kurtster wrote:
 

Oof!

Elizabeth Warren Is Surging In South Carolina Ahead Of The 2020 Primary                Go Girl  : )

 hayduke2 wrote:
 

After the Hillary "predictions" I find myself very disinterested in any prognostication.

Can Elizabeth Warren Win It All? | The New Yorker

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:  I agree and I think it boils down to something simple like the lack of reading and educating ourselves on not only the process but the candidates.  People don't want to research and do their homework as an informed voter.  They listen to the rhetoric on their tv sets and, radios and now social media and show up at the polling booths to mark an X next to someone's name that they either recognize or rely on someone that was the loudest and made the most sense according to their values.
We stopped caring about one another.  It's all about me and my needs at that particular time.

I would not wish that on my worst enemy.

I have to live with her in this state when she decides to show up when she's not hawking her book.

All that her DNA test proves is that she is the whitest person in America.  An angry old white woman at that.

 kcar wrote:

 
Please pray tell who am I partisan towards?

 

Oh and if you don't understand why she should apologize, let the Native Americans tell you themselves; 

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/37161/cherokee-nation-responds-warrens-dna-test-it-isnt-amanda-prestigiacomo

 

While the media worked overtime to spin the Warren self-own, the Cherokee Nation issued a statement deflating such an effort, labeling the test "useless" and "inappropriate."

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship," said Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr. in the statement. "Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation."

Hoskin added, "Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove."

"Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage," the statement concludes.

I believe your partisan knickers are showing and remember the mirror always reflects back what is looking into it.

 cc_rider wrote: 
Well it seems people will still vote for the nincompoops that have been there a lifetime. 

 sirdroseph wrote: 

 "She should of just apologized from the get go for making these claims"


...Because....?   

Hey, maybe we can get an apology from Trumpsterfire for all those claims that he was a self-made billionaire. Hell, Trump published whole books based on that outrageous lie. 

"But hey, partisans gonna partisan and they will take whatever math they can get."

Any, any chance at all that you could repeat that line to yourself? While looking in the mirror?     

 cc_rider wrote: 
I've always advocated for 10 years in the House and 12 in the Senate combined.  That is 22 years. That is long enough for anyone to serve this country.

 kurtster wrote:  Term limits sound like a good idea at face value, but there is a flip side. What if you had a senator or representative you were really happy with? I know, I know, but it COULD happen.

Here in Austin we have been sending Lloyd Doggett to Congress for decades. Even with the state gerrymandering Austin's districts to extremes, he still manages to win. He is a thorn in the GOP's side, and we like it that way.

So yeah, under many, if not most, circumstances, term limits are probably a good idea. But if it denies you the opportunity to vote for someone you like, it's not so great.

I wonder about, rather than term limits per se, limiting how much seniority affects committee positions, chairs, etc. If less-senior lawmakers had a shot at getting on the powerful committees, even chairing one, it might loosen the stranglehold senior members have.

Maybe have 'intermittent' term limits. Say two, three terms. For a senator that's 18 years (!!). Then you have to sit one out before you can run again. Break up the cycle, but don't disqualify people who have served before.

I guess what I mean is, term limits don't have to be an all-or-nothing deal. Maybe there's an in-between that preserves voting freedom, but breaks up the power of the incumbents.

c.

So is any one else seeing the virtues of term limits yet ????

Every time I mention the subject, I get run off the boards on a rail ...

 cc_rider wrote: 

elections and politics have been bad forever

newt?

hyman roth would say he's small potatoes

 Proclivities wrote:  That's it, thank you.
c.

 cc_rider wrote:
 
It was probably from the interview he did with The Atlantic.

"...During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence..."

 lowelltr wrote: 
Yeah, but the nature of the system, particularly in the Legislative branch, has changed dramatically. There's an article in my news feed about Newt Gingrich and how he changed the landscape of Congress. He set out to demolish the established norms of the body. Civility was one of the first casualties. Respect for the other side of the aisle followed soon after. Raw partisanship by any means necessary became the order of the day.

To this day he is thrilled how his 'revolution' turned out. Gridlock and chaos. Partisan hatred bordering on violence. He loves it and is proud of his accomplishment.

I'll try to find the link. It's fascinating and disgusting.
c.

 pigtail wrote: 
Agreed - we need a new breed of statesmen and women - these old politicians all suck, no matter what party they belong to - too much time in power, or fighting for more power (or both) has corrupted nearly all of them...

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Yeah...I kinda agree.  To go that route is another mistake that we can't afford to make.  I think we need fresh blood entirely.  I am sick of MOST of these old windbags making promises and getting little to nothing done while people like Trump and his followers seem to be the only ones marching ahead and trampling over the entire nation.  That whole Kayne West thing.  WTF, really?  I dunno, I remember in my 20's saying this country needs a revolution.  I am all for it but a little more apprehensive now that I am in my 50's.  I am not as strong and sure that it will be the right direction with the right people in revolt anymore. 

 R_P wrote: 
I honestly don't know who is looking worse here, this is just another day for Trump in regards to behavior, but Warren is looking really shameless here and perhaps this will open some eyes to this. Seems she is making the same mistakes of appearing calculating and disingenuous that plagued Clinton.  She should of just apologized from the get go for making these claims and moved on and she would have looked a lot better imo.   But hey, partisans gonna partisan and they will take whatever math they can get.  She will lose no supporters because both Trump and Warren supporters are so partisan they are locked in regardless, but this is not going to win her any new friends.