Jwheel86

But what electoral math does that translate to on election night?

Even if he won I'd still feel uneasy about it. If he won by Sherrod Brown levels then he'd be the answer.

Agreed, but the democratic party needs to play to the base instead of trying to shame the base into showing up. I don't see which States you put at risk by offending "centrists", maybe Virginia? I don't think Medicare for All is popular because of the policy details (there are good arguments against it), it's popular because from a marketing it's simple and all the other discussed alternatives feel like DC bullshit (fix the ACA isn't clear).

I don't see Beto as a high probability win because I don't see which States he safely adds to the board. He could put Texas in play, but he lost Texas, so it's at best 50-50 chance on election night, same math probably applies to Florida too given Gillum's loss as an inspirational figure.

This is another thing we have to stop, a third of Latinos voted for Republicans in 2018 and I think the number was about the same in 2016, despite everything Trump said in the campaign and has done as President. Picking a Latino because he's a Latino isn't going to move that number and might back fire. Even if it did help it would only run up the score in States we'll win anyway or have a low chance of winning (except PA, kinda). Only thing that matters is the rust belt, we can't safely win without it. Everything else is gravy that'll make us feel better, but it's a binary outcome, adding to 270 doesn't really matter.

By steak I assume we mean experience. If so, do we? Obama had none and ran one the cleanest White Houses ever, I'm not sure how more experience would have helped or how his lack of experience hurt.

I get that, and we should definitely try to get those States, all I'm saying is I'm not willing to gamble 4 more years of Trump on Florida, NC, or Arizona going blue. If they do it'll be within one or two points which is effectively a dice roll. Democrats need a path to victory that does not involve those states. As for Beto, maybe he is Obama 2.0, or maybe he's Booker 2.0. I don't think any of us really know, and I'm not comfortable rolling the dice on an unknown quantity that may not show up on debate night.

Those States would be nice pick ups, but if your election strategy depends on one of those States, you're rolling the dice. NC has a Democratic Governor but voted down Hillary in the same election and the Republican Governor was behind the bathroom bill that cost the state millions.

I don't see age as being a factor, the x factor that'll bring out the base and rust belt is simply are you full of shit or are you not full of shit. Trump is full of shit but it was a different kind of shit which is why the rust belt tried it. Given another opportunity to pick between Trump's shit and a "politician"'s shit, my fear is they'll go for Trump again just to make the point. I'm not convinced Beto isn't full of shit. He self moderated away from Medicare for All toward "Texas can lead the way" which means as much as "I'm with her". He also had the opportunity to take down one of the most flawed scumbags in DC and refused to hit Cruz. If a candidate can't guarantee this map in a blow out, they shouldn't run: Forget pipe dreams like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Arizona. This is the minimum requirement. The goal in the primary isn't to find who'll be the best President, it's who can beat Trump, that's it.

Simple test: can she get back the rust belt and make Trump her bitch during the debates?

(McGrath is a retired Destroyer skipper and very influential Navy consultant)

This assumes there aren't 20 Senate Republicans willing to convict.

Trump- "Cohen is weak unlike other people"

Hi collusion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/26/singing-amazing-grace-church-surrounded-an-ice-van-stop-an-arrest-were-jailed/?utm_term=.a012aa520182

From what I can tell it's all Army units, and US Northern Command has stated they aren't doing law enforcement, just Force Protection. What I'm asking is Force Protection a justifiable use of lethal force in the eyes of the States. If an FBI agent kills someone while doing FBI business it's up to the feds to determine if it's a good shoot or not, not the State. But the same FBI agent shoots someone breaking into his home, it's on the State to investigate. So if an Army MP isn't doing law enforcement and lights someone up, couldn't that fall on the State to investigate if it the shooting was justified under self defense laws?

What's the time difference? Was everything that happened 30 minutes ago?

Electro Magnetic is the same technology used in rollercoasters, steam melts Sailor's faces off in the shower.

Let's say Trump gets his massacre, could the States arrest the Commanding Officers for murder? They aren't on Federal property, Posse Comitatus of clearly is still in effect. Under what authority are they using deadly force since it isn't federal law enforcement?

None, he can't issue orders and the military can't follow them.

If the Air Force cleared him I can't see NASA being able to go after it given Air Force National Security launches are significantly more important than a NASA launch. That just seems like an easy avenue for appeal with the GAO. The Air Force isn't going to want NASA to threaten it's contractor over crap, especially with Falcon Heavy about to get approval for Air Force missions.

I thought the Air Force basically cleared him?

Eastern NC is still screwed but they're finally bringing in FEMA trailers.