foxbat

Was that a general feeling about cheerleaders or what you told the guys on the team? 😀

Apparently, when questioned about this, Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told the press, "President Trump likes Chairman Kim and he doesn’t think these sanctions will be necessary."

None of my posts have indicated that I am in favor of balancing either. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in the previous quote that I specifically stated that there's a difference between using government resources to allow access vs. balancing. Just a couple from two different side of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure you already knew this. https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local-education/lebanon-schools-pay-150-000-settle-racial-discrimination-case/LkyN5pCuMeKYOdNfPCJsaO/ https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/school-officials-discriminated-against-white-coaches-suit/ https://www.essence.com/news/indiana-high-school-girls-told-by-racist-bully-they-would-be-sold-into-slavery/ Here's another one linking back to hunger issues and racism too. https://www.thenation.com/article/hunger-food-insecurity-racism-mariana-chilton/

I'm not talking about forced integration. I'm talking about making sure that there isn't an impediment to integration ... and there's a very distinct difference. There's a very distinct difference between having an environment where integration or access to facilities is made available vs. balancing racial mixes. There's a very distinct difference between making a school integrate by busing and making sure that a kid who wants to attend a public school who lives in that district can attend it without impediment, harassment, etc. or, even outside of that district, should that be allowed by the district like when open enrollment applies.

My "sharing," as I posted before, isn't quite as limited as your your take on it. As with the picture, those government troops weren't "sharing" by giving, they were providing access to potential prosperity. Similarly, in those other areas, I'm not talking about aid in those areas, but providing access; especially equal access.

Clearly you aren't that isolated. So as to the other issues of education, employment, housing?

You mean like this?

I don't have an issue with the EC either. I love Alexander Hamilton's quote about it ... "... if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent." In terms of splitting states, there had been talk for a while of Texas doing similar, but for a different reason. It would provide for an additional eight Senators as the idea was to split the state into four new states plus Texas which was a provision of its annexation. The opposite of California, however, would hold true in Texas, in that Democrats could peel away electoral votes from the state's bundle and, with potential demographic changes, the net could end up with Texas being more blue than red. Nate Silver did a really interesting piece on this back in 2009: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/messing-with-texas/ using the McCain-Obama votes for analysis.

When some 40 million people struggle with having enough to eat, then there are folks that are not sharing in that American Prosperity. For a country with the resources and abilities that we do, it's not something to write home about. Yes, I understand that no one owes anyone anything in your eyes and that the world isn't fair, but that's not something that I subscribe to nor how I live my life in dealing with people. Yes, there are folks that have "dug their own graves," but in my work with the less-fortunate, I've come across many that aren't in the position that are in out of their own ignorance, laziness, etc. There are also many that still end up being excluded from or restricted in the education, housing, employment, etc. opportunities because of issues like redlining. In my somewhat longish life, I've come across so many instances where I reflect, "There but by the grace of God go I," that I attempt where possible to help open doors, give a leg up, etc. Yes, I know you don't believe in God, but that doesn't exclude the idea of altruism and recognition sometimes being in the right place at the right time sometimes tips the scales. When there are items in place that tend to impede that, especially in a country with the resources and opportunity that we have as a whole, it becomes a lost chance for a badge of honor for the country. Dostoevsky is quoted as saying, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." I also think similarly that is reflected in the access of of its citizenry to the prosperity of the country. There's no "fascination" in the word "sharing" ... most likely it triggers the socialism boogeyman Bat Signal. Sharing in this case is nothing more than an all-encompassing item that includes items like access to, opportunity, and yes, even in some case, the dreaded actual presentation of aid.

Good thing that I have a practice of not taking a sip of a drink before reading the GID meme thread. 😃

Yes it would; however, one of the issues with the EC is that while it exists, it doesn't specifically state HOW the states must apportion their votes. Most do it by winner of popular vote in the state; however, a couple of the states do it by popular vote in congressional districts, so that's why Maine and Nebraska sometimes end up with split votes in some elections. There's been discussion recently about some states apportioning their votes based on the national popular vote as opposed to the state popular vote.

Trump could end all of this speculation by releasing his x-rays.

And the GOP and followers wouldn't be defending the Electoral College, per the original article, if they hadn't only won the popular vote in one election in the last two decades. As the original article pointed out ... partisan on both sides. But since we are on this topic, you mean to tell me that, had Trump won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College, that he and his voters would have sat by silently? There is no way in he//. Trump won the election and the first thing he did was complain that there were MILLIONS of illegal votes and that he really won the popular vote. BTW, there was a thread or at least posts on GID about the Electoral College and abolishing it back when Obama had won his second term, so I think you're not quite on the mark in claiming that the thread wouldn't exist if Hillary had won the election. Matter of fact, had Hillary won the Electoral College and Trump won the popular vote as he believed would, there WOULD most likely indeed be a thread on the Electoral College and how it was about the popular vote.

Actually, you were talking about it and pointing out said hypocrisy ... just expanding it to all Democrats. I pointed out that said hypocrisy is not the exclusive domain of Warren and O'Rourke. As for Trump changing his position, I don't know if he has or not. If he has, then it's very possible, as you point out, that Warren and O'Rourke could have indeed changed their minds too ... and if he didn't change his mind, then the leader of the GOP is right there along with Warren and O'Rourke in his view.

To be fair, the current President has been very quiet about the Electoral College since his win ... although he wasn't when Obama had won.

AOC talked about a generation of voters who have not shared in the American Prosperity. The 73% productivity of the economy coupled with the roughly 13% in compensation has come over the past 40 years or so ... or two generations. The two generations at play have seen a declining impact/influence of the American Prosperity ... the first generation is roughly 20 right now and the second would be roughly 40. US kids today are watching the issues that their parents have impacting them. Yes, I get the fact that in the rest of the world, the standard of living is lower in several places, but the statement that she made is about Americans in America, not Americans in the rest of the world. It's similar to when some who is gay complains about not being treated equally when applying for housing in the US and some one says to them, "Shut up because if you were in Saudi Arabia you would be killed for being gay." The issue isn't about how they WOULD fair ELSEWHERE, but how they fair WHERE THEY ARE. For the past, almost 20 years, at a minimum, especially in the mid-west, that prosperity hasn't been recognized by the voting populace. If it was, then Trump wouldn't likely have won. Recall that he talked about how bad of shape the country was in and how people were stealing all of the jobs and how folks couldn't get by. Obviously there must be MANY who bought into that. If everyone was sharing in the prosperity, then there wouldn't have been a need to have made America great again, right? Having worked with the homeless, and knowing some personally and hearing their stories, I would be hard pressed to say that the idea of Americans not sharing in America's Prosperity is something that I could buy into as a false idea. There are many that get to share, but there are also many who don't.

Yes, we know that socialism is the boogeyman, but it doesn't address the fact that she's not wrong that there are Americans who have not shared in that American Prosperity.

You're tossing up a straw man and then pulling out your mobile goal posts when someone decides not to engage in the high school debate tactics?

Sure there are issues in the rest of the world, but I think what you are missing in the statement is that she's claiming that there are AMERICANS who have not experienced the American Prosperity. When you look at the separation that's happening and the decline of the middle class and issues like, between 1973 and 2017, the productivity of the economy has grown 73% while compensation has only increased under 13%, then she's not fully off point in that comment. http://fortune.com/longform/shrinking-middle-class-math/

At a minimum, while traveling to/from said institutions, should you be pulled over by law enforcement, you are much more likely to have a more positive experience. Should you be carrying with a concealed permit, you are more likely to show up alive.

You've got to read his whole platform ... that's just the tip of it. Lord, I apologize for that.

Not being prone to paralysis by analysis hardly makes one a Renaissance Man.

Nope.

Research isn't working hard. It's pretty standard to what I do in all aspects of things that I do. Plenty of training in it and it comes fairly easily/naturally for me.