Warren's healthcare plan taken at face value (as she describes it) will cost over $32T in the first ten years. That money is not there, nor enough of it will come from the rich and corporations as she claims. To date she will not answer the direct question of whether her plan will require raising taxes on the middle class. However, she will not be able to duck that question much longer; one of her clown car colleagues will make her answer it on the debate stage. The Repubs can hardly wait.

Since the states' rights thread is continued here from the 12sep19 Sandbox, I repost my comment from there - Arguing states' rights as a black/white hard-bounded notion is a fool's errand. States' rights is one of the most nuanced aspects of the Constitution which the Founders left us and warned us about. It has already caused one massive war (of Southern Independence) in our land. The Left today wants to use it to promote their temporary but effective means of destroying our historical culture, after which you will see no such thing as states' rights when their new massive Leviathan starts enforcing socialist central planning and control from on high. Meanwhile, their acolytes like PaulE use states' rights as bait for inconclusive debates that detour more critical examination of any given underlying issue and/or factors.

For the interested reader, note the continuing inability of progressives - e.g. Jig Wiggly's 918am - to parse those climate change skeptics into any other class than "deniers". Their intellectual spectrum is neither wide nor rich enough to understand the various categories of climate change critiques or the technical perspectives from which they originate. To them it's you either believe in Santa Claus or you don't, and their own belief is based on a horribly mangled understanding of the existing 'scientific consensus'. Of the 'thousands of scientists' they cite, even the IPCC explains that only a very few, maybe a handful, understand numerical modeling of complex systems well enough to assess the design and/or verity of the general circulation models upon which all the much publicized and prostituted predictions depend. And you can bet the ranch, that none of those few are willing to bet their ranch on the reliability of the GCM outputs.

Arguing states' rights as a black/white hard-bounded notion is a fool's errand. States' rights is one of the most nuanced aspects of the Constitution which the Founders left us and warned us about. It has already caused one massive war (of Southern Independence) in our land. The Left today wants to use it to promote their temporary but effective means of destroying our historical culture, after which you will see no such thing as states' rights when their new massive Leviathan starts enforcing socialist central planning and control from on high. Meanwhile, their acolytes like PaulE use states' rights as bait for inconclusive debates that detour more critical examination of any given underlying issue and/or factors.

Gregory 1208pm - Thanks Gregory; hadn’t heard of the term “distro” before.

RobertC. 1201pm - Undoubtedly there is some leakage. But political jurisdiction boundaries where public policies of tolerance and permissiveness start and stop are pretty crisp. I hope you are kidding about a “giant wall”, aren’t you?

Grlegory 1122am - Actually, there's nothing "Grandpa" about my new box. It will have the latest everything, and because of its larger container it will have room for enough A/C to run at very high clock speeds that laptops simply cannot handle. And since I have enough other portable boxes, the desktop Alienware was never moved. Anyway, that's the reasoning behind getting a new tower. Tell me more about the "linux distro".

RobertC 933am - As the purveyor of the new and improved logic in these pages Mr Cross, I think it's up to you to connect the dots of your implied argument - specifically, what does having been the mayor of a down-peninsula town then, have to do with the horrible culture and values SF promotes and has on display today?

Teretulemast Urve!

Actually, it turned out that Ivanka and Jared did not violate any govt protocols with their email handling - this was confirmed with Team Nadler deciding not to waste any bandwidth on dredging that up to support his drive for impeachment. And for those not familiar with the classified materials handling code, the President always has the final say in what is and isn't classified, and he has the power to do that peremptorily if he so desires - no further application or approvals are needed. Now the political ramifications of presidential treatment of heretofore classified materials are another matter altogether, as you are proving.

The evidence about Hillary’s crimes is abundant for an indictment (admitted unlawful sharing and exposing classified information, and operating an illegal email server for government business for openers). The decision not to indict her is political and not legal. Many people have been indicted, convicted, and are serving time for doing less. And none of this means that I want her locked up without due process. It’s the due process that has been omitted through political corruption. All this has been discussed ad nauseum in these pages, debated in the national media, and published, with citations, in books.

JBarron 1023am - Careful now Mr Barron, you're again speaking out of your ass. I have never advocated Hillary be peremptorily incarcerated. But I do believe that there is more than enough evidence to indict her for multiple crimes, and bring her to trial. The court will then decide her fate.

re BillT's 942am - What continues to amaze and frustrate me is that there is no outcry against leftwing prosecutors who accept a person as guilty with only unsupported allegations as 'evidence'. What law school did they graduate from, and why are they not pulled from office for obvious malfeasance as officers of the court? The same goes, of course, for rightwing prosecutors that are equally prominent and candidates for high office.

Fish `1240pm - And I am the proud bearer of the slings and arrows launched over the years at me by the local leftwing loonies. They, of course, knew all along what the agenda of autocrat socialists was - to secure the state, it must be the only institution with power to exercise force of arms. And so did many of us who oppose them and their terrifying agenda.

DonB 1101am - I guess that's what happens when you speak loudly and wave your little stick ;-)

RobertC 822am - Not sure about two wrongs making a right, but RR's comment streams are full of testimonials from the Left that such policies are totally acceptable when these serve their agendas. My only reason for pointing out 2012 was to counter the charge that somehow the Repubs are doing something new and underhanded in the upcoming primary season. As you see, that is not the case, and the charge was just due to a bit of amnesia.

It looks like the Repubs may take a page from the Dems’ 2012 playbook on primaries.

DonB 1254pm - That's an important point Mr Bessee. Liberals constantly cite PolitiFact as the issuer of stone tablets from the mount.

re JigW 1213pm - Another beautiful example of a desperate diversion when they attempt to debate without any visible support for their counters. Their narrative that everything is hunky-dory in California cannot countenance the net out-migration stats of the state's middle class and wealth producers.

ToddJ 1100am - Todd, pay attention. Please post this under the appropriate commentary. Thanks.