J.C.MacSwell

I would tell them I was sorry they felt offended by my belief that was founded in objective evidence. I might try to change my speech where I deemed it appropriate, but not if it affected the job significantly.

It could though, if my context was physical strength.

What if I said "strong woman"? What if it was clearly meant physically? Women have less physical strength, on average, than men. What if I was referring to the Women's light weight World Champion? Do I need to refer to her as a person of above average strength? What if it was meant in terms of character? Some might say that suggests women have less strength of character than men. i certainly would not. Do I need to point that out, or explain why? Do I have to say "strong person"? Can I not simply be reasonably (my opinion of reasonably at the time) cautious, and clarify in good faith if asked, or accept what I consider to be reasonable responsibility after considering what I said?

I said scale of the budgets, Swansont. Two thirds of 32 Trillion in medicare over 10 years cannot be funded by any amount of change in military spending. Their total budget is not even a third of that. Is that not obvious? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Really? As much as I have occasionally objected to some of your posts, this does not seem like the kind of post you would make.

Come on INow. That's a direct response to what Ten oz stated, and for the purpose of the topic. You don't have to agree with the line of thought to see that.

No. But it is why some people have compared her to Trump. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-congress/index.html She's still more of an activist than a politician. She's a rookie. A high draft pick based on potential that needs to change her game to make "the Team"...even for the Democrats. She's going to make mistakes. But let's not write her off.

It isn't perfect. It simply sets the bar higher than half. If someone thinks they would like to change it back the onus is on them to get 55%, so a change of at least 10%. You could allow another clause that if it gets over 50%, but cannot get to 55%, on the next referendum, say minimum 2 years later, on the same subject only 50% (plus 1) is required. Other things should require a supermajority much higher to make a change. Imagine a hypothetical where someone wanted the 13th amendment overturned. You would want the threshold to be pretty high...100% plus 1 comes to mind.

I didn't...but I will. I think 55% would be reasonable for something like this. Also thank you for not assuming.

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?