Cugalabanza

Agreed. Although, I can understand the position of maybe Trump is not guilty of the primary suspected charge of collusion, but he’s wary of all the scrutiny because he has some weird unrelated dirty laundry that he’d prefer not to have aired.

It’s kind of hard to see in those pics. Here’s a close-up...

He does tend to advocate for the Coco Puffs with excessive zeal.

It remains to be seen whether the warrants were obtained fairly. We simply don't know what evidence was presented. I understand the skepticism, but it's premature to state that the intelligence apparatus/legal system is collapsing our system of justice.

Term limits are intriguing, but I’m not sold just yet. Ideally, voters would do the job of limiting terms as necessary. The bigger problems to me are lobbying and campaign finance. Lawmakers spend way too much time shmoozing, planning fundraisers and campaigning all the time. With what little time they have left, they !@#$ around drafting memos and slinging mud at their enemies. If we could have them actually put some energy into legislating, in the actual interests of their constituencies, that might be acceptable.

I was agreeing with Tasker about the electoral college. I see the value of it. I don’t support abolishing the 17th. I see your point about representation, but I agree with others who pointed out that people are disgusted with our legislators—you won’t be able to make the case that we need more of them. We need to work on the *quality* of representation, not quantity.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I see you edited to add this last part. That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that people can have a conversation and end at a place where, while they don't agree on all points, they respect each other's position.

I didn't dangle it. Were you paying attention at all?

I hope you're right about the worst individuals in government getting their comeuppance. Not only would it remove so much toxicity from the process, but it would set an awesome precedent and go far to make people feel empowered (sorry to use such a lefty sounding word ) that they can influence for good. Let me say: Thank you! for engaging with me lately. I really appreciate the good discussions. It usually doesn't go that way when I try to say what's on my mind here.

I'd say this civil war cry is coming from the ones who are politically hyper-active. Weren't you singing Trump's praises just the other day as a bold new under-appreciated savior? I think Trump's erratic behavior is part of the problem. It increases fear and anxiety, which tends to not bring out the best in people. Thank you for your obtuse, confrontational non-contribution to the discussion.

The divisions are greatly exaggerated, in the press and on social media and in internet forums. If it comes to a civil war, it will be because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fringe voices have been way too loud. These times right now are chaotic and loud and inflammatory, but the end is not yet.

I do understand what you're talking about. I just don't think we're as different in that way as you do.

I hear you. I think your points are valid. I differ in that I think the nation as a whole can withstand the broader diversity. I don't think any issue (or issues) is so split and essential that reasonable compromise cannot be found. The divisiveness and combativeness that we're experiencing now is mostly due to ****ty politics. You don't get off the plane in California and experience this overwhelming culture shock. I think people watch too much ****ty news. And I think way too much of the news is way too ****ty. And I think our politicians generally behave terribly. When we travel, when my kid plays with other kids, including families of different backgrounds, things are generally fine. People generally care about the same things. Politics tends to take relatively simple moral issues and confuse the hell out of them so that an absurd conclusion can be claimed to have been arrived at logically. If we concentrate our efforts, as citizens, on minimizing corruption and fraud in our government, I suspect many of the other problems will fall away.

I happen to agree with you on this. It's a point I find myself making fairly regularly with left leaning friends who say we should do away with the electoral college. I mention "The Great Compromise" and nobody ever seems to know what I'm talking about. I often feel like I'm the only one who remembers that from social studies in middle school. Anyway, I appreciate the thinking of our founding fathers on this. It's a legit safeguard in a representative democracy. However, gerrymandering... that's where it kind of gets !@#$ed up. This one I'm not with you so much on.

Ok, but first I think we need to renegotiate my compensation package.

But the EPA *is* still regulating emissions. It’s just that they’re setting the standard (yet to be determined, according to Pruitt) to levels more beneficial to the auto industry. It’s not like they’re saying this is not our jurisdiction, so take it away, lawmakers. Instead, they’re still owning it, but setting a different agenda. I think attributing to Pruitt, Trump, et al, this noble mission of re-engineering how our gov functions, to a purer democratic ideal is inaccurate. It’s a little disingenuous. What it’s really about is selling out to the lobbies. Regulation should be a balance between what’s good for the public and what’s good for industry. But what Pruitt is doing seems out of balance to me.

Ok, but that’s a generous take. To me, it reads like Pruitt is doing the bidding of industry lobbies, over the interests of the people. Obviously, Pruitt (and this administration) does not give credence to climate change for example, but I do. What’s your take on the recent auto emissions roll back? Did you think the previous goals were too ambitious or that they were handcuffing the car companies? i get your point about putting the burden and responsibility where it belongs in terms of legislating these issues—I just don’t see it happening. Congress is too inept. I don’t think it’s inappropriate for an agency like this to have some control over setting standards. Also, I think the real point of what is taking place now is deregulation, as much as the can get away with. We have different perspectives on this. I can see the value of being efficient and cutting unnecessary and burdensome policies. I just worry that the EPA’s current agenda is too extreme.

Looks like Pruitt is safe after all. For a while anyway. Seems that the only way he gets forced out is if he does something really silly, like use his agency to actually protect the environment in some way.

I can understand how this could cause anxiety. It worries me too. Could it ultimately end well? Maybe Could it have catastrophic results? Maybe I heard today that our whiskey makers are going to suffer as a result of Chinese tariffs. I'll do my part and stop at the liquor store on the way home for some good bourbon. Win/win! Anxiety mellowed, US company supported.

...? First casualty?

You are way off. You continue to attribute this line of thinking to me which is not mine. I won't try to explain the actual point I was making because it's tiresome. Also, it should be readily apparent to anyone not already itching to launch his pre-packaged diatribe.

Uh...no. Thanks for trying to put a bunch of words in my mouth though.