drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Do Democrats on the Hill have members who are in their 40s or 50s?

Republican/reactionary young lions include Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, and Joanie Ernst.

I'll take stale, thanks

You prefer Democrats over Republicans? That's really interesting. I'm glad you shared that with us.

So you agree that the chronological ages of leadership really don't make all that much difference when it comes to their capabilities. why do you type so much when you don't actually intend to mean anything?

Don Blankenship, who was chief executive of Massey Energy Co. when its Upper Big Branch coal mine exploded in West Virginia in 2010, killing 29 miners, was charged Thursday with trying to evade mine safety standards and lying to federal regulators.

The explosion April 5, 2010, in the town of in Montcoal was the deadliest U.S. mine accident in 40 years. An investigation by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration in 2011 found that broken equipment failed to douse a small methane gas fire, which ignited coal dust in a giant blast.

The indictment, filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston, West Virginia, charges Blankenship with conspiracy to violate mandatory federal mine safety and health standards, conspiracy to impede federal mine safety officials, making false statements to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and securities fraud. It accuses Blankenship of having tipped off managers about federal safety inspections ahead of time before the explosion and of having tried to cover up the company's mismanagement after the explosion.

In a March interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, Blankenship denounced the federal investigation and specifically the mine safety agency, saying overregulation had taken safety decisions out of the hands of mining executives.

"What I'm trying to do is prevent other families from suffering," Blankenship said. "And that is what is going to happen if the government doesn't quit running roughshod over the coal mines and give people with expertise the opportunity to run their mines."

Blankenship could face 31 years in prison if convicted on all four counts.

pacino wrote:Amy Klobuchar, one ofthe most popular senators in her state in the country, is now in the Senate leadership, along with Elizabeth Warren. Great moves. Also, jh, she's 54, if you care.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think it has an influence in their ability to present new messages and to win over persuadable voters who have drifted away from Congressional Democrats.

I do not think it would change how you vote.

pacino wrote:Amy Klobuchar, one ofthe most popular senators in her state in the country, is now in the Senate leadership, along with Elizabeth Warren. Great moves. Also, jh, she's 54, if you care.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Amy Klobuchar, one ofthe most popular senators in her state in the country, is now in the Senate leadership, along with Elizabeth Warren. Great moves. Also, jh, she's 54, if you care.

Definitely in the top 2.

The Pennsylvania Legislature will be led by massive Republican majorities, including the biggest House GOP majority in more than 50 years, when Democratic Gov.-elect Tom Wolf takes office on Jan. 20.

But for two weeks before he takes office, those majorities will be sworn in and intact under outgoing Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, a fact that has not been lost on Republican Party backers.

That means it is possible, albeit technically challenging, to enact far-reaching legislation favored by many Republicans that Corbett might sign, but that Wolf had said during the campaign he would oppose.

People who have looked into it could not find a precedent for such action in modern Pennsylvania political history, but that does not mean it cannot be done.

"I'm sure people would say, 'Gee, we haven't done that before,'" said Gene Barr, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. "There's nothing that prevents them legally from doing that."

Come January, the GOP majorities will be much bigger - 30-20 in the Senate and 119-84 in the House - after a banner legislative election for Republicans. And conservatives say their ranks will be bigger, big enough to pass the key bills over the opposition of Democrats and Republican holdouts.

Asked about getting bills passed before Jan. 20, the man who will become House speaker, Rep. Mike Turzai of Allegheny County, would not directly address it.

"We just got our leadership team together here today. We have much to discuss, although we will hit the ground running," Turzai said last week.

Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, said there have been no discussions about it between House and Senate GOP leaders, or with Corbett. But, he said, he has been approached by Republican senators and issue lobbyists about the possibility, and he expects it to come up when top Republican lawmakers meet in the coming weeks to discuss strategy in the next legislative session.

A spokesman for Corbett was noncommittal, saying only that the governor would do his job.

"Now there exist the majorities that should allow this type of legislation to pass," said Matthew Brouillette, president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, a Harrisburg-based advocacy group for libertarian and free market ideas.

dajafi wrote:Here's the first thing I've read that suggests Elizabeth Warren might really have a shot: Inequality, Unbelievably, Gets Worse

I (somehow) hadn't previously heard that our taxing and spending policies are the true driver of inequality. If you're going to make an argument about the system failing the majority of the population, that's a pretty killer talking point.

CalvinBall wrote:warren or webb probably couldnt win a general

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:Here's the first thing I've read that suggests Elizabeth Warren might really have a shot: Inequality, Unbelievably, Gets Worse

I (somehow) hadn't previously heard that our taxing and spending policies are the true driver of inequality. If you're going to make an argument about the system failing the majority of the population, that's a pretty killer talking point.

I like Rattner. Genuine good guy and deep thinker.

Having said that, he bemoans the income gap as though, in and of itself, it's a bad thing. A better question would be how well the folks in the bottom quintile live. And how well the folks in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles live. I don't offhand know the answer to that - but mere envy of the superwealthy gets us nowhere.

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:Here's the first thing I've read that suggests Elizabeth Warren might really have a shot: Inequality, Unbelievably, Gets Worse

I (somehow) hadn't previously heard that our taxing and spending policies are the true driver of inequality. If you're going to make an argument about the system failing the majority of the population, that's a pretty killer talking point.

I like Rattner. Genuine good guy and deep thinker.

Having said that, he bemoans the income gap as though, in and of itself, it's a bad thing. A better question would be how well the folks in the bottom quintile live. And how well the folks in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles live. I don't offhand know the answer to that - but mere envy of the superwealthy gets us nowhere.

He spends half the article noting the lack of gains in those 'bottom' 4 quintiles.