As in the Endangered Species Act, which used to be a very bipartisan supported regulation, with multiple successes, but now suddenly, it's a massive failure?

Not at all. The limo had failed inspection and the company was ordered to stop using it. That they criminally ignored that regulation doesn't mean the regulation shouldn't have been there in the first place. Now there will at least be some recourse through the criminal justice system.

Because the regulation failed to effectively prevent the accident, the argument would be that the regulation's existence didn't matter in this situation. Are you trying to tell me that they couldn't otherwise be held criminally liable if that regulation didn't exist? That's just plain wrong.

I'm not arguing against balanced/responsible regulation, just that this particular example proves the need for it.

Just speaking generally, bipartisan support does not necessarily equate to effective/useful regulation.

What balanced/responsible regulation would prevent a company from illegally using a car for transportation services?

And either way, your own argument still shows why it's a good example. If we're arguing strong regulation vs. minimal regulation, then this situation makes an argument for the former, not the latter.

I'm not arguing for or against this particular regulation. I'm simply pointing out that a regulation that did not/could not stop a horrific event is a pretty poor example of why regulation is needed.

The regulation lowers the odds of an event happening. It's often impossible to guarantee an event won't happen.

We can't stop all murders, but laws and enforcement bodies reduce the number of murders that would happen without any oversight.

Nevermind. Not arguing any statement you just made. Not the point. Never heard anyone argue after a murder occurs that this is the reason we need laws against murder.

It's a good example of how businesses aren't going to look out for customers or public. The entire argument of "if they don't then they go out of business" doesn't really fly. They incentive it to cheat, until they can't, and whatever happens in between is cool as long as they don't get caught and no one gets hurt. There are limitless examples of this, yet some will even argue that it'll be worth it as prices and competition, even cheating to keep prices lower is better for customers and the population as a whole.

We have a president who is pretty much the poster child for cheating wherever you can and showing how far that can take you. Don't trust the government? Fine, but don't tell me that the profit motive means that businesses will look out for the public, because that's not happening. That was the point of that particular example.

Exactly my point, seemed like an odd situation to use to prove a point. Thought it was a point better made by you then me. It's like if I am a big TSA supporter and then decide to use a plane hijacking where the hijakcers went right through security as an example of why the TSA works. In general the TSA might very well work and be a good idea but why use that particular case as my example?

It's always funny to read how people can look at the same facts and reach opposite conclusions:

Elizabeth Warren's DNA test shows she isn't Native American, makes her the butt of jokes once again

Yes, Elizabeth Warren has Native ancestry. No, that won’t stop Trump’s racist attacks. - The Washington Post

Indian ancestry comes up a lot in Idaho and similar states, it matters for tribe enrollment, benefits, and state jurisdiction for crimes committed. The most important factor is % blood ancestry. For state criminal jurisdiction, % blood ancestry actually trumps whether the tribe itself consider you a member, which is a little odd to me, but that's what our state supreme court decided..

Somewhere around 1/8 is usually the cutoff. Warren's DNA test means she's at most, 3% Native American (but more likely less). There's a big difference, a legal difference, between "being an Indian" and having some Indian blood.

I know it's not popular to say, but it's still weird that Harvard Law School identified her as a minority professor (including in materials promoting their diversity, that they had a "native american professor"). Trump promised to pay up if Warren proved "she was an Indian." The Washington Post opinion article occasionally altered that promise to a payout if Warren proved she "had Native American ancestry", but then links to the speech where he said "Indian." Her demanding he pay up is essentially a claim that she's an Indian. But she's not.

It's also interesting how, growing up in the northeast, we were taught in polite society that "Indian" is basically a racial slur. But in the west, the courts, statutes, civic groups, organizations and charities that support the tribes, and the tribes themselves, generally use the term Indian in a generic way to describe native American people. That doesn't necessarily make it OK, but, the term definitely means something different to me after using it in legal briefs after the other party, the court, and the law did, and then after I kind of reluctantly decided it was OK for me too and that it would look patronizing if I avoided it when no one else was.

Interesting The Daily podcast this morning. The argument was made that the geography of the US ensures that the majority of the country will be democrat (thus the likely shift in house) yet the senate and electoral college small state preference ensures likely long term senate and presidential wins.

I think the question may be if the 17th Amendment is "unconstitutional"? Perhaps the original indirect election of senators was to exactly prevent the current power gap? As it stands now one party is successful at mobilizing and appealing to the few, but electorally powerful and the other party is successful at appealing to the many at the cost of the few. With our current media and tribalism, I think gone are the days of a party trying to be all things to all people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/p...epublican.html

Some heads will roll, wonder if it goes all the way up to King-in-waiting.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/middl...key/index.html

I guess this means she is prepping to run in 2020. Here's a refresher

Political positions of Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia

The Democratic leadership and lack of strategy continues to baffle me.

1. Who cares about this bit of information? Hint: nobody

2. Why do this right before the mid-terms when all the talk is on other subjects likely in the Dems favor? Now you throw something out their that will likely only engage in what Trump wants which is grade-school confrontations that will rile up his base.

I'm not suggesting this will influence anything in the midterms but by putting this out there at this point in time will provide zero benefit while potentially providing something for Trump to grab a hold of and rally around.

The problem is that Democrats think it is important because they tend towards identity politics. You fit into this box, and we're one of you because X.

The other part of it, to think that she has this family story that makes national news, but she never used it for gain is ridiculous. Why make the claim if there is no gain? I have some interesting family tidbits, but unless we are talking about where your family is from, it is not volunteered.

I think Trump would beat Warren.

Warren is a terrible national candidate. Today is a great example of that.

I doubt a single persuadable voter even knows what's going on with Warren. It's a big deal for the politically engaged, but those people generally aren't persuadable. The family history of a potential primary candidate isn't moving votes in swing states.

Just on the history of incumbency, you have to start from Trump is the favorite, regardless of who runs in the primary.

I am a Democrat and I don't think it's important. I do enjoy how you seem to always have all the answers and always know how the Democrats think and act though. It's great and not at all condescending.

I'm not sure what matters less to me - this Warren Indian story or the royal baby news. Like most of these political stories, the most interesting thing is the coverage, not the story itself. Once again, the MSM stumbles over an opportunity to cover news accurately without providing fodder for the "fake news" crew. it's so frustrating to watch.

I'd agree. She'd get way more votes than him but the EC would not be kind to her.

Definitely. He hasn’t had a hit since “Regulate” with Nate Dogg.

Honestly, I meant Democrats as in the the party, not the rank and file. Its the same as most people on the board think all Republicans are racist.

EDIT: I do get quite a bit of interaction from the Democrats from my wife's family and friends as well as interactions with clients at work.

The only people who i share political views with that discussed the Warren thing today at all were pretty much wondering what the fuck she's doing and why.

Yeah, see my response to Butter. JPhillips said it much better than I did, the people that are politically engaged it is a big deal.

The point I was trying to make, I see more Democrats using identity politics. Which makes some sense, when your targeting a lot of different groups, you want to identify with them to establish common ground.

Its no different than if someone was running a sales force that interacts with the public in a high intensity purchase. You want someone that connects with the client because people buy from people.

The House is huuuuugely gerrymandered right now. Like, obnoxiously so. Yes, both parties do it, but we're talking about, "Republicans had a wave election in a census year" levels of gerrymandered.

That the House is looking like a possible flip is less about geography and more about, well, "the enthusiasm gap." Democrats are pissed off and have been motivated for two years. Republicans have been more muted. Now maybe that changes in the next 2-3 weeks and the "blue wave" that has been bandied about for the last several months fails to materialize.

But if the geography of the nation had anything to do with majoritarian representation in the House, Democrats would have won it it in 2012 or 2016, when their base was more likely to turn out.

On the other hand, I DO think that geography probably puts its thumb on the scale for the Senate, yeah. The heartland is full of large states with pissant populations and bright-red political proclivities, and they all get two Senators, each. Much is made (or was, before 2016) of the "Democratic firewall" in Presidential elections, but there's a similar phenomenon benefiting contemporary Republicans in the Senate.


It's probably against the original intent. The way the Senate was structured was meant to make it a deliberative body, and states selecting their Senators without direct election was meant to ensure that people who had the states' best interest at heart selected people with similar goals - demagogues needn't apply.

It didn't work out that way because humans are corruptible, and the idea of the "smoke-filled rooms" (or the "ol' boy network," if you prefer) picking people based on connections and palm greasing roused some ire.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary, etc. It was a setup meant to insulate the Senate from mob rule and demagoguery, but the other side of that is if you reserve the power to select leaders to the political class, horse trading happens and that's not good, either.

But "unconstitutional"? No. It's literally right there in the Constitution, and no court is going to hold that the Constitution can invalidate itself; to the extent that contradiction happens, the Amendment with the contradicting language is going to supercede the original text, because that's what Amendments do.

The Cherokee Nation responded to Warren's claims, since she's made this a central issue of her identity and her 2020 presidential campaign.

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. '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. 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 proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

That first sentence is referring to the fact that anyone who has even the most remote Mexican-American decent will have "native american" blood via DNA tests - the American native american tribes have occasionally fought off this reality in denying benefits to the millions who can claim 1-3% Native American ancestry. It takes more to be an Indian, in the eyes of the tribes.

This is a woman who was identified by Harvard law school as being a "Native American professor" for many years. And while none of this should really matter, I noticed that it was the #1 political discussion, by a wide margin, on the politics subreddit over the last week, which I think is at least as relevant as determining what matters to people as whatever CNN or Fox News puts on their front page.

I think this is true if all other things as equal(which they never are). Don't you think that the fact that he's historically unpopular in a great economy, Mueller's findings are going to hit at some point, and less people are in favor of him than when he was elected would trend in the other direction though? I wouldn't put his chances at higher than 1 in 3 right now, and that tanks to single-digits if the economy goes for a down-turn which it will at some point, just a question of how the timing of it works out and whether it's at a time that will effect the '20 election.

The anti-Ted Cruz ads from Richard Linklater are hilarious. Especially the way the guy says "Ted".

TBH if the economy and stock market continues to do well and Mueller investigation does not come up with the smoking gun (e.g. him personally involved in a significant way) I do think he gets re-elected.

Trump has seemingly reduced his antagonistic approach recently (still there but less than in first year), has gotten some important wins - SCOTUS, perception he is "winning" the trade/cold war with China, some progress with NK, new NAFTA, complete cowing of the GOP etc. and, second only to the economy in importance, lack of an inspirational Dem candidate at this time ... all points to odds of re-election.

Looks like Trump is getting caught up on his fox and friends dvr with 3 tweets about Warren.

Why she ever brought this back up and doing it before the midterms is just beyond dumb.

Can someone explain to me how Trump is allowed to lie because they're blatant lies? ... Stormy Daniels lawsuit against him was dismissed on the basis that he needs to be able to lie about people as part of his presidency?

Surely having him NOT lie and face punishment when he does would be a good thing?

Trump Lawsuit dismissed

It's not against the law for anyone to lie (civilly or criminally), unless you're lying to defraud a victim, or if you're under oath. And the latter can almost never be proven unless there's corroborating evidence that you intended to lie and weren't just mistaken or remembered incorrectly. Edit: There's slander and libel too, but that's almost impossible to prove in the U.S. too.

Deficit grows by 17% thanks to decreased revenue as a result of tax cuts.

This piece is starting to standout to me. At this time the Dems should really be working on culling the herd, and identifying 3-5 solid choices.

And at this stage, I see Booker, Harris and Warren posing no threat to a Trump re-election, because they all fit the "image" that will once again galvanize his base, while turning off just enough of the independents/moderates to ensure another victory.

At this point I have to think Biden is the most promising option, barring an unforeseen emergence of someone else. He won't be bullied by Trump, and will be much more calculated in his responses than the others, who let emotion drive them to say/do stupid shit. At times they look like they are Dem versions of Trump who only care about winning and not America.

I also don't think Biden will energize Trump's base like the three aforementioned would. Sanders is a wildcard, but he is too moderate for the current Dem establishment and I think his best shot has passed. I still believe that he would have defeated Trump in 2016.

No way they would get the nomination, but I would think long and hard about Tim Kaine or Phil Bredesen. The concern I would have with either, would they be able to move the party more towards the center, or would they have to move further left to toe the party line.

I don't think so either, but even having them in the conversation hurts the Dem cause IMO, so the sooner they are not in the picture the better.

I would love to see Kaine but it would be a bloodbath as the loony left trampled all over each other to see who could be the first one to stab him in the back. Trump choking on a Big Mac really is the only thing standing between us and another 4 years isn’t it.

You're right with Harris and Warren, but way off the mark in regards to Booker. He'll have tremendous appeal to moderates/independents. His problem is going to be from the Bernie types who won't like Booker's coziness with big banks. I think he beats Trump if he can find his way to the nomination.

None of it matters, if the economy continues to grow Trump will be reelected. Money makes everyone look the other way and provides them an excuse to put up with his antics.

My dad is the perfect example. Voted Trump but not a hard core supporter. Hates a lot of his antics and is objective in his views. He is a good man, owned a pharmacy in an area with a lot of minorities and latinos. Never heard him say a bad word about any minority, woman, etc...employed a lot of them, done a ton for the community.

Loves seeing his investments grow and as long as they do he will vote Trump despite all the other nonsense. There are A LOT of similar people aged 65-90 who are just like my dad. Then throw in the people who support him for the other reasons and it is looking like an uphill battle for the Dems.

Kaine has no personality and Bredesen will be 76 in 2018.

Great response Stormy. Keep it coming.

All about the Boomers....still. We can't get away from it. Who cares as long as the world is pandering to me and my specific demographic. Sure investments are growing, at what cost though? Would the R's have been so kind to Obama to let him float a trillion dollar stimulus to the economy when things were already going good? Guarantee as soon as they have lost control of the finances that they'll be touting all the need to cut and save and balance the budget. Meanwhile, if they manage to keep control it'll all be good, as long as the short term is good, everyone else be damned.

It'll take someone like Bloomberg or a Kasich-like D on the left to get the nom and threaten. The middle (of both parties) is still more important than that fringe on each.

This. Plus Biden might be the next best candidate despite his age, but the idea that he won't say stupid shit is... interesting.

Biden is the old guard. I really don't think he can generate enough support to beat Trump. Booker is interesting to me.

The far left will nominate...

Is a fantasy of the right. The moderate ALWAYS wins in the Dem primary, it's only after they are nominated that they are made into a radical socialist.

Clinton was the moderate. Gore was the moderate. Kerry was the moderate. Obama was the moderate. Clinton was the moderate.

The far left isn't going to pick the nominee.