The fate of the Universe will be decided today

[flockofseagulls104]

Your party is full of hypocrites.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

Ossoff lost because he talked about global warming (fringe issue) lbgtqxyz issues ( fring issue) rights for women ( Sorry gals but fringe issue)

What America wants to hear is how good paying jobs are going to come back.

They want the repair if the infrastructure to start now, not when everyone is done dicking around with healthcare. And then tax reform. NOW.

They want to know they are safe in their homes, not a return to building billion dollar equipment with thousand dollar wrenches.

They want politicians to work TOGETHER, not defend the tribe at all costs.

They do not want ridicule of the government from people who have no real alternative plan. This predates this past election day.

They don't want the Democratic party of Hillary, Pelosi & Schumer. Nor do they want the Republican party of Cruz, Ryan and McConnell.

This is why they voted for Trump. This is why, even though there are fewer approving of him, when they get in the voting booth, they voted for those more likely to work with him because of the HOPE that, in the end, he will deliver on his promises.

Until the Dems put forth a genuine alternative, they might as well just go home.

I agree....

[flockofseagulls104]

And regarding the Supreme Court, Garland should have been confirmed, but there is nothing wrong with the confirmation of Gorsuch.

I agree. If he was nominated a bit earlier in the election cycle, he probably would have been. Tell me that the democrats would not have done the same thing the repubs did if the circumstances were reversed. They have no reason to complain, but they will continue to do so.

[Bob78164]

The republicans could have put Garland up for a vote, and probably would have rejected him, and anyone else Obama nominated, wasting everyone's time.

Wrong. The reason they refused to give Judge Garland so much as a hearing, much less put him up to a vote, is that they didn't want to pay the political price for rejecting such an eminently qualified judge. Just like the reason they're planning on a massive overhaul of the entire health care system in secret, behind closed doors, and on virtually no notice is that they're ashamed of and embarrassed by their bill, and are hoping to minimize their accountability to the American people.

When Congressional Republicans refused to so much as consider Judge Garland, they stole the vote I cast in 2012 for the person I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices for the next four years. And I doubt I'll ever forgive them for that. Or forget. And when the Democrats do retake the levers of power, mine will be among the voices urging them to never, ever forget the lessons the Republicans have been so eager to teach. --Bob

[Bob78164]

And regarding the Supreme Court, Garland should have been confirmed, but there is nothing wrong with the confirmation of Gorsuch.

I agree. If he was nominated a bit earlier in the election cycle, he probably would have been. Tell me that the democrats would not have done the same thing the repubs did if the circumstances were reversed. They have no reason to complain, but they will continue to do so.

They didn't do so. Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. But I'll sure as hell be urging the Democrats to do so next time, if they get the chance, in order to recapture the stolen seat. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The republicans could have put Garland up for a vote, and probably would have rejected him, and anyone else Obama nominated, wasting everyone's time.

Wrong. The reason they refused to give Judge Garland so much as a hearing, much less put him up to a vote, is that they didn't want to pay the political price for rejecting such an eminently qualified judge. Just like the reason they're planning on a massive overhaul of the entire health care system in secret, behind closed doors, and on virtually no notice is that they're ashamed of and embarrassed by their bill, and are hoping to minimize their accountability to the American people.

When Congressional Republicans refused to so much as consider Judge Garland, they stole the vote I cast in 2012 for the person I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices for the next four years. And I doubt I'll ever forgive them for that. Or forget. And when the Democrats do retake the levers of power, mine will be among the voices urging them to never, ever forget the lessons the Republicans have been so eager to teach. --Bob

Boo Hoo. The dems passed Obamacare over my objections. They did a whole lot of other things I didn't like. Elections have consequences, bob. Get the hell over it already.

[Bob78164]

The republicans could have put Garland up for a vote, and probably would have rejected him, and anyone else Obama nominated, wasting everyone's time.

Wrong. The reason they refused to give Judge Garland so much as a hearing, much less put him up to a vote, is that they didn't want to pay the political price for rejecting such an eminently qualified judge. Just like the reason they're planning on a massive overhaul of the entire health care system in secret, behind closed doors, and on virtually no notice is that they're ashamed of and embarrassed by their bill, and are hoping to minimize their accountability to the American people.

When Congressional Republicans refused to so much as consider Judge Garland, they stole the vote I cast in 2012 for the person I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices for the next four years. And I doubt I'll ever forgive them for that. Or forget. And when the Democrats do retake the levers of power, mine will be among the voices urging them to never, ever forget the lessons the Republicans have been so eager to teach. --Bob

Boo Hoo. The dems passed Obamacare over my objections. They did a whole lot of other things I didn't like. Elections have consequences, bob. Get the hell over it already.

So tell me which parts of the bill under consideration in the Senate you like. Please be sure to cite the precise language and the section where it can be found.

It would be one thing if the Republicans had voted on Judge Garland and rejected him, subjecting themselves to whatever political consequences such a rejection might have had. That's what the Democrats did with Judge Bork and what they tried to do with Justice Thomas. If they'd done that, I'd live with the "elections have consequences" meme.

But that's not what happened. They stole my fucking vote and I want it back. I will not get over it. I will not shut up about it. I will not forgive. And I will not forget.

And now, in an act even more directly consequential to tens of millions of my fellow Americans, my son among them, they are doing their level best to sneak through a massive tax cut for the rich that will deprive those tens of millions of Americans, including my son, of one hell of a lot of peace of mind, and in some cases, of their lives and health. And they're doing this in such a way as to minimize any opportunity for the American people or the Congressional representatives who represent half of them (including both of my Senators and my Representative) from weighing it at all. Once again, they're stealing my vote.

I will not get over it. I will not shut up about it. I will not forgive. And I will not forget. --Bob

[elwoodblues]

Deleted.

[flockofseagulls104]

Wrong. The reason they refused to give Judge Garland so much as a hearing, much less put him up to a vote, is that they didn't want to pay the political price for rejecting such an eminently qualified judge. Just like the reason they're planning on a massive overhaul of the entire health care system in secret, behind closed doors, and on virtually no notice is that they're ashamed of and embarrassed by their bill, and are hoping to minimize their accountability to the American people.

When Congressional Republicans refused to so much as consider Judge Garland, they stole the vote I cast in 2012 for the person I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices for the next four years. And I doubt I'll ever forgive them for that. Or forget. And when the Democrats do retake the levers of power, mine will be among the voices urging them to never, ever forget the lessons the Republicans have been so eager to teach. --Bob

Boo Hoo. The dems passed Obamacare over my objections. They did a whole lot of other things I didn't like. Elections have consequences, bob. Get the hell over it already.

So tell me which parts of the bill under consideration in the Senate you like. Please be sure to cite the precise language and the section where it can be found.

It would be one thing if the Republicans had voted on Judge Garland and rejected him, subjecting themselves to whatever political consequences such a rejection might have had. That's what the Democrats did with Judge Bork and what they tried to do with Justice Thomas. If they'd done that, I'd live with the "elections have consequences" meme.

But that's not what happened. They stole my fucking vote and I want it back. I will not get over it. I will not shut up about it. I will not forgive. And I will not forget.

And now, in an act even more directly consequential to tens of millions of my fellow Americans, my son among them, they are doing their level best to sneak through a massive tax cut for the rich that will deprive those tens of millions of Americans, including my son, of one hell of a lot of peace of mind, and in some cases, of their lives and health. And they're doing this in such a way as to minimize any opportunity for the American people or the Congressional representatives who represent half of them (including both of my Senators and my Representative) from weighing it at all. Once again, they're stealing my vote.

I will not get over it. I will not shut up about it. I will not forgive. And I will not forget. --Bob

\

Oh, Boo Hoo. I'm not asking you to do any of the above. Keep being a petulant child. The more you continue to act like that the less democrats will be elected. That's just fine with me.

[flockofseagulls104]

The people have spoken.

To be funny, humor has to be based in some sort of reality. This is stupid and ignorant, and it's just not funny. It's actually sad that someone believes that.

[Bob Juch]

The people have spoken.

To be funny, humor has to be based in some sort of reality. This is stupid and ignorant, and it's just not funny. It's actually sad that someone believes that.

If it's not reality why is Trump issuing executive orders and the Republican Congress passing bills to do exactly what most of the signs are asking for?

[BackInTex]

If it's not reality why is Trump issuing executive orders and the Republican Congress passing bills to do exactly what most of the signs are asking for?

He is not. They are not.

[flockofseagulls104]

If it's not reality why is Trump issuing executive orders and the Republican Congress passing bills to do exactly what most of the signs are asking for?

He is not. They are not.

C'mon BiT, of course they are. Don't you want unbreathable air and poison water like the rest of us?

[flockofseagulls104]

The people have spoken.

To be funny, humor has to be based in some sort of reality. This is stupid and ignorant, and it's just not funny. It's actually sad that someone believes that.

If it's not reality why is Trump issuing executive orders and the Republican Congress passing bills to do exactly what most of the signs are asking for?

Now that's funny!

[littlebeast13]

The people have spoken.

I had to do a double take to see if BobJ had stolen elwood's avatar.....

I'm not partisan in the least since I hate both sides, but this cartoon is a sickening example of just how bad the political divide has gotten in this country. It wouldn't be hard to edit the cartoon into a version "praising" the other party, and it would be just as revolting....

lb13

[elwoodblues]

Okay, I have removed the cartoon. When I first saw it I thought it was funny, but if even LB, whom I have never met but I consider a friend, took offense then I know it must have crossed a line. At a later date I will try to post something more thoughtful about the current state of affairs which I hope will lead to a better discussion than the ones we have been having.

[flockofseagulls104]

Okay, I have removed the cartoon. When I first saw it I thought it was funny, but if even LB, whom I have never met but I consider a friend, took offense then I know it must have crossed a line. At a later date I will try to post something more thoughtful about the current state of affairs which I hope will lead to a better discussion than the ones we have been having.

You didn't have to remove it, but it's sad to know that there are people like BJ and the person who drew the cartoon that actually believe that shit. They can't seem to understand that someone can disagree with them and not have evil motives.

[littlebeast13]

Okay, I have removed the cartoon. When I first saw it I thought it was funny, but if even LB, whom I have never met but I consider a friend, took offense then I know it must have crossed a line. At a later date I will try to post something more thoughtful about the current state of affairs which I hope will lead to a better discussion than the ones we have been having.

It takes something really special to offend me, and I wasn't offended by the cartoon. Just saddened that there is so much hatred of opposing viewpoints that this is how both sides seem to view the "other side."

Plus, political satire should never stoop to the level of demonizing the people, as this one does. My surprised reaction to you posting it was that this cartoon is such a blatant pointy stick, and you're not someone who generally wields one, even in a political thread...

lb13

[littlebeast13]

So, the bottom line is that I still have no representation in Congress.

I had a hard time believing that Obama represented me for 8 years. But I gave him the respect he was due as the duly elected President.

I find it hard to believe Obama represented you for even five minutes, let alone eight years, given all the grief you posted during his terms. He WAS your President, just as Trump currently IS every US citizen's President (even Bobby's)... but I don't think he represented your viewpoints much, just as I doubt Karen Handel will be casting many votes in Congress that SSS agrees with. We all have politicians at every level of government who are undeniably our appointed or elected leaders whether we like them or not, but there is absolutely no compulsion to feel like they represent us...

lb13

[jarnon]

Political cartoonist Signe Wilkinson, who's pro-Democratic, hit the nail on the head today, I'm sorry to say:




And Scott Adams is weighing in:

[eyégor]

Okay, I have removed the cartoon. When I first saw it I thought it was funny, but if even LB, whom I have never met but I consider a friend, took offense then I know it must have crossed a line. At a later date I will try to post something more thoughtful about the current state of affairs which I hope will lead to a better discussion than the ones we have been having.

It takes something really special to offend me, and I wasn't offended by the cartoon. Just saddened that there is so much hatred of opposing viewpoints that this is how both sides seem to view the "other side."

Plus, political satire should never stoop to the level of demonizing the people, as this one does. My surprised reaction to you posting it was that this cartoon is such a blatant pointy stick, and you're not someone who generally wields one, even in a political thread...

You didn't have to remove it, but it's sad to know that there are people like BJ and the person who drew the cartoon that actually believe that shit. They can't seem to understand that someone can disagree with them and not have evil motives.

lb13

The cartoons and the above comments help confirm my point from earlier. But just by the mere fact that Flock agreed with with me shows that we can move forward if we stop shouting at each other and listen, not for the attack lines, but the underlying thoughts that those attack lines are supposed to defend.

My politics are not in the Juchian ether, but are far removed from Flock or BiT. There is a middle ground, but until some politician pulls their head out of ass, we will never reach it.

If that happens, I think it will probably come from a Democrat. Not because I think they are "better", but they don't seem to have as rabid a base that they have pander to as opposed to the GOP. While we have plenty of RINOs, I that might be considered possibilities to lead us back to sanity, they have already stuck their collective neck out as far as they dare. On the other hand, the only DINOs we have are those feather covered creatures that were 'asteroided' millions of years ago.

So, Democrats, stop studying your navel and whining about the sad state of affairs in this country, and start putting together some policies that somebody out there might want to hear.

[silverscreenselect]

So, Democrats, stop studying your navel and whining about the sad state of affairs in this country, and start putting together some policies that somebody out there might want to hear.

What's ironic is that Democrats do have policies that people want to hear, as evidenced by surveys that ask people which party better represents their point of view on various issues. It also shows up in generic Congressional questions, where right now Democrats have a substantial lead (when voters are asked if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican if the election were held today).

All of this gets lost in all the hoopla about Trump and team's latest peccadilloes, which admittedly make for great theater but don't answer questions about healthcare, taxes, jobs, the budget, etc.

Another thing that gets lost in the shuffle is the fact that in each of these four special elections, all in highly Republican districts, Democrats outperformed the 2016 results. I'm attaching the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which shows just how Democratic or Republican leaning a district is. If a district is R+5, it means that a generic Republican should beat a generic Democrat 55-45. The Georgia Sixth was R+8 and the other special elections were more highly Republican than that.

There are over 50 Congressional districts now held by Republicans which have a lean of R+6 or less. Win half of those in the 2018 election (which is consistent with the voting patterns so far) and the Democrats will regain the House.

By the way the Utah 3rd District, which Jason Chaffetz currently represents, is probably the next district to hold a special election. That has a rating of R+25. Don't expect any change there either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Part ... ting_Index

[flockofseagulls104]

So, Democrats, stop studying your navel and whining about the sad state of affairs in this country, and start putting together some policies that somebody out there might want to hear.

What's ironic is that Democrats do have policies that people want to hear, as evidenced by surveys that ask people which party better represents their point of view on various issues. It also shows up in generic Congressional questions, where right now Democrats have a substantial lead (when voters are asked if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican if the election were held today).

All of this gets lost in all the hoopla about Trump and team's latest peccadilloes, which admittedly make for great theater but don't answer questions about healthcare, taxes, jobs, the budget, etc.

Another thing that gets lost in the shuffle is the fact that in each of these four special elections, all in highly Republican districts, Democrats outperformed the 2016 results. I'm attaching the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which shows just how Democratic or Republican leaning a district is. If a district is R+5, it means that a generic Republican should beat a generic Democrat 55-45. The Georgia Sixth was R+8 and the other special elections were more highly Republican than that.

There are over 50 Congressional districts now held by Republicans which have a lean of R+6 or less. Win half of those in the 2018 election (which is consistent with the voting patterns so far) and the Democrats will regain the House.

By the way the Utah 3rd District, which Jason Chaffetz currently represents, is probably the next district to hold a special election. That has a rating of R+25. Don't expect any change there either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Part ... ting_Index

First of all, why are you still basing anything on polls, when they have shown that they are as worthless as wet scorecards?

Second of all, maybe the dems may have 'policies'. But they are overwhelmingly based on the false presumption that MORE government can fix a problem. We don't want MORE government.

[silverscreenselect]

Second of all, maybe the dems may have 'policies'. But they are overwhelmingly based on the false presumption that MORE government can fix a problem. We don't want MORE government.

Flock, people who felt the same way you do didn't want Social Security or Medicare either, but those worked out pretty well.

So has the EPA, the FTC, and a lot of other federal agencies that people like you didn't want either.

[BackInTex]

Flock, people who felt the same way you do didn't want Social Security or Medicare either, but those worked out pretty well.

Really? You think SS has worked out well? You probably think the government is giving you something when you get your tax refund.

[Bob78164]

Flock, people who felt the same way you do didn't want Social Security or Medicare either, but those worked out pretty well.

Really? You think SS has worked out well? You probably think the government is giving you something when you get your tax refund.

Hell, yes. Before Social Security, huge numbers of the elderly lived in poverty. Social Security has reduced that percentage, and has done so by a lot. And an easy way to address any financial issues it has is simply to lift the cap on Social Security taxes, just as has already been done with Medicare taxes. That would cost me a bunch of money, but I'd cheerfully pay it as my share of keeping the elderly out of poverty.

I note that you don't even mention Medicare, which is so popular among its recipients that even the Congressional Republicans don't dare touch it. That's because it works and is enormously efficient, much more so than private insurance could ever hope to be.

People (except for a few ideologues) really don't give a damn whether the government is big or is little. What they do give a damn about is whether government makes their lives better or worse. Taking health care away from tens of millions of people in order to fund an enormous tax cut for the rich falls pretty firmly in the latter camp.

That's why the Republicans are desperate to rush through repeal as secretly as possible and then attempt to change the subject -- they hope that by the time Election Day rolls around, people will have forgotten just who is to blame for what is happening. I doubt they're right about that, but that would be cold comfort if they get this travesty through, because the damage will already have been done. --Bob