Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

by **Doll Is Mine** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 15:19:07

TomatoPie wrote:Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee
Applies to Barack Obama's next formal Supreme Court nominee, whether or not the nomination is successful.
Sri Srinivasan 5/2
Paul Watford 11/4
Merrick Garland 10/3
Patricia Ann Millett 5/1
Adalberto J Jordan 5/1
Jane Kelly 8/1
Kamala D Harris 12/1

I wouldn't nominate Kamala Harris. I believe she's a candidate to run for the Senate seat in California and she'd probably win. Having her and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate would be huge for the Democrats.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 15:46:07

Apparently Senate Judiciary chair Grassley is "elaborating" on remarks he made over the weekend concerning the likelihood of a Senate hearing on any Obama nominee. While he feels somebody, anybody but him & his committee should play any role, he has allowed as to how he'd wait for Obama to put a nominee forward. But added this oddly-worded bit:

"This is a very serious position to fill and it should be filled and debated during the campaign and filled by either Hillary Clinton, Senator Sanders or whoever's nominated by the Republicans," Grassley said.

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 15:54:44

They can't legitimately say no to Sri. It's gonna be him.

I'm non-plussed, but it's all very unexpected.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 18:04:43

traderdave wrote:Christie is presenting his 2017 budget for anyone interested.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... incart_std

Trying to remain relevant for VP.

He wouldn't be a bad choice as attack dog. He could get his hands dirty while the Pres nom stays out of the fray.

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 18:05:16

Emperor Obama plans to destroy democracy by nominating Scalia's successor

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 18:07:03

Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

by **Polar Bear Phan** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 19:24:26

Obama and the Senate Republicans would be wise to agree on a left-libertarian type that will allow them to reach enough of an economics and gun rights compromise to avoid possible electoral disaster for either party. Besides, the Republicans really need the gay marriage issue to go away and this will be the nail in the coffin.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 19:26:56

Monkeyboy wrote:
traderdave wrote:Christie is presenting his 2017 budget for anyone interested.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... incart_std

Trying to remain relevant for VP.

He wouldn't be a bad choice as attack dog. He could get his hands dirty while the Pres nom stays out of the fray.

I dunno. He wouldn't bring in Jersey, and he'd poison any shot to get PA by "virtue" of being a Cockroach Cowboys front-running "fan"

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 19:28:49

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

He's not under any obligation to appoint a judge. He has the power, but not the duty

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 19:29:22

Polar Bear Phan wrote:Obama and the Senate Republicans would be wise to agree on a left-libertarian type that will allow them to reach enough of an economics and gun rights compromise to avoid possible electoral disaster for either party. Besides, the Republicans really need the gay marriage issue to go away and this will be the nail in the coffin.

But they ain't ready to punt on abortion

by **Polar Bear Phan** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 19:48:05

TomatoPie wrote:
Polar Bear Phan wrote:Obama and the Senate Republicans would be wise to agree on a left-libertarian type that will allow them to reach enough of an economics and gun rights compromise to avoid possible electoral disaster for either party. Besides, the Republicans really need the gay marriage issue to go away and this will be the nail in the coffin.

But they ain't ready to punt on abortion

Pretty sure Republican and Democratic strategists recognize the status quo on abortion and gun ownership (but, not necessarily background checks...) are the best bet for winning.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 20:12:40

TomatoPie wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

He's not under any obligation to appoint a judge. He has the power, but not the duty

Constitution Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Not seeing any option whatsoever in that bolded part. Teach me to read how you do

by **Bucky** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 21:32:49

TomatoPie wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

He's not under any obligation to appoint a judge. He has the power, but not the duty

please tell me you're satirizing

by **Gimpy** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 22:32:32

Pretty tired of the president nominating judges. The free market would be much better at selecting judges.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 23:09:50

Vox wrote:Nikki Haley's sanctimonious North Carolina gummint mandatorily screens and tests the state's welfare recipients for drug use, instead finds it has squandered North Carolingians tax dollars on a fruitless quest to justify its twisted, self-righeous priggishness

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services...screened 7,600 applicants to the Work First Program between August 3 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 150 were referred for drug testing and 21 tested positive — that's "0.3 percent of the approximate 7,600 applicants and recipients screened for drug abuse," the DHHS confirmed....

State lawmakers assumed welfare recipients inherently engage in criminal activity, and therefore use public assistance to pay for drugs.Th[e positive results] rate is substantially lower than both the state and national rate of illicit drug use....The most recently collected data shows the rate of illegal drug use in North Carolina is 8 percent. The national rate of illegal drug use is 9.4 percent

70 people skipped out on the stupid testing, but if all of those tested positive the group's positive rate would have SOARED - to 1%.

These drug witchhunts are in most cases a preposterous waste of money. There's your inefficient gummint, tarheels - you know what to do with those bums

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 23:18:27

[TV money-guy/gutless liar] Larry Kudlow, a conservative economist and media personality, said on Tuesday that he had decided against running as a Republican this year for the Senate seat held by Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat.

Mr. Kudlow, 68, announced his decision on CNBC. He said he did not want to give up his work in the news media.

Mr. Kudlow said last year on a radio show that he would challenge Mr. Blumenthal if the senator voted in favor of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Blumenthal, a former state attorney general who was first elected to the Senate in 2010, did vote to approve the deal.

Kudlow would have been blown out of course, even by someone with support as tepid as that for Blumenthal

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 00:22:19

Isn't Nikki Haley gov of South Carolina?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 00:54:23

TenuredVulture wrote:Isn't Nikki Haley gov of South Carolina?

Yes, but all those Carolina governors look the same to me

McCrory to his credit vetoed the drug test bill, but his veto was overridden

by **Shore** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 00:57:32

Isn't 21 out of 150 14%? They tested 150 people, and 21 tested positive, and 70 skipped the test. Assuming the 70 were users, then 61% of the referred people would have tested positive.

I mean, it sounds like it's a non-issue, anyway, and speaks only about the accuracy of "screening". But why mis-represent the data?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 01:00:00

Shore wrote:Isn't 21 out of 150 14%? They tested 150 people, and 21 tested positive, and 70 skipped the test. Assuming the 70 were users, then 61% of the referred people would have tested positive.

I mean, it sounds like it's a non-issue, anyway, and speaks only about the accuracy of "screening". But why mis-represent the data?

Gotta look at the positives over the screened population - 7,600 people. Screen/test/reject positives would, as I understand it, be the way the testing protocol works

So I should have said something like "...if all of those tested positive the applicant group's positive rate...'

Archived

Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)

Re: Primary Cholers, or the Caucusin' Chat Circle (Politics)