Slashdot Mirror

How will they defeat measures like this? The only mechanisms I can obviously see when comparing with other realms is out of spite (like with the punitive measures attempted against Amazon), or more generalized obstruction that has this as collateral damage.

I don't know where you are getting off in the overall political theory, but the age old problems of regulatory capture and corruption have been an increasing problem in the US, and democratic power is on a decline. As OBE director Mulvaney said, he only met with lobbyists that gave him money, and overall he clearly and crudely laid out the status quo with political figures of his mindset. Money is becoming speech as the supreme court has carved away campaign finance and public corruption laws in the last decade or so, and money begets more money when used to benefit politicians who will steer public policy in favor of their moneyed constituents. The return on investment with such contributions tends to be great. Which, like with 144 year long copyright, has the obvious endgame of rent-seeking.

Mindless raging opposition this is not, it is an informed anger that sees banana republicanism becoming a primary import. This is how the game is played in a lot of countries, and it doesn't take all that much looking to realize that it ends poorly. Maybe you are a billionaire oligarch who can make these guys dance with your puppet strings, but I'm not.

... I don't know where to start.

Defeating ISIS? Like the organization responsible for new attacks every week? Withdrawing from TPP and from the Paris accord as an unilateral move that results in more pollution and less global respect? Ending the Korean war by tweeting that he will destroy it (let's forget the role the North and South Korean leaders had)? The economy was running red-hot before Trump was ever elected, he just inherited it - what he did do is give a big tax breaks to companies who are now buying shares back, further distributing wealth to capital owners (and yes, while that's you and me, it's a lot more the 1% that are friends with Trump)?

That article was the kindest I could find. Paul Ryan is informed like doctors are informed by drug reps. He only seems to care about his own idealism and he is either an outright liar, easily manipulated, or kind of stupid. We can argue about which it is, but one of those is true.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/...

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/...

Can you get a Nobel prize while serving concurrent life terms for treason in Leavenworth?

As it happens, you can get a Nobel peace prize while in prison. Most recently Liu Xiaobo was awarded the prize while jailed.

The Nobel committee apparently doesn't use "laws of other countries" as a criterion. Why would they?

Also as it happens, treason is specifically defined in the constitution. Nothing that Trump has been accused of comes under that definition.

Also also, I was reading about some of the trial transcripts from Mueller's indictments, and he'll be lucky if he doesn't get slapped by the court. The Manafort case in particular had the judge asking how Mueller's investigation can extend to actions that happened ten years before the election... and the prosecution being evasive and rude to the judge... causing the judge to demand prosecution submit the full, redacted indictment recommendation.

And in the Flynn case, the judge ordered prosecution to turn over any exculpatory evidence they have. This is unusual for a case where a guilty plea has been entered. The polite interpretation is that the judge feels Flynn might not have entered the plea because he was guilty, but because he couldn't afford a defense. The bad interpretation is that the judge might be looking into whether Flynn's plea was coerced. (Heard somewhere that prosecutors told Flynn that after they were done prosecuting him, they'd go after his wife and kids.)

And remember those 13 Russian nationals that were indicted? Turns out, it was 13 Russian nationals and four corporate entities. And one of the entities actually showed up in court to contest the charges. The indictments were widely viewed as a PR stunt, and that Mueller never expected anyone to contest them. He wasn't expecting to actually have to go to court, he's unprepared, and prosecutors tried to postpone the trial, saying "the plaintiffs were never served notice". Plaintiffs responded with "we're here voluntarily to answer charges and intend to enter a plea of "not guilty", let's have a trial!". Judge agreed, and now Mueller is scrambling to find evidence to support a bogus indictment.

Also, I heard that the IG report got postponed (last Wednesday) by "a couple of weeks" because they found new evidence about the Clinton E-mail investigation.

So overall, wait about 4 weeks or so and get back to me on whether Trump will be in jail, or whether we have a dozen high-level politicians indicted on corruption charges.

Hey, look! More of the same smug condescension that cost you nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their back on exactly your sort of vitriol. Sill haven't figured it out, huh?

Tennessee has a long history of crooked elections. Add in the brazen corruption-on-steroids that's rampant in today's GOP and you've got a recipe for third-world status.

Did you know that one of the most notorious Russian troll accounts from the "Internet Research Agency" was "@TEN_GOP"? You can read about that account in the Mueller indictment. So clearly, Russia felt that Tennessee was fertile ground for it's psyops, and that pig-ignorant people like yourself would buy its bullshit as being authentic Tennessee discourse? I didn't make it up:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16...

They got a huge tax break instead of an all-but-guaranteed tax hike.

Yeah, actually not. Clinton's plan contained significant cost reductions for people making under $50K/yr. Under trump, we got tax cuts for millionaires and tax bills for the middle class.

Unemployment is way down.

Not for rural whites. In fact, its still so bad for them that Michigan republicans are trying to exempt them from their draconian medicaid work requirements.
Also, those people at that Carrier plant that he "saved?" Yeah, they got fucked.

The stock market is way up.

(A) Doesn't mean squat for majority of people because they don't own stocks.
(B) Rate of growth in the stock market is slower than it was under Obama.
(C) China has stopped buying soybeans. Not just tariffs, full stop, buying em from somewhere else. China is the #2 largest market for US soy and soy is the #2 US crop export.

Denuclearization, peace, and potential reunification in Korea,

Not anything to do with trump. The sanctions only resulted in a ~20% increase in black market currency exchange, showing that it wasn't a big deal for a country that survived the great faminine of the 90s on nothing but Juche. Moon Jae-in is leading trump around by the nose. Though I guess you could say the fact that trump is so easily played by Moon is a point in trump's favor. So sure, promise that gloryhound a nobel prize if that's what it takes to keep him from screwing up everybody else's work.

Tons of sex cults and human trafficking rings have been broken up.

Ah, so now you reveal yourself as one of those RWNJ dumbasses. In fact, its the nothing of the kind. If anything, they've been cracking down on easy targets - adult sex-workers, not trafficking victims. Meanwhile Trump knowingly endorsed an actual pedophile.

Corrupt leaders and former leaders of many countries are actually being brought to justice.

Yeah. Putin. Duterte. Netanyahu MBS They've all been locked up!!! Yay!

The wall is being built.

Lol. He couldn't even get his own republican party to pay for it. Much less mexico.

Next year there will be no unconstitutional personal mandate for health insurance.

Yay! That's already working out so great for republicans.
Never mind how he totally fucked rural whites with empty promises about the opioid epidemic.

So your statistics about the demographics of all voters who voted for Trump and Clinton show us nothing about the factors which led to his victory.

Oh, that was just a tiny little taste. You want some hard core facts? Buckle the fuck up.

"The individual data do not suggest that those who view Trump favorably are confronting abnormally high economic distress, by conventional measures of employment and income," ...

"People living in zip codes with disproportionately high shares of white residents are significantly and robustly more likely to view Trump favorably," he writes. "Those living in zip codes with overall diversity that is low relative to their commuting zone are also far more likely to view Trump favorably." Put another way: If you're in the whitest suburb in your area, you're likelier to back Trump. ...

Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative around this campaign.
Donald Trump's supporters are LESS likely to be affected by trade and immigration, not more

You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.

That’s more accurate than asking people if it’s harder to move up the income ladder than it was for their parents (54 percent), whether they oppose trade deals (66 percent), or if they think the economy is worse now than last year (81 percent). It’s even more accurate than asking them if they are Republican (87 percent).
The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump? Ask if Obama is a Muslim.

Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump. Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety—feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment—that best predicted support for Trump.
It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety

Not enough for you? This guy summarized even more studies: Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century.

So your statistics about the demographics of all voters who voted for Trump and Clinton show us nothing about the factors which led to his victory.

Oh, that was just a tiny little taste. You want some hard core facts? Buckle the fuck up.

"The individual data do not suggest that those who view Trump favorably are confronting abnormally high economic distress, by conventional measures of employment and income," ...

"People living in zip codes with disproportionately high shares of white residents are significantly and robustly more likely to view Trump favorably," he writes. "Those living in zip codes with overall diversity that is low relative to their commuting zone are also far more likely to view Trump favorably." Put another way: If you're in the whitest suburb in your area, you're likelier to back Trump. ...

Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative around this campaign.
Donald Trump's supporters are LESS likely to be affected by trade and immigration, not more

You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.

That’s more accurate than asking people if it’s harder to move up the income ladder than it was for their parents (54 percent), whether they oppose trade deals (66 percent), or if they think the economy is worse now than last year (81 percent). It’s even more accurate than asking them if they are Republican (87 percent).
The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump? Ask if Obama is a Muslim.

Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump. Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety—feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment—that best predicted support for Trump.
It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety

Not enough for you? This guy summarized even more studies: Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century.

The problem isn't the amount of money allocated for schools

No. It is 100% the problem. All the states with strikes have had drastic funding cuts due to GOP tax reductions.

Over the last ten years, this is how much “per pupil student funding” has DROPPED in each of these four “red states.”

        Oklahoma: per pupil funding down 28%
        Kentucky: per pupil funding down 16%
        Arizona: per pupil funding down 14%
        West Virginia: per pupil funding down 11%

The full article with the image, "Everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer", is here:
This is why you shouldn't believe that exciting new medical study. (Vox.com, Feb 27, 2017)

There are fewer Big Deal's in science than proving established theories wrong. See the recent meta-study on how a couple glasses of wine may not be so healthy for you after all.

Climate change "skeptics" are free to come up with their own superior studies to prove their case. This is the kind of thing nobel prizes are awarded for, not to mention all the cash Exxon would be happy to give them. Until that happens, though, they're as grounded in science as anti-vaxxers are.

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

Accepting mussolini's propaganda as an accurate description of fascism is like taking The Democratic Republic of North Korea's word that they are a democracy.

Instead, lets take the word of more neutral sources:

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
Encyclopedia Britannica

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Oxford English Dictionary

> Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?

These players:
The people who absolutely lose their shit at the thought of black people kneeling that they walk out of a football game.
The television network that fired a reporter who would not toe the line on climate change reporting
Colorado Republican lawmakers want to punish striking teachers with jail time.
Harper’s Editor Insists He Was Fired Over Katie Roiphe Essay - The New York Times
Professor celebrating Barbara Bush’s death deserves to be fired | Fox News
Joyce Peterson on Twitter: "Happening in Nashville right now: lawmakers trying to penalize the @CityOfMemphis for removing confederate statues by slashing a quarter million dollars in funding. https://t.co/ZAg0ntZl30"
Law Enforcement Has Quietly Backed Anti-Protest Bills in at Least 8 States Since Trump’s Election
Memphis-Based Journalist Taken Into ICE Custody After Arrest While Covering Protest (Updated) - Rewire.News
Sinclair producer in Nebraska resigns to protest 'obvious bias'
‘Black-ish’ Political Episode on Kneeling Canceled Over ‘Creative Differences’ – Variety
Republican governor forced to stop blocking Facebook users who criticize him | Ars Technica
AprilDRyan on Twitter: "It is back again. Not called on today for a question. It has been how long? Oh, my last question was about @StormyDaniels! And, I was just told I am on a list. Whatever! I have been doing this for 21 years. I am not new to the rode
Trump attends event about campus political correctness crisis, accidental

I can type MORE EFFICIENT in all caps too, but you will notice I already told you 'more efficient' numerous times. Never said it was clean. So strawman #1.

Adding more coal plants that are more efficient, does not mean more coal. Even if the old dirty ones aren't closed (which they are) more efficient means more efficient. Either less coal or more power or both.

You are still confused about capacity. If I burn a thimble of coal it will produce x amount of CO2. If I tip that thimble of coal into a big bucket first (much higher capacity) and then burn it, guess what still x amount of CO2. But China is not even doing just that, the new bucket is new technology and is much more efficient.

And here we go with strawman #2. You said American nat gas plants are so many times cleaner than the best China has to offer. And now for some reason instead of backing up your claim, you are trying to compare US gas to China coal.

So you don't like EIA estimates, show some estimates from sources you do like. Instead of these made up numbers you are so fond of using.

China has been, is, and will move to EV faster than the US. Your assertion that EV's in China produce more than the cars/busses they replace is just not credible. Peak coal is years in the past and renewables are increasing faster and faster.
The standards for new Chinese coal is European levels (better than the US). So again your assertion is not credible.

Again you are confusing capacity with use. America is closing old plants, not to be environmentally friendly, just because they are too old. Capacity will go down. But use of the remaining plants will increase. Number of plants is meaningless. China will have more newer much higher efficiency plants and will use the old dirty ones less. Much much more capacity, but only slightly more use/and falling coal consumption.

OK looking at your map, did you not notice all the cancelled retired and shelved? Compare that to construction and the red is tiny. Announced and pre-permit may never be built.
Just comparing cancelled and construction there is clearly more green, zoom all the way out to make it more obvious.
Also obvious if you do that and look at permitted and construction, is that there are nowhere near 700 plants but only 319. Yet you still claim 700 in every post.
You are also clearly bullshitting about most being 1+GW. Constructed and permitted total capacity is about 142GW according to that site, but remember there are 319 plants so only 0.45 on average.
Again though, whats the point in mentioning the size or number when only the amount of coal burned is relevant.
It's clear Science and English are not your forte, but simple addition shouldn't be too hard. Is 1+1+1+1+1 small plants burning 5T worse than a huge plant burning 5T ? The first is FIVE NEW PLANTS !! but the second is HUGE !!! you must be so confused.
Just for reference, your site mentions 296GW were cancelled 2010-2017 and 425GW was shelved.

I thought you were a reader? Did you not get to the bottom of your own link? The one that says

The astounding numbers go against the trend that has been happening throughout the year in China, where dangerously high pollution levels have forced the closure of hundreds of coal mines and a curtailment of steel mill output. Examples of China's domestic aversion to coal include:

Two days ago Taiyuan, the capital of China’s northern province of Shanxi, which is known for its coal production, banned the sale, transport and use

How does Windy's cock taste?
https://www.vox.com/energy-and...
https://www.americanprogress.o...

Poor minorities who tend to vote Democrat are disproportionately likely to lack government issued IDs.

Having a valid government issued ID is also a pre-requisite to work legally in the United States. So instead of whining about lost votes, you could also argue for a federal law that provides no or low-cost ID options to low-income households.

Arguing that there is no need to use ID when voting is equal to arguing that there should be no border controls: now those poor, poor minorities are not even able to go to Canada. And I'm not even mentioning that they can't legally buy alcohol until they're 30. Are you going to stand in front of your local Bevmo with a sign?

Money isn't the only issue and whatever the cause there is a big discrepancy.

I do agree with you that not having ID is a problem for those who don't have one, but that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Not having an ID causes a shitton of issue, and not being able to vote should be the least of their worries.

I wouldn't have an issue if every legal voter had an ID, though getting minorities IDs isn't a Republican priority and they seem to actively make it more difficult.

I have an overwhelming suspicion that the moment you get all the minorities photo IDs the GOP suddenly stops caring about it.

So yes, the Florida election was stolen by exactly the anti-Democratic voter suppression tactics for which you are now advocating!

For the record, being an immigrant I'm a left-leaning moderate. I'm an favor of universal healthcare and free education. I don't like the policies of our current Supreme Leader. I never liked Bush Jr (Sr was a bit better). I liked Obama and would vote for him with my eyes closed.

BUT. You can not have democracy without fair elections, and showing proof of eligibility to vote is one of the necessary safeguards.

I understand why it sounds like a reasonable safeguard, but until you get everyone photo IDs you will end up disenfranchising eligible voters.

And the only thing that photo IDs fix is in-person voter impersonation at the polls, but if that kind of voter fraud were happening at a large scale we'd see the signs, and they're simply not there.

You're advocating a policy that will disenfranchise people to fix a problem that is not happening.

Really, if you're that concerned about the integrity of the vote go after mail-in ballots, there is way more potential for not only voter impersonation but coerced votes as well.

But you'll never hear about trying to take away absentee voting, largely because absentee voting skews Republican.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/29/...

The FBI says it was hacked...

The fact that there's no statistical difference between GPA and graduation rates between students that did and did not submit standardized test scores does not mean that there's no correlation between those test scores and achievement. In fact, there is such a correlation. See:
https://www.vox.com/cards/sat/... [vox.com]
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fullt... [ed.gov]

Just a quick point, the study these articles are pointing to reference a College Board study indicating a correlation between SAT and college achievement. College Board is the publisher of the SAT test. This is like referring to a study funded by the pasta industry that concludes pasta is good for you...

Other points in those articles highlight the same point I made before: HS GPA is a better indicator than SAT and SAT hasn't been shown by many admissions studies to have a significant statistically independent prediction of college success measurements despite what the publisher's of the SAT might want people to believe. This is why many college admissions departments are slow-walking away from the SAT. It appears to add very little value into their admissions criteria, but the alternatives aren't well vetted yet...

Here's some interesting reading for those that don't know the history the SAT and its relationship with the UC system...

https://senate.universityofcal...

Similar reports about the effectiveness of the SAT have been going on since the 80's when I was in college and working with admissions. The only thing keeping the SAT alive is pretty much the UC system requirement (UC being a big "customer" of the SAT was the main driver to convince the SAT to change to be more like the ACT). I predict by the time my kids will be college aged, the UC system will finally drop the SAT and it will be a distant memory.

Interestingly, high SAT scores have not been shown to be correlated to student achievement in college. In face, many colleges are moving to test-optional admission strategies after a 2014 study involving 123,000 students at 33 colleges showed virtually no statistical difference between GPA and graduation rates between students that did and did not submit standardized test scores.

The fact that there's no statistical difference between GPA and graduation rates between students that did and did not submit standardized test scores does not mean that there's no correlation between those test scores and achievement. In fact, there is such a correlation. See:
https://www.vox.com/cards/sat/...
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fullt...

Sadly, from my history of admissions work with my alma mater, the two highest correlating factors for academic success were: 1. parental income; and 2. one-or-more parents graduating from college. You might say #1 is probably highly correlated with #2 so a large driver of college success is a student fulfilling the expectations of their college educated parents, which sort of perpetuates the have vs have-not split.

This leads credence to the assertion in the GP that the quote about "I'm 100 percent convinced that talent is distributed uniformly across society. There's no data to suggest that if you happen to be born into a less well-to-do family you are somehow less intelligent" is wrong. There is a lot of evidence that this statement is just wrong. Here's one example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

'cause he's not gotten his taxes done yet.

When he presented unverified Russian propaganda to a FISA court to get a wiretap on Trump Tower, while under oath presenting that information as verified factual. The odd thing being he admitted he didn't verify it just weeks after he went to the FISA court with it.

I would say that is the "smoking gun" example of it. There are others, but that is the one that even Comey and everyone else pretty much agree are him lying under oath.

No that's not the case unless you live inside Trump's and Nunes' heads
https://www.vox.com/world/2018...

Those FISA requests were good for 90 days and were renewed - by Republican-appointed judges - at least THREE times.
In case you haven't been keeping up, Comey and Mueller and Rosenstein are all Republicans, not just appointees.

It was also gerrymandered up the wazoo when Democrats were in power.

Yes. Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr. Of course, those Democrats were often entirely different in politics. Such is history.

Gerrymandering simply strengthens whoever is currently more popular.

Wrong. In some cases, actually weakens those who are more popular, as shown in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

If congressional districts were assigned rationally, Democrats wouldn't do very well anyway

Yes, but that's because your definition of rational which is 100% Republican Agenda. You do realize your biases, however, are not supported in actual math that is independent of your partisan bias.

The only way Democrats could do well if the US went to strict national popular majorities, but that is utterly unacceptable and incompatible with federalism.

Or you know, actually voting. Of course, that is utterly unacceptable to the Republican agenda which relies on voter suppression.

In actual fact [people-press.org], liberals only make up about 17% of the US political spectrum and California is thoroughly unrepresentative of the country.

Actually, California is highly representative of the country, and it's only because of zealots like you that it gets demonized as some outside nemesis.

The reason Republicans are so strong is because Democrats have fallen out of favor with the political center: moderates and independents.

Also untrue, the truth is quite contrary.

It is actually the Republicans who have become more extremist, but they rely on moving the perceptual concept to turn the tables instead of embrace reality.

I'm a good example of that: I used to be a registered Democrat but loathe what the Democratic party has become over the last decade. I won't vote for Democrats again until they clearly disavow people like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Corey Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

You're actually a good example of the lying fraud of the GOP, as you vacuously and repetitively pretend to claim to be a Democrat and a moderate, yet entirely espouse the hard-core right-wing agenda, and blame Obama for creating conflict.

Tell you what, maybe people will believe you when you disavow individuals like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thoma

It was also gerrymandered up the wazoo when Democrats were in power.

Yes. Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr. Of course, those Democrats were often entirely different in politics. Such is history.

Gerrymandering simply strengthens whoever is currently more popular.

Wrong. In some cases, actually weakens those who are more popular, as shown in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

If congressional districts were assigned rationally, Democrats wouldn't do very well anyway

Yes, but that's because your definition of rational which is 100% Republican Agenda. You do realize your biases, however, are not supported in actual math that is independent of your partisan bias.

The only way Democrats could do well if the US went to strict national popular majorities, but that is utterly unacceptable and incompatible with federalism.

Or you know, actually voting. Of course, that is utterly unacceptable to the Republican agenda which relies on voter suppression.

In actual fact [people-press.org], liberals only make up about 17% of the US political spectrum and California is thoroughly unrepresentative of the country.

Actually, California is highly representative of the country, and it's only because of zealots like you that it gets demonized as some outside nemesis.

The reason Republicans are so strong is because Democrats have fallen out of favor with the political center: moderates and independents.

Also untrue, the truth is quite contrary.

It is actually the Republicans who have become more extremist, but they rely on moving the perceptual concept to turn the tables instead of embrace reality.

I'm a good example of that: I used to be a registered Democrat but loathe what the Democratic party has become over the last decade. I won't vote for Democrats again until they clearly disavow people like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Corey Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

You're actually a good example of the lying fraud of the GOP, as you vacuously and repetitively pretend to claim to be a Democrat and a moderate, yet entirely espouse the hard-core right-wing agenda, and blame Obama for creating conflict.

Tell you what, maybe people will believe you when you disavow individuals like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thoma

No. The reason for going with emissions/$, is that neither you nor I decide the co2. Gov and businesses do.

Really? The government forces you to eat steak, drive an SUV, Turn your heating and cooling way up high? Don't make me laugh.

Look until tesla, how many EVs were there in.the world? None of consequences. Heck Prius started after Tesla started their r&D to build out EVs. GM built EV1 to appease California, but Exon killed it. Had it not been for Tesla, we would have no EVs.

China has more electric cars than the US, and also has double the market share % of new electric car sales, and also faster growth of that market share %..

Likewise, it has taken businesses and gov to push solar and wind. You and I did not create the market.

China is massively into solar and wind. Everyone knows this.

So, it comes down to decisions by businesses and gov, not ppl.

Complete bullshit. People choose what they want to do, what they want to consume. How they want to live. What lifestyle they lead.

The only way to push them is via emissions /GDP. They only care about the almighty buck. So, by normalizing on gdp and dropping emissions limit yearly, this forces all gov/businesses to change.

You live in a democracy and are free to spend your money how you like. If you want government to force people and businesses to use less CO2, vote for a government that will make those changes. Have a carbon tax if you like. Seems like a sensible way to put a price on polluting. But people will have to want it, America isn't a dictatorship. People choose not governments. Similarly businesses only do what the government allows them to do (again people) or what will sell in the marketplace, again people choosing to purchase/participate.

As it is, China's emissions are disastrous and America's sux as well. In POF, most of Europe sux as well.

All 3 regions are higher than the world average so I kind of agree here. More needs to be done. But it's unfair to place all of the burden on China where they are a much bigger country and are still climbing up the development ladder. You are still giving rich countries a free pass just because they got rich first. I will still argue only per capita makes sense, as all the things people do add up to the total. More people will do more things, travel, spend, waste, live.
But even if you think per GDP is a useful measure, China is already improving, and improving faster than America or the EU because their economy is growing much faster than the CO2 is increasing. Also America is much worse than Europe even on a per GDP measure. Why is that? Governments, businesses, or people making the difference? Even with America's tiny improvements it will take decades to reach European levels. China may even race you there by then.

Europe's and America's are headed in.the right direction, but we need to get all nations on the same track.

America is too slow to be meaningful over any relevant timeframe, China is predicted to be leveling off and decreasing soon too.

New coal plants need to be stopped, except to replace an old one. For example, china replacing an old one, with a new one that has full pollution controls AND will only burn the same amount of coal, or less, is great. But that is not what china is doing, and therein lies the problems.

This is exactly what China is doing. China's coal plants are the most efficient in the world. China's capacity is going up but a lot of that capacity will ne

for crooks first. And while people hate the crooks in other states, they seem to like _their_ crook.

I'd like to see a movement to get people to refuse to vote for anyone who takes corporate PAC money. But then we just elected a Pres who in turn handed the FCC over to a guy that let one media company buy up each and every local news station.

Also, I couldn't even find the original video for the above link. I had to settle for an article on Vox.

I dunno.

I copied the text of DJT's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17044760/transcript-trump-cpac-speech-snake-mccain

and got the bizarre result quoted below. Which is very similar to the result I got when I typed in some of my own text. And similar also to their sample text from a snippet of Barack Obama's statements in the 2012 election debate.

I think that the "personality-insights" site is kinda BS. Or maybe we're all just so similar.

Personality Portrait
9935 words analyzed: Very Strong Analysis
Summary
You are analytical, excitable and sentimental.

You are empathetic: you feel what others feel and are compassionate towards them. You are uncompromising: you think it is wrong to take advantage of others to get ahead. And you are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them.

Your choices are driven by a desire for organization.

You are relatively unconcerned with both achieving success and taking pleasure in life. You make decisions with little regard for how they show off your talents. And you prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment.

You are likely to______
like historical movies
volunteer for social causes
like classical music

You are unlikely to______
be influenced by social media during product purchases
prefer style when buying clothes
like rap music

Stop the lies. End all immigration.

Don't tell Trump this. His businesses hire lots of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/13/...

"A Vox analysis of hiring records for seasonal workers at three Trump properties in New York and Florida revealed that only one out of 144 jobs went to a US worker from 2016 to the end of 2017. Foreign guest workers with H-2B visas got the rest. The H-2B visa program allows seasonal, non-agricultural employers — like hotels and ski resorts — to hire foreign workers when they can’t find American ones. The Trump administration temporarily expanded this guest-worker program in 2017 while restricting other avenues of legal immigration, including the H-1B program for high-skilled workers."

[Note: this article is from last month]

... along with the attempts to punish ATT for not agreeing to exercise editorial control over CNN

Lesseee.... got both the Senate and the House of Reps under my thumb, what can I do about the DOJ, and the Forth Estate

My plan to Make America a Banana Republic is coming along just fine.

I think the ingredients for Ayahuasca can be possessed and used legally for religious ceremonies in the US, but I generally hear about people going to South America for that experience. VOX had an article about it a few weeks ago.

There are also some new compounds available that are hypothesized to metabolize into LSD inside the body.

Read up on this:

From a US court case where some big oil companies are being sued.

Keep reading/scrolling down this til you come to the numbered questions and answers.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and...

Here's how it's been explained to me: Google and Facebook generally do not make a habit of selling members' personally identifying information (PII) to third parties. Instead, they safeguard members' PII and offer services, such as Google's AdWords and DoubleClick, that use members' PII and click stream as an input.

As for the Cambridge Analytica/SCL incident: Facebook sold nothing. Cambridge Analytica collected Facebook members' PII through Facebook's API and then disclosed (i.e. sold) the PII in violation of Facebook's terms of service.

Same can be said about Trump and âoeshithole countryâ.

But yes what? MSM doesnâ(TM)t need proof any more, just some guy who was there that said someone said something.

It's completely in character for the orange-tinted asshat and it's amusing that some of the GOP asslickers who were present and trying to defend him are claiming he he said "shithouse" but not "shithole"

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/...

"Anonymous Republican sources have pushed the story that Trump in fact used the phrase “shithouse countries.” According to the Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa, and Ashley Parker, Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) told the White House that’s what they remember Trump saying in the meeting.

Trump has apparently decided that the controversy is hurting him politically, so his allies are using this minor discrepancy to justify public denials that he said “shithole.” This, the Post reporters wrote, was Cotton and Perdue’s private rationale for their Friday statement claiming they “do not recall the President saying those [shithole] comments specifically.”

Now, some anonymous Republican spinners are going even further, telling reporters that the term “shithouse” gets Trump off the hook from accusations of racism. Michael Isikoff said he was told that Trump was “thinking about real estate,” and Scott Wong said he was told Trump simply meant countries without plumbing.

The bigger picture: We have reports of Trump using either vulgar or racist language to disparage immigration from predominantly black or Muslim countries in the Oval Office — in two separate instances. (The New York Times reported a similar incident in December.)

Regardless of whether the disparaging term used in one of these cases was “shithole” or “shithouse,” our president’s private opinions are clear: He views certain countries as inferior and their people as unfit for immigration to the United States.

“I want them to come in from everywhere,” Trump told the White House press pool Tuesday afternoon. In private, though, he appears to say very different things.

This wasn’t the first report of Trump offensively disparaging immigrants’ home countries in private
Last week’s report of Trump’s vulgar language against certain immigrants’ home countries in the Oval Office shouldn’t have come as a surprise — because the New York Times published a remarkably similar report weeks earlier, in a separate meeting months before.

The Times’s Michael Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis wrote that Trump “stormed into the Oval Office one day in June, plainly enraged,” reading off a document his hardline adviser Stephen Miller had given him. What he reportedly said made him look like a crude, racist caricature:

The document listed how many immigrants had received visas to enter the United States in 2017. More than 2,500 were from Afghanistan, a terrorist haven, the president complained.

Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.

Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never “go back to their huts” in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.

Here, again, the White House press team didn’t deny the thrust of what Trump said, but they did deny whether he used the words “AIDS” or “huts.” However, the Times reporters wrote that two sources in the meeting recalled Trump using those words, and found them “so noteworthy t

I guess you've never heard of "civil asset forfeiture", which is quite popular with many law enforcement departments these days. If the police just "feel" that anything you have might somehow be related to drug money, they can (and often do) seize it. Then you have to take them to court and prove it's NOT, often spending more than what what seized. No proof, arrests, or real "due process" is needed from them to keep your stuff. Carrying cash to go buy something? You might be going to buy drugs (even though your record is completely clean and you've never been involved with anything like that before) and now your cash and car is theirs.

References: (this is just a few, there are hundreds if not thousands of these types of abuses every year now)...
nationalreview.com
forbes.com
forbes.com
metrotimes.com
newschannel5.com
onlineathens.com
vox.com
washingtonpost.com

The Russia narrative fell apart.

Lol, over 100 charges so far. I don't think "falling apart" means what you think it means.

The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.

2) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.

3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.

4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.

Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians

Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.

The closest we’ve come to that is that both Papadopoulos and Flynn both now admit that they lied to the FBI about their contacts with people connected to the Russian government. (Papadopoulos’s contacts took place before the election, and Flynn’s after it.)

Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.

But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge and start cooperating with Mueller’s probe.

Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.

But when FBI agents interviewed him about all this in January 2017, Flynn lied to them about what his talks with Kislyak entailed, he now admits. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to a false statements charge and began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.

Both Papadopoulos and

You know, not all crimes are felonies and the IRS wants to tax undocumented workers and even illegal income.

Here's an article that explains it. Instead, she has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), created by the IRS in 1996 so people who aren’t allowed to work in the United States could still file taxes on any money they earned. (The IRS does not share ITIN information with immigration authorities.)

Yes, illegal aliens often pay taxes, approximately half according to the article linked below. They apply for an ITN, which is something they're allowed to do, and pay taxes using it.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

they voted for Trump because he ran as a populist. He promised them good jobs, healthcare and a future. Hilary promised them them nothing. At best slightly lower interest rates on their Student Loans.

There's a ton of really desperate folks in swing states. Hilary called them the Blue Firewall and ignored them. Trump listened to them and told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't matter that he was lying. There was a chance, however small, that he wasn't. They had nothing to lose.

The real problem is America abandoned a significant portion of the working class to abject poverty. That's a terrible idea if you like stability. Large numbers of people (especially men) with nothing to lose are dangerous as hell.

Reddit reflects what the people are thinking at deep levels, reveals their innermost thoughts, unrestrained by the need to wear masks, protected by anonymity.

Yeah no, that's 4chan. (Fun fact: /pol/ has more posting traffic than all the political subreddits combined, and more than double if you put T_D in /pol/'s column)

Reddit with it's unique moderation system enforces social pressures to conform to local groupthink a degree unseen anywhere that doesn't require three forms of ID to post.

Most of them could be persuaded.

Theoretically. But most on the left are much more concerned with loudly and conspicuously establishing their morally and intellectual superiority to them rather than persuading them.

19 indictments (13 of them Russian nationals) and 5 guilty pleas so far might disagree with what you deem as reality.

Do any of the indictments reference/amount to collusion?

Because that's the statement to you were responding to.

List of indictments

Maybe you were too busy yelling in your head "WE GOTTEM THIS TIME"?

They had to vote on the ACA bill first before they could find out what was in it.

Yes... the Democrats passed the ACA after 79 hearings, and about two months of discussion, including multiple amendments from Republicans: https://mic.com/articles/17630...

I was paying attention to the Republican complaint at how "quickly" ACA was passed right up until I saw how they decided to do in the "repeal and replace" bill, which was NO hearings, a bill written in secret, and an attempt to pass the bill before the budget office even stated what the cost would be.

Not to mention provisions being added to the bill handwritten in the margins overnight before voting... which no senators or representatives actually admitted to adding https://www.vox.com/policy-and....

The Republicans did everything that they accused the Democrats of doing, but even more so.

ROI with subsidization isn't really ROI. Be generous with your figures.

Which form of energy is not subsidized by the government? If you look at fossil fuels and renewal energy, fossil fuels produce about 4 times more energy but enjoy 7 times more subsidies. It takes a lot of government money to keep coal and oil prices so low, almost twice as much money per unit of energy produced than is spent making renewable energy cheaper.

Subsidy comparison
Energy Production comparison

and do more actual policy. The right wing corporate Dems seem to be trying to use this to try and win voters back without actually implementing populist policy (Medicare for All, universal college, a New New Deal, $15 min wage, ending the 8 wars, etc, etc). It's not going to work. Maybe if they were as good a fearmongering as the Republicans are, but they're not. Instead we're gonna get another 4 years of Trump + Republican Congress. Probably another big market crash out of all the deregulation that's going on right now.

Trump won for two reasons. First, Hilary took victory for granted and didn't campaign in the swing states (she always was an arrogant bitch). But moreoever Trump ran as a left wing populist. He promised Health Care for all, Jobs for all, good pay for all. He promised the government wouldn't just stand idle while the working class got slapped around by the Invisible Hand. Sure, he lied through his teeth. But when your opponent promised basically nothing, well, like the man said, what have you got to lose?

"NRA: Uh, fake news! Those kids were coached! And they're actors!

I think the 'crisis actors' thing is bullshit too. I'd say if some of the teachers were allowed to concealed carry, maybe one of them would have shot the nutter without having to wait for the cops to decide to do something. And we know the cops held off on entering the building. In which case why not let staff with a concealed carry permit to carry guns into the building.

As Trump put it

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

So we want to hear ideas from Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs about how we can improve security at our schools, tackle the issue of mental health because this was a sick person. Very sick. And we had a lot of warning about him being sick. This wasn't a surprise. To the people that knew him, this wasn't even a little bit. In fact, some said we're surprised it took so long. So what are we doing? What are we doing?

We want to ensure that when there are warning signs, we can act and act very quickly. Why do we protect our airports and our banks, our government buildings, but not our schools. It is time to make our schools a much harder target for attackers. We don't want them in our schools. We don't want them. When we declare our schools to be gun-free zones, it just puts our students in far more danger. Far more danger.

Well trained, gun adept teachers and coaches and people that work in those buildings, people that were in the Marines for 20 years, and retired, people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, people that are adept, adept with weaponry, and with guns, they teach.

I mean, I don't want to have 100 guards standing with rifles all over the school. You do a conceal carry permit. And this would be a major deterrent, because these people are inherently cowards. If they thought like if this guy thought that other people would be shooting bullets back at him, he wouldn't have gone to that school. He wouldn't have gone there. It is a gun-free zone. It says this is a gun-free zone. Please check your guns way far away. And what happens is they feel safe. There is nobody going to come at them. This way you may have - and, remember, if you use this school as an example, this is a very big school. With tremendous floor area and a lot of acreage, a big, big school, good school. A big, big school. You would have to have 150 real guns.

Look, you had one guard, he didn't turn out to be too good, I will tell you that. He turned out to be not good. He was not a credit to law enforcement that I can tell you. That I can tell you. But as I have been talking about this idea, and I feel it is a great idea, but some people that are good people are opposed to it, don't like the idea of teachers doing it, I'm not talking about teachers.

CNN went on, they said, Donald Trump wants all teachers, okay, fake news, folks. Fake news. News. I don't want a person that has never handled a gun that wouldn't know what a gun looks like to be armed.

But out of your teaching population, out of your teaching population, you have 10 percent, 20 percent, very gun adept people. Military people, law enforcement people, they teach. They teach. And something I thought of this morning, you know what else, I thought of it since I found and watched Peterson, the deputy who didn't go into the school, because he didn't want to go into the school, okay. He was tested under fire and that wasn't a good result. But you know what I thought of, as soon as I saw that, these teachers, and I've seen them, and a lot of schools where they had problems, these teachers love their students and the students love their teachers in many cases. These teachers love their students. And these teachers are talented with weaponry and with guns. And that's - they feel safe.

And I would rather have somebody that loves their students and wants to prote

But they didn't, because they purposely orchestrate these events for political gain.

I agree. In fact, the NRA actually funded the rifle training of the shooter.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/...

When you think about it, it makes sense. The only group that benefits from mass shootings is the NRA, the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

He was also in ROTC, govt funded, which means govt helped train him to kill. If you're going to go tinfoil hat might as well go all in and pin this shooting on the govt

It isn't the money that NRA tosses around that is the major problem. It is - comparatively - only a small part of Republican party funding: in 2014, only 1% of the money raised in 2014 came from the NRA.

No, the NRA's real power is how quickly - and repeatedly - they can mobilize their supporters. As importantly, NRA supporters don't forget about the issue in a month or two; gun-control is /the/ major issue for them. It trumps issues like abortion, taxes, immigration, and all the other hot-button topics that divide this nation. And they vote.

The NRA wields a huge club because they can get a huge number of voters behind (or against) a particular candidate depending on his stance on gun-control. Although many other issues result in vocal support (or disagreement), very few groups have a the same ability to guarantee actual votes on the topic. The NRA does. That's why they don't need to push so much money at the candidates (that money, after all, is mostly used for advertising to convince voters to their side; with the NRA, the issue is already decided). So rather than risk alienating them most politicians try to either placate the NRA or avoid the issue entirely.

But they didn't, because they purposely orchestrate these events for political gain.

I agree. In fact, the NRA actually funded the rifle training of the shooter.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/...

When you think about it, it makes sense. The only group that benefits from mass shootings is the NRA, the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

Those JROTC programs are also government funded and he was in the program when Obama was president, so Obama's fault?

Moreover:

Chicago, for example, requires a Firearm Owners Identification card, a background check, a three-day waiting period, and documentation for all firearm sales. But Indiana, across the border, doesn’t require any of this for purchases between two private individuals (including those at gun shows and those who meet through the internet), allowing even someone with a criminal record to buy a firearm without passing a background check or submitting paperwork recording the sale.

So someone from Chicago can drive across the border — to Indiana or to other places with lax gun laws — and buy a gun without any of the big legal hurdles he would face at home. Then that person can resell or give guns to others in Chicago or keep them, leaving no paper trail behind. (This is illegal trafficking under federal law, but Indiana’s lax laws and enforcement — particularly the lack of a paper trail — make it virtually impossible to catch someone until a gun is used in a crime.)

The result: According to a 2014 report from the Chicago Police Department, nearly 60 percent of the guns in crime scenes that were recovered and traced between 2009 and 2013 came from outside the state. About 19 percent came from Indiana — making it the most common state of origin for guns besides Illinois.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts

Similar problem in NYC. The problem isn't too much gun control in Chicago/NYC, it is total lack of gun control in neighboring jurisdictions.

But they didn't, because they purposely orchestrate these events for political gain.

I agree. In fact, the NRA actually funded the rifle training of the shooter.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/...

When you think about it, it makes sense. The only group that benefits from mass shootings is the NRA, the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

The left oppose the notion of originalism. E.g. Roe v Wade decided people had always had a right to abortion because of an invented 'right to privacy'.

Nope, the right to privacy was not invented, it's natural.

The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was based on the notion that it was an inevitable consequence of Due Process under the 14th Amendment.

The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was actually based on the pattern of discrimination that had been demonstrated by the opponents of same-sex marriage.

Even though the people who wrote the original documents didn't believe in a right to abortion or a right to gay marriage.

They're dead. How exactly do you know what they'd believe, and why should we care anyway? Did I miss some declaration where we subsumed ourselves to their eternal dictatorship from beyond the grave?

Judicial activism is always about allowing your political views to alter the way you read the law. It's a sort of 'ends justifies the means' approach to law. If you agree with the ends, then the means
- twisting or inverting the meaning of the actual words in the law or inventing new rights that aren't actually there - doesn't matter.

That's actually original-ism, as found in numerous instances.

This is in of itself a good reason to distrust the US left. E.g. look at the gay marriage case. Both Obama and Clinton run on a platform of opposing it, but Obama set up a case which would legalise it and then celebrated. Even if left wing politicians say they won't do something, they may appoint judges who will twist the law to do it and then celebrate the result.

Both Clinton and Obama were wrong to take the cowardly position they did on same-sex marriage, and were roundly condemned for it, they set back civil rights for over a decade.

Now I'm not all that fussed about gay marriage. However even there you can see that the left will use it as a cudgel to beat the right - e.g. Christian bakers will be asked to bake a "I support gay marriage cake" and sued if they refuse.

Actually, it's the right that's upset that they can't get Confederate Cakes.

By the way if Gorsuch ruled in a way that you didn't like would you say "Well he's just interpreting the law. You can't say he's allowing his political beliefs to get in the way"? I'm guessing not, because he's an originalist and not a believer that the role of a judge is to invent new rights. if someone's political views explicitly include a different method of how to interpret law - e.g. 'Improving rights' vs 'Originalism' then those political views obviously alter how they'd rule when they were a judge.

That's because Gorsuch would allow his political beliefs to get in the way.

Look at the SC