• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steve_S last won the day on November 13 2013

Steve_S had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,667 Excellent

About Steve_S

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Recent Profile Visitors

10,799 profile views
  1. You should be able to enter chat now. :).
  2. Well, it's a fair question to ask, which iran? The Iran of the shah or the iran of khomeni?
  3. How many folks have used hanukah as a rallying point for terrorist acts over the last 30 years? How many folks have used ramadan as a rallying point for terrorism over the last 30 days?
  4. Yeah, I agree, there's no problem with that interpretation. The administration had basically unilaterally abrogated that part of the original ban anyway upon realizing that the way it was written kept a lot of people out who they either did not wish to keep out, in practice at least, or wanted to keep out without realizing the political fallout that would ensue. The part of the ban that really matters for the purposes of vetting and so forth were, at least until the opinion from the october arguments is disseminated, upheld. This is a pretty significant blow to the democrats claim on unconstitutionality of it ultimately. I'd be incredibly shocked if the status quo from now to october is not maintained after october with regards to the ban itself. I think the democrats probably helped trump out a little bit by the immediate mass exposure of the folks that weren't being allowed to travel here after the very first ban was implemented, insofar as, had they not challenged it legally to the degree that they did, it would've been a political gift that kept on giving as far as their side is concerned. He now gets to claim a victory to his base while not really suffering the effects that 15 or 20 months of students and foreign nationals with permanent residency not being allowed in would've brought with it. An interesting thing to note here going forward is that kennedy split his decision, siding partially with trump and partially with the challengers, with alito, roberts, gorsuch, and thomas dissenting from upholding the stay on the parts mentioned above. Something like this really shows you the difference that his resignation could make if it were to happen in the next couple of years with regards to cases such as this and others that will have much farther reaching implications.
  5. I agree. It's interesting that it still got enough support, in spite of roosevelt's popularity to pass. His approval rating only dropped below 50 once and it was in the 65-80 percent range for most of his last 8 or 10 years, including the prewar years when he was not a wartime president. I suppose folks probably sensed the danger. The republicans introduced it, but the democrats were pretty much ruling the roost then, so it took a lot of democrat support to pass as well. Perhaps there was also a bit of not wanting someone "blocking the path" nearly indefinitely from the democrat side.
  6. Sanders is trying to take the democratic party over. That is why he's using such rhetoric. I would expect warren to go his direction. I don't know who else would, but others probably would. The rest of the party seems to be sort of frozen in fear as far as what direction to go, other than the current old standby, which is to just attack trump. That's almost certainly a failing strategy in the long term if that's all they're really going to do. The thing that Schumer and Pelosi have going for them is that they account for a lot of the fundraising of the party as a whole. The republicans look like they are acting, doing things, changing obamacare, for instance. The democrats look like they are just kind of caught trying to figure out what to do. If sanders tries to take over the party in a non-presidential election year, it will just split it probably. If he were able to get a presidential nomination, he could do it then. I don't see how he or anyone else does it with congressional elections 16 months away. I was reading some democrats comments to each other on a twitter story the other day. It really was nothing like I'd ever really seen, the recriminations and so forth. I've seen liberals argue with each other, but they were using attacks on each other they typically reserve for republicans and, most recently, trump.
  7. I generally agree with this, though I don't particularly have a problem with term limits on the presidency, due to its nature as an executive position. It is a whole lot easier to consolidate power long term in an executive position in government than in a legislative position. Your power in a legislature, even as a very long term, entrenched legislator, is still relegated to one vote. Otherwise, all you really have is the influence you have accumulated, which is a subjective entity that can ebb and flow. The executive can consolidate and gather power to himself over time in ways that legislators cannot. For this reason, i am nearly 50/50 divided internally on term limits for the presidency. I would not be particularly offended if they did not exist, but i don't have a massive problem with them in a vacuum either.
  8. If the founders didn't intend on wannabe rock star politicians in office for decades, they could've easily written a prohibition of such into the constitution. George Washington set a standard when he retired from the presidency after two terms, a standard that was basically abided by all who sought that office for the next 150 years. But as with any such standard, it eventually will fall to ambition, as it did with roosevelt. I doubt the founders themselves were entirely ignorant to the fact that someone may simply just camp out in a senate seat or even the presidency and generally trusted the electorate to deal with that at the ballot box. Of the many things that it would've been nearly impossible for them to foresee from their position in the 18th century that wasn't dealt with constitutionally, socialism/communism, abortion, even modern military capabilities (the likes of which would've probably blown the mind of anyone whose name is on the declaration of independence), I don't think this is one of them.
  9. That's not particularly shocking. It's ironic that organizations like code pink probably end up providing more assistance than harm to the causes that they are attempting to oppose.
  10. Perhaps not if you are talking about threats, but having a sitting congressman face a nearly successful assassination attempt for political reasons is pretty rare.
  11. Depends on what part. The more rural you go in any state, the more red it becomes.
  12. He and other young republican politicians like him are going have to figure out a way to do something that is different from the previous template. I can't imagine another republican primary full of jeb bush policy wonk types, which is the sort of guys rubio would've eventually probably beaten. His politics aren't much different from theirs. The neocon macro is probably finished in the republican party in the long-term. The party threw up two right-moderate, foreign policy hawk candidates in a row and got schellacked both times in presidential elections. I'm not sure it's possible to become president anymore running solely on the republican platform from the 90s through trump's takeover, which is what a lot of the guys like rubio represent in the minds of people. They are going to have to change or just be happy with being incumbent senators and congressmen due to local popularity, which may eventually go away itself if enough changes.
  13. This is, of course, possible. However, what really matters more than the wall or any other given electoral promise would be the economy, particularly employment. Right now that is going well. The only real question is what the level will be in 2020. I believe it's possible that it will be fairly close to what it is now, perhaps on the descent. The biggest issue, locally, for these states was the outsourcing of american jobs. If that is slowed or mostly stopped, by 2020, no matter what the national unemployment rate is, he will probably get them and the republicans may well keep them. If not, it isn't is assured. A lot of those things are not really under the direct, and barely under the indirect, control of any given president. His best possible play to keep the unemployment rate lowish is progressive deregulation. That could extend the positive economic cycle past its natural lifetime simply because deregulation generally opens up capital for corporations and small businesses alike.
  14. I wouldn't overlook the significance of that, though. There were a lot of people who had probably never pulled a lever for a republican presidential candidate who voted for trump. Republicans had not won any of three big ones that flipped since 1988, 28 years prior to the 2016 election. The most significant thing about those states is not that trump won them, though that is very significant, of course. The most significant thing is that the democrats are now going to have to focus a lot more attention on them instead of ohio and florida. If you include minnesota in this mix, which you should, because he very barely lost there, there are now six very important winnable swing states for both parties, as opposed to two, which the republicans could not have won without. The republicans can now take the approach that it is possible to lose florida or ohio, potentially both (but not likely, as they'd have to virtually sweep the other four), and still win, in theory. Elections don't tend to trend that way, but anything is possible at this point i suppose. What this mostly does is apply a lot more pressure to the democrats and relieve a lot of pressure from the republicans, in any given generic election. It is a huge deal psychologically for the republicans to not have to pin all their hopes on winning florida, ohio, nevada, and new hampshire to have any chance at the presidency.
  15. I pretty seriously disagree with this. I view it as being in its infancy more so than anything else. Political movements are simply not made or broken on the backs of one man. Trump became what he is because he said a whole lot of things that people were already thinking, quite obviously. Being able to successfully do that really is the bedrock of being a successful politician in any country with free elections. For how long did we have conservative politics versus liberal politics? Those were the battle lines. Now, we have elements of conservatism versus elements of liberalism, but conservatism versus liberalism isn't really where the politics themselves are. In the past 20-30 years, particularly in the past 15, though, liberalism, politically, has evolved directly into identity politics. So, through the political changes of the last decade and up until about early 2016 in this decade, what we really had was conservative politics versus left leaning identity politics with a liberal platform, as opposed to just mostly liberal politics. Conservative has actually held its own fairly well in local and statewide elections, but due to the makeup of our government and the distribution of house and senate seats, republicans are equivocal or have a slight advantage there. However, in presidential politics, the trend demographically was clearly towards the democrats and it was widely considered that the republicans had one singular route, at the very most two, to the presidency in both 2008 and 2012, with one, at most, in 2016, and that meant being perfect in all the right places. The democrats, as a result, thought that going forward it was going to be virtually impossible for them to lose an election to the presidency. They were probably correct in that assumption, had the template continued to be conservative politics versus identity politics. However, it did not. It is now conservative leaning populist politics versus liberal left leaning identity politics. The democrats happened to be running a lacking candidate in precisely the wrong moment in history. I don't think that right wing populism, at all, ends with trump. Trump is basically the rough draft of it, from my point of view. Politically speaking, in the right hands, it could be incredibly potent. Also, we need to remember that a democratic populist (though one who also practices identity politics) almost took the nomination from the most entrenched non-incumbent candidate in that party of the past at least century. This seems to me a lot more like it is a direction the country as a whole is trending, more so than something trump drummed up.