You'd think it would be better....

[John Eppstein]

Now that the Dems won the house but if anything it's worse. The Senate is even more firmly in the hands of the Party of Demagoguery due to some extremely stupid tactical blunders by the Democratic Party, first among them not having the sense to STFU about gun control and thereby losing most of the sparsely populated rural states - which may not count that much toward the House but have a disproportionately heavy impact on the Senate, since the Senate gets two seats per state regardless of population. Consequently it's possible to win more voters nationwide and still lose seats in the Senate - which has ultimate control in questions like impeachment and many other things where it counts.

And now, as expected, Rump has fired Sessions and appointed his own sycophant to control the future of the investigation. And without control of the Senate there isn't a hell of a lot that can be done. And with The Rapist on the Supreme Court we need the Senatge very badly.

We're screwed.

And all because Pelosi and her bunch couldn't control their yapping.

[upstairs]

So who'd you like to see run for 2020?

[weedywet]

it's definitely BETTER

it means investigations and it means Trump can't basically get anything passed through Congress
it means the Mueller report sees the light of day and we probably get to see Trump's tax returns subpoenaed
it means Medicare and Social Security and (the far from enough) ACA are safe

and it means Senators have to look over their shoulders knowing that far fewer of them are in safe seats for 2020.

[Bob Olhsson]

I agree it's better. Obstruction of justice is a felony and CryBaby Mango Mussolini and his buddy appear to both be about to trip over their manhood.

[John Eppstein]

I agree it's better. Obstruction of justice is a felony and CryBaby Mango Mussolini and his buddy appear to both be about to trip over their manhood.

Well, I hope so. Mango is already making moves to kneecap the Muller investigation and there's no way to effect an impeachment with the Senate firmly in the hands of the Party of Cowardly Fascists. I just keep seeing parallels between now and 1930s Germany. And with the Senate out of reach the power of the house, while substantial ios definitely limited.The reasons for this limitation go all the way back to the Founding Fathers, who did not see democracy as we see it. The Senate was deliberately set up to give the landowners in the more sparsely populated states disproportionate power over the "rabble" in the cities.

And now the voter suppression and gerrymandering don't look good. It's a miracle that the Democrats did as well as they did considering all the ways the opposition was cheating, and, as I previously mentioned, we have a distinct disadvantage in attempting to flip the Senate in the next election unless the Democrats start learning to plan tactically and not blurt.

I personally think that Pelosi is an exceedingly poor choice for speaker - she comes from the Feinstein cabal of SF based pseudo-progressives, who I trust about as far as I can throw the Golden Gate Bridge. They pay lip service to all the splashy "progressive" talking points, but on the issues that really matter like socialized health care, reigning in runaway building development and real estate profiteering, and putting real controls on Wall Street and banking they are and always have been "Republican Lite."

[John Eppstein]

So who'd you like to see run for 2020?

Good Question. I was for Sanders last time and I kinda like Warren, but at the moment I'm leaning toward Beto O'Rourke. He has a charisma about him that reminds me a lot of JFK. And he stands a much better chance of carrying the all important rural states.

[John Eppstein]

it's definitely BETTER

it means investigations and it means Trump can't basically get anything passed through Congress
it means the Mueller report sees the light of day and we probably get to see Trump's tax returns subpoenaed
it means Medicare and Social Security and (the far from enough) ACA are safe

and it means Senators have to look over their shoulders knowing that far fewer of them are in safe seats for 2020.

It LOOKS better but is it as good as it appears on the surface? It LOOKED really good in 2016.

Don't forget - not only does Rump own the Senate, he also has SCOTUS in his back pocket.

As to Senators looking over their shoulders, I don't think so Remember that there a 2 senators for each state, be it a populous urban state like California or NY or a sparsely populated hick backwater like Wyoming and North Dakota. And unfortunately there happen to be more hick backwater states than populated urban states. And the Democrats will not be able to flip those rural states unless they stop yapping about gun control. That is a major, major tactical blunder, because that's the one issue that will make voters in those areas ignore things like health care that would otherwise be extremely attractive.

Incidentally, I REALLY HATE being right about stuff like that.

[weedywet]

70%+ of the american public supports stronger gun controls including an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.

[Bob Olhsson]

While the cryBaby can't be impeached yet, everyone around him can be prosecuted including members of Congress.

[weedywet]

Yes. And it’s not at all clear that HE can’t be indicted and prosecuted.

[Bob Olhsson]

Indeed if the "conservative" Supreme Court justices actually vote conservative instead of supporting his treason.

[John Eppstein]

Indeed if the "conservative" Supreme Court justices actually vote conservative instead of supporting his treason.

Which they're extremely unlikely to do.

The Rapist and Gorsuch owe their balls to "Grab 'Em By The Pussy". You really think they're gonna deviate from the rape party line?

[John Eppstein]

70%+ of the american public supports stronger gun controls including an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.

Probably. However, as I keep pointing out the senate doesn't work by the number of people represented. The state of Montana, which has fewer people that LA (or maybe even San Francisco) gets as many senators as the entire state of California. And in Montana probably 90% of the adult population owns guns and goes hunting. And it's not just the Western states, either - the same thing goes for the states in Upper New England. The lawyer who handles my financial situation lives in Damariscotta, Maine. He's a very intelligent, thoughtful man in his late '60s but is also a staunch Republican. We've had a few interesting conversations in recent weeks that have made it clear to me thjat people in rural, relatively depressed areas simply do not see things the way that urban people do and have very good reasons based on the fact that the economic situation in such areas it totally different, indeed alien, to the way people live in urban areas. For one thing a majority of the people in Rural Maine rely on hunting for a considerable amount of their food. They all have huge freezers filled with deer meat. They hunt in deer season and live off it to a large extent for the rest of the year. People in cities can't understand that. In lobster season they go out and work their asses off hauling lobster traps (only tourists call them "pots") for steadily diminishing income, as the lobsters get harder and harder to catch. A lobster that fetches $12-$15 retail (or $25-$30 ort more in a restaurant) goes for maybe 3 bucks at the wharf.

IIRC assault weapons are already banned in nearly all states and have been for years.

[John Eppstein]

Indeed if the "conservative" Supreme Court justices actually vote conservative instead of supporting his treason.

What "conservatives? We have no conservatives anymore. It's the party of rapists, thieves, and traitors.

AKA Nazis.

I never thought I'd say this, but where the fuck is Barry Goldwater when we need him?

[John Eppstein]

While the cryBaby can't be impeached yet, everyone around him can be prosecuted including members of Congress.

Except that they OWN SCOTUS.

[nobby]

What "conservatives? We have no conservatives anymore. It's the party of rapists, thieves, and traitors.

I thought that's what conservative meant.

Seriously what do you think conservative means other than dishonest and ignorant.

Not fically conservative, which most liberals are or conservationist or conversationalist

And not what conservatives think they are because ignorance is a component of my definition of conservative. They usually think they have some kind of monopoly on morality and responsibility. Bullshit.

[John Eppstein]

What "conservatives? We have no conservatives anymore. It's the party of rapists, thieves, and traitors.

I thought that's what conservative meant.

Seriously what do you think conservative means other than dishonest and ignorant.

Not fically conservative, which most liberals are or conservationist or conversationalist

And not what conservatives think they are because ignorance is a component of my definition of conservative. They usually think they have some kind of monopoly on morality and responsibility. Bullshit.

No. Conservatives used to be the side of "morality" (regardless of what we hedonists might think of that), the ones who provided a balance to our Dionysian excesses. They were also the side of capitalism (which is what made out country strong), but not to the point of rapacious thievery. Fiscal conservatism,. yes! John McCain was a good conservative. Barry Goldwater, who was reviled as a "radical conservative" in the '60s was actually in favor of most Human Rights issues, including legalization of pot.

There are (almost) no true Conservatives left in US politics since McCain died - there are only fascists and crooks trying to feather their own pockets. These are noty co9nservatives. Mafiosi are not conservatives. True conservatives are not in favor or selling off our national parkland to benefit short term business interests. True conservatives believe in CONSERVING those assets.

Real conservatives are not "my pocket good, your pocket bad." Real conservatives are "you work hard, you're honest, you get what's coming to you."

Understand, I am NOT a conservative. But I do believe that REAL conservatives provide balance to our system. That is NOT doing everything possible to steal our country and turn it into a fascist dictatorship. Which is what Rump and his henchmen are very obviously attempting. After all, if Dolph could do it, why not Rump? (HEY,DUMBASS - Dolph LOST!)

[upstairs]

I generally try to stay out of political debate, as it's pretty much all hegelian nonsense (you guys can say whatever you want on our forum though, so long as it doesn't cross certain obvious lines), but I'll stick up for the old-fashioned "real conservatives" which John identifies. I suppose I'm one of them, with a few caveats.

I think it may be useful to know, however, that the big (orange?) elephant in the room got elected largely because of the distaste old-fashioned conservatives had for their supposed representation. I'm a bit of a hick (family is from Oklahoma, grew up in a red state, go out to the range on Saturday morning, the works), so I'm connected to many of those folks, and they certainly aren't on the side of big business (at least knowingly) and have a great deal of distrust for their own leadership. I'm just saying, don't confuse the values with those who profit from preaching them.

Though I guess I'm a sinner with the rest of you

[Bob Olhsson]

They believe that their ability to become rich is under attack. The truth is that it is, however, the people attacking their opportunity are the very people who are telling them that "it's all the liberals' fault." Big business has always been pro-fascist/anti-labor.

[nobby]

No. Conservatives used to be the side of "morality"

That's where the dishonesty, hypocrisy and ignorance come in. They often don't walk the talk and when they do they think they have a monopoly on morality within their Judeo-Christian bubble.

Fiscally conservative? You mean like liberals who aren't rich and have to be fiscally conservative?

At this point we're onto other definitions of liberal and conservative.

For example, during the Viet Nam war, conservatives bombed Viet Nam liberally.

[weedywet]

I’ve got mine. Fuck the rest of you then.

That’s “conservatism” in a nutshell.

Oh... with a hefty side of racism.

[Bob Olhsson]

The classic problem with inherited wealth. Destroying health care doesn't exactly protect you from disease. Destruction of customers doesn't grow businesses. The use of fascism to protect you from the labor unions does not assure your safety.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

"Conservative" literally means averse to change. I guess reactionary aversion to making the world a better place is the kind of balance John is talking about...

Religious thinking goes hand-in-hand with conservatism, too. Everyone gets what they deserve, so the poor deserve their poverty and the wealthy deserve their wealth. Add in an ignorance of statistics and you get people who will hold up one example of a person going from a poor background to being successful in business as evidence that all poor people could do the same if they weren't so lazy. Just as they hold up Obama as proof that systemic racism is a myth (while paradoxically thinking that he proves black people are mostly too lazy and "primitive" to succeed in the same way).

US politics is confusing though, because there are so many conservative, corporate shills in the Democratic party that you can't draw a dividing line by party affiliation.

"Fiscal conservatism" is bollocks as well; public money flows easily into deficit when there are wars to be fought or corporations to subsidise, but not when their own citizens are starving or dying of disease.

[nobby]

"Conservative" literally means averse to change.

Indeed, but in the US it means going back to the past.

Religious thinking goes hand-in-hand with conservatism, too. Everyone gets what they deserve, so the poor deserve their poverty and the wealthy deserve their wealth.

I think they call that "abundance religion" or something. Television mega churches pimp the concept. Pretty much the opposite of actual Christianity.

US politics is confusing though, because there are so many conservative, corporate shills in the Democratic party that you can't draw a dividing line by party affiliation.

No, the two parties are basically polar opposites as far as voting records and policy proposals. They could not be more different. Conservatives/ Republicans had their accomplices in the Supreme Court legalize bribery through "Citizens United", ruling that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, believe it or not. It's the exact opposite of the election reform that Democrats wanted.

Name an issue that Republicans and Democrats agree on. I think I can think of one but I'm not going to help you

"Fiscal conservatism" is bollocks as well; public money flows easily into deficit when there are wars to be fought or corporations to subsidise, but not when their own citizens are starving or dying of disease.

Rape-ubliKKKans are ALWAYS the party to spend like drunken sailors on massive tax cuts for the rich, starting with Reagan. And ALWAYS the party that uses the threat of deficits to try to cut social programs. EXTREMELY clear party line divide.

[John Eppstein]

No. Conservatives used to be the side of "morality"

That's where the dishonesty, hypocrisy and ignorance come in. They often don't walk the talk and when they do they think they have a monopoly on morality within their Judeo-Christian bubble.

Fiscally conservative? You mean like liberals who aren't rich and have to be fiscally conservative?

At this point we're onto other definitions of liberal and conservative.

For example, during the Viet Nam war, conservatives bombed Viet Nam liberally.

Well, these days the nutcase evangelists have pretty much usurped the pseudo-moral side of "conservatism".

Fiscal conservatism is an odd thing and depends a lot on where you live and who you hang out with. The lawyer I was talking about (who is a small town country lawyer, not a fat-cat lawyer) was telling me about his reasons for being against raising the minimum wage, which I disagree with but have to admit that they do make a cer4tain kind of sense if you live in a place like Maine, where a large percentage of the population lives off of occupations like fishing, where you income is determined by the size of your catch, not the number of hours you work. And you work a disproportionate number of hours for your income, which is determined by market conditions. His argument is that raising the minimum wage would disrupt the economy and inflate the prices of everything. Maine is a place where the cost of living is MUCH lower than in more populous states - what I pay in rent in four years in Fairfield, Ca. would buy me a good sized house in most parts of Maine. Of course the flipside of things being cheap is that nobody makes much money and a large percentage of the state's income comes in the 3 month summer tourist season.

My point is that we need to understand people who live in places like that and figure out ways to accommodate them. It's almost like an alien country up there and there are plenty of other states with similar economic and social conditions - which are not likely to change because we, as a country, need those places as they are. We like our affordable lobsters and fish. We like our summer vacation spots.And it all is possible because the place runs on an economic balance that hasn't really changed much since the late 19th to early 20th century.

The problem is that this underpopulated, economically backward state has as many senate seats as all of California or New York. And, like all of us, they look at things from the viewpoint of what affects THEM. If we want to take the Senate - and HOLD it - we have to think about people in those parts of the country.

[nobby]

The problem is that this underpopulated, economically backward state has as many senate seats as all of California or New York. And, like all of us, they look at things from the viewpoint of what affects THEM. If we want to take the Senate - and HOLD it - we have to think about people in those parts of the country.

What exactly should we think about people in those parts of the country?

What does it matter when we can't vote in those parts of the country?

As far as minimum wage goes, there's an argument to be made to keep the federal minimum wage and state minimum wage separate.

So I think, currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, Maine's is $10.00 and here on Long Island it's $11.00. As you might imagine, $10 is worth more in Maine than $11 is on Long Island.

[John Eppstein]

"Conservative" literally means averse to change.

Indeed, but in the US it means going back to the past.

What urbanites fail to understand is this: THE PAST IS THE PRESENT IN LARGE PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. And I'm not talking about social attitudes, I'm talking about hard, cold, economic conditions.

Religious thinking goes hand-in-hand with conservatism, too. Everyone gets what they deserve, so the poor deserve their poverty and the wealthy deserve their wealth.

I think they call that "abundance religion" or something. Television mega churches pimp the concept. Pretty much the opposite of actual Christianity.

There are always predators to prey on the weak and disadvantaged. One should not confuse them with legitimate spiritual leaders, for example MLK.

US politics is confusing though, because there are so many conservative, corporate shills in the Democratic party that you can't draw a dividing line by party affiliation.

No, the two parties are basically polar opposites as far as voting records and policy proposals. They could not be more different. Conservatives/ Republicans had their accomplices in the Supreme Court legalize bribery through "Citizens United", ruling that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, believe it or not. It's the exact opposite of the election reform that Democrats wanted.

Wrong. The reason that I hate Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi is that for all their "feel-good" fake progressive blabbermouthing about gun control, LGBT rights (which I support but am pretty sick of hearing about), and hypocritical rhetoric about the environment, at the core both of them are hardline supporters of Wall Street and predatory building developers and corporate landlords. Oh, and Di-Fi hates rock and roll and tried to get the cops to shut down all the music clubs in SF when she was mayor. And was largely successful, although it took a few years after she had moved up the political food chain for it to fully take effect. She hates the music and fears its ability to shape popular thought and opinion.

The pair of them are "Republican lite". Why do you think it took Di-Fi so long to do anything with Ms. Ford's evidence against Kavanaugh? That. my friends, was deliberate sabotage.

Name an issue that Republicans and Democrats agree on. I think I can think of one but I'm not going to help you

Well, if you're talking about rank-and-file that would be health care.

I also think that if you separate the hard core Trumpie fascists you find that most run of the mill republicans are not the racists that the Democrats characterize them as and are a lot more open other things as well.

"Fiscal conservatism" is bollocks as well; public money flows easily into deficit when there are wars to be fought or corporations to subsidise, but not when their own citizens are starving or dying of disease.

Rape-ubliKKKans are ALWAYS the party to spend like drunken sailors on massive tax cuts for the rich, starting with Reagan. And ALWAYS the party that uses the threat of deficits to try to cut social programs. EXTREMELY clear party line divide.

That's because the Republican leadership is bought and paid for by big corporate interests and lie through their teeth on matters of economics. But so do a lot of Democrats. Starting with Di-Fi and Pelosi, but not to forget Clinton, although she's pretty old news at this point. (I liked Bill, but disagreed sharply with a lot of his actions.)

Corruption is a totally bi-partisan disease, although the Party of Cowardly Greed and Fascism is more open about it these days.

[John Eppstein]

The problem is that this underpopulated, economically backward state has as many senate seats as all of California or New York. And, like all of us, they look at things from the viewpoint of what affects THEM. If we want to take the Senate - and HOLD it - we have to think about people in those parts of the country.

What exactly should we think about people in those parts of the country?

What does it matter when we can't vote in those parts of the country?

As far as minimum wage goes, there's an argument to be made to keep the federal minimum wage and state minimum wage separate.

So I think, currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, Maine's is $10.00 and here on Long Island it's $11.00. As you might imagine, $10 is worth more in Maine than $11 is on Long Island.

What does it matter?

It matters when you think about major planks in a party's national position. Again, I'm talking largely about gun control. I've been trying to explain to you why people in states like Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc. are very defensive about their guns - a large percentage of them hunt for food, because that's how the economics of their states work.

And each of those underpopulated rural states gets the same number of seats in the Senate as each of our overcrowded urban states. WHICH MEANS THAT EVERY ONE OF THOSE "HICKS" HAS PROPORTIONALLY MORE POWER PER VOTE IN THE SENATE THAN WE DO.

Which is why we can carry the popular vote nationally by a landslide unlike any seen since Watergate and still lose the Senate.

The strategy of the Democratic Party sucks.

Without the Senate we will not be able to pass any impeachment proceedings, be the subject Rump, Kavanaugh, or whoever. We'll have a hard if not impossible time overturning any of the toxic legislation that has been passed in the last two years.

Without the Senate we're most likely looking at another period of deadlock.

Strategy, people, strategy. You have to know when not to push it so you can win in the end. We don't need more Pyrrhic victories.

[John Eppstein]

I'm leaning more and more toward Beto O'Rourke fort president. That boy knows how to turn Republicans and he's got more charisma than we've seen in over half a century

[John Eppstein]

"Conservative" literally means averse to change. I guess reactionary aversion to making the world a better place is the kind of balance John is talking about...

I think it's more about exerting caution about being an "early adopter." What you're describing is more like being a reactionary.

Religious thinking goes hand-in-hand with conservatism, too. Everyone gets what they deserve, so the poor deserve their poverty and the wealthy deserve their wealth. Add in an ignorance of statistics and you get people who will hold up one example of a person going from a poor background to being successful in business as evidence that all poor people could do the same if they weren't so lazy. Just as they hold up Obama as proof that systemic racism is a myth (while paradoxically thinking that he proves black people are mostly too lazy and "primitive" to succeed in the same way).

I think you're mixing up several different things that, while they often run in the same pack, are actually separate.

For example, although historically religion has often been an implement for political control of a population, it has not always been conservative (supporting the powers that be), it has just as often been a force for radical change, back as far as the pharoah Akhenaten and his got Ahten. and Moses and the Hebrew god Ywh (vowels are not written in ancient Hebrew.), continuing into the modern period with The Troubles in Ireland.