Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Yup.  Each legislative body sets its own rules.  The 60 vote filibuster thing is not a law that has to be undone.  Next legislative session in the Senate majority simply votes to change the rule.  And then faces the consequences at the next election.

If they want to pack the Supreme Court, they have the ability, assuming they win both Houses and the Presidency.

Elections have consequences.

Hillary shoulda tried harder in 2016.

As to adding states, there's a rule for that, too.  It's like those Founding Fathers did their homework and researched everything available on the systems of governments in history.

And I believe the territory has to apply for statehood, not just be hand-waved by Congress.  I am unfamiliar if Puerto Rico has had such a referendum that passed.  Same for DC.

And then we can get to Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, et al.

 

"You get a state!  And you get a state!  And you get a state!"

Bring it.

Dems should be careful what they wish for.  News to me being stationed in PACAF, Guam and American Samoa lean significantly right of center in terms of politics. 

Posted
1 hour ago, dream big said:

Dems should be careful what they wish for.  News to me being stationed in PACAF, Guam and American Samoa lean significantly right of center in terms of politics. 

Yeah I guess if 72% of votes going to Hillary is the same as right of center, sure.

Posted
9 hours ago, brawnie said:

Hah, I guess then you guys are gonna support when Dems add 2 Supreme Court justices, approve stateship for DC and Puerto Rico, and end the 60 vote filibuster rule here in a year, as well, right? Because they’ll do it all under the legality of the US system and constitution. They’ll be playing “by the rules,” right?

https://www.axios.com/democrats-supreme-court-ginsburg-options-871f3e66-e7a4-4f40-9691-d20de1f4be61.html

Or are these not the rules that you want to play by? The truth is, a huge amount of US politics is contingent on good will and not doing shit like saying that Obama can’t have a judge within a year of election because of morality and then being a hypocrite less than 4 years later. 

This is the end of the republic. And it’s animosity on both sides, combined with a good amount of boot licking and pearl clutching, that’s gonna do it.

SCOTUS has expanded and contracted in the past, but has been at 9 justices since 1869. They absolutely can try to “pack the court” if they have the votes. I think it’s in poor taste, but they’d have every right to do so.

Congress can admit PR as well, but historically PR would have to draft a Constitution, submit it to Congress, then they’d have to pass a series of laws creating the state, and that takes time. Enough time that maybe an election cycle changes the party structure to prevent it. Worth noting that Puerto Ricans denied statehood at the ballot box in 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012. The GAO in 2012 found statehood actually would hurt the island’s economy and set them back as they would have a higher tax burden.

DC won’t happen without a long court fight. DC is actually created in the constitution as a federally administered area, not controlled by a state. Since you like facts, here’s why. I’ll even quote the source: 

“In 1783, a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers angry about not having been paid gathered to protest outside the building where the Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Despite requests from the Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to deal with the unruly mob, and so Congress was forced to abruptly adjourn to New Jersey.”

After that incident, the founders realized having the nation’s seat of power in a state meant the state could control their access and/or deny them protection during the lawmaking process. To maintain impartiality, they decided, it needed to be an area without bias (I think all of this is in Federalist 43). So, the Constitution set out a plan to make that happen. Maryland and Virginia both gave land to create DC. VA ended up taking their contribution (modern day Alexandria) back after a while.

So it’s not an open and shut case for DC. It’ll be in court for forever.

These racist, fascist founders were real idiots, I tell you.

  • Upvote 3
Posted

The current proposals for DC shrink the federal district to the Mall and surrounding federal buildings. Virginia took back it's part of DC prior to the Civil War so there's prescident to make existing parts of the district part of a state.

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Breckey said:

The current proposals for DC shrink the federal district to the Mall and surrounding federal buildings. Virginia took back it's part of DC prior to the Civil War so there's prescident to make existing parts of the district part of a state.

Interesting. Maryland would have to agree to that, as the Constitution requires a new state made from the lands of another to have that state’s approval.

Still poses a legal question, as the district was designed to have its own National Guard and City Government that answers to the Federal Govt. for protection’s sake. That’ll get bogged down for years. 

Edited by Kiloalpha
Posted
10 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Interesting. Maryland would have to agree to that, as the Constitution requires a new state made from the lands of another to have that state’s approval.

Still poses a legal question, as the district was designed to have its own National Guard and City Government that answers to the Federal Govt. for protection’s sake. That’ll get bogged down for years. 

No, you shrink the federal district so you don’t have to make a new state. 

Posted

President Trump has refused to openly acknowledge if he loses, he'll allow for a peaceful transfer of power... Instead, he chooses to continue pushing the narrative that the only way he loses is via fraud. Sounds like he's a pilot on baseops. About par for the course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted
2 hours ago, slackline said:

President Trump has refused to openly acknowledge if he loses, he'll allow for a peaceful transfer of power... Instead, he chooses to continue pushing the narrative that the only way he loses is via fraud. Sounds like he's a pilot on baseops. About par for the course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has any president come out and said "I'll step down if I lose the election"?  

This is a recycled talking point from the GW Bush years.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted

You guys are asking the wrong question. Has any president ever not been willing to admit if he loses, it's just because he lost?

Hardly recycled from Bush.

Say squirrel all you want. Is this truly important? Very well could be, but it could also be more bloviating from an expert in the area. It is more evidence to his true lack of any leadership ability though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted (edited)

I’m not going to claim I’ve heard/read every statement the president has made regarding election results, but I’ve seen several taken wildly out of context, as he was specifically addressing the mail-in ballot shit show, which opens up the system for fraud. Hell, even absentee ballots aren’t without risk of fraud, and the mail-in ones people want are even less resistant to fuckery.

There’s a long list of things that contradict your claim of “void of any leadership.” I get it you don’t agree with some (most?) of his admin’s policies, but your disagreement is not a corollary to lack of leadership. Just as I don’t agree with many Obama policies and did not like him as president, but I will never say Obama lacks leadership capability. 

Edited by brabus
Posted
I’m not going to claim I’ve heard/read every statement the president has made regarding election results, but I’ve seen several taken wildly out of context, as he was specifically addressing the mail-in ballot shit show, which opens up the system for fraud. Hell, even absentee ballots aren’t without risk of fraud, and the mail-in ones people want are even less resistant to ery.
There’s a long list of things that contradict your claim of “void of any leadership.” I get it you don’t agree with some (most?) of his admin’s policies, but your disagreement is not a corollary to lack of leadership. Just as I don’t agree with many Obama policies and did not like him as president, but I will never say Obama lacks leadership capability. 

That's legitimate. I can respect that.

I have listened to his words from this time exactly. Unless someone is acting as an apologist for him, hard to misinterpret.

As to leadership, I have to disagree. I love where he has taken the country in some things with respect to other nations. Other things not so much. I'm not referring to his actions per se, but the way he does what he does. If you call that leadership, then we have starkly contrasting definitions on what a good leader is. To me, and probably most of the world, it also requires a "how to treat people, and interact with the world" aspect. He doesn't seem to care. It isn't refreshing.

By the way, I seriously disliked the Obama administration, but that man has those leadership traits in spades over current CinC.


Edited for autocorrect...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted

It’s funny that you mention about the definition/perception of leadership. I’m in a group on Facebook for USAF O’s (long story...) and there are a TON of posts in there about leadership development techniques, styles, etc. Every one that I have seen is generated by and subsequently flooded by a bunch of medical and MSG O’s. I posted one time that my leadership philosophy and mentorship program was primarily getting young guys to study and be good at killing the enemy (tangible results). They looked at me like I had 3 arms because I didn’t want to take the time to sing kumbaya and get to know the feelings of every individual. To them, that’s leadership even if the ability to do their job suffers. To me, doing the job at a high level and producing results is what matters. I’ll admit that the President sounds like a dipshit very often but he produces some good results. The former president definitely made people feel better about themselves but was light on things that mattered (I know that’s a gross over-simplification). 
 

My $0.02

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Posted
3 hours ago, slackline said:


That's legitimate. I can respect that.

I have listened to his words from this time exactly. Unless someone is acting as an apologist for him, hard to misinterpret.

As to leadership, I have to disagree. I love where he has taken the country in some things with respect to other nations. Other things not so much. I'm not referring to his actions per se, but the way he does what he does. If you call that leadership, then we have starkly contrasting definitions on what a good leader is. To me, and probably most of the world, it also requires a "how to treat people, and interact with the world" aspect. He doesn't seem to care. It isn't refreshing.

By the way, I seriously disliked the Obama administration, but that man has those leadership traits in spades over current CinC.


Edited for autocorrect...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

uh-phrasing-35034978.png

Posted
1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

It’s funny that you mention about the definition/perception of leadership. I’m in a group on Facebook for USAF O’s (long story...) and there are a TON of posts in there about leadership development techniques, styles, etc. Every one that I have seen is generated by and subsequently flooded by a bunch of medical and MSG O’s. I posted one time that my leadership philosophy and mentorship program was primarily getting young guys to study and be good at killing the enemy (tangible results). They looked at me like I had 3 arms because I didn’t want to take the time to sing kumbaya and get to know the feelings of every individual. To them, that’s leadership even if the ability to do their job suffers. To me, doing the job at a high level and producing results is what matters. I’ll admit that the President sounds like a dipshit very often but he produces some good results. The former president definitely made people feel better about themselves but was light on things that mattered (I know that’s a gross over-simplification). 
 

My $0.02

You can do both though and your people will love you infinitely more for it. Or you can be like every other commander that breaks their organization to make a stellar OPR. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
3 hours ago, slackline said:

I love where he has taken the country in some things with respect to other nations. Other things not so much. I'm not referring to his actions per se, but the way he does what he does.

I understand your perspective, and I think it is valid. Perhaps the “perfect” leader would be Trump’s production combined with Obama’s emotional intelligence/communication ability ( I know that’s very simplistic). I do not like how Trump communicates or even does some things, but I place a lot of importance on what his administration produces. While I prefer him to not suck so bad at comm and significantly lacking in emotional intelligence, he produces a lot and in the end, those results are worth far more than a leader who talks a good game and makes me feel good, but doesn’t do shit to help _____ / fucks ____ up wholesale.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Posted

So true. Superb Packaging would be great, but if the product alone is superb than I will continue to drink the awesome Cool Aid despite its packaging to be blunt. Function before fashion, always. Not always easy to be Fashionable and Functional.

Posted

I guess I'm just not seeing the same awesome results you guys are... He's done some good, but I'd say the balance is not in his favor. I'm not here to say anything that hasn't already been explained, then completely ignored on here.

One thing Pres Trump has going for him is the inexplicable ability to inspire absolute loyalty in spite of his obvious lack of concern for anything or anyone but himself. His followers, because I don't know what else to call them, have an amazing ability to ignore everything he says and does that is clearly beneath his station while buying everything he says is "thanks to him" as gospel truth.

Obama created a serious divide in our country, and Trump thought it looked like fun, so he's run with it on steroids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 4
Posted
6 minutes ago, slackline said:

Obama created a serious divide in our country...

can you expand on what you're referencing here?

Posted
19 minutes ago, slackline said:

I guess I'm just not seeing the same awesome results you guys are... He's done some good, but I'd say the balance is not in his favor. I'm not here to say anything that hasn't already been explained, then completely ignored on here.

One thing Pres Trump has going for him is the inexplicable ability to inspire absolute loyalty in spite of his obvious lack of concern for anything or anyone but himself. His followers, because I don't know what else to call them, have an amazing ability to ignore everything he says and does that is clearly beneath his station while buying everything he says is "thanks to him" as gospel truth.

Obama created a serious divide in our country, and Trump thought it looked like fun, so he's run with it on steroids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the serious divide began when Gingrich was Speaker and trying to start some “Us vs Them” tribalism partisan showdown between the parties with Clinton e.g. the budget and subsequent shutdown, impeachment, etc. 

Posted
12 hours ago, slackline said:

President Trump has refused to openly acknowledge if he loses, he'll allow for a peaceful transfer of power... Instead, he chooses to continue pushing the narrative that the only way he loses is via fraud. 

Trump will "allow" for the peaceful transition of power...  That is out right funny considering members of the democrat party are openly calling for violence and mayhem before, during and after the election.  Along with all of the other temper tantrum tactics like impeachment, stacking the SCOTUS, adding States, mail in voting shenanigans, false narratives when it comes to race relations, etc.  And the defund the police bullshit coming from democrats in democrat run cities is part of the plan too.  Let's make sure the police departments are in a really bad spot when it comes to dealing with democrats "burning it all down" when Trump runs the tables on November 3rd.  At least Bloomberg isn't out there violating election laws by paying off criminal's fees in Florida so they can vote.  Oh wait. Yes he is...   

And the alternative???  Biden?  That dude is the literal architect of the 1994 crime bill.  He sniffs and rubs up on women and children.  His son is a train wreck who made millions off of the very countries that Democrats accuse Trump of being in bed with.  

I used to be a middle of the road guy when it comes to politics.  I have always just wanted left alone.  I am a simple Texan.  But this is fast becoming right vs wrong IRT policies and politics.  I would so much rather have the loud mouthed New Yorker who gets shit done and protects the country instead of someone in the Democrat party who has been in DC for almost 50 fucking years. 

The republicans don't owe the democrats shit when it comes to a SCOTUS pick after the Kavanaugh debacle.  Trump is the President and there is a republican senate.  There will be a 3rd Trump SCOTUS justice.  

  • Like 5
Posted
19 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

The republicans don't owe the democrats shit when it comes to a SCOTUS pick after the Kavanaugh debacle.

are you suggesting that if the "kavanaugh debacle" didn't happen republicans would "owe" the democrats or are you just that drunk on your own koolaid?

You seem to be fairly solidified in your stance and well versed in the republican talking points.  I hate to break it to you, but reading your post you weren't middle of the road, you were just confused brah.

  • Like 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, drewpey said:

You seem to be fairly solidified in your stance and well versed in the republican talking points.  I hate to break it to you, but reading your post you weren't middle of the road, you were just confused brah.

You are right.  I am solidified in my stance.  However, I am willing to change my mind and my vote.  Sell me on the modern day democrat party, it's tactics and it's candidate.  

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

At least Bloomberg isn't out there violating election laws by paying off criminal's fees in Florida so they can vote.  Oh wait. Yes he is...   

What election laws did he violate? Florida law allows criminal fines and fees to be paid off by third parties and the money was donated to a third party charity organization that has also had $6M donated by other celebrities. There are no stipulations who the recipients vote for or even if they vote. How is this restitution any more of an attempt to garner votes than the payroll tax deferral that Trump says may be permanent if he wins?

The legislation passed that imposed the fee restrictions was passed AFTER an Amendment was passed by referendum restoring voting rights for felons, essentially nullifying the will of the people.

Edited by Breckey

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...