J.C.MacSwell

It is quite common to require a supermajority for referendums on questions of constitutional amendments and sometimes other laws. Even one with a threshold as low as 55% would have changed the results of this one had it been in place. It adds a stabilizing effect. If this one had say reached 55% and you needed 55% the other way you would at least need significant changes in the voters positions to suggest holding another referendum.

There is a reason we have constitutional Democracies. You can't allow a majority to suppress a minority on every aspect of law.

You are leaving out the obvious. Anyone remotely familiar with the scale of the budgets involved would not make that mistake. She has good "ideas". She lacks the judgement that comes with experience. I am not condemning her for this. I am simply explaining it. I'm sure it will be a footnote on her tweeting record by the time she might ever run for President.

It wasn't just that it was wrong. She suggested Medicare could be funded by it.

I guess not, but it is with regard to her inexperience. Which is at the root of it IMO. She is ineligible in any case.

She recently made a claim that essentially said she may sometimes get her facts wrong, but that it was her sentiments that really mattered. She is young, smart, high energy, and I don't think she is going away soon. Having a lot to learn won't change that IMO, so I don't think Raider's expectation is likely. But he correct otherwise (IMO)

I agree. I doubt she will be challenged on it by Democrats. Which is why I characterized her as a "force to be reckoned with" despite my view of some of her tactics, which INow requested I elaborate on.

You're welcome.

I think that is how Kamela Harris might justify it as well. The ends justify the means.

As you might know, the Washington Post gave her "four Pinocchios" last year: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/did-brett-kavanaugh-offer-dog-whistle-abortion-foes/?utm_term=.b765f9dcf4b1 It was one they considered too be among the biggest of 2018, on a list of course dominated by Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/14/biggest-pinocchios/?utm_term=.fb63d8d16b2f She of course has agendas, as do all politicians, and can make good arguments very forcefully (a good thing), relentlessly overstates her case and is misleading (understandable in the current political climate, if not forgivable.), but unfortunately has demonstrated a willingness to lie...not a white lie...but a bare false witness level accusatory lie.

Not a fan of some of her tactics, but she is certainly a force to be reckoned with.

I was kidding. We help them by calling that a wall. Trump gets some fencing...gets to brag about how big a wall it is....much bigger than your average wall...

Can we not help them out? Not at all. Just a hypothetical if it came down to that. I would actually assume 1,2,3, in that order, but your post left some doubt. Essentially MigL's point...the third option is clearly the worst. Why die on that hill?

So, assuming just the 3 options are available: For you: 1. Option 1 McConell allows the vote 2. Option 3 Shutdown til 2020 3. Option 2 Dems capitulate Is this correct? In the mean time I think it would help if everyone started calling this a wall...

No. You gave me a yes/no for focusing on capitulation by the Democrats instead of McConnel proceeding with a vote. Both seemed unlikely but at least this one had some merit as it didn't imply capitulation. (I would have replied no to the reverse as well, but why clarify when this is IMO the better route of the two) I'm not against this in principle if you mean reasonably respectful protests. But I think it is not a good tactic for them. They already overdid this during the Kavanaugh "trial". So they need to match that to have any effect, and if they do what is that going to look like? Again though...not against this in principle. I don't have much better to add, but I think the Democrate might find something Trump might agree with. They, both Democrats and Trump, were elected. They need to find something acceptable to both. Ideally for them (Democrats) it would be something they could play down, but substantial enough that it looks better over time (say in 2020). Ideally for Trump it is something he can spin the other way.

Tell him they should have a meeting with the Democrat Senators to explore possible ideas of how to break the impasse, including that one. You didn't answer my question, but that's fine. How do you recommend we go about convincing the GOP led Senate to schedule the vote which seems unlikely to occur, but I agree ought to?

Yes or No? No. Your turn... We should focus on getting McConnell to allow a vote in the Republican controlled Senate on any of the bills the Democratic controlled House has already passed instead of focusing on getting Democrats to capitulate. Yes or no?

You have a serious bias if you feel I instigated any of this. Any personal attacks were in kind, except I have never attempted to mischaracterize your positions. Ten oz is not right on this. You have repeatedly admonished me for replying in the exact same manner he attacked me with. He makes clear mischaracterizations of positions. Following complaints or attacks with an appeal to get back on topic is disingenuous. If you or he don't want replies to your negative comments don't make them. If you want to discuss this further you should PM me. I can agree with those four statements as written.

Raider. I would not put too much attention to up and down votes. I don't believe you do as you post true to your beliefs, but if you would like to here it would be good to listen to INow. Here is a good example of one of his better post in terms of upticks, currently +4, so presumably a very agreeable post. I'm sure we can all agree on that, regardless of any political positions: Now, you can probably learn a ton more in the Science section by reading a Janus +1 or +2, but that's doing it the hard way.

Must admit when I saw the term "carcass" I was hoping for something a little bigger.

Keep them coming. You've already found them so let's see them. Out with them. I think this pretty much sums it up. You set the bar, for yourself, much too low IMO. With you? Why bother?

Agree. I have this American friend even. He's a very clever and astute American...

I am sure Trump would agree with that. Country north of the border decides whether to build one, country south of it pays for it. Makes complete sense. We just need to elect a wingnut Prime Minister and get it started.

If all that the Democrats allow Trump is a small picket fence...Trump will call it a wall...paid for by the Mexicans... (disclaimer: no small animals or Democrats were hurt in attempting that joke...)

I'm not trying to win. At least not trying to defeat anybody. I do feel I've lost when the discussion goes South (seriously anyone let me know if that has become politically correct, i do not know the history behind it). I don't think anyone else wins either. Not extremes, but certainly enough to leave a lot of fertile ground in the middle as I said. It is. I will stand by that one also. So you have two minor examples where I have in fact assessed some blame toward the Democrats. Why is it that you find it so unacceptable to hold this position, and find the need to mischaracterize it to the degree you do? If you wish to stay on topic, why do you so consistently do this?