TakeYouToTasker

I'm still not tired of winning yet.

Good grief. Hurry up and die already.

Worse for engines, worse for the environment, worse for consumers. It's a political "thank you" from the Trump administration for Grassley, and will likely be pursued for reversal by the Administration after Grassley's likely final reelection in 2022. President Trump is exceptionally politically deft, and has no desire to try to fry every fish at once. This was an easy and brilliant concession.

Losing House and Senate seats is going to pale in comparison to what happens when the arrests related to Greg's research start.

It's already spiraled out of control. You think the genie can be put back in the bottle at this point? The violence is only going to escalate from here. Can you imagine how bad it's going to get when the arrests start to happen? This was going to be their gambit the entire time: to protect themselves from prosecution through civil unrest.

Not only that, but there has been a massive upswing in the protected religious right, rights of minorities, and rights of women in KSA since Trump's election, and it all began with the purging of bad actors within that regime in December of last year.

No. Massive privacy concerns.

I would say it's going to depend, very heavily, on the political climate and the behavior of the left until that time. If they keep behaving like this, or worse, punish them; because you can't reward them for what they're doing. If, though I'm not at all hopeful, they can begin to act like a sane opposition party, and can engage without threats of violence or worse, then proceed without advancing a nomination.

Hey, man... Don't sleep on used pretzels.

Tribal sovereignty was a massive mistake, and needs to be done away with.

Actually, I think the simple solution was just successfully defended in the court. Individuals are individuals, and should be treated as individuals; not as parts of groups. No harm is done to the child by allowing them to be adopted by loving parents whom have raised them from infancy. The only perceived harm is done to a grievance group who wish to impose a particular identity on a child to young to have any say in the matter.

@LSHMEAB A follow up to my most recent post in response to you: Which geographic body of states within the 13 Colonies do you believe insisted be encoded into our Founding body of Law that slaves were less than a person, and which do you believe was that slaves were full human beings? Secondarily, which do you think is harder to overcome from a historic perspective as a people? Slavery of individuals, or the institutional encoding in a governments high body of Law that one is less than a person legally.

If it was a factor at all it was a factor that benefited non-slave states. It's not a vestige of slavery, if anything it's a vestige of early abolition movements, and the end of slavery in America. Further, only landed white males could vote. The overwhelming majority of individuals could not vote, white, free, slave, man, woman, or otherwise. They were also represented. There is ample historical evidence that the meaning of Constitution was intended to be fixed to a point in time, including the inclusion of the Amendment process as a path to formally change the Document, the fact that the 13th Amendment was ratified to end the practice of slavery rather than simply reinterpreting Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and other Amendments were passed to extend the franchise to women and blacks. There are also the direct words of the Founders: Washington as the example I'll give, but there are others as well. "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." It's not my opinion that the Constitution was not intended as a living document. It was the opinion of the men who signed it. That it required a Court decision ruled against the man who actually penned the document to give birth to that theory says much. Every election we're ever had has been decided by the Electoral College. Every single one. It's how we decide who is President, and a different system would lead to different campaign strategies and different outcomes because political events comport to the system in which they reside. You can't simply change a single variable of a complex equation and demand a specific outcome that works within the confines of a system unchanged. That makes no sense.

I'd love to hear someone articulate the argument that the Electoral College is a "shadow of slavery".

I reject it. The entire purpose of the Court was as a check on the expansive nature of Government. I will not endorse compromise with those calling an Origionalist view of the Document illegitimate. The protection of our basic human rights, and of our liberties depends on it. I will not legitimize the brownshirting tactics of Democrats by treating and compromising with them, especially when I know where compromise leads. I'd rather stack their dead bodies in piles at this point. Democrats have chosen the route of political violence, revolution, and scorched Earth politics. They shouldn't be rewarded with the open hand of Neville Chamberlain. They have reaped the wind, and desire blood. If we get to that point, Doc, I say give them their own blood in gallons.

That's powerful stuff. That's also Donald Trump's America: a black man, descended from slaves, owning his destiny, establishing a legacy.

I propose that the citizens of "New California" quickly settle this dispute and get along quickly with the dividing of their state into two or three, else they be swept out as part of the problem. The United States does not need California, much less coastal California; and I say be done with them.

It goes back to the Foundational concept that the bodies of law governing individuals in America are supposed to exist, in an overwhelming way, at the state and local level; and that very few laws should exist on a federal level. States rights were the intention that the citizens of Alaska might choose to live their lives under a very different set of laws than citizens of Florida. (neither of those states being part of the original Compact, but I'm using them as examples of people living in very different places with very different cultures and political beliefs). States rights, as a concept, protect New Yorkers from having to live under the auspices of the political philosophies of Texans, and vice versa. The idea being that individual citizens are far more prone to swells of populism and stoked mob desire than the state governments themselves; and that a government dictated by populism was far more prone to upheaval and instability than one steadied by statesmen, who were themselves still beholden, somewhat indirectly to the citizens.

Because cordial disagreement is not cause for dismissal, and I have found him to be neither argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, nor intentionally intellectually dishonest. IE. I believe open conversation about important issues to be vital to the health of our society, and try to do my best (though sometimes I fail) to welcome all honest participants to discuss their ideas, and to vet mine. I'm not interested in echo chambers. They aren't healthy.

What do you know about the concepts of states rights vs individual rights vs federal permissions?

Can you provide a link to the article in question? Your twitter links are always broken for me.

California: Romantic views of medieval pestilence for the 21st century!

No, that they have six years instead of two is a vestige of their original purpose. All it means now is that they are given six years of brand familiarity as an advantage with the electorate, which serves only to protect their incumbency. Your point about their vital function, when functioning, is really what the crux of this is about: the Senate no longer functions because the 17th demanded that they appeal to their party base for election, courting direct populism, rather than to represent the steadying hand of the states. This has led to a Senate stacked with ideologues rather than statesmen, unable to perform their vital functions. As such, with the Senate now functioning as a "Super House of Representatives" it has no real purpose within our government.

I understand what they represent from a practical standpoint, but to make that argument is to make an argument for their abolition. There is no point to having a House and a "Super House" who represent the exact same things. The proper argument is the repeal of the 17th.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-resigns-un-ambassador-2018-10