There will be more close House and Senate races in red states than ever in the history of American elections - and Democrats will lose every single one of them.

VERACITY: First, the GOP "winning" margin was very close to the statistical confidence interval of recent polling results. Second, the parallel South Carolina race was even closer, but with far less money spent than was spent in Georgia. Third, Georgia uses antiquated Diebold voting machines, which are vulnerable to Russian and other voting fraud manipulations.

Whatever ya have to tell yerself to avoid looking in the mirror.. :D

Oh...

"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

The current debate seems to be "high priest versus warrior". No, I didn't make that up.

Which style candidate Dems would do better with? A mixture of both, I would venture...

-CW

First, welcome to the site!

Your initial comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post your comments and see them instantly.

Just remember not to post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are automatically held for moderation.

As for a post-mortem, I want a party-wide effort to bridge the still-festering gap between the Bernie folks and the Hillary folks. Fighting within the party isn't helping anything. At the start of the Ossoff race, Sanders was criticized for not immediately endorsing Ossoff. This may not have had much impact on the final vote, but now many are saying Ossoff ran a too-timid campaign (much like they said about Hillary).

The issue's just going to continue to be a roadblock until the party as a whole makes the attempt to address it in some constructive fashion.

Once again, welcome, and sorry you had to wait so long to get your comment approved.

-CW

So, I'll just say that Democrats running for office next year and especially two years after that need to take a fundamental lesson or two from ... wait for it ... President ...er, make that CANDIDATE Trump.

And, that is that they need to speak to the voters in the language voters understand. To be sure, this means that the language and manner of speaking used (not the message, of course, and without the vulgarity) will necessarily vary and should be specifically tailored to the audience and to the issues of most concern to them as well as to geographical area, etc.

To reiterate, I most decidedly do not mean to say that Democrats need to tell people what they want to hear, depending on who they are and where they come from. On the contrary, the Democratic message - should they ever develop one, ahem - should be consistent and be persistently delivered. However, the one thing Donald Trump did successfully as a candidate was speak to the voters in general and to his base in particular in ways that resonated with great clarity and purpose.

Now, the Democrats have a much better message - strike that ... the Dems SHOULD have a much better message and just as soon as they figure out what that message is then all they have to do is figure how to deliver it in a manner that resonates equally effectively with voters regardless of where they are, who they are, or what issues are of most concern to them.

This isn't rocket science or in need of a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it all out. Which is why I can't for the life of me account for how Democrats approach their campaigns.

VERACITY: First, the GOP "winning" margin was very close to the statistical confidence interval of recent polling results. Second, the parallel South Carolina race was even closer, but with far less money spent than was spent in Georgia. Third, Georgia uses antiquated Diebold voting machines, which are vulnerable to Russian and other voting fraud manipulations.

POLITICAL EVALUATION: With the added technical uncertainty of no voting audit trail, the most effective political evaluation is diminished by doubt.

What is a responsible citizen to do?

Despite being singled out (can't say I blame him) I didn't read too much into his claims..

Much like President Trump vis a vis run o the mill politicians, there is a different dynamic here than a run o the mill Left Wing blog...

When one applies DailyKOS or HuffPost standards to Weigantia, mistakes are bound to be made...

Wait a second ... another A!?

Good God.

Thank you, Liz... I have my moments.. :D

Very nicely done, Michale!

The charge of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is hysteria. The claim that the president engaged in obstruction of justice is hysteria. As I have pointed out, the charge of Trump's election unleashing hate and anti-Semitism, which dominated American media for months, was hysteria.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/20/if_a_trump_supporter_had_shot_a_democratic_congressman_134235.html

Yep... Yep... Yep.... Yep....

Even though it's off topic.. :D

As the person most guilty of veering into netherworlds, it is incumbent upon me to explain...

There are many reasons why I veer off topic..

Sometimes something earth-shattering happens that is just begging to be discussed...

Other times, there is something that I just need to know.. Car AC information or why my CHROME keeps locking up...

Still other times, a glitch in Weigantia is brought up and solved...

And, believe it or not, sometimes I feel things have gotten too tense so I veer to areas where I know we can find common ground...

What it all boils down to is this..

While we may fight and argue like cats and dogs, we're all, for the more part, friends.. Some more than others.. :D

And friends like to talk about a variety of topics...

No. I don't. I have to respect the rights of people to profess their beliefs.

Fair enough.. I accept your qualification...

If it is bigotry, there are boundaries beyond those which will personally constrain how a bigot acts out.

Agreed...

Nonetheless, he had a good life that he deserved from his scholarship and public service. He also enjoyed meaningful support from some of the many people who, until this day, believe that he had been, well, borked. I obviously don't agree with it, but I can respect that belief.

And THAT's what is important. Respecting someone, even if you don't agree with them.. Respecting their rights to be a bigot if they so choose... Respecting their rights to be apprehensive or concerned about gay marriage...

This country has gotten away from that... Now, if you don't toe the Party line, you are a criminal, an arsonist, a terrorist and you deserve to be gunned down in cold blood..

Sad....

I once agreed reflexively with many of them, but real-life experience and self-education have changed my views considerably.

OR....

Or you just got tired of me being right all the time.. :D

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

At the distinct risk of offending our newest anonymous commenter by veering way off topic, I'd like to welcome him/her/it to the site.

Btw, veering off topic is the least of this site's troubles.

Or, is it that there is just an aversion to recognizing the rights of the original inhabitants of this continent, Aloysius. Because, you should know that there are few topics discussed here that don't have at least an indirect impact upon those rights, whether or not you choose to see it as pertinent.

Hoping I didn't just put you off too severely. :)

I'm not going to move it, but here's the permalink for everyone to click on to see what you wrote:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/06/trumps-polling-remarkably-flat/#comment-103378

:-)

-CW

First off, welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are also automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.

Good point about keeping on topic, have to say. It seems after about the first couple dozen comments, the whole thread veers off from the subject I wrote about.

As for "Preview Comment", that is entirely my fault and I apologize. Users begged me to add a preview, but it was beyond my programming abilities to make it work the way it should. The paragraph breaks do not show up, and I really should just get rid of the button altogether since it really doesn't work well at all.

So it's not just you, in other words.

As for everyone else, I will be answering all these comments shortly, as I watch tonight's election returns come in, but I will be commenting on those returns on today's article:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/20/congress-considers-working-through-august/

So if you'd like to join me in either celebration or commiseration, that's the place to do it.

:-)

-CW

The comment was previewed, "Submit Comment" was clicked, and I noticed the CW post just prior to it was June 8th.

Sometimes I'm not a total idiot, so I checked the calendar, and then copied the permalink to the clipboard. Alas, sometimes I am a total idiot, and used the clipboard again in writing this comment before I pasted the permalink.

So it's as gone as yesterday's viral cat video. It was about why I do not have to respect bullshit, why even Robert Bork did not have any respect for bigotry, and why he was ultimately borked.

CW, if you have the tools to locate it and decide to bother with the task of realigning it with this thread, that would be great.

The most off-putting aspects concern a tendency to wander off-topic to rehash Lib vs.Conservative talking points not germaine to the discussion introduced. For this reason, I skip most of the comments by Michale, as I have heard/seen them time and again on Fox News and Breitbart, as well as from friends and classmates. I once agreed reflexively with many of them, but real-life experience and self-education have changed my views considerably. When the discussion devolves into well-traveled but non-productive territory, the value of the thread disappears.

My suggestion to commenters is to remain on topic. It is occasionally amusing but not helpful to go from looking at, e.g., the ramifications of possible GA 6 results to an argument about First Nation rights and "religious (in)tolerance". I may hop in now and again if I see more informative discourse than "gotcha" bickering.

Just checked on results...found nothing yet.

Interesting that the paragraph structure I used is not coming through in the preview. As a total technophobe, I would appreciate suggestions on how to separate paragraphs.

DS

all signs point to LATE

JL

it's actually a little more complicated than this. if it's a public business as opposed to a private club then there are zoning issues. the "straight white male christian bakery" might be allowed to limit what it bakes or who it hires based on the company mission, but it may not be allowed to refuse to sell a straight white male christian cake to a gay black female muslim.

JL

And that's just my point..

The market will take care of malcontents such as that...

If the Left would let the market work, then they wouldn't have to be so hysterical about everything...

Sure - you can have a "Whites Only" bakery if you want - but let me know so I can avoid it.

Maybe that is what we need. In NY the restaurants display their hygiene grade in the windows - perhaps we can add another mandatory poster that displays the people who are welcome in the establishment or place of worship.

"This doesn't mean we'll be taking warm showers together til the wee hours of the morning!"
-Gunny Highway, HEARTBREAK RIDGE

:D

Sorry about that. We were having a moment and then I had to go and make it weird.. :D

While this new solution has some homeowners pleased, it is generating a lot of anger in the community.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/06/19/homeless-wall-san-jose/

But... But.... But... walls don't work!!!

CalTrans should be building BRIDGES, not walls!!!!

:^/

Until angry LGBTQRSTUV activists burned down their store.. :^/

But honestly, I did not know that the right to discriminate was perfectly legal and acceptable as long as it was made clear up front..

So, if the christian bakers would have had a "ten commandments" of what the believed and who they would serve posted publicly in the store, they wouldn't have had any problems???

I did not know that...

Turns out Ford were playing 45. They just announced that the plant that was going to be built in Mexico is now going to be built in China - saving $500M on construction and another $500M on ongoing costs (labor). Ford were proabably always going to take the $1B savings as they stated recently:

“We’ve done a lot of research and consumers care a lot more about the quality and the value than they do about the sourcing location,” Joe Hinrichs, Ford’s president of global operations, said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “iPhones are produced in China, for example, and people don’t really talk about it.”

and

Ford Motor Co. is canceling controversial plans to build the Focus small car in Mexico, saving $1 billion by ending North American production entirely and importing the model mostly from China after next year.

The U.S. automaker will start making the next-generation Focus in China from the second half of 2019, a year after output ends at one of its plants in Michigan. Ford will trim about $500 million in costs by shifting production to China, adding to the $500 million already saved from canceling construction of a small-car factory in Mexico earlier this year.

Apples and Oranges. The right to worship as one sees fit is indeed protected. The right to discriminate is not. The State's interest (again) is to prohibit discrimination. The Commerce Clause and Civil Rights Act are its tools.

And by the way, the right to cater only to a select clientele has always been legally recognized, as long as that is made clear - they could always re-name themselves the "Straight Christians Bakery" and be perfectly fine. That's how broad the law actually is on this.

Ironically, it was businesses themselves that finally encouraged Pence, for instance, to repeal his own anti-gay legislation in Indiana. Turns out that trans-national businesses have a vested interest in all this, too.

And that shows you are a good and compassionate person...

Except, apparently, the belief that Trump should remain, unchallenged, the President of the United States. You've been pretty adamant about that. ;)

In a manner of speaking.. :D I simply put out my opinions and think everyone else is crazy for not agreeing with them.. :D

Okay, in all fairness, you've done that. Equality IS a moral issue, and I'm in favor of legislation that furthers that goal, so, guilty as charged.

Me?? I am the epitome of the live and let live philosophy... I don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on anyone...

Except, apparently, the belief that Trump should remain, unchallenged, the President of the United States. You've been pretty adamant about that. ;)

It's that simple...

If we were talking about State run businesses you would have a valid point... But we are talking about individuals who have the right to worship as they see fit and the right to run their businesses according to their beliefs...

Imagine the outcry if the best Democrat Operative in the country was forced by the courts to use his/her expertise to elect Republicans...

That's why the Hobby Lobby ruling is so mind-bogglingly wrong. It turns the whole thing upside down and insists that we 'respect' the very bigotry that our country, by creed and by law, was founded to resist.

Exactly...

You have to RESPECT people's beliefs... Even if that belief manifests as bigotry..

Because, if you DON'T respect that person's beliefs and tolerate that person's right to be a bigot, that makes you a disrespectful and intolerant bigot..

And I KNOW you are not, so there.... :D

No, I am not ducking the central premise....

I am addressing the central premise which is, is it proper to legislate morality..

You started off by saying it WASN'T proper, but then I gave you plenty of examples of when it was and is being done and then you changed and now say it IS proper...

In short, I have proven that it's proper to legislation morality, as long as it's YOUR morality that is being legislated into being..

I am not picking on you, specifically.. Right wingers are the same way.. They abhor legislating morality until it's time to address the issue of abortion.. Then they have NO PROBLEM in legislating morality...

Me?? I am the epitome of the live and let live philosophy... I don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on anyone...

Dumbocrats only respect their OWN beliefs and only tolerate those who SHARE those beliefs..

It isn't a 'democratic' belief, it's a principle upon which this country is founded. The statement "all men are created equal" implicitly requires that all men are treated with equal respect by the State. That respect also implicitly does NOT apply to bigots and religious zealots, which is why the constitution prohibits the establishment (i.e., endorsement) of any religious belief by the State.

That's why the Hobby Lobby ruling is so mind-bogglingly wrong. It turns the whole thing upside down and insists that we 'respect' the very bigotry that our country, by creed and by law, was founded to resist.

And to be non-partisan about it, the RFRE, which was proposed and passed by Democrats, was also a piece of shit law.

Dumbocrats only respect their OWN beliefs and only tolerate those who SHARE those beliefs..

So there goes tolerance and respect right out the window..

Yes. Regardless. As soon as that owner hung out a shingle and invited the public in. That's the basis of the whole Civil Rights act of 1964.

Once you start making exceptions, say for religious sects that abhor redheads, eventually you get to folks that assert that blacks are evil, according to the Bible (because any damn idiot idea can be justified using religious texts). That is unacceptable, if you accept the American premise that "All men are created equal" or even just the mantra of 'free trade'.

Regardless of the business owner's beliefs??

That is where respect comes into it...

That is where tolerance comes into it...

I wouldn't force my beliefs on any business owner because I respect their rights to their beliefs and I am tolerant of their different beliefs...

Dumbocrats only respect their OWN beliefs and only tolerate those who SHARE those beliefs..

Should white chefs sell burritos? A Portland food cart’s revealing controversy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2017/05/26/should-white-chefs-sell-burritos-a-portland-restaurants-revealing-controversy/?utm_term=.bd93b7913905

Ridiculous... Utterly and completely ridiculous..

But 'safe spaces'? Why would anyone object to that? I could use a safe space myself, sometimes, just to get back in touch with my play-dough side.

And when black people declare that an entire campus is their "safe space" and violently remove all white people???

How could anyone object to that!???

But that's not right, and that's not the law, thank goodness. You're ducking the central premise, again,(bolded this time so that you acknowledge it):

Everyone has the right to walk into any public business and be treated as any other customer.

You can't square that with any discrimination, regardless of its basis, else the whole of Civil Rights law goes straight out the window.

They have a right to their beliefs and it's not my place to impose the fact that they are completely and unequivocally WRONG about just about everything..

Safe spaces complete with play-dough and crayons, micro-aggressions, cultural appropriation, etc etc..

'micro aggression' I agree with you on: it's a silly and petty concept.

'Cultural appropriation' is a concept that nobody understands, but if it means that I don't have to ever again see travesties like John Wayne as Ghengis Khan, count me in.

But 'safe spaces'? Why would anyone object to that? I could use a safe space myself, sometimes, just to get back in touch with my play-dough side.

"Ya wouldn't start none, there wouldn't BE none!!"
-Will Smith, INDEPENDENCE DAY

Southerner says, respectfully, that his christian faith says that that a black man is a son of satan, so he can't serve him, and helpfully suggests that there is a 'blacks only' diner right down the street..

If I were that black man, I wouldn't want to eat at such a bigoted and racist establishment, so I would thank the southener for his suggestion and leave...

Okay, how does that square with the following..

Black man walks into a southern diner and says he'd like to have a hamburger.

Southerner says, respectfully, that his christian faith says that that a black man is a son of satan, so he can't serve him, and helpfully suggests that there is a 'blacks only' diner right down the street..

It's gotten much worse...

Safe spaces complete with play-dough and crayons, micro-aggressions, cultural appropriation, etc etc..

"What a bunch of pussies!"
-Tommy Lee Jones, UNDER SIEGE

A point made 26 years ago in a TIME magazine cover story. Things haven't changed much, unfortunately.

Now, hold on!! You can't go off half cocked and claim I don't have......

huh....

waaa?????

:D

Conservatives argue that the RFRE (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), originally designed to allow Native Americans the right to practice their peyote ceremonies, also allows Christian business to deny services to customers who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs, but I don't believe that one can rationally square that with Civil Rights laws that say the opposite.

It COULD, if respect was the operative word...

But amongst the Left, it is not..

Pick any Baker vs LGBQXYZABC activist case.....

LGBQXYZABC activist goes into a christian baker and says he/she wants a cake for a gay wedding..

Baker, respectfully, informs the activist that they are a christian business and, as such, cannot meet the activist's needs.

Activist says, "I respect your position and would not want to put you thru the discomfort of going against your beliefs. Could you recommend someone who might be able to help us?"

Baker is quite helpful and suggests other bakers that would not have a moral objection.

They hug, they kiss, they schmooze, they go home happy..

THAT is what respect is all about..

But the LGBQXYZABC activists are NOT about respect.. They are NOT about tolerance...

They are about forcing acceptance under the color of authority...

And THAT is as wrong as wrong can be...

You do have a point, there.

To be clear, there are moral arguments that can be made on both sides of both of those issues, which, I suppose is why they're Issues in the first place.

Although, in my opinion, the Hobby Lobby decision was an awful decision that needs at some point to be overturned. It ignores the central premise of rulings made previously, when Civil Rights laws were being enacted, to wit: that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution dictates that "no law shall be enacted which restricts commerce between the states", i.e., when we walk into any public business, we have the right to be treated as any other customer.

Conservatives argue that the RFRE (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), originally designed to allow Native Americans the right to practice their peyote ceremonies, also allows Christian business to deny services to customers who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs, but I don't believe that one can rationally square that with Civil Rights laws that say the opposite.

Indeed.

The Dakota pipeline comes to mind ...

Or, more likely, a form of jury tampering, in case it ever got to trial...

RJ Reynolds did a lot of that during the smoking lawsuits... Every time I saw one of those commercials, I would say aloud.. "Jury Tampering"...

:D

Won't catch me arguing with ya.. :D

I have been making that case for over a decade here... :D

Everybody could do with a thicker skin. Don't get me wrong, there are uncivilized labels out there, but since poll after poll shows that the Native American community isn't particularly concerned with the Washington Redskins name it seems pointless to pursue this particular issue. If you want to help that particular community, find something that they really care about and try to make a difference.

"Billy. I love you. I have just fallen in love with you."
-Eddie Murphy, BEVERLY HILLS COP

:D

JL

Dallas Cowboys

Cleveland Indians

San Francisco 49ers

NY Giants

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp

They could ALL sue!!!

Of course, the Democrats would have to represent the Jumbo Shrimp... :D

***cough*** War on Christmas ***cough***

We have a whole class of professional whiners, and the willingness to listen to them and then buy adult diapers spans all parties. America is becoming a nation of namby-pambies.

Everybody could do with a thicker skin. Don't get me wrong, there are uncivilized labels out there, but since poll after poll shows that the Native American community isn't particularly concerned with the Washington Redskins name it seems pointless to pursue this particular issue. If you want to help that particular community, find something that they really care about and try to make a difference.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Great idea!!!

All they have to do is find The Redskins Tribe and THAT tribe can sue... :D

And, then, if the Redskins change their name to the Senators, then all senators in Congress can ALSO sue for royalties!!! :D

And so it goes and so it goes...

JL

The point is that Native Americans aren't driving all the hysteria regarding the Washington Redskins...

How do we know this?? Polls..

So, if the NAs aren't the driving force, that only leaves one culprit...

Dumbocrats...

"Simple logic"
-Spock, STAR TREK IV, THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY

:D

JL

You have missed the point.

What is that supposed to mean?

For your information, Native Americans have a long history of dealing with offences against their interests and they don't need any help recognizing such when they see it.

Since the polls CLEARLY show (and polls don't lie!! :D) that Native Americans don't give a rat's ass about the Washington Redskins, the ONLY logical conclusion is that Dumbocrats are behind it all...

ANd they just came up with the offense, ALL of their own accord, right?? :D

Yea... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.. :D

To the contrary, the lawsuit in question was brought by prominent Native Americans. Non-natives wouldn't have standing before the court.

LGQBTXYZABC laws that discriminate against religious people...

My PERSONAL view of morality. That's my point: it's all personal, and shouldn't be legislated.

And yet, that is EXACTLY what politicians try to do...

You rail against Republicans when they try to legislate morality (abortion) and cheer on Democrats when THEY try to legislate morality (LGBQTXYZABC laws)...

At some point you're going to have to admit that we sorta see eye-to-eye on this one...

Of course.. All you have to do is concede the hypocrisy at work here... :D

But respect is a two way street..

You can't demand respect from a group of people w/o affording them the same respect you demand..

As I see it, overall, that's the Left's biggest problem..

They demand respect, but refuse to be respectful..

They demand tolerance, but are completely and utterly intolerant to those who believe differently..

There are numerous examples of this...

Can you give an example, because I can give lots of examples of the opposite: the Hayes Code, porn laws in general, the drug war, laws restricting nudity and obscenity, co-habitation laws, even the recent 'bathroom law' in North (or South?) Carolina. I could go on..

And what makes HIM wrong and YOU right? Your skewed idea of "morality"..

My PERSONAL view of morality. That's my point: it's all personal, and shouldn't be legislated.

At some point you're going to have to admit that we sorta see eye-to-eye on this one...

Quite easily...

The Native Americans are a conquered people and, as such, they have to follow the rules of the victors..

The victors have allowed the Native Americans to create their own nations and make their own laws and morality.. But ONLY within the confines of their own nation..

Once they leave the confines of their own nation, they have to follow the laws and morality of the nation they are visiting..

It's really the same for ALL peoples.. You follow the laws and morality of your country, but if you go to another country, you follow the laws and morality of THAT country..

In any event, my query to you was really focused on how we treat each other, generally speaking, and on the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments and peoples, in particular. Specifically, we should be working towards improving relationships by ensuring that our interactions are based on equality and mutual respect, first and foremost.

Agreed...

You have a point if we were talking about something as benign and simplistic as Free Parking..

But we're not..

According to YOUR Dumbocrats, taking big money in this way will "destroy" our democracy!!

Put it another way...

It would be as if Dumbocrats claimed that all the carbon spewed in the air will "destroy" the planet, but then turn around and dump tons and tons of carbon into the air...

How utterly RIDICULOUS would that be???

Oh.... wait....

Professional whiners creating an issue where none exists..

Just like those Dumbocrat morons who came down here to FL and tried to tell the Seminoles the same thing..

The Seminoles told the professional whiners to take a frakin' hike...

It's more like Monopoly, M. Taking money from 'free parking' is acceptable only if EVERYONE agrees ahead of time to do that, and everyone gets to.

Democrats would have preferred to remove that from the game, but the courts and the politics have blocked that option.

But refusing to take the money while letting Republicans take it themselves? That's a sucker's bet, and we're not that stupid.

I would say that, as "unfair" as it is, the Native Americans are a conquered people..

On the other hand, technically, they Native Americans have their own "nations" and, as such, they are free to impose whatever "morality" they wish within the confines of their nations...

How do you square those two thoughts?

While my knowledge of aboriginal rights as recognized by the US government is not nearly as extensive as my understanding of the same here in Canada, I would have to question your general assessment that First Nations are conquered peoples and your implication that native Americans are one people when there are many different nations and peoples.

That is certainly not the case in Canada where First Nations and the Canadian government entered into treaties over land and other related issues. In fact, some First Nations, particularly in British Columbia never treated with or lost anything to any non-aboriginal governments.

In any event, my query to you was really focused on how we treat each other, generally speaking, and on the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments and peoples, in particular. Specifically, we should be working towards improving relationships by ensuring that our interactions are based on equality and mutual respect, first and foremost.

And yet, the Dumbocrats are ALL about legislating and dictating morality...

By legalizing only THEIR version of "morality" and criminalizing anything THEY find immoral...

Personally, for me, it's already yukky, but for my brother, a sports fan, it isn't. So we have some ways to go...

And what makes HIM wrong and YOU right??

Your skewed idea of "morality"....

The question isn't one of legality, it's one of morality. Some folks confuse the two. You can't legislate morality, and you can't dictate it: that has to come from the people themselves.

So take an extreme example: if Washington decided to name themselves the "Ni**ers", that wouldn't be illegal (apparently), but would they be able to get any players to play, and any crowds to show up for games?

When Native Americans can get us to that point, where the term "Redskin" has that same distasteful
"uck" factor, then the re-naming will begin.

Personally, for me, it's already yukky, but for my brother, a sports fan, it isn't. So we have some ways to go...

So taking big money is perfectly acceptable, as long as you pay lip service to NOT taking big money...

Dumbocrat "integrity" at work.. :^/

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

Thank you.... :D

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

X2

What would you say to First Nations peoples who, in any number of circumstances beyond sports teams nicknames, have others' morality imposed upon them?

I would say that, as "unfair" as it is, the Native Americans are a conquered people..

If the "morality" of the United States is too much to bear, the Native Americans always have the option to leave...

On the other hand, technically, they Native Americans have their own "nations" and, as such, they are free to impose whatever "morality" they wish within the confines of their nations...

I predict they'll themselves this anyway, and blame any losses on 'outside money', e.g., George Soros, etc.

Democrats, to be fair, will do the same if they lose, so the game will continue to be played as-is until minds are changed. I don't see any indication of minds being changed by any of the rhetoric from the left or right.

I think it was just yesterday that Al, for instance, called Ossoff a 'corporatist' democrat. But that's a bullshit argument: compared to who? The Republican? Hardly. Until the left stops sitting out elections (while they wait for ideal candidates to come along) the MOST corporatist candidates will continue to win, guaranteed.

Ah, the Trump-McConnell technique. Jeez! It wasn't even that long an article. But then again, all you wanted to do was make the same old argument:

The establishment Dems and the media ilk that support them will use either winning or losing as an excuse to stick with the Big Money Democratic establishment

Weell duh. If you'd've read the article you'd have caught this sentence:

"It is the most expensive House race in all U.S. history, and might even place in the top ten list of most expensive Senate races of all time. That's pretty extraordinary, and may not even take into account the tens of millions in dark money flowing in to the race."

So maybe unilateral financial disarmament isn't the best idea for Dems at this particular time, unless we just want to give up contesting elections altogether.

To get big money out, you need to find a way that BOTH sides will do it, and not cheat. When you come up with a way to do that, you'll have something everyone wants to talk about.

Until then, read the damn article before commenting. Pretty-Please.

Sorry, Democrats..Ya'all don't get to impose your version of "morality" onto others....

What would you say to First Nations peoples who, in any number of circumstances beyond sports teams nicknames, have others' morality imposed upon them?

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

NOTHING will...

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

RIGHT up to the point that the Democrat loses..

THEN it's meaningless.. :D

Ya just GOTS to love the Left's capacity for self-delusion.... :D

Washington Redskins owner 'thrilled' by Supreme Court's trademark ruling
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/19/washington-redskins-owner-thrilled-by-supreme-courts-trademark-ruling.html

Sorry, Democrats..

Ya'all don't get to impose your version of "morality" onto others....

The Constitution says you can't....

The Hodgkinson Advice, courtesy of the most popular Democrat in the country.. :^/

The Hodgkinson Advice, courtesy of the most popular Democrat in the country.. :^/

I have to call ya on this one, CW...

If someone like Donald Trump beats someone like NOT-45 and *THAT* doesn't spur the Democrats to take a good long look in the mirror??

NOTHING will...

If Democrats pick up both seats, the conventional wisdom in Washington is going to become: "A Democratic wave is coming!" The only real argument will be how massive this tsunami is going to turn out to be.

Which was, ironically enough, the same "conventional wisdom" around here during the Election of 16.. :D

No matter which side wins tomorrow, the danger for them politically can be summed up in one word: overconfidence. Reading too much into a string of special elections doesn't always turn out as expected.

Truer words were never spoken.. :D

Nice sum up, CW...

Got it!