kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:44 pm
Better change the electoral. Florida isn't looking too good for democrats either. Better harness all those numbers in Cali!
Yes, Trump seems to be doing better with Cuban Americans than he did in 2016. But Joe is doing better with older white voters than Hillary did, and they constitute a much larger voting block than Cubans.
Of course Florida is going to be close. Everyone knows that.
Just wait till Joe sends AOC down to scoop up a couple of million votes.
Over half the country lives in 9 states, meaning that less than half of the population controls 82% of the Senate.
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am Mr moderator, deactivate my account. You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy. This is cradle and shoot signing out.
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:27 pm
Nothing plays to Cubans escaping communist rule and old white people like AOC and her “ideas!”
+1
I can add that nothing can upset the Catholics in America more than nominating a devout Catholic to the SCOTUS. I can see Catholics leaving the church in droves. I expect Pope Francis to admonish trump severely for such an abomination to the church. I don't know if this nominee garners more votes for trump. I guess that depends when their anger over trumps nominee subsides.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:15 pm
Today on Meet the Press, HR McMaster gave a clear eyed, rational, constructive critique of our covid response :
A breakdown in a couple areas. There are 3 keys to pandemic response.
(1) stop it before it becomes a pandemic. Thanks to the CCCP, we couldn't do that.
(2) mobilize a bio-medical rresponse. We were hamstrung in that because, over the years, our supply chains became too vulnerable, with just-in-time delivery & not enough stockpiles,
(3) to innovate & rapidly develop therapies & vaccines. I think that area is going to be a success.
What we can learn from this -- we have a federal system & a mixture of public & private health care. Where there were breakdowns, it was in coordination. It was in common understanding of the resources available, where the gaps were, & how to mobilize a response effectively.
IMHO -- that's an accurate assessment of the differences in out govt structure vs other nations, as it applies to crisis response.
It was a "fail" from McMaster. Better answers earlier in that interview.
#1, total BS that it had anything to do with the Communist Party, as if Communist made a darn bit of difference to whether we knew what was happening...we had our bloody CIA there and knew darn well what was happening, as did ANYONE who was paying attention. Their officials, like officials in any bureaucracy, were scared of being the bearers of bad news, which delayed a couple of heart beats, but it wasn't as if we weren't knowing the magnitude at this same time they were realizing it. And they paid a brutal price in Wuhan. The difference was that they locked down hard once they realized it and we dilly dallied and still are....how many months later??? Sheesh, Shanghai which is practically next door beat it hard while we pretended it would all go away magically. Masks were all bought up by the populace by early January there because the population reacted fast. So, so dumb here. And a bunch of us were saying so early on...as was our IC to the President in January.
#2, fair criticism, but where was the self-critique...we're 3.5 years into the Trump administration, they own any shortfalls in stockpile just as would all prior Administrations. And McMaster was there...but it's also a cop out to say it was just a matter of enough stockpile, we didn't mobilize to build stockpile as soon as we knew this thing was happening. Such hubris to imagine it wasn't going to take off once it reached our shores, which we knew it had by late January...yet we dilly dallied and denied reality.
# 3, yes, eventually that's going to be a success, multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths later...he didn't say otherwise, but that's the unspoken truth. He should have said it out loud.
But the real fail was to not say that leadership matters and were failed, miserably, by this POTUS. Politics in front of science. Lying to the American people. Crisis 101...tell the truth and lets the experts communicate the facts. Don't undermine them.
He's trying so darn hard to avoid directly criticizing Trump as it would be 'political' that it's hamstringing the clarity of what he really thinks...and I have no doubt that he really thinks Trump blew it.
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:15 pm
Today on Meet the Press, HR McMaster gave a clear eyed, rational, constructive critique of our covid response :
A breakdown in a couple areas. There are 3 keys to pandemic response.
(1) stop it before it becomes a pandemic. Thanks to the CCCP, we couldn't do that.
(2) mobilize a bio-medical rresponse. We were hamstrung in that because, over the years, our supply chains became too vulnerable, with just-in-time delivery & not enough stockpiles,
(3) to innovate & rapidly develop therapies & vaccines. I think that area is going to be a success.
What we can learn from this -- we have a federal system & a mixture of public & private health care. Where there were breakdowns, it was in coordination. It was in common understanding of the resources available, where the gaps were, & how to mobilize a response effectively.
IMHO -- that's an accurate assessment of the differences in out govt structure vs other nations, as it applies to crisis response.
It was a "fail" from McMaster. Better answers earlier in that interview.
#1, total BS that it had anything to do with the Communist Party, as if Communist made a darn bit of difference to whether we knew what was happening...we had our bloody CIA there and knew darn well what was happening, as did ANYONE who was paying attention. Their officials, like officials in any bureaucracy, were scared of being the bearers of bad news, which delayed a couple of heart beats, but it wasn't as if we weren't knowing the magnitude at this same time they were realizing it. And they paid a brutal price in Wuhan. The difference was that they locked down hard once they realized it and we dilly dallied and still are....how many months later??? Sheesh, Shanghai which is practically next door beat it hard while we pretended it would all go away magically. Masks were all bought up by the populace by early January there because the population reacted fast. So, so dumb here. And a bunch of us were saying so early on...as was our IC to the President in January.
#2, fair criticism, but where was the self-critique...we're 3.5 years into the Trump administration, they own any shortfalls in stockpile just as would all prior Administrations. And McMaster was there...but it's also a cop out to say it was just a matter of enough stockpile, we didn't mobilize to build stockpile as soon as we knew this thing was happening. Such hubris to imagine it wasn't going to take off once it reached our shores, which we knew it had by late January...yet we dilly dallied and denied reality.
# 3, yes, eventually that's going to be a success, multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths later...we didn't say otherwise, but that's the unspoken truth. He should have said it out loud.
But the real fail was to not say that leadership matters and were failed, miserably, by this POTUS. He's trying so darn hard to avoid directly criticizing Trump as it would be 'political' that it's hamstringing the clarity of what he really thinks...and I have no doubt that he really thinks Trump blew it.
do you?
I posted this in the wrong thread, then moved it to the covid thread where I will respond.
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am Mr moderator, deactivate my account. You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy. This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Today, twenty more House Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, and Greg Pence, Vice President Mike Pence’s older brother, signed onto the lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking the Supreme Court first to take up the lawsuit, and then to throw out the presidential electors for Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Michigan. If it would do so, those state legislatures could appoint a new slate of electors for Trump, thereby tossing out President-Elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election and handing the White House back to Trump.
Also joining the Texas lawsuit were “New California State” and “New Nevada State,” pseudo states supported by movements that want to break the rural counties of California and Nevada away from urban counties. Spokespeople for the proposed states claimed that their new states are “suffering under many governmental usurpations,” and that the governors of the actual states were engaging in “lawless actions” by permitting same-day voter registration.
And yet, this evening, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Two justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, said they would have permitted the court to hear the case—this is consistent with their longstanding position that the court must allow states to file in a dispute between states-- but would have decided against it. So Trump, who had joined the Texas lawsuit, has lost his bid to have the Supreme Court overturn the election results.
The Electoral College meets on Monday, and Congress counts the electoral votes in a joint session on January 6. It is possible that Republican loyalists in the House will gum up the congressional acceptance of the electoral votes, but the election is over. Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
The larger story is not over.
The Republican Party has become a dangerous faction trying to destroy American democracy. Fittingly, after the Supreme Court decision, the Chair of the Texas Republican Party, Allen West, promptly issued a grammatically muddy statement saying, “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
Americans unhappy with the results of a presidential election have done precisely this before. It was called “secession,” and it occurred in 1860 when elite southern Democrats tried to destroy the United States of America rather than accept the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln to the White House.
In 1860, as today, there were two competing visions of America. In the South, members of a small wealthy class had come to believe that they should lead society, and that “democracy” meant only that voters got to choose which set of leaders ruled them. Society, they said, worked best when it was run by natural leaders, the wealthy, educated, well-connected men who made up the region’s planter class.
As South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond explained in 1858, society was naturally made up of a great mass of workers, rather dull people, but happy and loyal, whom he called “mudsills” after the timbers driven into the ground to support elegant homes above. These mudsills needed the guidance of their betters to produce goods that would create capital. That capital would be wasted if it stayed among the mudsills; it needed to move upward, where better men would use it to move society forward.
Ordinary men should, Hammond explained, have no say over policies, because they would demand a greater share of the wealth they produced. No matter what regular folks might want from the government—roads, schools, and so on—the government could not deliver it because it could do nothing that was not specifically listed in the Constitution. And what the Constitution called for primarily, he said, was to protect and spread the system of human enslavement that made men like him rich.
In 1859, Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln rejected Hammond’s vision of America. In a speech at the Milwaukee Agricultural Fair, Lincoln denied that there was any such thing as a “mudsill” in America. No one, he said, should be locked into working poverty for life. Society did not work best when a few rich men ran it, he said; it worked best when government made sure that everyone was equal before the law and that ordinary men had access to resources.
Under the system of “free labor,” hardworking farmers applied their muscle and brains to natural resources. They produced more than they could consume, and their accumulated capital employed shopkeepers and shoemakers and so on. Those small merchants, in turn, provided capital to employ industrialists and financiers, who then hired men just starting out. The economic cycle drove itself, and the “harmony of interest” meant that everyone could prosper in America so long as the government didn’t favor one sector over another.
Lincoln’s vision became the driving ideology of the Republican Party.
In 1860, when Democratic leaders demanded that the government protect the spread of slavery to the West, Republicans objected. They argued that the slave system, in which a few rich men dominated government and monopolized resources, would choke out free labor.
Southern Democratic leaders responded by telling voters the Republicans wanted a race war. To win the election, they silenced opponents and kept them from the polls. And when the Democrats nonetheless lost, southern leaders railroaded their states out of the Union and made war on the U.S. government. They threw away the idea of American democracy and tried to build a new nation they would control.
That moment looks much like the attempt of today’s Republicans to overturn a legitimate election and install their own leadership over the country.
But there the parallels stop. When southern Democratic leaders took their states out of the Union in 1861, they rushed them out before constituents could weigh in. Modern media means that voters have seen the ham-fisted legal challenges that have repeatedly lost in court, and have heard voices condemning this effort to overturn our democracy. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), for example, issued a statement tonight: "Since Election Night, a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type, ‘Chavez rigged the election from the grave’ conspiracy theories, but every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court — including all three of President Trump’s picks — closed the book on the nonsense."
Make no mistake, though: today’s Republican Party has drifted away from its original principles to attack American democracy. Fully 64% of the House Republican delegation endorsed Trump’s bid to steal the election. Some likely signed onto Paxton’s frivolous lawsuit because they honestly believed in it. Many others likely supported it either because they feared retaliation from Trump or they recognized that they would face primary challengers from the right in their gerrymandered districts in 2022 if they did not. Either way, the party as it currently exists is not going to repudiate this week’s anti-American stand.
But Republicans who still value democracy and their traditional values of equality before the law and equal access to resources could repudiate the radicals who have taken over their party.
They could reject the ideology of the Confederacy and reclaim the Party of Lincoln.
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am Mr moderator, deactivate my account. You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy. This is cradle and shoot signing out.
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am Mr moderator, deactivate my account. You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy. This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Great. So seeing as how it’s predominantly states that border Mexico or the gulf coast, they could annex New Mexico and then exist under that name going forward. Now we’ve got New Mexico of the seceded southern states and USA. NM being a hybrid or mezzanine between the more productive US states and legacy Mexico to the South.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Maybe the race war that a poster has been pining for will come to fruition.
No chance. Modern dumb Americans are too lazy to fight.
Our furure Chinese overlords will sort it out & reduce us all to the same level, achieving equality.
...unless our Russians friends intercede & come to our rescue.
Maybe the race war that a poster has been pining for will come to fruition.
No chance. Modern dumb Americans are too lazy to fight.
Our furure Chinese overlords will sort it out & reduce us all to the same level, achieving equality.
...unless our Russians friends intercede & come to our rescue.
The dumber they are, the easier it is to get them to do the fighting for you. Me and my buddy used to make kids fight in the bathroom. They weren’t rocket scientists.
Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:30 pm
Great. So seeing as how it’s predominantly states that border Mexico or the gulf coast, they could annex New Mexico and then exist under that name going forward. Now we’ve got New Mexico of the seceded southern states and USA. NM being a hybrid or mezzanine between the more productive US states and legacy Mexico to the South.
However, they wouldn't want New Mexico in their confederacy (New Mexico voted Biden and is way too liberal), nor would they want "Mexico" to be in their name (too Mexican). The capital city would be Palm Beach, Florida; Trump would be czar; as for the name of this new project, well, Gilead, New Gilead, Jericho, Trump and Trumpland would be possibilities.
Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:30 pm
Great. So seeing as how it’s predominantly states that border Mexico or the gulf coast, they could annex New Mexico and then exist under that name going forward. Now we’ve got New Mexico of the seceded southern states and USA. NM being a hybrid or mezzanine between the more productive US states and legacy Mexico to the South.
However, they wouldn't want New Mexico in their confederacy (New Mexico voted Biden and is way too liberal), nor would they want "Mexico" to be in their name (too Mexican). The capital city would be Palm Beach, Florida; Trump would be czar; as for the name of this new project, well, Gilead, New Gilead, Jericho, Trump and Trumpland would be possibilities.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Should have let the South go in 1860; juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
