grinreaper

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html OK, they want to secede. What would be the benefit and what would be the downfall for both the new nation and the rest of us? Have at it.

Last I heard Cankles was ahead in the popular vote by 1.7 million nationwide. She won NYC alone by 1.5 million and California by 3.6 million.

Does that mean we get to have 4 Memorial Days too?

I could see a nice comfortable cot in The Tower in her future.

From your link. Was it just schitty workmanship? "Reuters notes that firearms stocks have "fallen off substantially" since Donald Trump, a Second Amendment supporter, won the election."

That Byron York article was a good read.

I would think that he would be useful in a role of fixing an area that has major problems. The VA comes to mind.

Shhhh.

How about that, but why do I have the feeling that you will criticize anyone Trump nominates?

The makeup of the Senate in 1986 was 55 Dems to 45 Reps. The Dems could do whatever they wanted. They were just practicing "Borking" for the following year.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland. The findings also show evidence of ice in Greenland during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, which indicates that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion.

This is a statement that even a Conner should agree with: "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/barone-is-this-why-the-pollsters-failed/article/2607487 Election analysts have had experience dealing with elections in which majorities have positive feelings about both nominees; that has usually been the case in contests which turn out to have been seriously contested. "Double positives," people with positive feelings about both candidates, will usually split along partisan or perhaps ethnic lines, and ordinarily pretty evenly. But what about "double negatives"? The default assumption most of us have had, I suspect, is that they would split roughly evenly between the candidates. But that didn't happen this year. According to the exit poll (current figures, which may be slightly revised), 18 percent of voters were "double negatives," that is, had negative feelings toward both Clinton and Trump. Of these 18 percent, 49 percent voted for Trump and only 29 percent voted for Clinton, with 22 percent saying they picked another candidate or not answering. The Trump-Clinton split as a percentage of the entire electorate was 9 to 5 percent, a 4 percent margin. Assume that was the split in each target state, rather than the 7 to 7 percent under my default assumption. If you subtract 2 percent from each close state from Trump's percentage and add it to Clinton's, you have Clinton carrying Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which have 101 electoral votes. That would give Clinton a 329-209 majority in the Electoral College. As Nate Silver pointed out on FiveThirtyEight.com, that's a big difference. In retrospect, observers (and the Clinton campaign!) might have had a better understanding of the election if we had all drilled down and looked more closely at the preferences of the "double negatives." My hypothesis why they split for Trump: it was a change year, and most "double negatives" wanted change.

The election process last Tuesday.

Elections have consequences.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office. Revisiting our coverage from several months ago, I looked for press releases from the “Obama is turning us into Greece!” crowd, eager to see them celebrate President Obama’s striking record on deficit reduction, but so far, nothing has turned up. Maybe they’re busy. And in practical terms, that’s a shame. The vast majority of Americans are absolutely certain – thanks to deceptive Republican rhetoric and unfortunate news coverage – that the deficit has soared in the Obama era. Late last year, a Bloomberg Politics Poll found that 73% of the public believes the deficit has gotten bigger over the last six years. The year before, the same pollster found that only 6% of Americans realized the deficit was shrinking. It helps explain why the president hasn’t gotten any credit for deficit reduction, which seems like the sort of development Tea Partiers and the Beltway’s Very Serious People should consider an extraordinary accomplishment. As we talked about last year, it’s tempting to conclude that the public’s confusion doesn’t matter. In the Clinton era, the deficit disappeared entirely, and Americans had no idea. But there’s another side to this. Whether or not Americans know and/or understand the basics of the fiscal argument may not have a practical impact on the debate itself, but the fact remains that voters are ultimately responsible for electing policymakers. If Americans believe, incorrectly, that the deficit is getting bigger, these same voters may be inclined to vote for candidates who’ll slash public investments and undermine social-insurance programs – which would have real-world consequences. Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don’t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day. That said, if we’re going to have a fiscal debate, it should at least be rooted in reality, not silly misconceptions. And the reality is, we’re witnessing deficit reduction at a truly remarkable clip. Every conservative complaint about fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility in the Obama era is quantifiably ridiculous.

They have a .org, as in moveon.org.

Worse yet, Trump forces a black family out of public housing.

I took this "Not arguing that. But I could have sworn that for about two years I heard that the biggest problem with GOP was that they weren't committed to eliminating ACA." as sarcasm.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/gun-control-obamacare-planned-parenthood-senate/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/01/06/paul-ryans-year-of-contrasts-begins-with-obamacare-repeal-vote/

"Elections have consequences".

Just like it would be a good decision to hold up all immigration from terrorist havens until proper vetting can be done.

Hell, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the U.S. even if was just for a visit.

This was all about the Supreme Court and I'm thankful for anyone who voted for Trump in the general election. The primaries are another matter.

Newt has a great knowledge of history, and not just domestic.