2018 Midterm Elections

[runrussellrun]

Mr. Chairman, you know -- and I mean you actually know -- better than this. There are no barriers to entry for voting for me; over 18, not a felon, you get to vote. You know what a low information voter is when you see him or her. They don't do any of the spade work to understand what this candidate or that candidate might mean; they are swept on a magic carpet ride of invective, rather than a meaningful idea of how the candidate's ideas and leanings and background and connections might effect them and their families.

Democracy needs an educated consumer and voter; today we tweet and retweet. It means trouble.

that i can pick them out is irrelevant- what are you trying to say about low information voters? they should be able to exercise their vote at whatever level of diligence they choose- not the level you choose.

so what do i have to do to become a "high information" voter? read the atlantic? live on the coasts???

just my opinion. i respect yours.

I think low information voter is a misnomer. I think the more appropriate term is low effort voter, confirmation bias voter, or something similar.

Take my aunt for instance. She's Pre Baby-Boomer (a war baby), went to one of the best universities in the country, ran her own foreign affairs research company for years, and can outsmart most of us on here. But she regularly posts easily debunked things on social media. One recent example was that Facebook was banning the Marines EGA logo. If she took about 30 seconds to search, she would have found some pretty detailed stories about a particular group getting banned from Facebook due to highly inflammatory posts, and they used the logo on their page. Hell, if you just go to the official Marines facebook page, it's plastered all over the place, so it's obviously not true.

I see it from liberal friends as well - they re-share things that are designed to inflame your emotions and get you riled up, and many times are stretching the truth or flat out wrong.

Anecdotally I see it way more from right-leaning friends and family, but there have been a number of studies surrounding knowledge of current events and where people get their news from that support that observation.

While the term "low information voter" may be technically true in some regards, it's a term that people will take offense to. Come to think of it, "emotional voters" may be the most apropos term. And as I've said many times over the years here and on LP, it's easier to drum up emotional responses when you present yourself as being attacked, which Republicans have nearly perfected as a campaign strategy over the past 14 years IMO.

ANyone that has a fecesbook account, especially using it on a phone, is pathetic. Better off watching soap operas.

So, Holmes, the important thing is , do YOU point out to your liberal friends, on fecebook, that they are WRONG? The answer is important in so many ways.

[runrussellrun]

538 Polls 12 days out -- Have democrats picking up 38 seats in the House and taking control. In the Senate, no change in numbers. AZ goes for the democrat and ND goes for the republican. A wash with McCaskill and Heller, leading but toss ups. Looks like democrats will pick up a handfull of governorships. Manchin is predicted to win by 8.5 points.

And so what....what will change? No 3rd party candidate projected as winning or getting donations from Boeing, MickyDoug, Raymeoron, Cargill, Merck, Pfizer, etc.

E-verify STILL won't pass. Can't tRump just EXO it to happen?

[jhu72]

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's (D-ND) vote against Brett Kavanaugh may end up costing her a chance at reelection. What it hasn't cost her, however, is campaign funds. In fact, she is awash in cash from donors since she cast that vote, to the tune of $12.5 million in the first 17 days of October. By contrast, in all of Q3 (July to September), she pulled in $3.8 million. Nearly all of the $12.5 million came in the form of small donations from outside North Dakota.

One can only imagine what Heitkamp will do with that much money. In North Dakota, one of the cheapest media markets in the country, that is pretty much enough to buy every single commercial slot from now to the election and to have $6 or $7 million left at a time when her opponent, Kevin Cramer (R), is down to less than $1 million. It's likely that Heitkamp will also spend some money helping to get the Native American vote out, and she may set some aside for a future gubernatorial run. Meanwhile, this is another chapter in America's (apparent) move toward individual citizens using their money to influence specific votes by lawmakers. Maybe that is bad news, corruption-wise, or maybe it's just balancing the scales in a world where Citizens United is the law of the land.


Taegan Goddard

[MDlaxfan76]

538 Polls 12 days out -- Have democrats picking up 38 seats in the House and taking control. In the Senate, no change in numbers. AZ goes for the democrat and ND goes for the republican. A wash with McCaskill and Heller, leading but toss ups. Looks like democrats will pick up a handfull of governorships. Manchin is predicted to win by 8.5 points.

And so what....what will change? No 3rd party candidate projected as winning or getting donations from Boeing, MickyDoug, Raymeoron, Cargill, Merck, Pfizer, etc.

E-verify STILL won't pass. Can't tRump just EXO it to happen?

What will change, if that happens, is that Trumpism will begin to be repudiated and some balance of power and rule of law will be restored. Trumpism won't fully be repudiated until 2020's vote, but there will no longer be a shield from corruption investigations and budgets will be constrained.

I tend to think it's too rosy a scenario to expect the Senate to switch hands. That means that judicial appointments will be in GOP hands for another two years.

I realize, Fatty, that you won't ever be satisfied by any resolution other than a dictatorship that reflects your individual value system and assumptions (meaning you as dictator), but that, too, is way, way out of reach (or at least I hope it is).

I do have a concern that the pendulum, having been pushed so hard far right, will swing hard to the far left. The failure of senior GOP leadership to stand up to Trumpism and its embrace of various forms of bigotry has, I fear, done huge damage to the GOP's future legitimacy.

[dislaxxic]

Don't disagree exactly, but for all else we've learned in the last couple years, one thing seems clear enough...much of our electorate isn't all that concerned by policy details, and to the extent they ARE...they just don't seem educated enough ABOUT issues to be able to divine how best to address them...how to put people in place, in government, to put policy they believe will be good for them and/or the country into effect.

That's kinda depressing, but at the end of the day, it seems to be largely an issue of HOW to educate voters. There is so much flying around in the media space, the political arena, that sorting it all out becomes a YUGE challenge.

Something that SEEMS like it could effectively right this situation somewhat would be to address the issue of campaign finance. SOO tough a nut...i mean McCain - Feingold moved things a bit, but look what happened to that law...maybe ballot initiatives could somehow move the needle in that area? I don't know...

..

[youthathletics]

You are showing your age diss.....BIGLY, or is it BIG LEAGUE? Anyway, you are basing all your thoughts on the past, which is not entirely wrong, but is limiting your vision. I am certain if we opened up the archive of LP, we would find that you were completely fine with BHO's vision to "Fundamentally Change America", no? Yea, I know....BUT it is significantly different with Trump because he fights back without wordsmith finesse. Only now, that a non touchy freely POTUS, with a business-centric acumen, oh and an unofficial (r) by his name ( i say that because he is likely a d in hiding), that's why he knows how to politically fight so well remember, he has been surrounded by them for years and supported the Clinton regime.

Give it some time, open your mind, visit downtown and look at all the tower cranes with building under construction, the roadwork improvements are chaos into late October, the employment numbers are still trending in the right direction for the past 8 years.

Your holding on too tight....enjoy the video clip. Have a great weekend diss.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don't disagree exactly, but for all else we've learned in the last couple years, one thing seems clear enough...much of our electorate isn't all that concerned by policy details, and to the extent they ARE...they just don't seem educated enough ABOUT issues to be able to divine how best to address them...how to put people in place, in government, to put policy they believe will be good for them and/or the country into effect.

That's kinda depressing, but at the end of the day, it seems to be largely an issue of HOW to educate voters. There is so much flying around in the media space, the political arena, that sorting it all out becomes a YUGE challenge.

Something that SEEMS like it could effectively right this situation somewhat would be to address the issue of campaign finance. SOO tough a nut...i mean McCain - Feingold moved things a bit, but look what happened to that law...maybe ballot initiatives could somehow move the needle in that area? I don't know...

..

Understood; it is indeed frustrating.

But I'd far prefer to "muddle" through, frustratingly slowly, imperfectly, than trust an authoritarian, the utopian, or the mob.

Which is the fundamental aspect of 'conservatism,' not all this ugly, hard-right BS we're getting told is "conservative".

Right now, the first, essential, (maybe even existential for some), step must be to repudiate Trumpism. After that, let's get back to actual policy debates and experimentation.

[cradleandshoot]

The most fundamental aspect of conservatism as I understand it starts with being fiscally responsible and living within your means. That would be both as an individual and as a nation. That cornerstone of conservative thinking has been kicked to the curb by the Republicans. These nasty little Republicans bashed the Democrats for years for doing the same thing they are doing today. The difference is that both parties have opposing priorities where they want to spend taxpayer money. The concept that we can't afford to do all the things we would like to do has gone by the wayside. The nation will just keep throwing more trillions of dollars at problems hoping that if you spend enough money you can solve any problem under the sun. The nation is well over 20 trillion in debt and just as screwed up as it was before the spending spree started. angry9

[dislaxxic]

Sorry, i don't get the point you're trying to make, youth. What i wrote was about how muddled the message we all get about policy from candidates and then from elected officials gets so bollixed up that voters can't really make wise choices in the process of putting these people in place. You're not trying to say that Donald gave us clear policy choices as a candidate, are you? Build That Wall. "Lousey Deals" re Foreign Affairs and Trade? What, exactly WERE (are??) his policies?

Recollection tells me that the "Fundamental Change" Obama spoke about was about the partisan divide we saw during the Bush years. Did Obama FACE, or CAUSE further partisan divide after he was elected? Ask Mitch McConnell. Our conservative friends around here like to blame Obama for CAUSING racial and policy divides, which i absolutely dispute. We go round and round about that here in these pages, but i don't get what that has to do with setting policy and trying to prosecute it once elected. Obama tried, in the face of absolute obstruction regarding healthcare, to address that policy. Messaging from various power groups in the field, and political messaging and opposition from Mitch and his crowd destroyed the process to such a degree that many in the country chose Donald Trump because they had been brainwashed about healthcare policy for so long...and lo and behold, check the news today, most rank and file conservative voters LIKE the way healthcare policy has evolved, despite the republican efforts to sabotage it.

I'm just saying what many here have echoed lately, that the 1% yanks our chains to such a degree, and keeps fanning the flames of partisan rancor, that dealing with it seems to be such an insurmountable problem. One thought i had was ballot initiatives regarding campaign finance. I need to get on the Google machine and see how McCain-Feingold came to be, and what happened to it...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

The most fundamental aspect of conservatism as I understand it starts with being fiscally responsible and living within your means. That would be both as an individual and as a nation. That cornerstone of conservative thinking has been kicked to the curb by the Republicans. These nasty little Republicans bashed the Democrats for years for doing the same thing they are doing today. The difference is that both parties have opposing priorities where they want to spend taxpayer money. The concept that we can't afford to do all the things we would like to do has gone by the wayside. The nation will just keep throwing more trillions of dollars at problems hoping that if you spend enough money you can solve any problem under the sun. The nation is well over 20 trillion in debt and just as screwed up as it was before the spending spree started. angry9

Certainly, fiscal responsibility has been a natural ally of actual 'conservatism'. The connection is mostly about not wasting money. Conserving resources. Rainy days will come.

IMO, in the past couple of decades that got twisted by some in the GOP into 'balanced budget' concepts that ignore ROI. Which may well have been more about the politics than actual 'conservatism'. A counterpoint rationale to the desire by Dems to spend/invest in social programs favored by their constituencies rather than spending on GOP favored programs. Guns vs butter. With a big dose of social argument mixed in, driven in large part by the GOP's seeking the support of white evangelicals especially in the south.

So, perhaps that's why the GOP folks who purported to be 'fiscal conservatives', even Tea Party advocates, have found it so easy to abandon fiscal responsibility once given the reins of power to spend as they wish. The rapid abandonment of principle does seem shocking though.

Note that Investments in future outcomes are fine within a conservative viewpoint. However they need to be made thoughtfully and carefully so as to not waste resources, so as to conserve resources for future requirements and opportunities.

But that doesn't mean that a conservative is unwilling to invest or to utilize debt to do so. That said, debt is understood by the true fiscal conservative to have a serious cost and increase in risk, thus the return on that investment needs to be carefully considered and measured. Experiments help to increase predictability, decrease risk, improve risk-adjusted ROI. Focus on efficiency and accountability are bulwarks for making sound investments. But taking risk, making investments in future outcomes, are not rejected out of hand.

I agree with you that the Trump administration and the current GOP are spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. Anything but 'conservative'.

[runrussellrun]

538 Polls 12 days out -- Have democrats picking up 38 seats in the House and taking control. In the Senate, no change in numbers. AZ goes for the democrat and ND goes for the republican. A wash with McCaskill and Heller, leading but toss ups. Looks like democrats will pick up a handfull of governorships. Manchin is predicted to win by 8.5 points.

And so what....what will change? No 3rd party candidate projected as winning or getting donations from Boeing, MickyDoug, Raymeoron, Cargill, Merck, Pfizer, etc.

E-verify STILL won't pass. Can't tRump just EXO it to happen?

What will change, if that happens, is that Trumpism will begin to be repudiated and some balance of power and rule of law will be restored. Trumpism won't fully be repudiated until 2020's vote, but there will no longer be a shield from corruption investigations and budgets will be constrained.

I can't debate with you if you deny the reality of how Democrats actually VOTE. If you want to be a child and ignore how our Congress actually VOTED on H.R. 6157 ( a whopping FIVE democrats voted NO. Zero democratic Senators voted NO ) Be an adult, and explain how the Dems. will act like financial evangelicals and "constrain budgets"

I tend to think it's too rosy a scenario to expect the Senate to switch hands. That means that judicial appointments will be in GOP hands for another two years.

I realize, Fatty, that you won't ever be satisfied by any resolution other than a dictatorship that reflects your individual value system and assumptions (meaning you as dictator), but that, too, is way, way out of reach (or at least I hope it is).

Why, what policies and programs that I would enact don't you agree with?

20-1 salary ratio for 85%, or more, revenue derived from tax dollars. Non-profits automatically fall into this category, including your precious Ivy welfare funds.
Eliminate the Supreme Court
Increase the Coast Guard budget 1,000%
repeal the Dole-Bayh act
Increase pay, by 50%, for all active duty uniformed military
Never hire a private military contractor, ever, to fight our wars
Build US government owned and operated Nuke power plants to provide 100% of our electrical needs.
Remove "in god we trust" from our currency
Ban using tennis balls at lacrosse practices
Release anyone in jail for Pot crimes, if it's now legal.
eliminate the N$aa
Reduce the tax free Muni-Bonds purchase to just ONE, instead of setting up hurdles that only benefit the oligarchy. Often the very same folks that are benefitting from the bonds project.
make E-verify mandatory.
Eliminate laws that pay migrant workers differently.
Build an awesome HIGHspeed rail system, for people and products. (nasty green house gas from subsidized jets, a pretend liberals wet dream )
Remove ANY question or reference to race on applications, census, etc. Who the F cares.
Repeal the 16th amendment, implement national sales tax
ENFORCE Article 1 of the US Constitution, providing 1 US congressperson for every 50K citizens. Hold group thinks in sports arenas, IF they have to meet in person. (since when are members of Congress in attendance anyway? They are currently on a month long vacation to "campaign" )
Ban ANY member of Congress from financial ownership in any company seeking Federal dollars.
Make every HIGH school and college form a mens and womens Rugby team. We have become a nation of softies (no equipment needed, cheap cheap )
Remove ANY drinking age.
Make the military prove they have USED their junk like the F-35, a waste of money. What US city has it protected? exactly. (cut equipment budget by 70%, not for USCG )
Provide Federal ID's, free, to everyone.
Create more MEDICAL schools than LAW schools.


I do have a concern that the pendulum, having been pushed so hard far right, will swing hard to the far left. The failure of senior GOP leadership to stand up to Trumpism and its embrace of various forms of bigotry has, I fear, done huge damage to the GOP's future legitimacy.

But, myself, and others, have CONstantly pointed out that the pretend R's are NOT far right. Especially regarding finances. You are a bigot towards me, don't kid yourself that you are NOT a bigot to those you do not understand, nor care too. You admit that you have me on ignore. A bigot

[runrussellrun]

Don't disagree exactly, but for all else we've learned in the last couple years, one thing seems clear enough...much of our electorate isn't all that concerned by policy details, and to the extent they ARE...they just don't seem educated enough ABOUT issues to be able to divine how best to address them...how to put people in place, in government, to put policy they believe will be good for them and/or the country into effect.

That's kinda depressing, but at the end of the day, it seems to be largely an issue of HOW to educate voters. There is so much flying around in the media space, the political arena, that sorting it all out becomes a YUGE challenge.

Something that SEEMS like it could effectively right this situation somewhat would be to address the issue of campaign finance. SOO tough a nut...i mean McCain - Feingold moved things a bit, but look what happened to that law...maybe ballot initiatives could somehow move the needle in that area? I don't know...

..

Speaking of mccain....

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/201 ... targeting/

Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

TAMATS

[MDlaxfan76]

538 Polls 12 days out -- Have democrats picking up 38 seats in the House and taking control. In the Senate, no change in numbers. AZ goes for the democrat and ND goes for the republican. A wash with McCaskill and Heller, leading but toss ups. Looks like democrats will pick up a handfull of governorships. Manchin is predicted to win by 8.5 points.

And so what....what will change? No 3rd party candidate projected as winning or getting donations from Boeing, MickyDoug, Raymeoron, Cargill, Merck, Pfizer, etc.

E-verify STILL won't pass. Can't tRump just EXO it to happen?

What will change, if that happens, is that Trumpism will begin to be repudiated and some balance of power and rule of law will be restored. Trumpism won't fully be repudiated until 2020's vote, but there will no longer be a shield from corruption investigations and budgets will be constrained.

I can't debate with you if you deny the reality of how Democrats actually VOTE. If you want to be a child and ignore how our Congress actually VOTED on H.R. 6157 ( a whopping FIVE democrats voted NO. Zero democratic Senators voted NO ) Be an adult, and explain how the Dems. will act like financial evangelicals and "constrain budgets"

I tend to think it's too rosy a scenario to expect the Senate to switch hands. That means that judicial appointments will be in GOP hands for another two years.

I realize, Fatty, that you won't ever be satisfied by any resolution other than a dictatorship that reflects your individual value system and assumptions (meaning you as dictator), but that, too, is way, way out of reach (or at least I hope it is).

Why, what policies and programs that I would enact don't you agree with?

20-1 salary ratio for 85%, or more, revenue derived from tax dollars. Non-profits automatically fall into this category, including your precious Ivy welfare funds.
Eliminate the Supreme Court
Increase the Coast Guard budget 1,000%
repeal the Dole-Bayh act
Increase pay, by 50%, for all active duty uniformed military
Never hire a private military contractor, ever, to fight our wars
Build US government owned and operated Nuke power plants to provide 100% of our electrical needs.
Remove "in god we trust" from our currency
Ban using tennis balls at lacrosse practices
Release anyone in jail for Pot crimes, if it's now legal.
eliminate the N$aa
Reduce the tax free Muni-Bonds purchase to just ONE, instead of setting up hurdles that only benefit the oligarchy. Often the very same folks that are benefitting from the bonds project.
make E-verify mandatory.
Eliminate laws that pay migrant workers differently.
Build an awesome HIGHspeed rail system, for people and products. (nasty green house gas from subsidized jets, a pretend liberals wet dream )
Remove ANY question or reference to race on applications, census, etc. Who the F cares.
Repeal the 16th amendment, implement national sales tax
ENFORCE Article 1 of the US Constitution, providing 1 US congressperson for every 50K citizens. Hold group thinks in sports arenas, IF they have to meet in person. (since when are members of Congress in attendance anyway? They are currently on a month long vacation to "campaign" )
Ban ANY member of Congress from financial ownership in any company seeking Federal dollars.
Make every HIGH school and college form a mens and womens Rugby team. We have become a nation of softies (no equipment needed, cheap cheap )
Remove ANY drinking age.
Make the military prove they have USED their junk like the F-35, a waste of money. What US city has it protected? exactly. (cut equipment budget by 70%, not for USCG )
Provide Federal ID's, free, to everyone.
Create more MEDICAL schools than LAW schools.


I do have a concern that the pendulum, having been pushed so hard far right, will swing hard to the far left. The failure of senior GOP leadership to stand up to Trumpism and its embrace of various forms of bigotry has, I fear, done huge damage to the GOP's future legitimacy.

But, myself, and others, have CONstantly pointed out that the pretend R's are NOT far right. Especially regarding finances. You are a bigot towards me, don't kid yourself that you are NOT a bigot to those you do not understand, nor care too. You admit that you have me on ignore. A bigot

I don't know what your definition of a bigot is, but as I don't know anything about your race, gender, religion, etc, etc, I'm not sure how my disagreement with you displays bigotry. The basis of my views about you are solely based on what you post. Yup, I have you on 'do not disturb' based on the ramblings and constant attacks and disdain for others, but I do check in occasionally.

And yeah, I really don't care what list you, or anyone else, might want to put together about your policy views. I reject any authoritarian, period. There are no 'benevolent dictators' nor utopias.

As to being "a child", you seem to assume that I'm ignorant of Dem predilections? Thus the childish insult to "be an adult" ?

On why I said "constrain budgets" that's simply because there will be a check and balance on the profligate spending and tax cutting now occurring under 100% GOP control, not that I don't agree that if Dems had all levers of power at their disposal they might well be spending like drunken sailors too. For a period of time, they will need to negotiate and the Dems will be trying to demonstrate restraint on deficits. So, another tax cut will not happen absent an increase in tax rates on corporations and/or the 1%. Of course, I could be proven wrong on that front, but I'll bet you a nickel that deficits will rise less sharply over the next 2 years than if the GOP maintains 100% control. Of course, we won't actually be able to prove either hypothetical that doesn't occur, but that's how I see it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don't disagree exactly, but for all else we've learned in the last couple years, one thing seems clear enough...much of our electorate isn't all that concerned by policy details, and to the extent they ARE...they just don't seem educated enough ABOUT issues to be able to divine how best to address them...how to put people in place, in government, to put policy they believe will be good for them and/or the country into effect.

That's kinda depressing, but at the end of the day, it seems to be largely an issue of HOW to educate voters. There is so much flying around in the media space, the political arena, that sorting it all out becomes a YUGE challenge.

Something that SEEMS like it could effectively right this situation somewhat would be to address the issue of campaign finance. SOO tough a nut...i mean McCain - Feingold moved things a bit, but look what happened to that law...maybe ballot initiatives could somehow move the needle in that area? I don't know...

..

Speaking of mccain....

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/201 ... targeting/

Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

TAMATS

If accurate, sounds like Kerner has some explaining to do. But is someone suggesting that he's actually a partisan liberal, out to target conservative groups?

In addition to McCain, he worked for Chaffetz and Issa, later appointed by Trump. Pretty hard to imagine he was advocating for illegal actions against conservative groups. Sounds like the discussion was about any 501's that purported to be charities but were in reality advocacy groups, hiding behind non-transparency.

In other words, 501's behaving fraudulently. Didn't matter whether conservative or liberal.

But, ahh, 'good intentions' can lead us down dark paths...

[runrussellrun]

Seriously, you don't know what the term bigot means?

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Synonyms for bigot
Synonyms

dogmatist, dogmatizer, partisan (also partizan), sectarian (why isn't RACIST a synonym? According to M-Webster, it's not )

[runrussellrun]

538 Polls 12 days out -- Have democrats picking up 38 seats in the House and taking control. In the Senate, no change in numbers. AZ goes for the democrat and ND goes for the republican. A wash with McCaskill and Heller, leading but toss ups. Looks like democrats will pick up a handfull of governorships. Manchin is predicted to win by 8.5 points.

And so what....what will change? No 3rd party candidate projected as winning or getting donations from Boeing, MickyDoug, Raymeoron, Cargill, Merck, Pfizer, etc.

E-verify STILL won't pass. Can't tRump just EXO it to happen?

What will change, if that happens, is that Trumpism will begin to be repudiated and some balance of power and rule of law will be restored. Trumpism won't fully be repudiated until 2020's vote, but there will no longer be a shield from corruption investigations and budgets will be constrained.

I can't debate with you if you deny the reality of how Democrats actually VOTE. If you want to be a child and ignore how our Congress actually VOTED on H.R. 6157 ( a whopping FIVE democrats voted NO. Zero democratic Senators voted NO ) Be an adult, and explain how the Dems. will act like financial evangelicals and "constrain budgets"

I tend to think it's too rosy a scenario to expect the Senate to switch hands. That means that judicial appointments will be in GOP hands for another two years.

I realize, Fatty, that you won't ever be satisfied by any resolution other than a dictatorship that reflects your individual value system and assumptions (meaning you as dictator), but that, too, is way, way out of reach (or at least I hope it is).

Why, what policies and programs that I would enact don't you agree with?

20-1 salary ratio for 85%, or more, revenue derived from tax dollars. Non-profits automatically fall into this category, including your precious Ivy welfare funds.
Eliminate the Supreme Court
Increase the Coast Guard budget 1,000%
repeal the Dole-Bayh act
Increase pay, by 50%, for all active duty uniformed military
Never hire a private military contractor, ever, to fight our wars
Build US government owned and operated Nuke power plants to provide 100% of our electrical needs.
Remove "in god we trust" from our currency
Ban using tennis balls at lacrosse practices
Release anyone in jail for Pot crimes, if it's now legal.
eliminate the N$aa
Reduce the tax free Muni-Bonds purchase to just ONE, instead of setting up hurdles that only benefit the oligarchy. Often the very same folks that are benefitting from the bonds project.
make E-verify mandatory.
Eliminate laws that pay migrant workers differently.
Build an awesome HIGHspeed rail system, for people and products. (nasty green house gas from subsidized jets, a pretend liberals wet dream )
Remove ANY question or reference to race on applications, census, etc. Who the F cares.
Repeal the 16th amendment, implement national sales tax
ENFORCE Article 1 of the US Constitution, providing 1 US congressperson for every 50K citizens. Hold group thinks in sports arenas, IF they have to meet in person. (since when are members of Congress in attendance anyway? They are currently on a month long vacation to "campaign" )
Ban ANY member of Congress from financial ownership in any company seeking Federal dollars.
Make every HIGH school and college form a mens and womens Rugby team. We have become a nation of softies (no equipment needed, cheap cheap )
Remove ANY drinking age.
Make the military prove they have USED their junk like the F-35, a waste of money. What US city has it protected? exactly. (cut equipment budget by 70%, not for USCG )
Provide Federal ID's, free, to everyone.
Create more MEDICAL schools than LAW schools.


I do have a concern that the pendulum, having been pushed so hard far right, will swing hard to the far left. The failure of senior GOP leadership to stand up to Trumpism and its embrace of various forms of bigotry has, I fear, done huge damage to the GOP's future legitimacy.

But, myself, and others, have CONstantly pointed out that the pretend R's are NOT far right. Especially regarding finances. You are a bigot towards me, don't kid yourself that you are NOT a bigot to those you do not understand, nor care too. You admit that you have me on ignore. A bigot

I don't know what your definition of a bigot is, but as I don't know anything about your race, gender, religion, etc, etc, I'm not sure how my disagreement with you displays bigotry. The basis of my views about you are solely based on what you post. Yup, I have you on 'do not disturb' based on the ramblings and constant attacks and disdain for others, but I do check in occasionally.

And yeah, I really don't care what list you, or anyone else, might want to put together about your policy views. I reject any authoritarian, period. There are no 'benevolent dictators' nor utopias.

As to being "a child", you seem to assume that I'm ignorant of Dem predilections? Thus the childish insult to "be an adult" ?

On why I said "constrain budgets" that's simply because there will be a check and balance on the profligate spending and tax cutting now occurring under 100% GOP control, not that I don't agree that if Dems had all levers of power at their disposal they might well be spending like drunken sailors too. For a period of time, they will need to negotiate and the Dems will be trying to demonstrate restraint on deficits. So, another tax cut will not happen absent an increase in tax rates on corporations and/or the 1%. Of course, I could be proven wrong on that front, but I'll bet you a nickel that deficits will rise less sharply over the next 2 years than if the GOP maintains 100% control. Of course, we won't actually be able to prove either hypothetical that doesn't occur, but that's how I see it.

Don't we need 60 US SEnators to vote YES in order for a budget to pass, or is that just a law? (see tRumps tweets blaming Dems for NOT passing everfy, etc in June)
And, if you agree that the Dems might well spend like drunken sailors, why do you have the opinion that they would "constrain budgets" You look foolish with this parting of the opinion seas. And show disdain towards the messenger (me) that proves that the Dems have done everything BUT show constraint towards spending in recent votes.

Regarding lists of ideas and policies, perhaps you DIDN"T ask, but you certainly implied disdain and , for some weird reason , called me a dictator.

If we can't banter about ideas and policies, why the F kc are we here in the first place ?

Nope, I haven't posted ONE comment that is a rambling or skewing as RRR. Guess once you hate, you hate forever. Got it.

[cradleandshoot]

The most fundamental aspect of conservatism as I understand it starts with being fiscally responsible and living within your means. That would be both as an individual and as a nation. That cornerstone of conservative thinking has been kicked to the curb by the Republicans. These nasty little Republicans bashed the Democrats for years for doing the same thing they are doing today. The difference is that both parties have opposing priorities where they want to spend taxpayer money. The concept that we can't afford to do all the things we would like to do has gone by the wayside. The nation will just keep throwing more trillions of dollars at problems hoping that if you spend enough money you can solve any problem under the sun. The nation is well over 20 trillion in debt and just as screwed up as it was before the spending spree started. angry9

Certainly, fiscal responsibility has been a natural ally of actual 'conservatism'. The connection is mostly about not wasting money. Conserving resources. Rainy days will come.

IMO, in the past couple of decades that got twisted by some in the GOP into 'balanced budget' concepts that ignore ROI. Which may well have been more about the politics than actual 'conservatism'. A counterpoint rationale to the desire by Dems to spend/invest in social programs favored by their constituencies rather than spending on GOP favored programs. Guns vs butter. With a big dose of social argument mixed in, driven in large part by the GOP's seeking the support of white evangelicals especially in the south.

So, perhaps that's why the GOP folks who purported to be 'fiscal conservatives', even Tea Party advocates, have found it so easy to abandon fiscal responsibility once given the reins of power to spend as they wish. The rapid abandonment of principle does seem shocking though.

Note that Investments in future outcomes are fine within a conservative viewpoint. However they need to be made thoughtfully and carefully so as to not waste resources, so as to conserve resources for future requirements and opportunities.

But that doesn't mean that a conservative is unwilling to invest or to utilize debt to do so. That said, debt is understood by the true fiscal conservative to have a serious cost and increase in risk, thus the return on that investment needs to be carefully considered and measured. Experiments help to increase predictability, decrease risk, improve risk-adjusted ROI. Focus on efficiency and accountability are bulwarks for making sound investments. But taking risk, making investments in future outcomes, are not rejected out of hand.

I agree with you that the Trump administration and the current GOP are spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. Anything but 'conservative'.

There has been no ROI. 20 trillion dollars in debt and both sides keep telling us we have a very long way to go. Hell both sides can't even agree on infrastructure spending that would be very expensive but would actually accomplish something. If our 20 trillion in debt had actually accomplished something positive I could reluctantly bite the bullet and climb onboard. IMO we have as a nation spent an obscene amount of money and accomplished very little in the process. I make that conclusion because if you listen to every freaking politician out there running for office the common theme is... our nation is broken so elect me to go and fix it. Which is IMO just a coded message for we need to spend a lot more money. By that I mean... taxpayer money. bang1

[cradleandshoot]

Sorry, i don't get the point you're trying to make, youth. What i wrote was about how muddled the message we all get about policy from candidates and then from elected officials gets so bollixed up that voters can't really make wise choices in the process of putting these people in place. You're not trying to say that Donald gave us clear policy choices as a candidate, are you? Build That Wall. "Lousey Deals" re Foreign Affairs and Trade? What, exactly WERE (are??) his policies?

Recollection tells me that the "Fundamental Change" Obama spoke about was about the partisan divide we saw during the Bush years. Did Obama FACE, or CAUSE further partisan divide after he was elected? Ask Mitch McConnell. Our conservative friends around here like to blame Obama for CAUSING racial and policy divides, which i absolutely dispute. We go round and round about that here in these pages, but i don't get what that has to do with setting policy and trying to prosecute it once elected. Obama tried, in the face of absolute obstruction regarding healthcare, to address that policy. Messaging from various power groups in the field, and political messaging and opposition from Mitch and his crowd destroyed the process to such a degree that many in the country chose Donald Trump because they had been brainwashed about healthcare policy for so long...and lo and behold, check the news today, most rank and file conservative voters LIKE the way healthcare policy has evolved, despite the republican efforts to sabotage it.

I'm just saying what many here have echoed lately, that the 1% yanks our chains to such a degree, and keeps fanning the flames of partisan rancor, that dealing with it seems to be such an insurmountable problem. One thought i had was ballot initiatives regarding campaign finance. I need to get on the Google machine and see how McCain-Feingold came to be, and what happened to it...

..

One interesting point about the 1% dis that should not be overlooked... it consists of both Democrats and Republicans where job #1 is keeping their wealth intact. They are both very good at making sure the gubmint looks after them first. Money wields the power and that power leads the vast majority of our leaders around by the short hairs.

[dislaxxic]

I get it, you need to be able to say They All Do It and thereby you can't credibly complain about one party or the other because, after all, well, they all do it.

Who passed Obamacare? "Rammed it down our throats" is what you heard so often. How could something actually work that had NO support in the slightest from the 2nd major party to the effort? Without ANY support, or effort to improve, the whole thing MUST be bad policy being foisted on us by the hapless Democrats. In contrast, conservatives demonized "Death Panels" and "Gubmint takeover of healthcare" and drove these and other lies all the way to a change election in 2016. What is the status of the subject of healthcare policy NOW, with 100% control of gubmint in GOP hands...well, you tell me, since they're all the same, evidently.

The Democrats TRIED to address the huge issue of healthcare, broadly defined, in our country.

There is ONE thing that i defy you to find a way to say that "They're Both The Same" when it comes to the effort to address this policy issue.

That the whole shebang started out as a market-driven, conservative idea (in Taxachusetts, no less, from a Republican governor we all know well), bringing MILLIONS of new customers to the PRIVATE insurance markets, in a new way that involved some government management of the process.

Give me a comparable CONSERVATIVE policy effort that defines them alone. Something that the Dems DON'T do the same that they do re policy. Go ahead, i'll wait...

..

[runrussellrun]

Talking vs acting. As I have pointed out before, the Mitch Mcconnells of the world have NO desire to repeal ACA. They are making too much money from the lack of competition. Mitch owns plenty of vanguard products, and other financial securities. He is brother in law with fecesbook founder zuckerberg. You tell us disslax, why hasnt it been repealed?

Give the GOP a chance. Elect 60 US Senators that are pretend CONservatives and see what will happen with ACA repeal . Or immigration issues too. Just give them that chance. In two years, 2020, around 30 US Senate seats will be up. Including the pretend CONservative Mitchie Mcconnell.

Dont any of these Congressional dweebs have any hobbies? Retire already Mitch. Not like your wife doesn't have tons of money. China. All good.

No, NOT all the same bart