since he was first elected in 2006.

"I've lived it my whole life," he says. "And I represent the people in Franklin County and all these jobs that we're losing."

Parrish says nearly 5,000 jobs are at stake if the fisheries here collapse.

"That's nothing for metro Atlanta. So in comparison, it may not mean much," he says. But what's at stake is "our history and our heritage and our way of life."


Joseph "Smokey" Parrish has worked at 13 Mile Seafood for 37 years. He oversees the wholesale shrimp operation and is also a Franklin County commissioner. He says nearly 5,000 jobs are at stake if the fisheries here collapse.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
These issues are going to become more critical with climate change, says Robin Kundis Craig, the James I. Farr presidential endowed chair of law at the University of Utah.

She specializes in water law and says compacts have worked in the West where water is scarce. But she says there's a different dynamic here.

"Climate change is introducing the East to bigger and worse droughts, but also bigger and worse floods," Craig says. Figuring out how to share water given that extreme variability may be even more difficult than simply coping with a shortage.

"Ecosystems need water too," she says, "and there's no real precedent for how to fit that into these equitable apportionment decisions."

"This is why PB is so soft and sensitive about Atlanta because like everything else we dominate Florida on this too."

Yup, Florida (and DeSatan) are sncking hind teat.

[youthathletics]

Seems like you may be stuck in the pre 1940's, if you think things are ever going to change. Might be time for you to take off the broken record you keep repeating and move to something in this century. Once people get the taste of other peoples money, they ain't going back my friend.

Then two things:

1. Your Republican leaders need to stop making claims that small government is THE cornerstone of the Party.

2. What's left? Why would I vote Republican on a national level if they aren't small government? What do they stand for?

They literally don't have a platform, YA. Literally. So...why would I vote for one, if THE thing that made a Republican a Republican until the year 2000....is gone?

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money. The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

What say you....agree or disagree? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/li ... rnment.asp

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties, if you sever the fringes on both side. I think both sides play off of each other to tip cash back and forth that keeps us moving forward.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://reason.com/2018/05/19/stop-call ... the-party/

I used the term "restrained" government...I continue to believe that it is important to restrain government. The opposite is authoritarianism.

However, it is the GOP which has defined government in terms like "big government" and "small government" and associated that with fiscal spending, low taxes, and low regulation...hypocritically as it turns out. Most recently Tea Party advocates turned into Trump supporters, with massive increases in spending and lots and lots of government intrusion into people's private lives. But they did cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, which was always the goal for those actually pulling the strings.

[Farfromgeneva]

If there’s money to be made, I see no reason to doubt the damaged areas will be rebuilt. Are there examples where redevelopment after an disaster was curtailed or limited?

Yes. Here's one in Houston.

https://www.hcfcd.org/Activity/Addition ... ut-Program

Looks like an intelligent program.

I wonder whether it's time to attach strings on federal support?
Relocation rather than rebuild?
Resilient infrastructure?
Flood mitigation, wetlands absorption etc?

There are sound examples of developments that are resilient and energy independent, including in Florida.
Support relocation to such and not those which are doomed for further catastrophe?

Send them all the Sebring, Ocala and the Villages!

tell them they are going to have housing, food and jobs when they arrive….then drop them off at the country club and film it!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7vUvQHYc3K0

Tyrone Biggums is a go to! He talks about the “3rd street bus” in one sketch….I laughed so hard because I have taken that bus 100 times!!

My dad loved chatting u random folks in buses when he’d visit me in various cities. Cracked me up because folks wouldn’t treat him liek a deranged schizo as one should when being engaged in a conversation randomly on a bus but rather they’d engage back and share their stories. Utterly amazing. But we took buses like 1st Ave line in NYC or on Conn Ave from my crib to the zoo etc not
Below the Anacostia River prover by hunts point.

If you want to see real Americans, take a city bus. Manhattan doesn’t count.

Not just Manhattan any city on certain routes. Staying in NW DC same deal.

I took one often in HS.

[Farfromgeneva]

Narrator is a little tiresome, but this offers a good explanation for why people live where they do in CONUS. Hint: it's the water, stupid...

Oh, and the irony of Lake Powell being named after a scientist who advised against the current political and governmental structures for "West" is breathtaking. Oh, and "line of aridity" is moving eastward...

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/ ... ving-east/

Terrific video. Thanks.

It supports my consistent recommendation that the Golden State Empire … uh, California … immediately launch a “special military operation” to secure virtually all of the Colorado River’s fresh water for the Imperial Province of Southern California.

I’m doing my part for water conservation by installing drip irrigation in my yard and forgoing sprinkling on weekends as well as limiting how much time the waterfalls run in my swimming pool.

DocBarrister

World doesn’t work like that

https://atlantaregional.org/natural-res ... -overview/

This is why PB is so soft and sensitive about Atlanta because like everything else we dominate Florida on this too.

ENVIRONMENT
A 3-Decade-Long Water Dispute Heads To The Supreme Court

January 7, 20206:07 AM ET
Debbie Elliot
DEBBIE ELLIOTT
Twitter
Instagram
Pinterest
Tumblr
GREG ALLEN
Twitter

Lake Lanier, a reservoir northeast of Atlanta, generates hydropower as its water is released from a dam into the Chattahoochee River. More than 6 million people depend on water from the reservoir.
Greg Allen/NPR
For three decades, Georgia and Florida have been battling over how to share a precious resource: water. Georgia has it, and Florida, which is downstream, says it's not getting its fair share. The dispute is once again headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Florida wants the justices to cap Georgia's water use. But a court-appointed special master recently rejected that idea.

More than 6 million people depend on water that starts at Lake Lanier, a reservoir northeast of Atlanta. It generates hydropower as its water is released from a dam into the Chattahoochee River.

"We generate power based on a peak demand," says powerhouse manager Cecil Quinley, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It's a big lake, covering some 60 square miles, but it fills slowly. In times of plenty, there's enough water to serve the needs of metro Atlanta plus communities, industry and farming in southern Georgia, eastern Alabama and a section of Florida's panhandle.

The problems arise when there's a drought.

"A one-year drought doesn't cause particular complications, but a three-year drought does," says Katherine Zitsch, with the Atlanta Regional Commission.

Sponsor Message

A drought from 2006 to 2008 led then-Gov. Sonny Perdue to hold a prayer meeting for rain. It also gave urgency to efforts by Florida and Alabama to fight for their share of a scarce resource that's becoming even more unpredictable as the climate warms.

After two decades of talks and lawsuits, Florida finally went to the Supreme Court in 2013, asking it to limit how much water Georgia could use.


The Flint River starts near Atlanta and meanders south to the border with Florida, passing through pine forests and providing water for small towns and lots of farmland.
Greg Allen/NPR
In Georgia, high-efficiency toilets and limits for farmers

Zitsch says Georgia has done a lot to limit its use. "It's high-efficiency toilets," she says. "It's conservation pricing, where the more water you use, the more you pay." It has worked so well that despite growing by 1.5 million people since 2000, metro Atlanta uses 10% less water.

Zitsch say the next step is to update water treatment plants so communities can reclaim water that was being lost. Gwinnett County has spent nearly a billion dollars building a plant that now gets wastewater clean enough so that it can be returned to the lake.

The Flint River is also part of the lawsuit. It starts near Atlanta and meanders south to the border with Florida, passing through pine forests and providing water for small towns and lots of farmland.

Sponsor Message

"If you want to grow a reliable, dependable quality crop," says Christopher Worsham, "it takes water. And it takes a lot of it."

Worsham's great-grandfather used mules to raise row crops here in Camilla, 50 miles north of the border with Florida. Now the family-run business, Worsham Farms, has a cavernous warehouse where pecans are sorted and bagged. Most will be shipped to China, a big market for premium Georgia pecans. Worsham also raises peanuts and corn, and they all require irrigation.


Christopher Worsham stands in his warehouse filled with Georgia pecans. Because of the droughts and the lawsuits, Georgia had to take a hard look at the water it uses for farming. It has placed a moratorium on new wells for agriculture and is requiring all farmers to move to more efficient irrigation systems.
Greg Allen/NPR
Because of the droughts and the lawsuits, Georgia had to take a hard look at the water it uses for farming. It has placed a moratorium on new wells for agriculture and is requiring all farmers to move to more efficient irrigation systems.

A short distance from the warehouse, pecan trees are lined up in rows. "This is actually where the water's coming from," says Worsham, as he bends down and points out a small black tube about the size of a straw. All his trees use this efficient drip irrigation.

For crops such as peanuts and corn, farmers have moved to low-pressure irrigation systems that use less water and lose less of it to evaporation. Most also now use soil sensors to let them know when and how much to irrigate.

"I don't see any of the other states doing it," says Worsham. Just across the state line, he says, "you can dig a well, and pump as much water, and do whatever you want."

Georgians say they're working to conserve water and are willing to compromise, but wonder if the same is true in Florida.


Apalachicola river keeper Georgia Ackerman says the water in Florida's Apalachicola Bay has declined so much that the needs of this local ecosystem are not being met.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
In Florida, estuary ecosystem faces "a slow death"

At the southernmost point of the Georgia-Florida water dispute is Florida's Apalachicola Bay, where there's not enough fresh water coming downriver to keep the estuary healthy.

"It's almost like a slow death," says Apalachicola river keeper Georgia Ackerman. "It's very difficult to watch."

She says the water has declined so much that the needs of this local ecosystem are not being met. "So it's kind of like we were taught in kindergarten. We need to share, and we need to share fairly."

Ackerman navigates an aluminum motorboat into the delta where the Apalachicola River and its tributaries empty into the bay.

"This used to be a breeding ground, you know, for shrimp and fish and crabs," says Shannon Hartsfield, president of the local seafood workers' association. "It's all changed up drastically."


The mix of salty seawater with the fresh river water flowing downstream historically has been a perfect environment for oysters. But today, Apalachicola oysters are hard to come by. After an extended drought, there was a total collapse in 2012.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
This is where the river meets the Gulf of Mexico and the tides mix salty seawater with the fresh river water flowing downstream. It's the perfect brew for what has historically been the most famous harvest here — oysters.

"Apalachicola oyster is known for half-shell oysters," Hartsfield says. "Everybody wants to eat them raw."

But they're hard to come by. Hartsfield comes from a family of oystermen and has watched the fishery decline in the last 20 years. After an extended drought, there was a total collapse in 2012. Hartsfield says it has yet to recover — going from more than 300 working oyster boats when he was a kid to about a dozen today.

"If we go through another drought that's even close to the 2012 drought, that's going to completely devastate and finish us off," he says.

As we move upriver, the vegetation changes from salt marsh to more of a wooded riverbank with towering cypress trees.


Trees line the water's edge along Florida's Apalachicola River. Millions of tupelo trees and freshwater grasses have been choked out by salt water creeping farther inshore.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
My tour guides point out what has already been lost, including millions of tupelo trees, and the freshwater marsh grasses that have been choked out by salt water creeping farther inshore.

UNESCO has recognized the region as a critical biosphere reserve.

"Without the Supreme Court giving relief to Florida from Georgia's domination of the water, we will see this ecosystem go away," says river keeper emeritus Dan Tonsmeire.

He has watched as attempts at a congressional remedy and tristate negotiations all failed to get more water downstream, leaving the question now to the Supreme Court.

Apalachicola is old Florida — no high-rise condos or big-box stores. Shops and restaurants downtown draw tourists alongside what's left of a working waterfront.


13 Mile Seafood is one of the few seafood-processing plants that are still open in the area.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
But once bustling seafood-processing plants are closed up and for sale. One of the few still in operation is 13 Mile Seafood, where workers in early December are hosing down the stainless steel shrimp-sorting table.

"It's kinda slow here now, so we're doing our maintenance," says Joseph "Smokey" Parrish, who has worked here for 37 years, overseeing the wholesale shrimp operation.

Parrish is also a Franklin County commissioner who has been embroiled in the water war since he was first elected in 2006.

"I've lived it my whole life," he says. "And I represent the people in Franklin County and all these jobs that we're losing."

Parrish says nearly 5,000 jobs are at stake if the fisheries here collapse.

"That's nothing for metro Atlanta. So in comparison, it may not mean much," he says. But what's at stake is "our history and our heritage and our way of life."


Joseph "Smokey" Parrish has worked at 13 Mile Seafood for 37 years. He oversees the wholesale shrimp operation and is also a Franklin County commissioner. He says nearly 5,000 jobs are at stake if the fisheries here collapse.
Debbie Elliott/NPR
These issues are going to become more critical with climate change, says Robin Kundis Craig, the James I. Farr presidential endowed chair of law at the University of Utah.

She specializes in water law and says compacts have worked in the West where water is scarce. But she says there's a different dynamic here.

"Climate change is introducing the East to bigger and worse droughts, but also bigger and worse floods," Craig says. Figuring out how to share water given that extreme variability may be even more difficult than simply coping with a shortage.

"Ecosystems need water too," she says, "and there's no real precedent for how to fit that into these equitable apportionment decisions."

"This is why PB is so soft and sensitive about Atlanta because like everything else we dominate Florida on this too."

Yup, Florida (and DeSatan) are sncking hind teat.

He would lose it in his way if I ever mentioned the generally accepted concept of Atlanta being a unofficial Capitol city of the south. And I could personally care less but a lot of activity does revolve around it as the nexus and it is the largest and economically largest City in the region.

I feel bad for some Floridians that we stole their water but not all of them..

[a fan]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

[youthathletics]

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

Hogan has done that and he is in charge, in a deep blue sea state.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

Honorable men, that worked, yes....for sure. Also in an era of the longest post recession recovery in history, cmon man, you gotta stop with this binary logic applied to all, nuance matters. .But my point is the same, the pols in charge where raking in the cash, with little to no oversight. That oversight, which we can argue, put us in the growing situation of environmental focus and legislation, thus making it harder for small business.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

Agreed, all part of incremental gov't scope creep...to do what? Yep, pump money back to the gov't AND protect the enviorment/safety. It's why we argue about grease traps and why I can't have a concrete driveway in Florida....Nuance Matters.

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

I do not disagree, for the most part....I think you take the liberty of using a broad brush stroke to lump all the r's as the same. Or maybe I am the one that is too optimistic and appreciate how both sides dig in their heels to slow things down, rather than some oscillating out of control PID loop. It's why I wanted Kasich and its why I like Hogan.

[wgdsr]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

It’s is called political entertainment. There is a lot of money in it. For the politicians and for the industry participants. Voters don’t pick politicians. Politicians pick their voters (generally). The politicians’ objective is to remain in office. In the last 20 years, politicians (congressmen and senators) have realized that they have a better chance staying in office by doing nothing other that obstructing the other side. Gained momentum when Obama was in office and it has only gotten worse. I don’t cheer for them and don’t wear a team color. But I will say that the Republican Party has been so offensive over these past few years that I won’t vote for another during my lifetime…..my ballot was 60/40 to 50/50 (purposely) up until the last cycle.

[PizzaSnake]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they snck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who snck. Maybe something else sncks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sncks. F*ck Hope.” -GC

“Here’s looking at you, kid.” -Casablanca

[MDlaxfan76]

youth, we agree re Hogan...and there are some other GOP Governors who are similar, though that's dwindling fast.

Those of us, in or formerly in the GOP, who agree on most of these issues, perhaps with some smaller differences, are now a minority of the overall potential GOP voting group, and a tiny portion of the GOP primary voting group. Even here in Maryland, having had the experience of having successfully held the Governor's office for 8 years, the GOP base rejected Hogan's choice of a moderate, competent Republican in favor of a complete whack job ultra right wing jerk who quite obviously had zero chance of winning against any remotely attractive Dem candidate. In the primary, I voted for the gal who was Hogan's choice...but that was a losing proposition given the radical swing of the party base.

So, it's now fair to say that the GOP has been firmly taken over by whatever label one wants to apply to the MAGA, "America First", white nationalist, Trump-cult, election denying, authoritarian, government control of individual privacy rights, etc coalition.

Not all members of that coalition exhibit complete cohesion on all issues described above, but they do exhibit passive acceptance of the worst of such in their coalition.

My wife, a lifelong Republican, has formally left the GOP. I haven't changed my registration (much to my son's chagrin), but I don't think there's a Republican at any level that I'll be voting for in this cycle nor likely in 2024, given no one on my ballot locally who isn't an election denier...It's likely I won't be able to do so in 2024 either. Maybe there will be a state delegate or county executive opportunity that's not MAGA tainted, but that's just wishful thinking at this point.

At the national level, this ultra right wing coalition of the GOP needs to be soundly defeated at every turn before I'll be able to even consider voting for a GOP candidate in a general election.

That's not going to happen overnight, apparently, given the SCOTUS rulings enabling dark money, (racial) gerrymandering, and the potential that they'll actually adopt the independent state legislature doctrine this term.

I'm with conservative Judge Luttig on this one too:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rt/671625/

[wgdsr]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

It’s is called political entertainment. There is a lot of money in it. For the politicians and for the industry participants. Voters don’t pick politicians. Politicians pick their voters (generally). The politicians’ objective is to remain in office. In the last 20 years, politicians (congressmen and senators) have realized that they have a better chance staying in office by doing nothing other that obstructing the other side. Gained momentum when Obama was in office and it has only gotten worse. I don’t cheer for them and don’t wear a team color. But I will say that the Republican Party has been so offensive over these past few years that I won’t vote for another during my lifetime…..my ballot was 60/40 to 50/50 (purposely) up until the last cycle.

voters absolutely pick this system (ipso facto, politicians). no accountability, little oversight on influence, own the other side. them losing is just as good as me winning.

they choose it every election cycle.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

It’s is called political entertainment. There is a lot of money in it. For the politicians and for the industry participants. Voters don’t pick politicians. Politicians pick their voters (generally). The politicians’ objective is to remain in office. In the last 20 years, politicians (congressmen and senators) have realized that they have a better chance staying in office by doing nothing other that obstructing the other side. Gained momentum when Obama was in office and it has only gotten worse. I don’t cheer for them and don’t wear a team color. But I will say that the Republican Party has been so offensive over these past few years that I won’t vote for another during my lifetime…..my ballot was 60/40 to 50/50 (purposely) up until the last cycle.

voters absolutely pick this system (ipso facto, politicians). no accountability, little oversight on influence, own the other side. them losing is just as good as me winning.

they choose it every election cycle.

politicians set districts to capture who is highly likely to vote for them while avoiding who is unlikely to vote for them. Sophisticated software has enabled the districting to get down to census tract levels if needed. Nobody envisioned this type of programming 25 years ago. Nobody is forcing the people to vote, however.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Field is tilted against the “will of the people”….

[wgdsr]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

It’s is called political entertainment. There is a lot of money in it. For the politicians and for the industry participants. Voters don’t pick politicians. Politicians pick their voters (generally). The politicians’ objective is to remain in office. In the last 20 years, politicians (congressmen and senators) have realized that they have a better chance staying in office by doing nothing other that obstructing the other side. Gained momentum when Obama was in office and it has only gotten worse. I don’t cheer for them and don’t wear a team color. But I will say that the Republican Party has been so offensive over these past few years that I won’t vote for another during my lifetime…..my ballot was 60/40 to 50/50 (purposely) up until the last cycle.

voters absolutely pick this system (ipso facto, politicians). no accountability, little oversight on influence, own the other side. them losing is just as good as me winning.

they choose it every election cycle.

politicians set districts to capture who is highly likely to vote for them while avoiding who is unlikely to vote for them. Sophisticated software has enabled the districting to get down to census tract levels if needed. Nobody envisioned this type of programming 25 years ago. Nobody is forcing the people to vote, however.

i mean, yeah, that's the system. and we keep voting for it. any system change would take disruption, because they hold the cards.

the senate is pretty close to 50/50 as of now. one true independent and 3-4 others who might actually not be party line, all the time. what if that number doubled, and/or the 3rd party number grew by more than that? or if tossups started losing elections because of 3rd parties taking away their w's? we'd see some semblance of our stronghold parties have to wake up to a different way of governing. but we don't do that. it's d or r.

it doesn't start with a river or a flood, it starts with a drop or a bucket. there are some people that still push against that and run even as all hope may be lost. so it's not dead, but it is on life support.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am not ignoring you two bullet points. So that we are on the same page....please clarify what small government means from afans perspective and where the leaders of the republican party coined the term small gov't and have it tied solely to money.

Speaking Federally? I'll make it SUPER easy....a complete layup for your party.

1. Spend 10% less than the Dems do. That's a REALLY low bar, and simplifies things without using the traditional method, which is GDP to spending ratio. That's it. Do that.

2. Pay your bills. Which is the ONE thing your party REFUSES to do. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes while in office. Why? To keep the deficit at a reasonable level, and to keep inflation from creeping up.

That's it. That's as low of a bar as you can get. And your team is doing NEITHER of these things.

How much money do you think I could make off of TrumpFans if I asked them "how much did Trump cut the US Federal budget". They have NO IDEA that he increased the size of the Federal Government in four years by 66%.

When you read my quote above, it couples that all pols want is cash flowing towards their pockets in one way or another. Hell, you can even argue that the wealthiest republicans of yesteryear, the tried and true, wanted the very same......money, more of it, and ways to avoid the gov't getting in their way to make more money.

Demonstrably untrue. How do you think we got to a top tax rate of north of 94% post WWII? I'll tell you how: honorable men who believed in getting our fiscal house in order, and paying off our WWII debt, that's how.

And after that? They were replaced by men who were men enough to believe in A. paying for what they got from the government, and B. not handing their bills to their children. Imagine that? Boomers have no shame...the very first middle class in American "got theirs", and have no intention of paying the debt down, OR holding their leaders accountable for reckless spending. So that's exactly what our politicians give us. They're doing what we tell them to do-------give us free sh*t so we can pretend we're independent

Remember "you didn't build that"? And how offended Republican voters were? Hypocrites. NO, you didn't freaking build that. The Federal government did. Let me know when you want to stop taking their money.

The latter being the 'small' that apparently gets us tripped up. Much like what you complain about when building things....the damned red tape.

Republicans fail there, too. Ever meet a Republican who wanted to allow businesses to open where they damn well feel like it? Ever try and put an addition on your home? Here, too, Republicans are about THEIR PERSONAL freedom. Everyone else can F off. And yep, Dems do it too...but their sales pitch is: a regulated market.

How many times have I told you that if Republican States and Cities REALLY were freedom vs. regulation? They'd win EVERY election, in every State. I'd vote for that so fast, It would make your head spin. Wanna open a bar in a neighborhood? Go right ahead. Wanna turn your home into a restaurant? Knock yourself out.

Republicans are NOWHERE CLOSE to do that.

In the end, I honestly do not believe there is much difference between the two parties,

Fiscally? Yes. Where they are different are on civil rights. Or, if you prefer---the culture wars. What I call "stick it to the gays".

So that being the case? Why would I vote for the Republican party if they spend more than the Dems, don't believe in fiscal responsibility, and take every opportunity to stick it to minorities (think: voting) ?

It's why it's easier for me to vote for Republicans on the State and local level: for the most part, they don't have much power to stick it to the gays, and in my State? They CAN'T borrow money and run up a tab...which they would most assuredly do if you let them.

Although DeSantis found a way to chase after that dogwhistle of "say you hate gays without saying you hate gays" with his stupid, pointless bill that was designed to tell voters that he doesn't like gay Americans. A dogwhistle.

And if you don't get my overall message? I'd be in your party very fast if they did what they claimed. It's why I'm so angry with them. It's why the get so many slings and arrows from me.....I'm a frustrated Republican. Especially the part about keeping government out of our lives...which is yet another failed promise from Republicans.

getting upset at politicians has become a national pastime, but there's little evidence they're doing anything but as instructed, as you say. this is on the people, and you get what you pay for.

if more folks took the opportunity to vote with their ideal (independent and the occasional non-looney libertarian), there may be some movement. sadly, those days are past and may not be coming back. and the machine grows larger.

It’s is called political entertainment. There is a lot of money in it. For the politicians and for the industry participants. Voters don’t pick politicians. Politicians pick their voters (generally). The politicians’ objective is to remain in office. In the last 20 years, politicians (congressmen and senators) have realized that they have a better chance staying in office by doing nothing other that obstructing the other side. Gained momentum when Obama was in office and it has only gotten worse. I don’t cheer for them and don’t wear a team color. But I will say that the Republican Party has been so offensive over these past few years that I won’t vote for another during my lifetime…..my ballot was 60/40 to 50/50 (purposely) up until the last cycle.

voters absolutely pick this system (ipso facto, politicians). no accountability, little oversight on influence, own the other side. them losing is just as good as me winning.

they choose it every election cycle.

politicians set districts to capture who is highly likely to vote for them while avoiding who is unlikely to vote for them. Sophisticated software has enabled the districting to get down to census tract levels if needed. Nobody envisioned this type of programming 25 years ago. Nobody is forcing the people to vote, however.

i mean, yeah, that's the system. and we keep voting for it. any system change would take disruption, because they hold the cards.

the senate is pretty close to 50/50 as of now. one true independent and 3-4 others who might actually not be party line, all the time. what if that number doubled, and/or the 3rd party number grew by more than that? or if tossups started losing elections because of 3rd parties taking away their w's? we'd see some semblance of our stronghold parties have to wake up to a different way of governing. but we don't do that. it's d or r.

it doesn't start with a river or a flood, it starts with a drop or a bucket. there are some people that still push against that and run even as all hope may be lost. so it's not dead, but it is on life support.

There hasn’t been an empire in the history of this planet that willingly gave up power to the people. Politicians work for and are part of the ruling class. This “the Elite” are out to get you is just nonsense that rubes drink. On what planet is the ruling class not “elite”… it’s laughable.

[wgdsr]

you're running a direct line of conclusions that i'm not following from what was the original discussion, or at least my original point. keep trying to pull it back in, and i believe it makes sense to you, but again not following. so maybe i'm out?