Lectryk

Sorry - I guess this applies:

Then you don't read the same liberal pundits or dissections of what wrong that I do. Shrug. You're entitled to ignore facts, but you should know what The New York Time, or The Washington Post at least, at saying in several different analysis and think pieces about where the party went wrong. That is reality, not Kenya or Benghazi nonsense, ignore it at your risk.

And if they are found to be in violation of a lawful order, they will be fined and have to pay penalties. If the judge you're referring to is Roy Moore, that act of defiance cost him his job at the time, and the beliefs behinds that act cost him the recent election. If there's another case, please provide a fact checked citation. And it got him jailed and the ensuing presidential pardon doesn't provide relief form further legal actions (last I saw, anyway). And the entity has stopped all actions that lead to his arrest.

Why don't you say bad things about Obama, for so totally mismanaging the Democratic Party during his tenure as President, that they lost so many elected positions and depth? Or about Hillary's blatant power grab (twice!)? Or the refusal of the party as a whole to take any appreciable stance on the reduction of the middle class and opportunity for Americans when they could have? At least be an equal opportunity anarchist...

There is a difference between civil and institutional disobedience.

Your solution to the problems caused by a president who calls into question just about every established norm of modern political life is to cause more problems, sow more dissent and strife, and actively rebel against lawful authority? Basically, do Trump stuff, just moreso? Just making sure I got you right.

So... exactly how do you imagine this would look?

Was this comment directed to Christopher's post? I can see that, if so. If it's to MSgtB's post, can you explain your thinking?

Uh... That is *exactly* the same argument Moore's supporters made against his accusers. "Why didn't she say something when it happened?" Guess they're not so sloppy after all, if you're validating their argument by using it? Nobody here linked it to Moore, until you did. The rest of your paragraph is incorrect to facts, meandering, and misses the point (I think you're trying to make), about power and authority, and there relationship to abuse of women. Again, nobody here was talking about Moore until you brought it up, that she was a conservative, Trump supporter, etc. Um, the photographic evidence of Franken in the act, Franken's acknowledgement that the event happened and he did indeed do it.. Is that enough for you? Of course, we'll ignore the fact that her word that it happened should have been enough to start an inquiry; people would question her veracity...

Too bad this photo has nothing to do with the photo you posted citing the photographer admitting to a fake (shown to be false). Still waiting for a proper cite to back up your claim. Nor does it stand in any way in support of your questioning her background and politics. Do you have any defense of yourself for your statements about her character, her politics, or motives? Just curious, since you're one of the first people on this board to go after the conservative media and people in general for doing exactly what you are in this case.

Citation, please, or your original post does nothing to differentiate itself from the 'blame the victim' language that the people you despise are using vis the situation with Moore. Snopes by the way, says the the statement about the photo being faked is false (https://www.snopes.com/photographer-said-franken-image-was-staged/) If you have a verified correct cite, please share.

And the Democratic party message is more inspiring and hopeful? I think both parties lost their respective ways forward a long time ago when they started to pander to their respective special interest groups, and lost focus on the general health of the nation.

Do you mean Bush for Katrina, or Obama for Sandy? Both have been maligned by the hard core right for various reasons. And Trump's reaction to Harvey was superior to Bush's belated and labored response to Katrina.

What do you mean? The conservatives aren't in charge of government now. There is a coalition of neocon RINO's (in the sense that they've sold out the values of the Republican party for political expediency) and anti-everything-somewhat intelligent (the know-nothings have always been with us, just who they hate changes) in there, but nary a Conservative in the true sense of the word.

Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer - The Washington Post Sigh. I mean... Drip, drip, drip...

China invests heavily in solar - Future Energy: China leads world in solar power production - BBC News and there are more cites and articles about the same or similar efforts underway to move China to renewable energy sources, like - China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity - The New York Times

If there were to be real, worrisome, negative changes to those areas of concern, they would have happened already - the majority was conservative until Scalia's death, and they lived and worked in the same atmosphere that exists today. All that has happened so far it that the court has returned to the same balance it had with Scalia. Wait for the two to three possible retirements of Justices over the next four years (barring unforeseen deaths) before you get too afraid. Kennedy leaving will do more to change the balance, or Bader Ginsburg. Also remember that the key decisions dealing with the things you point out as being concerning to you (abortion, expanding voter rights and protections for minorities) were made by conservative/republican appointees. The Justices view the law they interpret and the legal system it lives in as more important than casual politics. They keep an eye on precedent and the historical impacts of their decisions (at least for the most part). Or I'm just a pollyanna, and all the non white male folks are doomed..... But the historical record doesn't support that doom and gloom view. Progress may not happen as fast some want it to, it might even be stalled a little while, but it still happens. Every single paradigm changes

He's catching flak from billionaire Trump supporters who are Nevada businessman, and from others. And his position is apparently being used as at least one basis for a challenge to him next election. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/us/politics/heller-trump-health-care-adelson-wynn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Simply false. Yes, it is not profitable for them because risk pools are smaller than designed, and because constant chatter about repealing Obamacare drastically increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is a BFD in the insurance industry, for obvious reasons. Insurance is the business of uncertainty. The you simply could not have had a sufficiently large enough risk pool to deliver on the Affordable Care Act's promises. There are simply not nearly enough healthy people who would also avoid the moral hazard associated with purchasing a several thousand dollar a year asset and refrain from using it. It's funny that the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for eight full orbits but still don't have a plan. I'd be perfectly willing to give them another two years or four years to try and come up with one though. It's funny you jump to "a Plan" that doesn't exist. I merely say that the statements you make about the dire predictions of the "Republican Care" are premature as there is in fact no plan. Never judge a deal by preliminary negotiations. Thought everyone knew that. The word 'conspiracy' was not used by Old Man. But, the actions of fundamentally conservative bloc supporters (e.g.KochPAC, et al) do rise to the level of 'conspiracy' - the systematic support for candidates and legislative actions that will curtail expansion of services for the neediest and most under-represented segments of society, at the benefit of the richest can be argued to represent a conspiracy. Insurance is not the business of uncertainty - it is the business of profiting from *your* uncertainty. It is a very predictable business - the insurance provider always profits. It did not make sense from a business standpoint to remain in markets where they could not earn a profit, and since they were not allowed to share costs across state lines (in some cases) the risk pools were kept artificially small, and therefore unprofitable. And the current political rhetoric continues to exacerbate that uncertainty - why would a very profitable business opt to continue in a market that is so uncertain? The fact that the Republicans did not have even the broad strokes of a plan ready to go after 7 years of opposition is very telling of the ability to plan and foresight of the party (the same lack of ability applies to the Democrats, to be fair). Over the course of seven years they could have constructed a frame work, filled in major chunks, done a lot of ground work that would have led to finalization of something within the six months of an entirely Republican controlled government. They could have lined up support, they could have planned for the inevitable roadblocks, etc. It appears they did none of that. But, the fact that a bill has passed the House, and McConnell would have passed the Senate version and moved to reconciliation given his preference indicates we don't need to talk about the presence or lack of a plan, we have the factual changes they want to enact. What the CBO has analyzed shows a uniformly bleak picture for those that the ACA covers, so it's not just Old Man's dire predictions.

Science Fiction writer and Libertarian activist, philosopher, candidate, and general walking advertisement for libertarian-ism L Neil Smith espouses almost this identical scenario for his vision of how a Libertarian 'future' would look and function - no formal agencies/authorities - appeals to ad hoc formations as needed - everyone armed to the teeth and ready to defend their liberty at the drop of a cartridge - no standing military (since there was no standing government) - if you wanted police protection you paid private firms for security, and so on. I read 'The Probability Broach' and at least one follow up book in the 70's and very early 80's, and he had more books detailing this universe. Basically his alternate history diverges from ours during the period after the revolutionary war, and the period of initial unrest during the Whiskey Rebellion leading to an an intensified personal liberty, faster technological development, the recognition of simians and cetaceans as intelligent with full citizenship, etc.... the standard s-f 'wow, lookit how the world is different!' fare (the book was set in the far off future of the late 90's/early 00's, at least the start of it). The book/author notes even plugged the Libertarian Society and gave you addresses to write to for more literature. I don't know if this was pinecone's inspiration for his post, but it does answer the '... I can't think of ...' part of yours. I am not saying that Smith's work is indicative of general libertarian thought, any more than the stable of similarly themed or motivated Baen writers in the later 90's forward is. But, to those who read it, and were interested in more of his particular brand of libertarian-ism who sought out and read other works of Smith, you'd find a world view consistent with his writings. Also, you could make an argument that pinecone's scenario could be distilled out of the essentials of Rand-ism, at least carried to a logical conclusion of her arguments, and she would be a much more widely read author than Smith..

I didn't know that. I'm glad I've never given my cell to a campaign then.

The argument the RNC is making for non-intrusiveness is that the phone doesn't ring, so the call isn't interrupting dinner, say. A test that ignores personal preferences (do not call lists), or costs to the user - some plans or carriers still charge for accessing voice mail. If they could, I'm sure both parties would exempt their various offices from any do not call lists.

Stuff at home continues, while Trump is overseas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.5a002c078e30 This collusion thing won't go away, as much as he assures us that there's nothing to it, and fake news, and all...

Now, now, we're being so unfair - we're hurting the Presidents feelings: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/donald-trump-coast-guard-gradution-unfairly-treated-president-238505