Muda69

You can't seem to answer my question as stated, foxbat. Yet more of your:

And Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's push for full on 'democratic' socialism is supposed to grow "American Prosperity", aka the middle class? Socialism kills prosperity, kills the middle class: https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086

Sure you would have. Nice try:

FTA: I will be contacting my elected federal representative and senators, urging them to support Mr. Rubio in this endeavor.

*yawn* , got anything better than trotting out that old fact? Waiting for your details of how socialism could be "done right", and how it would eliminate poverty.

Unmediated mass democracy would lead to the serfdom of minority groups and the smallest, poorest states.: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/democrat-opposition-constitutional-order-electoral-college/ Excellent commentary by Mr. Williamson. What came first Dante, the states or the federal government? And your continued fascination with dead man is kind of disturbing. Why haven't you taught your strident belief in a United States King to your students yet?

Apparently neither can you find any pictures on facebook.com about it.

What Is The Purpose Of The Electoral College?: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44922/knowles-what-purpose-electoral-college-michael-j-knowles

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac Similarly, Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Corey Booker "caution people about doing things that become a tit for tat throughout history... So when the Democrats expand it to 11, 12 judges, when Republicans have it, they expand it to 15 judges." Booker and Tribe are right. And indeed these sorts of structural concerns are exactly what led a Democratic-controlled Congress to bury Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan - the last serious attempt to expand the size of the Court in order to shift its ideology. Critics rightly feared that court-packing would create a Supreme Court subservient to whatever party controlled the presidency and Congress at the time. As Democratic Senator Burton Wheeler put it in a speech on FDR's plan: For what it is worth, my opposition to court-packing is is not limited to plans put forward by liberal Democrats. I first wrote about the subject when prominent conservative law professor Steven Calabresi and his coauthor Shams Hirji put forward a plan for Republicans to pack the lower federal courts back in 2017. It was a bad idea when raised by some on the right two years ago, and it's no better now when it is gathering steam on the left. Undermining judicial independence might be a feature of court-packing rather than a bug if you believe that judicial review does more harm than good, in any event (as do a few legal scholars on both the right and the left). Such people contend we would have a a freer and more just society if the courts let the political branches of government do as they please. I believe that is a dangerous delusion, for reasons I summarized here: Some liberals who value judicial review generally might believe that conservative judges will not act to curb the abuses of Trump and other Republican presidents. If so, it might be better to risk blowing up the judiciary than allow conservatives to continue to have a majority on the Supreme Court. It is indeed true that conservative judges have sometimes let Trump get away with violations of the Constitution, most notably in the egregious travel ban case. But conservative Republican judicial appointees (along with liberal Democratic ones) have done much to curb the administration's excesses in other important cases. Notable examples include the numerous rulings against Trump's attempts to coerce sanctuary cities, the recent Ninth Circuit decision against the administration's efforts to severely restrict migrants' opportunities to apply for asylum (authored by prominent conservative judge Jay Bybee), and a variety of decisions on such important issues as DACA, the administration's family-separation policy (struck down by a Republican-appointeed judge who ordered the administration to reunite the separated children with their families), and freedom of speech. If Trump had had a free hand to pack the courts as he likes, things would likely have been much worse. And the same goes for future presidents inclined to abuse their power. Some on the left argue that the Democrats can expand the size of the Court without generating retaliation in kind by Republicans if they repackage court-packing as "court balancing" or some other similar euphemism. This is unlikely to work, for reasons I discussed here. Those attracted to such ideas should consider whether they themselves would forego retaliation the GOP tried to pull a similar trick. Fortunately, the left is far from monolithic when it comes to court-packing. As the above quotes by Laurence Tribe and Corey Booker reveal, some liberals do recognize the danger. Other notable liberal critics of court-packing include former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer, columnist Damon Linker (who calls it "the dumbest Democratic idea yet") and well-known legal scholar Richard Primus. Whether Democrats actually move forward with court-packing the next time they have a chance to do so depends in large part on who becomes the next Democratic president and whether he or she decides to make this an important part of the party's agenda. Some Democrats are instead promoting other, far more defensible, reforms to the Supreme Court. For example, Corey Booker has called for imposing 18-year term limits on the justices. I have no problem with that idea, which enjoys widespread (though certainly not universal) support from legal scholars on different sides of the political spectrum, such as Sanford Levinson on the left, and Steve Calabresi on the right. It would limit the power of individual justices without giving the president and Congress a blank check to pack the Court as they like. Beto O'Rourke's plan to increase the size of the court to 15 justices (mentioned above) is far less problematic than standard court-packing proposals. Because it would require a balance between five Democratic and five Republican justices, with five more chosen by the first ten, it would not enable either the president or Congress to simply pack the Court with their own minions. There are, however, many practical problems with the plan. For example, it is not clear how the Democratic and Republican justices would be selected. In addition, if independents or third parties ever gain a significant foothold in Congress, they would be shut out of the judicial selection process. O'Rourke's proposal would also require a constitutional amendment to enact, which I think is highly unlikely to happen. On the other side of the political spectrum, GOP Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court's membership to nine justices, which would prevent future court-packing. I am happy to support any such amendment. But I doubt that it can get enacted without some sort of quid pro quo for the Democrats. If it were up to me, I would be willing to pay a price to remove the danger of court-packing forever. But most Republican politician probably think otherwise. For the moment, therefore, the main barrier to court-packing is the longstanding political norm against it. It has lasted for almost 150 years, and survived an assault by Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most popular presidents in American history. The next Democratic president is unlikely to be as commanding a figure as FDR was. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is arguably more ideologically cohesive now than in the 1930s, and the relative youth of the conservative Supreme Court justices (combined with increased life expectancy) makes it less likely that the Democrats can quickly retake control of the Supreme Court by "natural" means in the near future, than was the case back in 1937. And we should not underestimate the risk that liberal anger over the Court could help generate a "crisis of legitimacy" at some point in the next few years, which in turn could pave the way for court-packing. Nonetheless, I am guardedly optimistic that court-packing can still be staved off. But that happy outcome is more likely the more people understand the gravity of the danger.

Yes, I was.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Please tell us in detail how socialism could be "done right", and how it would eliminate poverty.

Because the USA it is one of the largest countries in the world by land size, and it needed some way to be subdivided in increments. The states system came about due to the fact that the U.S. did not want a strong centralized government. By having a lose confederation to ensure there would be no more tyrants like the King of England controlling them.

Because you remove a large reason why we have geographical/social entities know as 'States'. As the opinion piece states:

The War on Red Caps Roars On: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/violence-against-trump-supporters-make-america-great-again-hats/

So you are contending there would be significantly less starving people under socialism?

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/jobs/jobs-that-arent-worth-education-requirements/ Note: These jobs are presented in the stupid slideshow format, probably to increase the number of clicks: Learn a trade like electrician, automobile mechanic, plumber, etc. If you really want a college education these days go for something related to robotics.

Showed this to my spouse. She just rolled her eyes then let loose with a good loud crackler. I was impressed.

ewkvvzt53sft1yueuzsf.mp4

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/theres-a-partisan-fiction-at-the-heart-of-the-case-against-the-electoral-college/ If anyone thinks the American republic would remain stable if political power is consolidated in coastal urban enclaves, then they lack understanding of American history, American culture, and human nature. The founders struck a balance between state and federal power for good reasons — reasons that remain valid today. But can we get real for a moment? While there are some constitutional scholars who carry on this debate based on high-minded concerns about the nature of American democracy, the real energy behind the Democratic anger at the Electoral College (and behind the Republican defense of it, for that matter) is purely partisan. They look at the national popular vote since 1992 and see exactly one Republican win but three Republican presidencies. Since George H. W. Bush’s rout of Michael Dukakis, only his son has managed a popular-vote victory. So, if we abolish the Electoral College, the Democrats win, right? Not so fast. The Democrats are basing their optimism in part on “success” in a political race that no one is actually running. There is not a single sensible political strategist who has ever plotted out a presidential race for the purpose of winning the popular vote. That’s like game-planning to run the most total yards or to shoot the most free throws. The bottom line is that no one can state with confidence who would have won the 2016 race if the national popular vote determined the outcome. The strategy would be completely different. Candidates would message differently, campaign in different states, and engage in radically different ad buys. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would have won. Perhaps not. We simply don’t know. In fact, outside of the true blowout elections, we don’t really know who would have won any of the close national contests since 1992. And let’s not pretend that a national popular vote elevates every citizen’s vote in a way that the Electoral College does not. Your vote counts in each state, and the fact that your state is overwhelmingly red or blue is no more or less demoralizing than the popular-vote idea that your single vote is thrown into a pool of 130 million others. Besides, if we want to talk about antidemocratic institutions — and the vastly disproportionate impact of a few, small states on national elections — the real culprit isn’t the Electoral College. It’s a primary system that places extraordinary emphasis on the power of winning the first three primaries. We live in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina’s America, and that’s far more troubling than perpetuating an electoral system that our founders wisely determined was helpful for maintaining national unity. Agreed. If we get rid of the Electoral College we might as well drop the "United States" from the name United States of America.

So food want, aka starvation, is better than food waste. Got it.

Andrew Yang, Upstart Democratic Presidential Candidate, Comes Out Against Circumcision: https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-yang-the-upstart-democratic-presidential-candidate-comes-out-against-circumcision

NZ declares massacre video “objectionable,” arrests people who shared it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/new-zealand-men-could-get-14-years-for-sharing-massacre-video/ I haven't seen the video in question, nor do I have any desire to watch it. But this is a slippery slope that I do not like. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.