Jump to content

Brutus_buckeye

Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • Content Count

    4,161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Many of the European countries rely on our defense spending for their own protection, 2) the Defense contractors in this country supply not only to the US military but many foreign countries. If you slash funding for "projects" and "development of new military technology" these products would not be available to sell to other countries militaries. (Do realize that the US government is not going to allow defense contractors to develop top secret weaponry for other countries without the US having first crack at it). In addition to the US defense contractors, we do source a bunch of work from European countries.
  2. ^ you cant really do that without wrecking the global economy. Europe needs our defense budget as much as we do. The argument on cutting the defense budget is not much different than the nationalism argument. If we do it, someone else needs to fill the void. Will it be local i.e. Norway, Sweden France, etc. (which runs a geopolitical risk) or will Russia and CHina then exert a larger influence.
  3. A sociologist schooling on economic policy. That is a hoot and a half
  4. When I see photos from this angle, it always amazes me how seamlessly the Covington towers appear to fit into downtown and you how you cant tell that there is a river between them
  5. If Nike is using Kaepernick as their sole source to vet this, I question their judgment. However, if you are going to do a huge run of shoes to roll out in time for the 4th of July and have to recall them for millions because of fear of offending someone, I question their judgment on not taking steps and planning for such a contingency earlier.
  6. I agree with 90% of what you say, but don't necessarily equate this to political correctness running amok. I think it is Nike essentially acting in an echo chamber and taking bad advice without maybe listening to the whole group. Based on the explanation, they pulled the shoe because Kaepernick complained (he may just be the scapegoat here for Nike). While Kaepernick may have an important voice to the people at Nike, it is a mistake if they made him the only voice on the matter or the most important voice. Obviously, they can listen to his concerns, but instead of hitting the stop button, maybe get outside opinions on something. Nobody is right about everything all the time. That is the beauty of trying to find consensus.
  7. ^ the +2 is a national figure. It accounts for States like Ohio that are gerrymandered more red than would be average and also for states like California and Maryland that are gerrymandered more blue than average. When you put them together, that is where the +2 comes from. As for Ohio, again, I do not feel sorry for the Dems on this. In 2009 the GOP put forth the proposal that will take effect in the next Census, but the Dems, who controlled the Gov, SOS office, Atty General, and the like along with the House at that time were optimistic they could make additional gains in 2010 and have the power to redraw the lines to their advantage. They turned it down and lost badly in the elections. They deserve this for being greedy.
  8. Are you kidding me, D&S arguments were pure nonsense. He was trying to argue that the VRA opinion in the Shelby case was an example of the Court striking down Gerrymandering. It was not a good comparison case first of all, and second it did not address the issues the court used in the current gerrymandering case. Instead of just looking at the result of the gerrymandering case and saying it sucks and the court was wrong, why not actually read their opinion and understand where they are coming from. YOu don't have to agree with it and are fine to disagree with it, but disagree with the results of the analysis not just the conclusion.
  9. That flawed statement shows you have no idea what Federalism is. Federalism is ingrained in the democratic system it does not trump democracy.
  10. Not really. One the case you cite has to do with pre-clearance provisions which were struck down by the Court as the VRA was intended to prohibit states from creating obstacles to people going to the polls and actually voting (i.e. in those pre-clearance states, they could not arbitrarily move precincts, reduce poll hours, implement poll taxes, or while debatable - impose certain ID provisions. Gerrymandering does nothing to keep people from actually voting and if their vote counts. A person in OH-1 vote for Senator, governor, SOS, etc counts just the same as a voter in say OH-10. Whether voters choose to vote in a gerrymandered precinct is a matter of their own choice vs state action to make the actual act of voting more difficult, but again, thanks for trying. NBC news had a story on Gerrymandering from the 2016 election which showed that nationwide it resulted in a +2 for the GOP as a result of artificial gerrymandering. The vast majority of gerrymandering was self gerrymandering where liberals moved to the major metro areas and conservatives clustered in suburban and rural areas. The only thing the Court considered was whether their would be a dilution of minority votes under the VRA. That is why you have districts like Franklin County or Cuyahoga County in Ohio to provide sufficient numbers to cluster the minority vote together. These types of gerrymanders are effectively mandated under the VRA.
  11. While gerrymandering is an issue that cuts both ways, I think the reasoning of the SC on the decision was correct. The problem is that there is just a real disregard for Federalist principles and the logic behind Federalism with many Americans. This is why I say people do not understand civics in our schools very well. It is not an us v them battle. It is a federalist vs nationalist school of thought. What the Court, I feel, correctly decided, is that we do not have National Elections and never have. Most people do not understand this. Elections are run by the states. They set the dates, they set the polling locations, the times for voting, etc. Each state sets the rules on how they conduct their elections. The only thing the Federal government guarantees is that every citizen over 18 has the right to participate in those elections should they choose to do so. In this vein, under the Federalist principle, the gerrymandering issue is solely a state issue and should be conducted through state courts. Yes, it may make Ohio more red or California more blue, but collectively, it does not change too much on the national scale. The Gerrymandering case again goes to where the power should be, on the local level or the federal level. That is the key defining principle between many conservative/libertarians and modern day liberals
  12. it is respect for Federalism
  13. If that is not a twisting of the facts, I don't know what is.
  14. ^ No she was not right to refer it to that, it was completely disrespectful to the millions who died in the Holocaust. She was calling it a concentration camp to liken it to the atrocities that took place in the Holocaust and the extermination of an entire race. The crisis at the border does not even come close to such comparison, and it is disgusting that she would seek to trivialize that for political gain. That does not mean she is not right to be concerned, but her rhetoric takes the issue off the problem and focuses it on her and her dumbassery. The problem with AOC and her ilk is that not everything is equivalent to WWII or the holocaust or the Hitler, etc. By conjuring up the worst images of history and trying to apply them to today's standards for shock value and political points is disrespectful to those that lived it and it is wrong. If she wants to call attention to the border, she needs to find appropriate comparisons that don't trivialize the experiences of the millions who died and others who survived
  15. The distinction is not because of the definition stated by Webster's on what a concentration camp is, it is based on the intent of the speaker. Through her tweets, not just the current tweet that has caused controversy, but some of AOC's other inflammatory rhetoric, she has sought to link the current situation to imagery of the Holocaust. She may try and coyly claim otherwise now, but that was never her intent. She is quick to go to the worst possible images in humanity to describe things that she is against. It is very inappropriate. For her to compare what is happening at the border to what happened over in Nazi Germany is extremely disrespectful to the millions who died, those who lived through it and their relatives living today. It does not compare, and it marginalizes their experience and used solely to try and score a political point. It is taking something sacred and showing the highest level of disrespect. She claims she is one who has empathy, but she completed disregarded the feelings and experience of Holocaust survivors in this matter. What is happening at the border is horrible and should be addressed. People are right to call this out as a stain on our great country. It is. However, the amped up inappropriate rhetoric used by AOC and her ilk does far more harm than good.
×
×
  • Create New...