First Tweet

[dik]

I sent my first tweet this evening:

Dik Coates‏ @CoatesDik 14m14 minutes ago

@SenFeinstein Can you have Michael Avenatti cross examine Kavanaugh?

Dik

 

[JohnRBaker]

And Republicans are only getting the loose change they picked-up in the parking lot, EH?

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[bridgebuster]

I'm not saying that; someone else implied it was only the Republicans who sold their souls.

 

[hokie66]

Maybe the chooks are coming home to roost for the Kavanaugh accusers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/

 

[hokie66]

One benefit of the Kavanaugh inquisition is that it likely saved the Senate for the Republicans. Donnelly, Heitkamp, and McCaskill are gone, voted out because voters in their states were angry at the unfair treatment of Justice Kavanaugh. May apply to Florida as well, but that is to be determined. As well, the seats in Tennessee and Texas were saved. But will Democrats learn anything? I doubt it, and hope not.

 

[hokie66]

So the election counting is mostly over. The Republicans have a working majority in the Senate. And in the House, the tail (California) is wagging the dog.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Technically, the Republicans already had a "working majority" in the Senate before the 2018 elections so this is nothing new, despite Trump taking credit for 'winning' the Senate. And as for the extent of California's future influence over the House of Representatives, well California is the most populous state and besides, it has the 5th largest economy in the world, only being outpaced by the United States itself as well as China, Japan and Germany. Why the concern? After all, the House is where the 'people', based on proportional representation, are supposed to have it's say in the affairs of the nation.

But since you brought it up, why not talk about how Wyoming has the same say in the Senate as does California, yet California has nearly 70 times as many people.

But in the end, that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, so that's the way it is, like it or not.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[hokie66]

I doubt that the founding fathers envisaged one state, no matter how large or with how big a population, would be so controlled by one party that the entire majority in the House would be due to the majority of the members from that state. This is similar to the "popular vote majority" in the 2016 election, where California accounted for that entire number.

As to Wyoming, I thank the founding fathers for the Senate distribution. And I agree, that's the way it is, like it or not.

 

[JohnRBaker]

What about all of the New England states now having only Democratic House members? Those states are the same as they were when the Founding Fathers were 'creating' a nation and mapping out how Congress was going to operate.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Latexman]

The founding fathers believed in a diverse government so as to limit any one person's/state's/party's power.

Good luck,
Latexman

To a ChE, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Then the Founding Fathers would have loved this year's class of Democratic freshman members of Congress, at least as it compares to the Republican class, where "diversity" appears to be a single white women among a class of white men.

DISCLAIMER: The above collection is not complete as there were several house races which were not yet decided at the time that these pictures were published, however, virtually all of those races have since been won by a Democrat, most being women, so when included, this comparison will be even more revealing.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Latexman]

That is very telling, isn't it?

On the lighter side. Hey! There is one pirate!

Good luck,
Latexman

To a ChE, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.

 

[bridgebuster]

If one believes "diversity" is only about skin color isn't that being narrow minded? What I find interesting is that a number of Democrats who were elected on an anti-Pelosi pledge are now for her. This includes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the future of the party. She's a fast learner, she knows Nana Pelosi has the $$$$ dough

 

[JohnRBaker]

I agree, so lets look at some other types of "diversity", such as religion, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That being said, except for gender, it's a bit more difficult to simply look at a page of thumbnail images and determine exactly how diverse, or how non-diverse, a group is if you were to use only visual indicators, like skin color and gender. However, if we did do a deeper dive taking into consideration all of the non-visual criteria, do you honestly think that our impression as how "diverse" one group of these freshman members of Congress would be compared to the other would be any different than what we've already concluded?

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[hokie66]

What's all this about diversity? Why do you think the founding fathers wanted diversity, and if they didn't, why do some value it today?

There is a geographical and population based distribution in the Congress, and that is all that was intended.

 

[JohnRBaker]

The lower chamber of the Congress was named the House of REPRESENTATIVES for a reason. And while it might be true that the Founding Fathers may not have had in mind the likelihood of this body being made-up of anyone other than white males, they did create the mechanism by which it was intended to 'represent' the people of the nation, and as the makeup of that group changed over time, so did the make-up of the Congress. Intended or otherwise, that's what happened and there is nothing that anyone can do about it now. As a nation, we are what we are. As to whether 'diversity' is a virtue or not, I'm sure that we can all agree that any action preventing all of our citizens the right to choose whom they are to be governed by, or interfering in their rights to elect members of their own communities, that this would certainly NOT be what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they declared that "All Men are Created Equal".

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[bridgebuster]

I agree. However, except for sales & marketing, diversity is a crock of $#!+. The Founding Fathers didn't give a rat's @$$ about diversity. Consider this, if diversity is so important why are there only two major parties? Politics is all about obtaining power and money. If a politician doesn't go with the flow, he/she/cis/cer/or whatever you call yourself isn't going his/her/cis/cer/or whatever you call yourself share of the spoils. A good case can be made that the Republicans are actually the party of diversity, why do think they can't get anything done when they're in power?

 

[JohnRBaker]

The Founding Fathers did NOT establish political parties. In fact, they were leery of them and tried to discourage them. Unfortunately, they ended-up being an unintended consequence of a system where the people were expected to elect individuals who would represent their interests. It soon became clear that factionalism was the inevitable result of a society which was rapidly growing where there were interests that naturally competed with each other. And while it's true that the phenomenon of the TWO-party system evolved from how the Founding Fathers structured particularly the legislative branch, that was not their intentions. Looking back on it, historians will tell you that it was inevitable, but at the time, since the idea of a constitutional form of government was completely new, or at least where they had no close prototype to base it on, we need to forgive our founders for being at bit naive when it came to predicting how the people's representatives would organize themselves.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Latexman]

On diversity, I was thinking NO KING and the 3 branches of government - legislature (with the House and the Senate), judicial, and executive.

Good luck,
Latexman

To a ChE, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.

 

[bridgebuster]

There's nothing to forgive; people will always organize themselves around common interests. This goes for everything; not just political parties. There's nothing wrong with a two party system. Actually, it worked very well for years until one side decided that identity-based politics was the way to go.

 

[JohnRBaker]

You mean the recent transformation of the Republican party now identifying with 'Trumpism'?

I also read a recent item where it described today's Republican party as being the party of the 'neocons', and this was NOT in reference to 'neo-conservatism', but rather 'neo-Confederates'.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.93855942ed8f

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without