GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Wait.... what? Say that again? Democrats passed laws like letting women make decisions about their bodies, telling people they could marry who they love, and leaving the country a better place for future generations but Democrats sued to keep those things legal? Really? Please explain. I am confusion......

Pay attention, Democrats tried over the years to get those laws passed and we’re blocked, so it was off to the courts to create “rights “ and legislate what they couldn’t win in state legislatures. Gay marriage lost in most places it was on the ballot or in front of the legislatures, but courts created a Federal right where there had never been a Federal law on marriage.

Perhaps you need to re-read the SCOTUS decision. No 'right' was created. Ted Olson's winning arguments couldn't have been more clear.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Wait.... what? Say that again? Democrats passed laws like letting women make decisions about their bodies, telling people they could marry who they love, and leaving the country a better place for future generations but Democrats sued to keep those things legal? Really? Please explain. I am confusion......

Pay attention, Democrats tried over the years to get those laws passed and we’re blocked, so it was off to the courts to create “rights “ and legislate what they couldn’t win in state legislatures. Gay marriage lost in most places it was on the ballot or in front of the legislatures, but courts created a Federal right where there had never been a Federal law on marriage.

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

seb146 wrote:

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

I think what GF his saying is that equality is better left up to the states. This is why I don't see Americans ever coming back from Trump. Trump made us all realize that nearly half this country wouldn't bat an eyelid if Texas legalized slavery or criminalized gay love again. Let us all vote at the state level and part ways amicably. People like GF can vote to live in a country defined by Originalist thought of the biblical kind and the rest of us can move on with the 21st Century.

wingman wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

I think what GF his saying is that equality is better left up to the states. This is why I don't see Americans ever coming back from Trump. Trump made us all realize that nearly half this country wouldn't bat an eyelid if Texas legalized slavery or criminalized gay love again. Let us all vote at the state level and part ways amicably. People like GF can vote to live in a country defined by Originalist thought of the biblical kind and the rest of us can move on with the 21st Century.

That’s all well and good but a lot of us wouldn’t mind having our own state in CA. Imagine the possibilities without surrendering all those federal tax monies...a pipe dream to be sure but fun to think about!

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Wait.... what? Say that again? Democrats passed laws like letting women make decisions about their bodies, telling people they could marry who they love, and leaving the country a better place for future generations but Democrats sued to keep those things legal? Really? Please explain. I am confusion......

Pay attention, Democrats tried over the years to get those laws passed and we’re blocked, so it was off to the courts to create “rights “ and legislate what they couldn’t win in state legislatures. Gay marriage lost in most places it was on the ballot or in front of the legislatures, but courts created a Federal right where there had never been a Federal law on marriage.

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

They can sign any contract of marriage they want, but bestowing rights, government benefits and responsibilities for said contracts should be decided by the democratic political process (state legislatures where it was decided for 200+ years) not by 5 legislators in robes who are unaccountable to that democratic political process.

Both sides love democracy until they don’t get what they want.

Speaking of Democrats and democracy, Biden has decided he doesn’t like campaigning on one of his party’s tenets. Wonder why Joe won’t speak.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailus

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

They can sign any contract of marriage they want, but bestowing rights, government benefits and responsibilities for said contracts should be decided by the democratic political process (state legislatures where it was decided for 200+ years) not by 5 legislators in robes who are unaccountable to that democratic political process.

Both sides love democracy until they don’t get what they want.

This seems like a pretty ahistorical argument, though. If someone's rights have been violated, the complaint has always been handled by the courts, not the legislature. Moreover, it's very difficult to imagine how, for instance, most black folks in the South would have been able to end segregation through legislation alone, because state legislatures had screwed them out of being able to vote on those processes in the first place.

.... Given the number and magnitude of opinion reflected in this thread, I would say this matter is only worth exploring after the election result is announced and show the number in clear way

Tugger wrote:

And what to "Democrats need to do"?

Tugg

1) End the filibuster. It's all but gone, anyway.

2) Establish the right to vote for all citizens who will be 18 years old on election day as a fundamental right by Federal Law. Establish that voting may not place an undue burden on citizens (time limit on line, absentee ballots for all, no crazy requirements to register). Make it a federal crime tantamount to sedition for any government official, elected or appointed to even suggest a policy that would abridge those rights. In addition, pass anti-gerrymandering laws.

3) Pack the courts so that they can't undo the above.

4) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Partisan political commentary is fine, but not masquerading as "news."

5) Establish the right and responsibility of Congress to regulate campaign finances.

6) It's a tall order, but abolish the Electoral College.

The above will mean that if either party wants power, they are going to have to convince Americans that their policies are the best for America. No more toying with the democratic process. Every adult citizen gets to vote. You want their votes? You earn them honestly.

wingman wrote:

I think what GF his saying is that equality is better left up to the states.

No, it really isn't. We sorted that out in the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, and again with the CRA and with Loving and with Obergefeld. It's all well and good until US Citizens cross state borders and suddenly don't have the rights they did in the one before by virtue of who they are. The thing about rights is that you don't get to vote on them; that's why they're called rights.

DocLightning wrote:

No, it really isn't. We sorted that out in the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, and again with the CRA and with Loving and with Obergefeld. It's all well and good until US Citizens cross state borders and suddenly don't have the rights they did in the one before by virtue of who they are. The thing about rights is that you don't get to vote on them; that's why they're called rights.

The 14th Amendment should take care of that.

Other things the US needs to do?:

Change Election Day to a weekend/holiday,
Unrestricted early voting,
Overturn Citizens United,
Proper Campaign Finance laws,
Stop electing positions like judges, sheriffs, district attorneys etc. These roles should be filled on merit selected by a panel of experienced professionals not the pubic responding to populist campaigning.
Preferential (ranked choice) voting to promote what you desperately need, 3rd parties,

Once you’ve got multiple third parties you could even go a step further and rid yourself of Primary elections, as selecting who will be on the ballot in a safe seat for a particular party won’t be as important.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Pay attention, Democrats tried over the years to get those laws passed and we’re blocked, so it was off to the courts to create “rights “ and legislate what they couldn’t win in state legislatures. Gay marriage lost in most places it was on the ballot or in front of the legislatures, but courts created a Federal right where there had never been a Federal law on marriage.

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

They can sign any contract of marriage they want, but bestowing rights, government benefits and responsibilities for said contracts should be decided by the democratic political process (state legislatures where it was decided for 200+ years) not by 5 legislators in robes who are unaccountable to that democratic political process.

Both sides love democracy until they don’t get what they want.

Speaking of Democrats and democracy, Biden has decided he doesn’t like campaigning on one of his party’s tenets. Wonder why Joe won’t speak.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailus

Republicans are always going on and on about how they want less government and let people live their lives and so forth but they start demanding gays not have equal rights so the courts have to decide because of religion that gays can not be equal.

In other words: Republicans want a theocracy based on their blond hair, blue eyed, English speaking, Coors Light drinking, gun slinging version of Jesus who hates and hates and hates some more.

As far as Biden "not talking about" packing the Supreme Court, why would he? It is a smart political move. The right wing media would jump on this and hammer it into the ground. Democrats know how to say the quiet parts even quieter. Unlike Republicans who openly embrace violence and racism.

EDIT:

You are really asking why Biden does not talk about the legality of federal law? You are asking why Biden does not talk about supporting treating some Americans as less than American? Is this what you are asking? Law and order for ALL Americans? Or are you asking why Biden does not come out and hate the Constitution as much as the MAGA king?

DocLightning wrote:

Tugger wrote:

And what to "Democrats need to do"?

Tugg

[/qoute]

1) End the filibuster. It's all but gone, anyway.

Here is the problem I have. Ending the filibuster will take away the voices of some in the minority. The Founding Fathers structured the constitution to protect the rights of the minority. Assuming the Democrats win the Senate, and the fillibuster is eliminated, you might as well rubberstamp anything that is good for New York and California (See Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, etc). I don't think this is a formula for long term prosperity.

DocLightning wrote:

2) Establish the right to vote for all citizens who will be 18 years old on election day as a fundamental right by Federal Law. Establish that voting may not place an undue burden on citizens (time limit on line, absentee ballots for all, no crazy requirements to register). Make it a federal crime tantamount to sedition for any government official, elected or appointed to even suggest a policy that would abridge those rights. In addition, pass anti-gerrymandering laws.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't your first sentence already protected by Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26? As for the rest of your statement, I dont want someone stealing my identity and then using it to vote in my name. That is why I think Voter ID is a great idea. As for anti-gerrymandering laws, I agree that we need to make gerrymandering more difficult but how do you construct such a law? Personally, I like the California model, but how do construct non partisan commissions? That is the challenge.

DocLightning wrote:

3) Pack the courts so that they can't undo the above.

This is dangerous, and it imposes a litmus test on judges that I don't think is appropriate. If you construct your laws in a way that is faithful to the constitution, they cannot undo the above. Personally, I feel that the way to fix the courts is to change the advice and consent clause in the constitution to one where a judicial nominee requires a 2/3 majority to confirm in the senate. Interestingly enough, if this was in the constitution from the beginning, the only three justices currently on the court who would have been confirmed are Roberts, Sotamayor, and Breyer. Everyone else would not have been confirmed. I will also point out that both Ginsburg and Scalia would have easily been confirmed under this as well.

DocLightning wrote:

4) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Partisan political commentary is fine, but not masquerading as "news."

This sounds good, but I have all sorts of issues with this, and to leave enforcement of this in the hands of government bureaucrats is asking for trouble. Not to mention this has all sorts of first amendment issues as well.

DocLightning wrote:

5) Establish the right and responsibility of Congress to regulate campaign finances.

I would go further than this. I would amend the constitution to regulate campaign finances. Leaving it in the hands of congress is problematic on so many fronts. The establishment in both parties won't allow this to pass because they realize doing so would threaten their own jobs. I point to the Democratic Primary in the MA-1 congressional race earlier this year. Richie Neal, who is the house ways and means commitee chair and the most corrupt congressman in either part is a big part of this. He was able to use the campaign finance laws in place to run a homophobic smear campaign against his primary challenger. This was the most disgusting smear campaign I have ever seen. And he got away with it. This should never happen in a democratic primary. Because the law protects the establishment, they wont change it, especially after Citizens United (Which was correctly decided IMO). This is why you need to amend the constitution.

DocLightning wrote:

6) It's a tall order, but abolish the Electoral College.

This will never happen as you will never get 3/4 states to ratify a constitutional amendment. Nor do I support it.

DocLightning wrote:

The above will mean that if either party wants power, they are going to have to convince Americans that their policies are the best for America. No more toying with the democratic process. Every adult citizen gets to vote. You want their votes? You earn them honestly.

wingman wrote:

I think what GF his saying is that equality is better left up to the states.

No, it really isn't. We sorted that out in the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, and again with the CRA and with Loving and with Obergefeld. It's all well and good until US Citizens cross state borders and suddenly don't have the rights they did in the one before by virtue of who they are. The thing about rights is that you don't get to vote on them; that's why they're called rights.

If that's so, why did it literally take a constitutional amendment for Blacks to have Rights, Women to have rights, etc? The fact of the matter is the rights that we take for granted are basically guaranteed by the constitution. The issue is many rights that the constitution says nothing about have been granted by court rulings. In my legal opinion, if the constitution does not specifically spell out a right, it is not there at a federal level and therefore it falls to the states as the tenth amendment says.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That being said, I do not believe that Obergfell or Roe were properly decided on from a legal standpoint (Loving was). This is why I feel so strongly congress needs to act to overturn the defense of marriage act and actually made Same Sex Marriage written into federal law. The reason for this is because by not doing so, you risk a supreme court decision that overturns obergfell and this would cause misery for lots of LGBT folks in this country. Don't give the court the chance, just pass the law.

As for Roe, it is very clear that if Roe is overturned, Abortion is kicked back to the states. Some states are choosing to protect the unborn, some are choosing the opposite. As it should be.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

They can sign any contract of marriage they want, but bestowing rights, government benefits and responsibilities for said contracts should be decided by the democratic political process (state legislatures where it was decided for 200+ years) not by 5 legislators in robes who are unaccountable to that democratic political process.

Both sides love democracy until they don’t get what they want.

Speaking of Democrats and democracy, Biden has decided he doesn’t like campaigning on one of his party’s tenets. Wonder why Joe won’t speak.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailus

Republicans are always going on and on about how they want less government and let people live their lives and so forth but they start demanding gays not have equal rights so the courts have to decide because of religion that gays can not be equal.

In other words: Republicans want a theocracy based on their blond hair, blue eyed, English speaking, Coors Light drinking, gun slinging version of Jesus who hates and hates and hates some more.

As far as Biden "not talking about" packing the Supreme Court, why would he? It is a smart political move. The right wing media would jump on this and hammer it into the ground. Democrats know how to say the quiet parts even quieter. Unlike Republicans who openly embrace violence and racism.

EDIT:

You are really asking why Biden does not talk about the legality of federal law? You are asking why Biden does not talk about supporting treating some Americans as less than American? Is this what you are asking? Law and order for ALL Americans? Or are you asking why Biden does not come out and hate the Constitution as much as the MAGA king?

I think there are republican base voters than feel this way. Here is the truth. The republican establishment could care less about gays being married, or religious liberty. They run on these issues in order to win power from their base, but they really serve their corporate masters, who are very socially progressive. These GOP senators were actually relieved when pro-gay rulings came down, because it gave their corporate masters what they wanted, without them actually having to cast votes on it that would annoy their base.

Sokes wrote:

When I read your earlier comment about Fox news I decided that requires an own topic. Why don't you join and explain how public broadcasting is organized in the US?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1452709&p=22458893#p22458893

I will look into it later, but while we have public broadcasting in the US, Fox is a private entertainment organization and not a news organization in it's filings. Deception in naming from the top.

In fact they win slander lawsuits based on the fact that no reasonable person would believe what their hosts say.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-new ... son-2020-9

Remember, daily news at fox only commands about 20% of their viewership. The real bread and butter of their viewership are these "hosts" that no reasonable person should believe. Yet Trump has his biggest chearleeder in Sean Hannity who has lost the same lawsuits as Carlson.

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/ ... ntary.html

"The complaint doesn't make clear what specific statements were deceptive. A video clip shows Hannity saying he “didn't like how we're scaring people unnecessarily” about the virus. “I see it, again, as like, let's bludgeon Trump with this new hoax,” he said.:

Remember how all these lies about Covid gained hold? They were repeated on these "hosted" shows for months.

Sokes wrote:

mother is smart. As I read a lot of books I often have information beyond the 8 o'clock news. If I tell my mother such information in contradiction to what the news speaker says, she doesn't want to hear it. She doesn't lack the skill. She doesn't like cognitive dissonance. And I speak of reputable government broadcasting news.

I see the same issues in the states. People that can't think all the way through the issue have issues with anything that contradicts their views. I also see this issue at work as well in highly technical areas. These folks don't make it to high levels in these jobs, as most scientific and engineering work involves a lot of contradictions ( or at least appear to contradict. deeper dives reveal the real issues ).

Sokes wrote:

Why do Trump critics assume that Trump supporters lack intelligence?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ed ... for-trump/
Not much on assumption. More, cold hard facts. However the above discussion highlights it.

Sokes wrote:

Trump is mean, arrogant and doesn't allow the opponent to finish a sentence. But that doesn't mean that he is wrong. Here a video which I enjoyed. Finally somebody who "shows it" to the establishment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9n7g8rTiaY

Trump is not always wrong, but he is wrong on how he divides the country for political gain rather than how we move forward.
Health Care: No Plan, but the less educated assume it will be better, even though the things the GOP always hated about it was that it was for all people, and it included pre existing conditions.
Immigration: Illegal immigration and legal immigration have always occurred. The jobs they have always taken are the low skilled jobs. Those in low skilled jobs are always afraid of this, and instead of working to explain the benefits of increased training, he exploits the divide
Racism: Trump stokes it instead of working to bridge the divide. He works in unequivocal which are good for his white high school educated base, but it is destroying the GOP.

Sokes wrote:

His strategy is not to shine with own arguments, but to ridicule the opponent. And I say he is damn good in it. One can say his behavior is repulsive, but then we speak of politics. And to ridicule the establishment is very pleasing to people with frustrated expectations.

It is always great to play the fool, and the class clowns did it well in my day, but I see them posting on facebook page all the time worrying about their next bill, and why they keep getting let go, or quitting .for bad mouthing their boss/bosses

Sokes wrote:

I say Trump is a symptom caused by the failure of the establishment to satisfy people's aspirations. I don't believe Trump's policies can satisfy them either. But why to blame Trump instead of both?

Trump is a failure to raise people's aspirations. The GOP went from a respectable political organization to a polarizing racist ,nationalistic party, fiscally irresponsible partyy under Trump( it was on it's way for years). The GOP has lost it's rudder, and through their harpoon into a white whale. They may get somewhere, but they are destroying the party with Trump and McConnell in the lead.

casinterest wrote:

I see the same issues in the states. People that can't think all the way through the issue have issues with anything that contradicts their views. I also see this issue at work as well in highly technical areas. These folks don't make it to high levels in these jobs, as most scientific and engineering work involves a lot of contradictions ( or at least appear to contradict. deeper dives reveal the real issues ).

Contradicting evidence is a nuisance for most. However for the trained thinker it offers an opportunity to discover gaps in knowledge.
(from the book "The art of scientific investigation". I quoted from memory.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ed ... for-trump/
Not much on assumption. More, cold hard facts. However the above discussion highlights it.

Interesting article.
To quote from it:
"By contrast, Clinton struggled (relatively speaking) in majority-minority communities with lower education levels. Among the 19 majority-minority countries where 15 percent or less of the population has a bachelor’s degree, she won by an average of only 7 percentage points, less than Obama’s 10-point average margin of victory in 2012. "

Isn't the point of the article to show that education, not income, lead to votes for Trump?
"Struggled relatively speaking" is a nice formulation. I would have written " However Clinton also won in low educated communities with lot of black and Latino voters".
But overall it's strong evidence.
So did low educated whites vote for Trump or against Clinton?

Health Care: No Plan, but the less educated assume it will be better...

US healthcare policy is not something Europeans understand. I agree Trump is bad in this respect.

Immigration: Illegal immigration and legal immigration have always occurred. The jobs they have always taken are the low skilled jobs. Those in low skilled jobs are always afraid of this, and instead of working to explain the benefits of increased training, he exploits the divide

Socialist East Germany wanted to uplift workers' children. Policies were favorable for such children. Such policies work for two generations or so. After that uplifting working class children in quantity becomes impossible. East Germany therefore stopped to make statistics about it.

There are always some who simply are not smart enough to profit from more training. They are anyway the ones with the lowest income. Many immigrants from poor countries compete exactly with these people for jobs.

Why not give permanent residency to whichever engineer or doctor of poor countries so desires?
I know some good doctors in India. I assume they are more than happy to practice for 3000 $/ month in parts of the US which have low cost of living.

Similar there are plenty of Indian engineers who can calculate how concrete slabs for houses have to be designed. Would you like them to emigrate to the US?

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

They can sign any contract of marriage they want, but bestowing rights, government benefits and responsibilities for said contracts should be decided by the democratic political process (state legislatures where it was decided for 200+ years) not by 5 legislators in robes who are unaccountable to that democratic political process.

Both sides love democracy until they don’t get what they want.

Speaking of Democrats and democracy, Biden has decided he doesn’t like campaigning on one of his party’s tenets. Wonder why Joe won’t speak.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailus

Republicans are always going on and on about how they want less government and let people live their lives and so forth but they start demanding gays not have equal rights so the courts have to decide because of religion that gays can not be equal.

In other words: Republicans want a theocracy based on their blond hair, blue eyed, English speaking, Coors Light drinking, gun slinging version of Jesus who hates and hates and hates some more.

As far as Biden "not talking about" packing the Supreme Court, why would he? It is a smart political move. The right wing media would jump on this and hammer it into the ground. Democrats know how to say the quiet parts even quieter. Unlike Republicans who openly embrace violence and racism.

EDIT:

You are really asking why Biden does not talk about the legality of federal law? You are asking why Biden does not talk about supporting treating some Americans as less than American? Is this what you are asking? Law and order for ALL Americans? Or are you asking why Biden does not come out and hate the Constitution as much as the MAGA king?

I think there are republican base voters than feel this way. Here is the truth. The republican establishment could care less about gays being married, or religious liberty. They run on these issues in order to win power from their base, but they really serve their corporate masters, who are very socially progressive. These GOP senators were actually relieved when pro-gay rulings came down, because it gave their corporate masters what they wanted, without them actually having to cast votes on it that would annoy their base.

If the "Republican establishment" does not care of gays marry or religious liberty, why do they fight so hard against gays getting married and putting "Christian" feelings above all others?

I think it's a pronounced oversimplification to consider the donor class of the Republican party to be "socially progressive." Remember the 2012 presidential campaign? Santorum's bid was underwritten by a socially conservative billionaire.

Sokes wrote:

Interesting article.
To quote from it:
"By contrast, Clinton struggled (relatively speaking) in majority-minority communities with lower education levels. Among the 19 majority-minority countries where 15 percent or less of the population has a bachelor’s degree, she won by an average of only 7 percentage points, less than Obama’s 10-point average margin of victory in 2012. "

Isn't the point of the article to show that education, not income, lead to votes for Trump?
"Struggled relatively speaking" is a nice formulation. I would have written " However Clinton also won in low educated communities with lot of black and Latino voters".
But overall it's strong evidence.
So did low educated whites vote for Trump or against Clinton?

The issue is a bit nuanced as race had a large effect.
But to answer your questions best, the below article is quite a read, with a telling graphic from Pew Research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... ed-voters/

Sokes wrote:

Socialist East Germany wanted to uplift workers' children. Policies were favorable for such children. Such policies work for two generations or so. After that uplifting working class children in quantity becomes impossible. East Germany therefore stopped to make statistics about it.

There are always some who simply are not smart enough to profit from more training. They are anyway the ones with the lowest income. Many immigrants from poor countries compete exactly with these people for jobs.

Why not give permanent residency to whichever engineer or doctor of poor countries so desires?
I know some good doctors in India. I assume they are more than happy to practice for 3000 $/ month in parts of the US which have low cost of living.

Similar there are plenty of Indian engineers who can calculate how concrete slabs for houses have to be designed. Would you like them to emigrate to the US?

I have worked in my career with many capable Indian Engineers, We have the H1B visa for such folks. They get to come to the US, many of them getting their Graduate degrees here, and then they go to work for companies at reduced rates.
There is a strong argument that they are keeping other engineers salaries down, but that they are also creating a brain drain for India.

I see it as people being able to move to where their skills can be best utilized.

I also want to point out that the Doctors even in the Rural US will probably make well more than 10,000 US dollars a month , even if they are on an H1B. The demand is that high.

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/us-e ... inimum-pay

https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job= ... &year=2020

Newark727 wrote:

I think it's a pronounced oversimplification to consider the donor class of the Republican party to be "socially progressive." Remember the 2012 presidential campaign? Santorum's bid was underwritten by a socially conservative billionaire.

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Republicans are always going on and on about how they want less government and let people live their lives and so forth but they start demanding gays not have equal rights so the courts have to decide because of religion that gays can not be equal.

In other words: Republicans want a theocracy based on their blond hair, blue eyed, English speaking, Coors Light drinking, gun slinging version of Jesus who hates and hates and hates some more.

As far as Biden "not talking about" packing the Supreme Court, why would he? It is a smart political move. The right wing media would jump on this and hammer it into the ground. Democrats know how to say the quiet parts even quieter. Unlike Republicans who openly embrace violence and racism.

EDIT:

You are really asking why Biden does not talk about the legality of federal law? You are asking why Biden does not talk about supporting treating some Americans as less than American? Is this what you are asking? Law and order for ALL Americans? Or are you asking why Biden does not come out and hate the Constitution as much as the MAGA king?

I think there are republican base voters than feel this way. Here is the truth. The republican establishment could care less about gays being married, or religious liberty. They run on these issues in order to win power from their base, but they really serve their corporate masters, who are very socially progressive. These GOP senators were actually relieved when pro-gay rulings came down, because it gave their corporate masters what they wanted, without them actually having to cast votes on it that would annoy their base.

If the "Republican establishment" does not care of gays marry or religious liberty, why do they fight so hard against gays getting married and putting "Christian" feelings above all others?

Regarding Seb's point, that was true for many many years, and it resulted in the Defense of Marriage act being passed with bipartisan support and a bunch of Marriage amendments to state constitutions being passed after the case in the MA Supreme Court. Public opinion of course shifted on this, and Obergfell accelerated what would have been passed legislatively eventually anyways. If you notice, since this ruling came down years ago, there has been very little fighting from the republicans on this issue and they have not been fighting hard on that at all. This is basically a settled issue unless some case comes before the Supreme Court on this. Remember, it was a republican attorney who argued the Obergfell case. So no, I don't see current republicans fighting hard on this at all, at least not ones in elected office. In fact, when the LGBT case earlier this year came down, yes there was pushback from the religious community, but other than Josh Hawley, I didn't see many republicans really question the ruling.

Regarding Newark's point. You point out Sheldon Anderson I believe. Rick Santorum is what I would call a populist republican. He is very moderate to liberal on fiscal issues, and extremely conservative on social issues. Most of the GOP donor class are fiscal conservatives as they believe that any progressive fiscal policy is a threat to their profits and gravy train. But many of these donor's are also businessmen who also believe that being progressive on social issues is better for their own business. The Koch's are the textbook example of this. Anderson is one of the rare social conservatives in the donor class. Most of them are actually pro LGBT as they know it is good for their profits.

I look at the GOP these days as divided into three wings. One is the Libertarian Wing that is very anti government and spending. This would be guys like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, and Rick Scott. Another wing is the corporatist wing of the party that could care less about social issues, but believes that washington works for the donors and not the workers. This wing consists of the guys like Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John Cornyn, and Lisa Murkowski. The third wing is the populist wing. This wing may be more conservative on social issues, but understands that the working people need help at times and isn't afraid to spend a bit to help them out. This wing is Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, and to a lesser extent Mitt Romney these days. Trump ran as one of these guys, but has governed like the second group. Most of these guys could care less about social issues, but they run on them and use them because they know that that will win votes from conservatives, but they also know that their fiscal policies are not very popular either.

Cooperation between the two parties is impossible so long as the Republicans do not support center right people in their party. They have systematically and deliberately ousted any such persons. The two most recent Democratic Presidents, Clinton and Obama, were largely Eisenhower Republicans. Republicans currently are so far to the right, and such a minority, that without their few percent each of white nationalists, racists, neo-fascists they cannot win.

So I guess I'm a "4th wing". "Social" i.e. religion and fighting to deny people things based on that I can't support overall. I am good with certain large fiscal programs as long as they benefit the nation and allow more people to work and contribute. Crucially these programs MUST be paid for and planned for, covered so as to not just blindly add to the debt. The current Republican party seems horrible at this.

It's OK to spend and have bills etc. but PAY YOUR BILLS!

Tugg

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You mean the right for two consenting adults to sign a contract, regardless of gender? That "special" right? C'mon, man.....

They can sign any contract of marriage they want, but bestowing rights, government benefits and responsibilities for said contracts should be decided by the democratic political process (state legislatures where it was decided for 200+ years) not by 5 legislators in robes who are unaccountable to that democratic political process.

Both sides love democracy until they don’t get what they want.

Speaking of Democrats and democracy, Biden has decided he doesn’t like campaigning on one of his party’s tenets. Wonder why Joe won’t speak.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailus

Republicans are always going on and on about how they want less government and let people live their lives and so forth but they start demanding gays not have equal rights so the courts have to decide because of religion that gays can not be equal.

In other words: Republicans want a theocracy based on their blond hair, blue eyed, English speaking, Coors Light drinking, gun slinging version of Jesus who hates and hates and hates some more.

As far as Biden "not talking about" packing the Supreme Court, why would he? It is a smart political move. The right wing media would jump on this and hammer it into the ground. Democrats know how to say the quiet parts even quieter. Unlike Republicans who openly embrace violence and racism.

EDIT:

You are really asking why Biden does not talk about the legality of federal law? You are asking why Biden does not talk about supporting treating some Americans as less than American? Is this what you are asking? Law and order for ALL Americans? Or are you asking why Biden does not come out and hate the Constitution as much as the MAGA king?

Why won’t he campaign on his platform? Because it won’t get him elected, refusing to do so makes him a fraud, pure and simple.

Not sure how the U.S. can come together without some very important people doing some serious jail time. Leaders in the U.S. intelligence community tried to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected President they didn't like - total Banana Republic shit, the kind of stuff that in other countries would have you hanging by a lamp-post when caught. If nothing happens to them, whether that be because a Democrat gets elected President and squashes the case, a DC grand jury plays for home team, or a well-meaning prosecutor is too afraid of the consequences of them doing their jobs, the feeling many people will get that the DC elites are completely above the law will just be too overwhelming.

Pyrex wrote:

Not sure how the U.S. can come together without some very important people doing some serious jail time. Leaders in the U.S. intelligence community tried to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected President they didn't like - total Banana Republic shit, the kind of stuff that in other countries would have you hanging by a lamp-post when caught. If nothing happens to them, whether that be because a Democrat gets elected President and squashes the case, a DC grand jury plays for home team, or a well-meaning prosecutor is too afraid of the consequences of them doing their jobs, the feeling many people will get that the DC elites are completely above the law will just be too overwhelming.

Bill Barr, is that you?

Newark727 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Not sure how the U.S. can come together without some very important people doing some serious jail time. Leaders in the U.S. intelligence community tried to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected President they didn't like - total Banana Republic shit, the kind of stuff that in other countries would have you hanging by a lamp-post when caught. If nothing happens to them, whether that be because a Democrat gets elected President and squashes the case, a DC grand jury plays for home team, or a well-meaning prosecutor is too afraid of the consequences of them doing their jobs, the feeling many people will get that the DC elites are completely above the law will just be too overwhelming.

Bill Barr, is that you?

Nah, think Bill Barr is in the category of the "well-meaning prosecutor too afraid of the consequences of doing their jobs", unfortunately - he is a Washington insider, not the right guy to flush that whole damn city into the Potomac and start over, which is what is needed.

Pyrex wrote:

Nah, think Bill Barr is in the category of the "well-meaning prosecutor too afraid of the consequences of doing their jobs",

What would those consequences be? Putting some fear in politicians that they might be held accountable for their fraud and lies? What would be wrong with that?

Pyrex wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Not sure how the U.S. can come together without some very important people doing some serious jail time. Leaders in the U.S. intelligence community tried to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected President they didn't like - total Banana Republic shit, the kind of stuff that in other countries would have you hanging by a lamp-post when caught. If nothing happens to them, whether that be because a Democrat gets elected President and squashes the case, a DC grand jury plays for home team, or a well-meaning prosecutor is too afraid of the consequences of them doing their jobs, the feeling many people will get that the DC elites are completely above the law will just be too overwhelming.

Bill Barr, is that you?

Nah, think Bill Barr is in the category of the "well-meaning prosecutor too afraid of the consequences of doing their jobs", unfortunately - he is a Washington insider, not the right guy to flush that whole damn city into the Potomac and start over, which is what is needed.

Oh that’s cute. The whole thing with funding illegal guerilla war by illegally selling arms to Iran that shamed the Reagan WH (even though 40 had nothing to do with it) was a big deal. Barr certainly acted with purpose and commitment when he got convicted members of the 40 cabinet off Scot free.

Wall Street ‘attaboy AG Holder did the same thing when he ensured nobody from GS or AIG saw jailtime post-Lehman shock. Both parties excuse corruption when it suits them.

In general I feel that USA today has a very aggressive politics.

Class against class, Mid left against right. Race seems to be very important.

What I do not like is the efforts for making people stop voting.

Pyrex wrote:

Not sure how the U.S. can come together without some very important people doing some serious jail time. Leaders in the U.S. intelligence community tried to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected President they didn't like - total Banana Republic shit, the kind of stuff that in other countries would have you hanging by a lamp-post when caught. If nothing happens to them, whether that be because a Democrat gets elected President and squashes the case, a DC grand jury plays for home team, or a well-meaning prosecutor is too afraid of the consequences of them doing their jobs, the feeling many people will get that the DC elites are completely above the law will just be too overwhelming.

Speaking of banana republic shit... you have no evidence whatsoever that literally anything you've said there is true, so to use that as a basis for what's necessary for healing is... quite shocking.

Even if any of that actually happened, to say that some sort of open punishment is necessary for healing is insane. Did Nixon go to prison? Bush number one and his cronies for Iran contra? Bush number two for war crimes and invading multiple countries for no reason?

casinterest wrote:

I have worked in my career with many capable Indian Engineers, We have the H1B visa for such folks. They get to come to the US, many of them getting their Graduate degrees here, and then they go to work for companies at reduced rates.
There is a strong argument that they are keeping other engineers salaries down, but that they are also creating a brain drain for India.

I see it as people being able to move to where their skills can be best utilized.

I also want to point out that the Doctors even in the Rural US will probably make well more than 10,000 US dollars a month , even if they are on an H1B. The demand is that high.

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/us-e ... inimum-pay

https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job= ... &year=2020

Nice of you if you put your liberal convictions before personal advantage.

In the immigration debate one has to differentiate micro and macro.
I believe part of the US success is immigration by foreign elites.
Similar Germany profits from immigration by other Europeans. It helps to keep old age and health insurance running.

If the education of immigrants resemble the education of the population, there should be no effects on salary. However there will still be an effect on housing.

Goa is well to do for an Indian state. But low qualified Goans don't profit much from it. There is always a cook or a helper from other states willing to work for little money. However these immigrants do have an effect on housing and rent prices.

Why should a low qualified Goan vote for a party that makes good policy which leads to job creation?
There is no way that there can ever be a shortage of labour. But the dream of an own house becomes impossible with increasing immigration.
Much better to vote for a party that distributes tax money in form of subsidies.

China restricts migration within China. There are a lot of migrant labour. But I believe they can only bring their families once they have their own flat, not rented.
If immigrants had to pay slightly higher taxes to be used to develop urban infrastructure everybody should be happy.

By the way:
I myself live in a foreign land.

This cartoon is about Brexit, but I think it's equally reflective of Republican's and Democrat's "coming together". This is not one of those situations where all sides should come together and meet in the middle.

jamincan wrote:

This cartoon is about Brexit, but I think it's equally reflective of Republican's and Democrat's "coming together". This is not one of those situations where all sides should come together and meet in the middle.

The problem is, that neither party believes they are the "Boris".

winginit wrote:

Even if any of that actually happened, to say that some sort of open punishment is necessary for healing is insane. Did Nixon go to prison? Bush number one and his cronies for Iran contra? Bush number two for war crimes and invading multiple countries for no reason?

Not that I agree with Pyrex about orchestrated coup at all, but I think an issue is that the presidency has become a zero repercussion game for politicians. Absolutely no accountability. You can lead your citizens into a false war, mislead them about a virus, kill a few hundred thousand of them, literally abandon states that don't agree with you. But when your time is up, off on speaking tours and a wealthy retirement you go. Because "he did the best he could"

I think the manner in which the Presidency is run would drastically change if an ex president got thrown in prison. The divide between citizens is intentionally created to protect them. Top politicians maybe shouldn't be terrified of their constituents, but they certainly shouldn't be concerned at all.

Sokes wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I have worked in my career with many capable Indian Engineers, We have the H1B visa for such folks. They get to come to the US, many of them getting their Graduate degrees here, and then they go to work for companies at reduced rates.
There is a strong argument that they are keeping other engineers salaries down, but that they are also creating a brain drain for India.

I see it as people being able to move to where their skills can be best utilized.

I also want to point out that the Doctors even in the Rural US will probably make well more than 10,000 US dollars a month , even if they are on an H1B. The demand is that high.

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/us-e ... inimum-pay

https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job= ... &year=2020

Nice of you if you put your liberal convictions before personal advantage.

In the immigration debate one has to differentiate micro and macro.
I believe part of the US success is immigration by foreign elites.
Similar Germany profits from immigration by other Europeans. It helps to keep old age and health insurance running.

If the education of immigrants resemble the education of the population, there should be no effects on salary. However there will still be an effect on housing.

Goa is well to do for an Indian state. But low qualified Goans don't profit much from it. There is always a cook or a helper from other states willing to work for little money. However these immigrants do have an effect on housing and rent prices.

Why should a low qualified Goan vote for a party that makes good policy which leads to job creation?
There is no way that there can ever be a shortage of labour. But the dream of an own house becomes impossible with increasing immigration.
Much better to vote for a party that distributes tax money in form of subsidies.

China restricts migration within China. There are a lot of migrant labour. But I believe they can only bring their families once they have their own flat, not rented.
If immigrants had to pay slightly higher taxes to be used to develop urban infrastructure everybody should be happy.

By the way:
I myself live in a foreign land.

This is a better discussion for another thread, but in the long run, people go where there are jobs and opportunities. When there is none, people leave. Immigration policies balance the need for skilled workers in growing economies.

Aaron747 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Bill Barr, is that you?

Nah, think Bill Barr is in the category of the "well-meaning prosecutor too afraid of the consequences of doing their jobs", unfortunately - he is a Washington insider, not the right guy to flush that whole damn city into the Potomac and start over, which is what is needed.

Oh that’s cute. The whole thing with funding illegal guerilla war by illegally selling arms to Iran that shamed the Reagan WH (even though 40 had nothing to do with it) was a big deal. Barr certainly acted with purpose and commitment when he got convicted members of the 40 cabinet off Scot free.

Wall Street ‘attaboy AG Holder did the same thing when he ensured nobody from GS or AIG saw jailtime post-Lehman shock. Both parties excuse corruption when it suits them.

And you just answered your own question... At this point the rot is so deep that the only solution is to end the CIA and FBI and start over, but Barr is not the guy to do it, under some misguided notion that those are institutions worth preserving and the transition would be too costly - his history proves it. They are the very definition of "too big to fail". Then again, I am sure IG Farben thought the same about itself for a while.

Pyrex wrote:

And you just answered your own question... At this point the rot is so deep that the only solution is to end the CIA and FBI and start over, but Barr is not the guy to do it, under some misguided notion that those are institutions worth preserving and the transition would be too costly - his history proves it. They are the very definition of "too big to fail". Then again, I am sure IG Farben thought the same about itself for a while.

There you have it - straight from the horse's mouth. Given a choice between Trump, and the entire FBI and CIA, you'd take Trump. When Trump said he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care, you're exactly the guy he's talking about. Frankly, I'm not sure Trump went far enough with that statement - people like you would be lining up to take the bullet! This is a level of slavish deference that Trump has done nothing to deserve.

apodino wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

I think it's a pronounced oversimplification to consider the donor class of the Republican party to be "socially progressive." Remember the 2012 presidential campaign? Santorum's bid was underwritten by a socially conservative billionaire.

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

I think there are republican base voters than feel this way. Here is the truth. The republican establishment could care less about gays being married, or religious liberty. They run on these issues in order to win power from their base, but they really serve their corporate masters, who are very socially progressive. These GOP senators were actually relieved when pro-gay rulings came down, because it gave their corporate masters what they wanted, without them actually having to cast votes on it that would annoy their base.

If the "Republican establishment" does not care of gays marry or religious liberty, why do they fight so hard against gays getting married and putting "Christian" feelings above all others?

Regarding Seb's point, that was true for many many years, and it resulted in the Defense of Marriage act being passed with bipartisan support and a bunch of Marriage amendments to state constitutions being passed after the case in the MA Supreme Court. Public opinion of course shifted on this, and Obergfell accelerated what would have been passed legislatively eventually anyways. If you notice, since this ruling came down years ago, there has been very little fighting from the republicans on this issue and they have not been fighting hard on that at all. This is basically a settled issue unless some case comes before the Supreme Court on this. Remember, it was a republican attorney who argued the Obergfell case. So no, I don't see current republicans fighting hard on this at all, at least not ones in elected office. In fact, when the LGBT case earlier this year came down, yes there was pushback from the religious community, but other than Josh Hawley, I didn't see many republicans really question the ruling.

Why do Republicans keep bringing it up if they don't care? Why do they continue to talk about repealing marriage equality if it is such a non-issue with Republicans? Evangelical voters are a very vocal group in the Republican party. Is it to simply appease them? Then, there are the Kim Davis types who will actively ignore the law and even go so far as to file legal challenges. With the right wing and evangelical extremists the courts are now stacked with, it is reasonable to believe that marriage equality will be overturned to satisfy the minority of Americans, the Evangelicals.

winginit wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Not sure how the U.S. can come together without some very important people doing some serious jail time. Leaders in the U.S. intelligence community tried to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected President they didn't like - total Banana Republic shit, the kind of stuff that in other countries would have you hanging by a lamp-post when caught. If nothing happens to them, whether that be because a Democrat gets elected President and squashes the case, a DC grand jury plays for home team, or a well-meaning prosecutor is too afraid of the consequences of them doing their jobs, the feeling many people will get that the DC elites are completely above the law will just be too overwhelming.

Speaking of banana republic shit... you have no evidence whatsoever that literally anything you've said there is true, so to use that as a basis for what's necessary for healing is... quite shocking.

Even if any of that actually happened, to say that some sort of open punishment is necessary for healing is insane. Did Nixon go to prison? Bush number one and his cronies for Iran contra? Bush number two for war crimes and invading multiple countries for no reason?

Nixon was pardoned so he was never put on trial. Ford used the decision from Burdick v. United States in 1915 to come to that conclusion

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

Many high ranking officials put on trial who served GHWB including Ollie North for Iran Contra and Caspar Weinberger who was indicted but never tried.

GWB got out of being put on trial for war crimes because grunts were court-martialed for war crimes. I think (my opinion only) because many EU nations said "we are going on record as not being comfortable with this" and not fully condemning the invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably why he was not tried for illegally invading Iraq.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Wait.... what? Say that again? Democrats passed laws like letting women make decisions about their bodies, telling people they could marry who they love, and leaving the country a better place for future generations but Democrats sued to keep those things legal? Really? Please explain. I am confusion......

Pay attention, Democrats tried over the years to get those laws passed and we’re blocked, so it was off to the courts to create “rights “ and legislate what they couldn’t win in state legislatures. Gay marriage lost in most places it was on the ballot or in front of the legislatures, but courts created a Federal right where there had never been a Federal law on marriage.

Not sure what/where you received your Civics education, but ONLY the Constitution can "create" "rights"...not the courts, they enforce them. And there are various legal scholars that have differing opinions from whence rights come form...Jefferson et. al. had pretty deep "thinks" on that.

Newark727 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

And you just answered your own question... At this point the rot is so deep that the only solution is to end the CIA and FBI and start over, but Barr is not the guy to do it, under some misguided notion that those are institutions worth preserving and the transition would be too costly - his history proves it. They are the very definition of "too big to fail". Then again, I am sure IG Farben thought the same about itself for a while.

There you have it - straight from the horse's mouth. Given a choice between Trump, and the entire FBI and CIA, you'd take Trump. When Trump said he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care, you're exactly the guy he's talking about. Frankly, I'm not sure Trump went far enough with that statement - people like you would be lining up to take the bullet! This is a level of slavish deference that Trump has done nothing to deserve.

And there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth - given a choice between a duly elected President and an unelected bureaucracy who thinks they should be in control of the country and is thus willing to engage in a coup, you pick the side of the unelected bureaucracy / coup-plotters.

Pyrex wrote:

And there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth - given a choice between a duly elected President and an unelected bureaucracy who thinks they should be in control of the country and is thus willing to engage in a coup, you pick the side of the unelected bureaucracy / coup-plotters.

You have yet to offer any evidence that the "coup-plotters" exist anywhere but in your own imagination.

You've also made the whole Trump "law and order" schtick hilariously schizophrenic. "We support law enforcement - except for those damn traitors at the FBI!"

Newark727 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

And there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth - given a choice between a duly elected President and an unelected bureaucracy who thinks they should be in control of the country and is thus willing to engage in a coup, you pick the side of the unelected bureaucracy / coup-plotters.

You have yet to offer any evidence that the "coup-plotters" exist anywhere but in your own imagination.

There is plenty of evidence out there to show why, compared to Obama, Nixon was a mere apprentice. That you do not want to see it's your problem.

Do your own homework. Extraordinary claims (and saying Obama was more crooked than Nixon definitely qualifies as such) require extraordinary evidence.

Considering the question initially asked in the title of this thread, we must keep in mind that the conservative right makes up 25% of the population of the USA. The liberal left makes up another 25%. The 50% in the middle are moderates and independents, either right- or left-leaning, or like me, dead-center centrist. Most of that 50% is willing to give and take whatever is necessary to make the country successful. It's time the we stop coddling to the extremes and start governing for those in the middle.

EstherLouise wrote:

Considering the question initially asked in the title of this thread, we must keep in mind that the conservative right makes up 25% of the population of the USA. The liberal left makes up another 25%. The 50% in the middle are moderates and independents, either right- or left-leaning, or like me, dead-center centrist. Most of that 50% is willing to give and take whatever is necessary to make the country successful. It's time the we stop coddling to the extremes and start governing for those in the middle.

What I always think would go a long way to solving the problem, is if after the election, those representatives who were elected, would actually represent the people they are supposed to represent. all of them, not just those that voted for them. Think about and consider and even vote in representation of the people that even really don't like them.

But then I live in fantasy la la land as we all know those elected are bought and paid for and must do what they were bought to do. And no one wants to change that.

Tugg

Don’t know what it means, but gun sales especially for new gun owners, is through the roof in blue states. MA is up 83% YOY Sep 2019 to Sep 2020. NJ has never seen the rate of new gun sales. I suspect the same is true elsewhere. NRA instructors can’t run enough courses for new owners seeking permits.

Trump signs are YUGE in MA and CT.

DocLightning wrote:

Tugger wrote:

And what to "Democrats need to do"?

Tugg

1) End the filibuster. It's all but gone, anyway.

2) Establish the right to vote for all citizens who will be 18 years old on election day as a fundamental right by Federal Law. Establish that voting may not place an undue burden on citizens (time limit on line, absentee ballots for all, no crazy requirements to register). Make it a federal crime tantamount to sedition for any government official, elected or appointed to even suggest a policy that would abridge those rights. In addition, pass anti-gerrymandering laws.

3) Pack the courts so that they can't undo the above.

4) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Partisan political commentary is fine, but not masquerading as "news."

5) Establish the right and responsibility of Congress to regulate campaign finances.

6) It's a tall order, but abolish the Electoral College.

Why don't we just let the states secede then. What's the point of being in this union if the entire US will be like California and become a one-party run country. That's essentially what you are advocating for.

If you want to do all of that, why should the rest of States that aren't California, New York, Illinois Mass, etc be part of this?

This experiment has lasted 200 years or so, the left is intent in destroying it. OK lets do that, but don't count me in though. Millions of American's won't simply submit to one part rule.

Those who do, there is always China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea or California or New York who are doing very well with their one party system, except everyone is leaving these places like crazy.

No thanks!

Don’t like the First or the Second Amendments, Doc?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

1) End the filibuster. It's all but gone, anyway.

2) Establish the right to vote for all citizens who will be 18 years old on election day as a fundamental right by Federal Law. Establish that voting may not place an undue burden on citizens (time limit on line, absentee ballots for all, no crazy requirements to register). Make it a federal crime tantamount to sedition for any government official, elected or appointed to even suggest a policy that would abridge those rights. In addition, pass anti-gerrymandering laws.

3) Pack the courts so that they can't undo the above.

4) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Partisan political commentary is fine, but not masquerading as "news."

5) Establish the right and responsibility of Congress to regulate campaign finances.

6) It's a tall order, but abolish the Electoral College.

Why don't we just let the states secede then. What's the point of being in this union if the entire US will be like California and become a one-party run country. That's essentially what you are advocating for.

If you want to do all of that, why should the rest of States that aren't California, New York, Illinois Mass, etc be part of this?

This experiment has lasted 200 years or so, the left is intent in destroying it. OK lets do that, but don't count me in though. Millions of American's won't simply submit to one part rule.

Those who do, there is always China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea or California or New York who are doing very well with their one party system, except everyone is leaving these places like crazy.

No thanks!

Think about what you're tacitly admitting to about the Republican Party here, if you're saying they can't win under DocLightning's conditions.

Newark727 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

1) End the filibuster. It's all but gone, anyway.

2) Establish the right to vote for all citizens who will be 18 years old on election day as a fundamental right by Federal Law. Establish that voting may not place an undue burden on citizens (time limit on line, absentee ballots for all, no crazy requirements to register). Make it a federal crime tantamount to sedition for any government official, elected or appointed to even suggest a policy that would abridge those rights. In addition, pass anti-gerrymandering laws.

3) Pack the courts so that they can't undo the above.

4) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Partisan political commentary is fine, but not masquerading as "news."

5) Establish the right and responsibility of Congress to regulate campaign finances.

6) It's a tall order, but abolish the Electoral College.

Why don't we just let the states secede then. What's the point of being in this union if the entire US will be like California and become a one-party run country. That's essentially what you are advocating for.

If you want to do all of that, why should the rest of States that aren't California, New York, Illinois Mass, etc be part of this?

This experiment has lasted 200 years or so, the left is intent in destroying it. OK lets do that, but don't count me in though. Millions of American's won't simply submit to one part rule.

Those who do, there is always China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea or California or New York who are doing very well with their one party system, except everyone is leaving these places like crazy.

No thanks!

Think about what you're tacitly admitting to about the Republican Party here, if you're saying they can't win under DocLightning's conditions.

Basically his conditions to fundamentally transform what has worked for this country for more than 200 years, making it the oldest current democracy on earth. It has worked well, during civil wars, we abolished slavery, fought two world wars. The Democrats have won power many times under these rules. All of the sudden you can't win with them? Biden seems poised to win with those conditions.