Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Politics 2019

MFS62
Dec 28 2018 08:37 AM

Somebody had to start this, too much stuff happening.



Later

Benjamin Grimm
Dec 28 2018 08:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Hope you don't mind, but I renamed this thread. There's not a whole lot of 2018 left!

MFS62
Dec 28 2018 06:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Hope you don't mind, but I renamed this thread. There's not a whole lot of 2018 left!


OK, as long as you can promise me that nothing post-worthy will happen between now and Tuesday.



Later

metsmarathon
Dec 28 2018 08:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, a bunch of the government is shut down, so I guess that helps.



Defense is still up though. Not sure if the president fully realized (or realizes) that the shutdown was only going to be part of the government.



That dude doesn't seem to understand much of how the damned thing works, for all of his smartness.

vtmet7
Dec 29 2018 04:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=146 time=1546052902 user_id=83]
...Not sure if the president fully realized (or realizes) that the shutdown was only going to be part of the government.



That dude doesn't seem to understand much of how the damned thing works, for all of his smartness.



true, but he does have some very dedicated mindless sheep that thinks that he walks on water

Benjamin Grimm
Dec 31 2018 08:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The first big hat is in the ring...


The thriving New York Times wrote:
Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat and a sharp critic of big banks and unregulated capitalism, entered the 2020 race for president on Monday, becoming the first major candidate in what is likely to be a long and crowded primary marked by ideological and generational divisions in a Democratic Party desperate to beat President Trump.



In an 8:30 a.m. email to supporters on New Year's Eve — 13 months before the first votes will be cast in the Iowa caucuses — Ms. Warren said she was forming an exploratory committee, which allows her to raise money and fill staff positions before a formal kickoff of her presidential bid. Ms. Warren also released a video that leaned on the anti-Wall Street themes, a campaign message that drew strong praise Monday morning from liberal groups.


https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/election-day-elizabeth-warren-party-01-ap-jc-181106_hpMain_12x5_992.jpg>

Edgy MD
Dec 31 2018 08:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not a supporter, but damn, it's nice to hear someone who gives substantive, thoughtful answers to policy questions.

Benjamin Grimm
Dec 31 2018 08:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't think she'll be my preference either, until and unless it comes down to her vs. Trump. But thought and substance are definitely qualities that are missed. I just finished reading a book about Harry Truman, and it seemed remarkable to have a president who took his job seriously and weighed the consequences of his potential actions. And that shouldn't be remarkable at all!

nymr83
Jan 02 2019 05:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Big Orange thought he was rid of Jeff Flake, well now he has a Republican critic in the Senate with much more name recognition



welcome to Washington Mitt!



As an opponent, Warren is a Trump-loyalist's dream, the next best thing to Hillary.



There are a half dozen democrats I think would crush him in a general election, she isn't one of them.

Centerfield
Jan 02 2019 08:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Big Orange thought he was rid of Jeff Flake, well now he has a Republican critic in the Senate with much more name recognition



welcome to Washington Mitt!



As an opponent, Warren is a Trump-loyalist's dream, the next best thing to Hillary.



There are a half dozen democrats I think would crush him in a general election, she isn't one of them.


I'd be curious to know who you think would crush him?



I agree that Warren would be Trump's choice for opponent.

nymr83
Jan 02 2019 12:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019


I'd be curious to know who you think would crush him?



I agree that Warren would be Trump's choice for opponent.


Personally I'd expect a trouncing by any of Biden, Booker, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Harris



Sanders is the only name I've seen regularly that is definitely "better" for Trump than Warren, in my opinion. But let's be real, he is no more a serious candidate than Ron Paul - he continues running to move party policy towards his preferred positions more than to actually win - something he has been successful at.



Looking at PREDICTITmarkets to gauge who the other 'serious' candidates are, I'll ignore Hillarity, dont really have an opinion on O'Rourke, and dont think the rest have a serious shot of getting there if they even run.

Edgy MD
Jan 02 2019 01:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Hasn't the Democratic Party changed their rules so that you have to be an actual party member to run in their primaries and cauci?

nymr83
Jan 02 2019 01:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Hasn't the Democratic Party changed their rules so that you have to be an actual party member to run in their primaries and cauci?


Not sure, but even if they have couldn't anyone who wanted to run still re-register?

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 02 2019 01:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If Elizabeth Warren can't beat Trump, then this country is seriously fucked up beyond belief. If Uncle Fester can't beat Trump, then this country is seriously fucked up. And Amy Klobuchar? She wants to restore the SCOTUS filibuster. Which the GOP will then nuke once again as soon as they're positioned to put another justice on the high court. So if Klobuchar gets her way, we'll have a system where the GOP needs a simple majority of 50/51 to confirm a justice while the Dems would need 60. And if Klobuchar wants to restore the SCOTUS filibuster, then it's a certainty that she'd never pack the courts. But she'll waffle on this issue if pressed on it during her inevitable presidential campaign. She'll be purposely vague and evasive and there won't be anybody in the audience to tell her that if she doesn't have a position on that issue, she shouldn't be running for president.



She should just resign. We need war-time consiglieres. Not this mamby pamby pollyanna lightweight.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 02 2019 09:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://nypost.com/2019/01/02/more-people-moved-out-of-this-state-than-any-other-in-america/amp/



New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut and New York top the nation in dwindling population. Chalk it up to a lack of affordable housing for the middle class and maybe the GOP's tax cut that eliminated the mortgage deduction. Jeez, New York used to have close to 50 electoral votes, but after the next census and redistricting cycle, it'll probably have less electoral votes than Florida, which is currently tied with New York with 29 electoral votes.

ashie62
Jan 02 2019 09:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I would like stronger border security

ashie62
Jan 02 2019 09:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

The first big hat is in the ring...


The thriving New York Times wrote:
Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat and a sharp critic of big banks and unregulated capitalism, entered the 2020 race for president on Monday, becoming the first major candidate in what is likely to be a long and crowded primary marked by ideological and generational divisions in a Democratic Party desperate to beat President Trump.



In an 8:30 a.m. email to supporters on New Year's Eve — 13 months before the first votes will be cast in the Iowa caucuses — Ms. Warren said she was forming an exploratory committee, which allows her to raise money and fill staff positions before a formal kickoff of her presidential bid. Ms. Warren also released a video that leaned on the anti-Wall Street themes, a campaign message that drew strong praise Monday morning from liberal groups.


https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/election-day-elizabeth-warren-party-01-ap-jc-181106_hpMain_12x5_992.jpg>


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Lefty Specialist
Jan 03 2019 08:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, anyone who's not comically corrupt and has two brain cells to rub together is better than Trump. I used to say that I have strong opinions, but I could never handle the presidency. After two years of Trump screwing up literally everything he touches, I've come to the conclusion I could hardly do any worse.



Warren annoyed me in that she allowed herself to get baited by Trump into taking a DNA test. That was a very foolish move. Against him I'd vote for her (and donate and knock on doors for her), but she's not my first choice.



Biden/ Bernie are too old, and I'm not a Bernie fan anyway.



Not sure Beto is the answer. He's not as progressive as I'd like on a lot of issues, and I'd like to see him run for senate in 2020 instead.



Cory Booker- No, No, No. Gives a good speech but there's 'no there there'.



Michael Bloomberg. No. Too old, too rich and there's that whole soda thing.



Just go away: Richard Ojeda, Martin O'Malley, John Delaney



Lots of others who haven't caught my fancy yet but are probably running: Sherrod Brown, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Eric Holder, Jay Inslee, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, and a couple dozen others.



Going to be a fun year.

Fman99
Jan 03 2019 09:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm sure Warren would draw all the same white-gal-hate that he tapped into last time.

seawolf17
Jan 03 2019 11:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Fman99 post_id=414 time=1546532667 user_id=86]
I'm sure Warren would draw all the same white-gal-hate that he tapped into last time.



Plus he gets bonus racism with the whole Native American thing! Warren is Trump's dream opponent.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 03 2019 11:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=seawolf17 post_id=426 time=1546538936 user_id=91]
=Fman99 post_id=414 time=1546532667 user_id=86]
I'm sure Warren would draw all the same white-gal-hate that he tapped into last time.



Plus he gets bonus racism with the whole Native American thing! Warren is Trump's dream opponent.


Yes, I'm afraid so. He'd turn her into Hillary's little sister. It's too bad because she has a lot of good ideas and the smarts to articulate and implement them. But she'll forever be Pocahontas to him and his minions.

seawolf17
Jan 03 2019 11:33 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And honestly, she's not going to win the red states, for exactly that reason. I agree that she's very smart and would be, in any reality other than the one we're living in, a wonderful candidate. But she's going to spend the next two years fighting about a DNA test rather than issues, which is going to hamstring her.



Can she bring enough to get the swing states? I honestly don't know.

ashie62
Jan 04 2019 01:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I am in favor of increased border security. Yes, some sort wall or barrier could help the influx of cocaine, meth and opiates.



It is simply not correct to say those who support the wall are fearful of the "browning of America." C'mon



It is if the democrats are allergic to strengthening border security, largely due to having more interest in the 2020 election than saving lives.



I support John Kasich for Prez at the moment and I would not underestimate Cory Booker.



Be well

metsmarathon
Jan 04 2019 07:15 AM
Re: Politics 2019

a wall will only [CROSSOUT]stop[/CROSSOUT] redirect a small portion of the drug flow into america.



much of the drug flow from mexico comes in concealed within passenger and commercial vehicles through legal points of entry. a wall does nothing to curtail this means of transport.

another significant flow of drugs comes in on small boats throughout florida. a wall does nothing to curtail this means of transport.

couriers flying into our airports bring with them another flow of drugs, concealed on their persons or within their baggage. a wall does nothing to curtail this means of transport.

our major shipping hubs carry in yet another stream of drugs, again concealed within cargo. a wall does nothing to curtail this means of transport.



and where there is a wall, it is readily circumvented by tunnels, drones, or even catapults. heck, even a ladder will do.



if there is a wall, it would still need to be patrolled and monitored fully and continuously to effectively stem the influx of drugs across it. and, heck, if you've gotta patrol and monitor it full time and across the whole dang thing, why build it in the first place...?



what a wall does do, is curb the flow rate of land-based animals. humans would seem to be the primary consideration here. are they really all gang members? via politifact, between 2012 and 2017, border patrol apprehended 159 unaccompanied alien children with either confirmed or suspected gang affiliations, of which 56 were suspected to be affiliated with ms-13. an unaccompanied alien child is one who has no lawful immigration status, and who has no parent or legal guardian in the us, and these are among the types of illegal immigrants that trump has railed against. so. 159 in the 5 years from 2012 to 2017. on average, around 45,000 unaccompanied minors are apprehended each year. so less than a tenth of a percent are gang-affiliated. maybe the gangs are hyper-effective at smuggling their members in, and if so, wouldn't they be able to outsmart a wall? regardless, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of unaccompanied minors are not gang members.



and if the real concern is gangs, then stopping illegal immigration isn't going to end that. what will end gangs is increased economic opportunities and access to the most disadvantaged and impoverished communities. give people a legal way to improve their station in life and they will not see criminal enterprise as the most viable pathway. it will stem both the recruiting base as well as the customer base, and make life better for all.



a wall does none of that.



and while it's not the primary consideration here, and for many it's a big ol' "who gives a shit", but a wall would also sever natural migration routes for land-based animals, as well as the seeds and what-not they might carry with them. and, to be effective, would also alter the drainage patterns for the region, with foreseeable effects on flash flooding, river flows, and even desertification. how large an effect is likely unclear, but those aren't really the things we should just go and do all will-nilly if it's also not going to have a great positive impact on its primary function of stopping drugs and criminals.



plus there's the issue of seizing private lands in order to build the wall. i thought conservatives were all about stopping government overreach?



furthermore, a large part of the pushback against "the wall" is that the overwhelming majority of the language in favor of building it tends to discount the fact that illegal immigrants are, in fact, human beings, little different from ourselves, seeking to find a better life. treating them as a monolithic pest instead of our equals is a disservice to them and to us. they come here poor and disadvantaged. of course they do - if not, they'd stay home!



much as i love this country, the people of america are no more deserving of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, simply because we find ourselves living in this great land, than those who are not so fortunate.



and if those arguing most fervently in favor of a wall are not concerned with the browning of america, why then do they frame their arguments in such terms? why then do they lament that those coming in are bringing their culture, their language, and their color with them? why is it an issue that spanish is increasingly spoken? why is it an issue that the percentage of the population that can be defined as caucasian (which is bullshit btw) is declining relative to other racial constructs? why should we care if more kids would be playing futbol than football? why do so much of the proponents of the wall lament a changing american society, as they are somehow of the notion that american society has ever, ever been remotely static?



now, maybe you don't hold those concerns. it would be unfair of me to assume that you do.



but the wall is shorthand for blocking certain kinds of people from having certain kinds of impacts to our imagined society. it is shorthand for the callous disregard of the humanity of those who might be different in some way.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 04 2019 07:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019


I am in favor of increased border security. Yes, some sort wall or barrier could help the influx of cocaine, meth and opiates.



It is simply not correct to say those who support the wall are fearful of the "browning of America." C'mon



It is if the democrats are allergic to strengthening border security, largely due to having more interest in the 2020 election than saving lives.



I support John Kasich for Prez at the moment and I would not underestimate Cory Booker.



Be well


Nobody's for 'open borders'. Really, nobody. There needs to be a fair and comprehensive immigration policy; there was actually a pretty good bipartisan plan in 2013 that got torpedoed by the Freedom Caucus and other right-wingers. There are things that can be done with technology. And remember that most of the illegal problem is actually people overstaying their visas, which a wall does absolutely nothing to address. As for drugs, border crossings need more technology and manpower. There need to be more judges to review asylum claims, which are not illegal, they're in the Constitution.



Understand this: THERE WILL NEVER BE A WALL. You can give Trump $1 trillion and it'll never happen. Just for starters, there are eminent domain issues that would tie this up for decades. In other places, it's just physically impossible to build a wall. If you've ever been to the Big Bend section of Texas, you'd know why. And a 30-foot wall for 2000 miles is a waste of money that could be put to far better use.

nymr83
Jan 04 2019 07:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019

why should we care if more kids would be playing futbol than football?


you had me until there. Mexicans like baseball so that's cool, but what if they were trying to replace baseball with soccer? then we'd have a problem. as it stands they are probably NOT displacing the NFL but crap ass hockey, so, cool!

seawolf17
Jan 04 2019 07:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This is the start of an excellent Twitter thread that looks at how completely insane the wall idea is.


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/1076224542589284353[/TWEET]

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 04 2019 07:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

How many times has Donald Trump claimed to be the ultimate expert on one thing or another?



Does he actually believe that's true?



And if so, he's got to be the only one, right?

nymr83
Jan 04 2019 07:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The thing is it is not that unusual, surely you know at least several people who think they are the expert on everything? i know i do.

nymr83
Jan 04 2019 07:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Great 'jobs report' this morning - I don't know which is more shocking - that CNN has it as a top story and FOX doesnt, or that the Tweeter-in-Chief hasn't bragged about it 5 times yet.

ashie62
Jan 06 2019 06:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Never say never

Lefty Specialist
Jan 08 2019 06:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So Trump wants 8 minutes of prime time to declare a 'national emergency'. Desperate much?



End game here is that he doesn't get the money for the wall but finds a way to declare victory anyway. His base believes all his other lies so what's one more.....



Meanwhile he's trashed a third of the government for no good reason. There IS a national emergency; it's named Donald J. Trump.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 08 2019 06:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This shutdown is like his favorite thing. He doesn't have to pay his employees!

MFS62
Jan 08 2019 07:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

How many times has Donald Trump claimed to be the ultimate expert on one thing or another?



Does he actually believe that's true?



And if so, he's got to be the only one, right?


Sadly, its true.



Let's summarize. The wall has gone from concrete to steel slats to fence.

What's next, straw?



Fact check time:

Trump says thousands of criminals.

Pence says 10 criminals per week have come across the southern border.

The homeland security person and the Sarah Huckabee have mentioned numbers between three and four thousand.

The Homeland Security official numbers were released and said that a total of SIX known criminals crossed the border in ONE YEAR.

Yes, he believes his number are true.



Some additional information to consider:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/9-things-know-trump-starts-090003864.html



Its time for some therapy.



Later

ashie62
Jan 08 2019 07:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Don't matter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is just soo dang hot

kcmets
Jan 08 2019 09:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=869 time=1546999599 user_id=90]Sarah Huckabee Sanders is just soo dang hot


Words 'uddered' not for $800, Alex.

MFS62
Jan 09 2019 07:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So the whole "emergency" speech last night was a gimmick to ask for money from his followers. The next time he asks for air time, while the speech is going on, the networks should play The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again.

Later

metsmarathon
Jan 09 2019 11:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So trump blames California for its wildfires and no longer wants to send fema funds there.



Doesn't the same logic apply for the next time there's flooding or tornadoes in any of them there red states in the middle of our nation?

cal sharpie
Jan 09 2019 02:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I got back yesterday from southern Arizona. Saw part of what wall there is (a big ugly rusty metal thing with ads for local Mexican businesses on their side). Didn't seem to be any crisis going on.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 09 2019 03:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Drumpf walked out of a meeting with congressional leaders after Nancy told him that even if he agreed to reopen the government, he wasn't getting his $5 billion for the wall. The art of the deal is a little tougher when you're across the table from Speaker Pelosi, doofus.

seawolf17
Jan 10 2019 07:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=893 time=1547058691 user_id=83]
So trump blames California for its wildfires and no longer wants to send fema funds there.



Doesn't the same logic apply for the next time there's flooding or tornadoes in any of them there red states in the middle of our nation?



No, he only gets angry at people who didn't vote for him. Because he's a fucking baby.

metsmarathon
Jan 10 2019 09:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

coincidentally, the camp fire happend in a country that voted for trump, albeit not overwhelmingly. i would hazard a guess that most of the woodsiest areas of california are redder than the cities. in fact, the county-by-county results would tend to bear that out.



strange to think that trump might have trouble with the idea that a "blue state" might not be uniformly, fully, and irrevocably blue....

Lefty Specialist
Jan 10 2019 10:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So, let's not lose sight of the fact that Trump's campaign manager gave polling data to a Russian agent so that they could more precisely target their attacks on our election. Tends to get overlooked in all the dust getting kicked up these days.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 10 2019 03:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Michael Cohen to testify publicly to the House Oversight Committee on February 7th. Popcorn futures surged in late trading.

metsmarathon
Jan 11 2019 08:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

y'know, if the wall really and truly were such a national emergency, wouldn't you think it would be so evidently obvious that there would be no need for hemming and hawing over whether or not it might maybe be made to fit the definition of national emergency if you squint really hard and wave your hands around a lot?

Lefty Specialist
Jan 11 2019 10:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Matt Gaetz (R-Of course) says he's against Trump declaring a national emergency because the next Democratic president might declare a national emergency to install trans bathrooms in every elementary school in America.

Edgy MD
Jan 11 2019 11:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

That's more or less what they should be concerned about.



Not the trans bathrooms, but defining down democratic norms. OF COURSE it's going to threaten to bite you in the ass.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 11 2019 09:20 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Today we learned that the FBI opened an inquiry in 2017 into whether the President of the United States was working as an agent for Russia.







Let that sink in for a minute.

MFS62
Jan 12 2019 05:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Today we learned that the FBI opened an inquiry in 2017 into whether the President of the United States was working as an agent for Russia.

Let that sink in for a minute.


It shouldn't take a whole minute.

His actions over the past few years have made me think he has a Russian-made microchip up his ass that they use to control him.



Later

Lefty Specialist
Jan 12 2019 08:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And that inquiry has been ongoing for the last 18 months or so. If I'm Bob Mueller, I don't imagine I sleep very well knowing the things I know.



Of course Individual One spent the morning tweeting about Hillary's collusion with the Russians.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 12 2019 12:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Two more Democratic hats in the ring for the 2020 White House race. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and former HUD Secretary Julio Castro of Texas.



Tulsi would certainly be our prettiest president ever. (Apologies to Martin Van Buren.)



https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/190111-tulsi-gabbard-president.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1>



https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/6c2eaf8/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-origin-images.politico.com%2F2012%2F09%2F120910_julian_castro_ap_328.jpg>

whippoorwill
Jan 12 2019 04:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Tulsi would certainly be our prettiest president ever. (Apologies to Martin Van Buren.)




Yes she would and hahaha

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 12 2019 05:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Today we learned that the FBI opened an inquiry in 2017 into whether the President of the United States was working as an agent for Russia.







Let that sink in for a minute.




Not only am I not shocked but this doesn't move my needle one Iota. I already assumed he was compromised long ago.This president has no boundaries and is capable of anything. If he was born into ordinary circumstances, he'd probably be a serial killer.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 12 2019 05:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, but Van Buren could rock a set of mutton chops like nobody else.

Edgy MD
Jan 13 2019 07:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Two more Democratic hats in the ring for the 2020 White House race. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and former HUD Secretary Julio Castro of Texas.



Tulsi would certainly be our prettiest president ever. (Apologies to Martin Van Buren.)>

In fairness, so would Secretary Castro.

ashie62
Jan 13 2019 03:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

No, Castro would be our prettiest president ever

whippoorwill
Jan 13 2019 03:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Che was cute too

Lefty Specialist
Jan 14 2019 05:31 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Maybe there's an IKEA solution to this crisis.



https://www.satoriandscout.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IKEA-Border-Wall-Instruction-Feature-570x381.jpg>

nymr83
Jan 15 2019 06:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump would totally shop at IKEA. "We are going to get a GREAT deal! The BEST deal!"

A Boy Named Seo
Jan 15 2019 03:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Is that John Goodman in a confirmation hearing for AG?

MFS62
Jan 15 2019 07:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Trump would totally shop at IKEA. "We are going to get a GREAT deal! The BEST deal!"


And then he wouldn't pay the people who put it together for him.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Jan 16 2019 06:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

A Boy Named Seo wrote:

Is that John Goodman in a confirmation hearing for AG?


Looks like John Goodman will do his best to bury the bad stuff from the Mueller report.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 16 2019 07:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/190111-tulsi-gabbard-president.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1>



Re: Tulsi Gabbard



She'll get nowhere in this primary. Voters won't go for a Republican in (pretty) Democratic clothes. She's about as right-wing as a Democrat gets, and she's a Fox News fantasy candidate.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 16 2019 07:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Add New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to the list of Democratic candidates.



https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/CnevtsqTuoqOiyjIQ_NBQw--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/gma/us.abcnews.go.com/gillibrand-ap-ml-181112_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg>

Frayed Knot
Jan 16 2019 07:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Although I think her campaign slogan: I'M WITH THE ONE WHO WAS APPOINTED TO REPLACE HER, needs some work.

Edgy MD
Jan 16 2019 07:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I STAND WITH GILLIBRAND!



KRISTEN IS A PISTON!



LORD, I WANT TO BE A KRISTEN!



Actually, I'm not sure I'M WITH THE ONE WHO WAS APPOINTED TO REPLACE HER is meaningfully worse than FIGHTING BACK MOVING FORWARD

Lefty Specialist
Jan 16 2019 08:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nice to have a buncha women to choose from. Kamala Harris is on deck, swinging a weighted bat.

Edgy MD
Jan 16 2019 08:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

VOTE FOR HARRIS! REJOIN PARIS!!



HARRIS WON'T EMBARRASS!!



GET KAMALA THROUGH THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE!!

Fman99
Jan 16 2019 09:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't know her super well, is she a Ugandan giant with constellation symbols painted on her belly by any chance?

seawolf17
Jan 16 2019 09:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Fman99 post_id=1241 time=1547656712 user_id=86]
I don't know her super well, is she a Ugandan giant with constellation symbols painted on her belly by any chance?


The WWE wouldn't be able to get away with half the stuff the WWF did back in the old days.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 16 2019 11:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:
GET KAMALA THROUGH THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE!!


I'D WALK A MILE FOR A KAMALA!

kcmets
Jan 16 2019 11:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=seawolf17 post_id=1243 time=1547657804 user_id=91]The WWE wouldn't be able to get away with half the stuff the WWF did back in the old days.


Kamala was funny, but yeah that shit wouldn't fly nowadays.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 16 2019 11:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nancy Pelosi just walloped Trump where it hurts most- in the ratings.



WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi, citing security constraints from the partial government shutdown, asked President Trump on Wednesday to scrap his Jan. 29 State of the Union address, and a bipartisan group of senators called on him to reopen the government while they negotiated a compromise on border security.



“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government reopens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has reopened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Ms. Pelosi said in a letter to Mr. Trump on Wednesday. She suggested he forego the annual presidential ritual of addressing a joint session of Congress in a televised speech during prime time and submit a written message instead.




https://i.redd.it/gvbvggj1lp321.png>

Willets Point
Jan 16 2019 01:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So, Trump just gets the networks to give him another prime time speech.

nymr83
Jan 16 2019 06:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, he'll submit a written report to fulfill the constitutional requirement and then read it out loud to applauding audience in west virginia on fox news.

LWFS
Jan 16 2019 07:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Is this more of a rebuke or an opportunity for Agent Orange?

Lefty Specialist
Jan 17 2019 06:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Oh, it's a rebuke.



Under normal circumstances, the State of the Union speech is crafted in a certain way; it lays out agendas, it has built-in applause lines, it has calls to patriotism, it has Americans sitting in the balcony that the president tells an uplifting story about. It also has one thing somewhere that both Democrats and Republicans can stand and cheer for. It has majesty.



Taking that out of the setting of the House chamber removes all of that. If he takes it to West Virginia in front of red-hatted coal miners, it's just another campaign speech. It belittles him. If he does it from the Oval Office, it'll look like a hostage video and he won't get that applause he craves.



And the part about submitting it in writing was just to get under his skin, which I'm sure it has.

nymr83
Jan 17 2019 12:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He just sent a letter to Pelosi that he won't be allowing military aircraft to take her on her planned trip to Europe and the Middle East.



Obviously this is just a tit-for-tat move on his part, though I do agree that if he shouldn't give a speech before Congress during the shutdown then she certainly shouldn't be spending a week out of the country.

Frayed Knot
Jan 17 2019 01:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There's nothing sacred about the SotU being delivered as a speech (televised or otherwise) before a joint session (or even a sober one) of Congress. All the constitution requires is that the

President periodically inform Congress on the state of the union (not even sure if the time frame is specified).



I know that George Will has, for years now so this pre-dates anything to do with Trump specifically, been advocating doing away with the dog and pony show that the SotU speech has morphed into during the television age. It can be, and for much of the history of the country was, done in writing and simply delivered down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader (or he can etch it on a brick and throw it through their windows). Of course this all assumes a POTUS that can actually put a grammatical paragraph or three together that might even exceed 140 characters so it might not work in this case.



And we know that this current pissing match has nothing to do with turning the SotU back into an actual assessment rather than an ongoing campaign stop complete with laundry to-do list of policies that won't get done and/or pre-planned applause lines and "surprise" guest appearances, but I wound't mind seeing it go away no matter what the cause.

nymr83
Jan 17 2019 01:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't disagree that it is pointless, but Pelosi isn't trying to stop it for that reason.

kcmets
Jan 17 2019 02:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Maybe he can deliver the SotU Address in several maniacal tweets and be done with it.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 17 2019 02:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Rumor is she'd already cancelled it a few days ago because of the shutdown, but had kept the potential trip a secret for security reasons.

MFS62
Jan 17 2019 02:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=1320 time=1547754121 user_id=54]
He just sent a letter to Pelosi that he won't be allowing military aircraft to take her on her planned trip to Europe and the Middle East.



Obviously this is just a tit-for-tat move on his part, though I do agree that if he shouldn't give a speech before Congress during the shutdown then she certainly shouldn't be spending a week out of the country.



More to it than him just him being a vindictive little ..... (rhymes with witch). Her first stop was to have been to Brussels to meet with NATO ministers, and that would have highlighted his plan to leave that organization.



Later

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 17 2019 02:37 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/190111-tulsi-gabbard-president.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1>



Re: Tulsi Gabbard



She'll get nowhere in this primary. Voters won't go for a Republican in (pretty) Democratic clothes. She's about as right-wing as a Democrat gets, and she's a Fox News fantasy candidate.






She's lucky she's only running for President, and not looking for a gig hosting the Oscars.






CBS News wrote:

Tulsi Gabbard apologizes for previous remarks about LGBTQ people

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, posted a video to Twitter Thursday apologizing for her previous remarks about LGBTQ issues, as those comments have plagued her newly launched presidential candidacy.



As a 21-year-old running for the Hawaii state legislature in 2002, Gabbard boasted about supporting her father, an anti-gay activist, in his effort to promote the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed in 1998. After her election, she continued to espouse anti-gay views. In 2004, she opposed a bill legalizing civil unions.



"To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," Gabbard said at the time, according to CNN's KFile. "As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."



Gabbard apologized to LGBTQ activists in the state when running for Congress in 2012. Since entering Congress, she has supported a number of bills promoting LGBTQ equality. She has said that her initial views reflected her socially conservative upbringing.



"In my past, I said and believed things that were wrong, and worse, they were very hurtful to people in the LGBTQ community and to their loved ones," Gabbard said in the video posted to Twitter Thursday. She said that she was "sincerely" repeating her apology from 2012. "My record in Congress over the past six years reflects what is in my heart," Gabbard added.



"My father was very outspoken. He was an activist who was fighting against gay rights and marriage equality in Hawaii – and at that time, I forcefully defended him," Gabbard said. "But over the years, as I grew up, I formed my own opinions, based on my life experiences."



Gabbard also said that she hoped her change of heart could inspire other people who may hold anti-gay views.



"I look forward to being able to share more of my story and experiences growing up – not as an excuse, but in the hopes that it may inspire others to truly live aloha, to love and care for others," Gabbard said.

Edgy MD
Jan 17 2019 09:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's not like President Obama didn't get elected opposing gay marriage. She flipped around the same time the president did.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 18 2019 05:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

She's also had some questionable things in her past about abortion, Muslims, Bashar al-Assad and a tendency to pick fights with the Democratic establishment. She has few friends in DC and it's going to be hard for her to gain traction in a field where at least 3 other women are going to be far more palatable to the average Democratic primary voter.

metsmarathon
Jan 18 2019 06:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

while i delight in the shade pelosi threw with the written submittal line, and can only imagine trump furiously scribbling his response, scratching out the "you can fly commercial" line over and over again until he felt it was just right, cackling over how humorous he was in his own mind and how much he just owned her, while constantly glancing over at her letter to make sure he matched it point for point. it just reads like the snitty response of a younger brother who just lost the upper hand in a battle over video games.



"i regret to inform you that you're a butthead, and i'm taking my mariokart disk. since you're so cool and won't let me play fortnite with you and your friends, you can't drive a race car and throw shells and stuff. obviously, if you still want to play with cars, there's a pile of hotwheels behind the couch." [thinks to self] ooh, i totally got him there -ha!

Willets Point
Jan 18 2019 08:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxKfAe3X0AAD_dJ.jpg>

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jan 18 2019 08:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Pelosi's folks now casting Trump's letter as a security threat.



Meanwhile Buzzfeed has another bombshell.



They should air Cohen at halftime of the SuperBowl

Lefty Specialist
Jan 18 2019 11:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

If Trump suborned perjury by Cohen to Congress, that's pretty serious. As in impeachment serious.



It also means that he's subject to blackmail as the Russians obviously knew what was going on. If you do something with the Russians- anything- and then you lie about it, and they KNOW you're lying about it, they have you.



There's nothing wrong with building a hotel in Moscow. Building a hotel while running for president, a bit unseemly, but not criminal. Having discussions about building a hotel in Moscow and lying to Congress and the FBI about it when asked, THAT'S criminal.



Lying about it when the Russians know the whole story- that's Kompromat.

Edgy MD
Jan 19 2019 01:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's really worrisome. If that story doesn't hold up, it feeds Trump's narrative to his supporters that he's the target of a persecution campaign.



And no other outlet has confirmed Buzzfeed's story (and you KNOW they are desperately running to their sources to try to substantiate it). The old joke in journalism is that the best thing to have is a scoop, but the worst thing to have is a scoop that stays a scoop.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 19 2019 07:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So....Trump takes away DACA and Temporary Protected Status programs. (Or at least tries to, it's tied up in the courts)



He offers a short-term (not permanent) reinstatement of the programs he tried to terminate in return for giving him all his Wall Money.



Pelosi and the Democrats rightly laughed in his face. It's like a bank robber returning the money and expecting to collect a reward. This winner was a Jared Kushner special, so make of that what you will.

nymr83
Jan 19 2019 08:56 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

It's really worrisome. If that story doesn't hold up, it feeds Trump's narrative to his supporters that he's the target of a persecution campaign.



And no other outlet has confirmed Buzzfeed's story (and you KNOW they are desperately running to their sources to try to substantiate it). The old joke in journalism is that the best thing to have is a scoop, but the worst thing to have is a scoop that stays a scoop.


#FAKENEWS

Edgy MD
Jan 20 2019 08:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think there's a big difference between a story nobody else can substantiate and fake news.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 20 2019 11:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

[YOUTUBE]bXaRO4eTaiU[/YOUTUBE]



It's Hump Day! We've survived two years of the Trump 'administration' (barely). Only two more (hopefully) to go.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 20 2019 01:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

We've survived two years of the Trump 'administration' (barely)....


Ya Gorsuch for life think Kavanaugh for life so a record setting number of lower court confirmations -- almost all GOP political hack operatives and wingnuts? I don't.



It's too bad so many of those rampaging pussy hatters decided to figure out how the government works the day after election day. The day before, they voted for Jill Stein or stayed at home. They might be paying for it for the rest of their lives. We'll see if the Dems have the balls (and the pussies) to pack the courts when they're in power again. Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez probably do. Schumer, I dunno. There's no other fix, unless you think that waiting patiently for 40 years, hoping for Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to leave the bench under a Dem controlled government is a reasonable option.

nymr83
Jan 20 2019 03:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I think there's a big difference between a story nobody else can substantiate and fake news.


The specific "reporter" (Jason Leopold) here has been caught lying before and not surprisingly always against Republicans. He is #FakeNews.



Mueller even shot it down and he didn't need to say a word - he was likely worried that having total falsehoods like this attached to his investigation would be damaging to his credibility and wanted distance. if it was true, he could have just said "we don't comment..."

Edgy MD
Jan 20 2019 09:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

No, he is not #FakeNews. Nor is he the sole reporter.



He is, among other things, the guy who forced the State Department to release non-Republican Hillary Clinton's non-Republican e-mails.



He's certainly blown it on reporting at times — gotten too far ahead of the facts. But that's not what fake news is. There is a big difference between recklessness and fraud.



Mueller didn't shoot anything down. A spokesperson from the Independent Counsel's office released a statement saying “BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate.”



It doesn't discuss which part was inaccurate, or claim in any way that the whole of the reporting is incorrect.



And speaking of frauds, the president isn't a Republican.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 21 2019 06:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Now officially in the 2020 race, California Senator Kamala Harris.



https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2018/10/RTS19N0P/lead_720_405.jpg?mod=1540568009>

A Boy Named Seo
Jan 21 2019 08:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I like her a lot.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 21 2019 01:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I would not be displeased if she were the nominee. But we're still a year from the first primary so it remains to be seen how all of these candidates react/campaign/raise money/deal with the inevitable Trump insults.



There's not a lot of policy daylight between Gillibrand/Warren/Harris (or Booker or Brown or Beto or anyone else except Tulsi). So I hope that this doesn't descend into personal attacks, because that's what often happens when you're trying to stand out in a crowd and there's not much difference on the issues.

nymr83
Jan 21 2019 07:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019

maybe Donald can give them all names to call each other!

metsmarathon
Jan 22 2019 06:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So. It just occurred to me.



The $5B that the government is shutdown over. It's not for the full wall. It's just for some more of the same or similar fencing that we already have.



That apparently doesn't work, because otherwise why would we need “the wall”?



And that would need to be replaced when Mexico pays for the big wall, because it's clealry not as good.



So... why are we doing this again???

nymr83
Jan 22 2019 06:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Because Trump needs funding for something he can claim is a "wall". And Democrats need to say they denied funding for a "wall." And thats what its all about.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 22 2019 07:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

There are many ways to enhance border security, most of which are being ignored by Trump. Democrats should authorize exactly $5.7 billion for those and tell him to shove his wall.

metsmarathon
Jan 22 2019 08:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Because Trump needs funding for something he can claim is a "wall". And Democrats need to say they denied funding for a "wall." And thats what its all about.


Well that's just the thing right? Trump is himself saying that this wall Money is a waste, isn't he?

A Boy Named Seo
Jan 22 2019 08:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm surprised few (none?) on the right are pissed that he's demanding $5.7B of taxpayer money even though he's already said the wall (or the Wall) is being paid for and then some by Mexico via nafta 2.0. If you love the idea of a free wall and voted for Trump because of it, well now what?

Lefty Specialist
Jan 22 2019 09:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Where are the pesos?

nymr83
Jan 22 2019 09:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

A Boy Named Seo wrote:

I'm surprised few (none?) on the right are pissed that he's demanding $5.7B of taxpayer money even though he's already said the wall (or the Wall) is being paid for and then some by Mexico via nafta 2.0. If you love the idea of a free wall and voted for Trump because of it, well now what?


Obviously thats just campaign rhetoric, but lets take seriously for a moment his claim that Mexico is essentially paying for it through the increased money we are making off the new trade deal - even if that were true, Congress would still need to authorize the spending.



If our system is functioning properly, Mexico could go so far as to write us a check with "Trump's Wall" in the memo space and Congress would STILL need to authorize the spending.

A Boy Named Seo
Jan 22 2019 10:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

That's sorta my point.



Edit: and reducing "Mexico is going to pay for the wall" as merely campaign rhetoric is completely disingenuous.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 23 2019 07:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Because of course they did.



Trump's Social Media Photos Reportedly Altered to Make Him Look Thinner and His Hands Bigger

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 23 2019 08:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Because of course they did.



Trump's Social Media Photos Reportedly Altered to Make Him Look Thinner and His Hands Bigger


#fakenews

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jan 23 2019 11:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Reading up on newly declared 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg who seems to check some new boxes.



He's Rhodes scholar, Afganistan vet and 2-term mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Oh, and he's 37 and gay.



Seems to me like a Veep to a Coastal woman prez candidate. I could also see an intellectual gay guy destroying your typical R VP candidate in a debate.

nymr83
Jan 23 2019 11:19 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

Reading up on newly declared 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg who seems to check some new boxes.



He's Rhodes scholar, Afganistan vet and 2-term mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Oh, and he's 37 and gay.



Seems to me like a Veep to a Coastal woman prez candidate. I could also see an intellectual gay guy destroying your typical R VP candidate in a debate.


Pence is a lot smarter and well spoken than you are giving him credit for. they aren't all Sarah Palin.

Edgy MD
Jan 23 2019 11:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Vice President Pence is also a tremendous phony who cynically hitched his wagon to horrible person. He should be vulnerable as Hell in a debate.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 23 2019 12:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Pence isn't a complete idiot; he was a talk-show host before becoming a congressman, governor, and Trump's cigar-store indian. He held his own against Tim Kaine (not exactly Mr. Excitement himself) in their 2016 debate. Having to defend 4 years of Trump could be tough for anyone not named, well, Trump.



What I want is an investigation of that presidential transition that he ran. Pence does the 'aw- shucks' routine pretty well, but he knew more than he's letting on about the Russian shenanigans. Reel him in, Mueller.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 23 2019 12:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump tells Pelosi he'll deliver State of the Union in the House on Tuesday



Pelosi will have to room closed and the doors locked. Will he show up and pound on the door? Will Nancy lay down a trail of Big Macs to divert him?



The fact that he's saying this means Pelosi knew exactly where to hurt him. He can only look silly unless he does it from the Oval Office.

nymr83
Jan 23 2019 12:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Trump tells Pelosi he'll deliver State of the Union in the House on Tuesday



Pelosi will have to room closed and the doors locked. Will he show up and pound on the door? Will Nancy lay down a trail of Big Macs to divert him?



The fact that he's saying this means Pelosi knew exactly where to hurt him. He can only look silly unless he does it from the Oval Office.


he doesnt have the demeanor to pull off giving a staged speech outside the locked doors and blaming her. Could McConnell unilaterally invite him to address the Senate with a hand-picked audience? i dont know the rules

Lefty Specialist
Jan 23 2019 12:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The Senate is a much smaller room. And they need 60 votes to approve the motion inviting him, which could be awkward. Mitch isn't going to put it to a vote unless he thinks it'll pass. Right now it probably wouldn't.



Normally this wouldn't even be an issue. The difference is that, well, Trump's a dick.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 23 2019 01:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump can't deliver the SOTU from the House without a resolution passing in both chambers. I assume the same rules apply should Trump want to deliver his speech from the Senate floor. Also, Pelosi can set the Capitol police on Trump for trespassing should Trump try to force his way in. Charles Pierce opines that Trump wrote his letter about storming his way into the House at the suggestion of and because he's surrounded by boobs who have no idea how the government works.





https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26012617/trump-state-of-the-union-letter-pelosi/

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 23 2019 02:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

[Quote]Back at the White House, Mr. Trump offered a quick retort [after Pelosi rebuked Trump's attempted SOTU speech], telling reporters: “I'm not surprised. It's really a shame what's happening with the Democrats. They've become radicalized.”



It's about time. This Pelosi is a hellraiser with majority backing.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 23 2019 05:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://images.dailykos.com/images/635618/large/Trump_Pelosi_Carrot-TV-Camera.jpg?1548267521>

A Boy Named Seo
Jan 23 2019 06:16 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Seriously this. ↑↑↑



I'm half expecting him to buckle on the $5.7B this weekend and proclaim himself the winner just so he can get his ass on TV, in Nancy's house, with her standing behind him looking like I would feel if I had to sit behind him during the SOTU.

Edgy MD
Jan 23 2019 06:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, ge may get a bee his bonnet about capitulating, just so he can get the last word in to a universal audience and tear her a new one while she has to sit there.



I mean, I would put that past almost anybody else, but ...

MFS62
Jan 23 2019 07:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

She will be more professional sitting behind him than he did standing behind Hillary while grimacing and gesturing during one of the debates. She could have won the election if she had turned around and said, "Please sit down until it is your turn in front of the camera, and nobody should trust you behind them."

Later

LWFS
Jan 23 2019 10:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He's going to wait on the SOTU, he Tweets (and in doing so, sounds very unlike himself).


As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an alternative venue, because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a "great" State of the Union Address in the near future!

MFS62
Jan 24 2019 06:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019


He's going to wait on the SOTU, he Tweets (and in doing so, sounds very unlike himself).


As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an alternative venue, because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a "great" State of the Union Address in the near future!



That was after someone told him to write "I cannot mess with Nancy Pelosi" 100 times on the chalk board.





Later

Lefty Specialist
Jan 24 2019 06:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nancy's applying the lesson that other world leaders learned very early- appeal to his vanity.



In her case, deny him the opportunity to display his vanity and make him look foolish in the process. So far, so good.



What really needs to happen is a TSA strike. I know they're not allowed, but maybe a 100% 'sick-out' might get the message across to the millions in Trump's base who are saying, "Hell, I'm not affected, maybe we don't need that damn gummint after all!"

Edgy MD
Jan 24 2019 04:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

"Where Do They Find These Dicks? Chapter 28."



Nice appointment, Governor DeSantis.

nymr83
Jan 24 2019 04:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

dumb move by the guy, but how is DeSantis supposed to know about a 14 year old picture? a picture that may not have even been "public" until someone who had access to a copy saw a political purpose to releasing it?

MFS62
Jan 24 2019 05:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019


dumb move by the guy, but how is DeSantis supposed to know about a 14 year old picture? a picture that may not have even been "public" until someone who had access to a copy [CROSSOUT]saw a political purpose to[/CROSSOUT] followed his moral compass in releasing it?

I fixed that for you.



Later

Lefty Specialist
Jan 24 2019 05:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Just checked …...and yeah, blackface was racist in 2005, too.

Edgy MD
Jan 24 2019 07:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019


dumb move by the guy, but how is DeSantis supposed to know about a 14 year old picture? a picture that may not have even been "public" until someone who had access to a copy saw a political purpose to releasing it?

He's not supposed to know about a photo. He supposed to vet his appointments, and if he cares to, weed out the dicks. He either didn't care, or simply failed utterly.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 24 2019 08:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019


dumb move by the guy, but how is DeSantis supposed to know about a 14 year old picture? a picture that may not have even been "public" until someone who had access to a copy saw a political purpose to releasing it?


Give me a break. DeSantis is a fucking racist twenty times over. Anyone that thinks so lightly of African-Americans that he would suppress their vote and prevent them from participating in the voting process to advance his own political agenda is a fucking racist. Old confederacy? Like it ever went away. It just went underground. And not even that anymore with now, the racist in chief that desecrates the White House every single day.

Edgy MD
Jan 24 2019 08:35 PM
Re: Politics 2019

“It's unfortunate,” the governor added while speaking to reporters at a press conference on hurricane relief. “He's done a lot of good work.”



The governor said he accepted the resignation because “I don't want to get mired in side controversies.”

Nothing about being appalled on behalf of the people of Florida. Nothing about being appalled on behalf of the people of Louisiana. Nothing about being appalled on behalf of victims of natural disasters, of which Florida has known a few.



Nothing about being appalled on behalf of people of African descent everywhere. Nothing about being appalled on behalf of women, on behalf of black women who have had to live with the stigma and stereotype of the so-called "welfare queen" their whole lives, and now have it confirmed that those in power encourage that bullshit.



No sense of solidarity or compassion with anyone — except a twinge of sadness for the hateful jerk he had to let go of, not to make Florida a more just and kind state, but because he can't let his governorship be affected by distractions, or as he says, "get mired in side controversies," as if there are two sides to the question of whether it's OK to be a hateful racist asshole on Halloween.



DeSantis, let us not forget, advertised that he is fit to be Florida's governor because of his embrace of the cult of President Trump, and his willingness to indoctrinate his children into it.



[YOUTUBE]z1YP_zZJFXs[/YOUTUBE]



By all means, defend Republicans, but as the party has let themselves be utterly transformed into a terrifying parade of spectres, with ignorance and authoritarianism marching in lockstep, PLEASE find one or two truly worth defending. These dicks aren't them.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 25 2019 07:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Roger Stone finally arrested, and Mueller has lots of details about how he worked with Wikileaks and the Trump campaign.



https://images.dailykos.com/images/530003/large/wof-all-going-die-in-prison.jpg?1523356525>

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 25 2019 08:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

_NLESS THEY A_E

PA_DONED FI_ST

Fman99
Jan 26 2019 04:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think his biggest motivation in ending the shutdown was that he can now give his precious televised State of the Union address. He could give a fig about unpaid Americans.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 26 2019 07:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nancy didn't even give him that. There'll be no SOTU until this is all finished.



He lost utterly. What he agreed to was what was on the table 35 days ago, so these 5 weeks of shit were completely his fault. He knew it, too, from his defeated quickie press conference yesterday. He won't try to shut the government down again.



Trump was owned. By a girl.

metsmarathon
Jan 26 2019 11:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

What a looser

41Forever
Jan 27 2019 09:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is about to throw his hat in the ring -- as an independent.



[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/27/run-howard-run/?utm_term=.a6c68b15c6a8

Lefty Specialist
Jan 27 2019 10:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is about to throw his hat in the ring -- as an independent.



[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/27/run-howard-run/?utm_term=.a6c68b15c6a8


One of the side-effects of The Age of Trump is that a lot of people think they can run for president because they think they're smarter and better than Trump.



The bar for Presidenting has been lowered enormously.

Edgy MD
Jan 27 2019 11:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Schultz has always struck me as another narcissist. But he can totally swing a lot more votes than Jill Stein ever did.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 27 2019 03:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Schultz has always struck me as another narcissist. But he can totally swing a lot more votes than Jill Stein ever did.


Great. Vote for him.

Edgy MD
Jan 27 2019 04:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not sure why you wrote that, but gosh, no.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 29 2019 12:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Howard Schultz the 'centrist' seems to be mainly concerned that we don't spend any money and don't raise taxes on really, really rich people....you know, like Howard Schultz. Smattering of liberal views like being pro-choice. Doesn't like giving people health care as evidenced by his time at Starbucks.



And running as an 'independent' allows him to sidestep those messy things like primary fights, where your views might get challenged and debated and you might (gasp) lose. Better to just declare yourself the winner and go right to the general election. It's a vanity project and let's hope it drowns in a sea of latte foam.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jan 29 2019 12:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

[YOUTUBE]X4Eb-KxSTPE[/YOUTUBE]

nymr83
Jan 29 2019 03:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Howard Schultz the 'centrist' seems to be mainly concerned that we don't spend any money and don't raise taxes on really, really rich people....you know, like Howard Schultz. Smattering of liberal views like being pro-choice. Doesn't like giving people health care as evidenced by his time at Starbucks.



And running as an 'independent' allows him to sidestep those messy things like primary fights, where your views might get challenged and debated and you might (gasp) lose. Better to just declare yourself the winner and go right to the general election. It's a vanity project and let's hope it drowns in a sea of latte foam.


I thought Starbucks, despite having burnt coffee that tastes like shit, was considered one of the better companies for healthcare, offering it to all employees before doing so was mandated?

ashie62
Jan 29 2019 08:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Shut the airlines on the 15th, solved

Lefty Specialist
Jan 30 2019 08:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=2012 time=1548802396 user_id=54]I thought Starbucks, despite having burnt coffee that tastes like shit, was considered one of the better companies for healthcare, offering it to all employees before doing so was mandated?



Yeah, got a bit out over my skis on that one. Based on the griping a friend of my son's, who's working as a barista while he's waiting for his band to break big. They mess with his hours and it took him a while to get covered. But they actually have a health care plan (although it's a bit expensive for someone making minimum wage or close to it.)



Management regrets the error. But Howard Schultz still shouldn't be anywhere near a presidential run.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 30 2019 03:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Sarah Sanders: God 'wanted Donald Trump to become president'


"I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president," Sanders said. "And that's why he's there,


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/427730-sarah-sanders-god-wanted-donald-trump-to-become-president



____________



What a crock of shit this is because I had lunch with God yesterday and God told me that he didn't want Trump to become president, so I know this from first hand knowledge. As usual, Huckabee is full of shit, the fucking pathetic liar that she always is.

nymr83
Jan 30 2019 04:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I wouldnt even consider voting for him either, I was suprised by the starbucks comment as i had heard otherwise before.

LWFS
Feb 01 2019 09:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I just wanted to let you guys know: my family and I have decided that I will not be pursuing the Democratic nomination for President in 2020.

metsmarathon
Feb 01 2019 11:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Me, I'm still on the fence. I mean, I want to run very much. I'm just not sure that it's the right time yet.

Edgy MD
Feb 01 2019 12:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The first step is admitting that you ARE a runner.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 01 2019 12:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Cory Booker running for President. I'm betting he'll be one of the first to drop out. There's not a lane for him in this primary. I've always thought of him as all sizzle but no steak. Talks a good game, but there's not much else. I'll be interested to see if he rejects PAC money, since some of his biggest fans are Wall Street types.

Willets Point
Feb 01 2019 01:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He's basically the candidate for people who want to see if Hillary Clinton would do better as a black man.

Edgy MD
Feb 01 2019 01:44 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Owitch.

nymr83
Feb 01 2019 06:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:

He's basically the candidate for people who want to see if Hillary Clinton would do better as a black man.


or without 40 years of baggage?



I think he'd do just fine in a general election. i don't know that he has a great path to get there

nymr83
Feb 01 2019 06:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019



dumb move by the guy, but how is DeSantis supposed to know about a 14 year old picture? a picture that may not have even been "public" until someone who had access to a copy saw a political purpose to releasing it?


Give me a break. DeSantis is a fucking racist twenty times over. Anyone that thinks so lightly of African-Americans that he would suppress their vote and prevent them from participating in the voting process to advance his own political agenda is a fucking racist. Old confederacy? Like it ever went away. It just went underground. And not even that anymore with now, the racist in chief that desecrates the White House every single day.


Where is your call for Northam's resignation?

Edgy MD
Feb 01 2019 08:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

it's so sweet that you guys is talking.

nymr83
Feb 01 2019 08:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

it's so sweet that you guys is talking.


The governor "apologized" but wouldn't admit which of the two people in the photo was him. I'm guessing the Klansman since that is much worse than the blackface and If I were the dude in blackface I'd want to distance myself from the Klansman ASAP. otoh, voluntarily appearing next to the Klansman while wearing the blackface probably makes you on par with him.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 02 2019 03:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Should have resigned yesterday. I can't believe that oppo research didn't pick this up somewhere along the way; couldn't have been that hard to find.





Also hard to believe that two political careers weren't ended by these youthful indiscretions:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=4IrE6FMpai8

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 03 2019 12:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019




dumb move by the guy, but how is DeSantis supposed to know about a 14 year old picture? a picture that may not have even been "public" until someone who had access to a copy saw a political purpose to releasing it?


Give me a break. DeSantis is a fucking racist twenty times over. Anyone that thinks so lightly of African-Americans that he would suppress their vote and prevent them from participating in the voting process to advance his own political agenda is a fucking racist. Old confederacy? Like it ever went away. It just went underground. And not even that anymore with now, the racist in chief that desecrates the White House every single day.


Where is your call for Northam's resignation?


Unless Northam has convincing proof that he's not in that picture -- tough to pull off having already apologized- -- he should resign. Now give me a paragraph on Cindy Hyde-Smith.

Centerfield
Feb 04 2019 04:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dya2lBaWoAIb697.jpg>



You know, I really tried with Tiger. Tried to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as I could.



And I get that he may have been friends with him ahead of time. But with everything that he's done. To go out there and take a smiley pic with him, and laugh and joke for 18 holes.



Fuck it. I'm done. He's been setting off douchebag signals for a while, but now I'm just done.



I hope he and Tom Brady and Robert Kraft have a great time being dickheads with each other.



Also super disappointed in Jack. But I guess he designed the course. Whatever.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 05 2019 01:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's not a surprise that stupidly wealthy people would play golf with Trump. In fairness to Tiger, he's played a few rounds with Obama as well.



Meanwhile Coffee Boy doesn't like that people call him a billionaire. He prefers the term 'people of wealth'. Seriously. Arrogant asshole.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 05 2019 03:13 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-New-Yorker-logo.jpg>



Cultural Comment

Get Up and Go Vote



By Roger Angell


Back in 1992, I published a piece about voting at the Y on Lexington Avenue. “At the Y, nothing has changed,” I wrote:



Around the room, the machines' shabby curtains snap open and bang shut; the vestal poll-watchers bend low over their thick volumes; and once again I have forgotten the number of my assembly district. Redirected, I sign my name above an amazing column of perfect prior replicas, in various inks: my straight A's in civics. I get in line and, for this once, don't mind its length or slowness. Inside at last, I flip the pleasing levers and then check my “X”s one more time; it's all done so quickly that I linger a moment longer. . . . Then I grab the lever, record myself with a manly fling, and walk out, shriven, to go to work.



I went on to say that I'd fallen “a long way from the hot certainties of my twenties and thirties, when I would argue politics with my friends and family by the hour and the day and the night,” and fired off “burning letters to my congressman and dialled Western Union before bedtime with still another telegram to the White House. No more. I have no wish to sort out here what happened to me, what happened to us all, when our politics went onto the tube, for we know that story by heart. We are consumers of politics now, and hardly participants at all.”



Editing this piece now, before your eyes, I'd say that I like and stand behind my paean to the voting machine, whose absence I mourn each November—the pure and pearl-like oddity that so well matched the strangeness and beauty of voting. On the other hand, I could do without my hurried complaints about the massive shift of national politics from newspapers and radio onto television (the “tube,” as we called it then).



What I need to add here, in 2018, by contrast, is my reconversion from the distanced and gentlemanly 1992 Roger to something akin to the argumentative and impassioned younger me, which began with the arrival of Donald Trump in our politics and our daily lives. In a New Yorker piece posted the week before the 2016 election, I wrote that my first Presidential vote was for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1944, when I was a young Air Force sergeant stationed in the Central Pacific. I went on to say that, seventy-two years later, defeating Trump made that immediate election the most important of my life. Alarmed as I was, I had no idea, of course, of the depths of the disaster that would befall us, taking away our leadership and moral standing in the world.



I am ninety-eight now, legally blind, and a pain in the ass to all my friends and much of my family with my constant rantings about the Trump debacle—his floods of lies, his racism, his abandonment of vital connections to ancient allies and critically urgent world concerns, his relentless attacks on the media, and, just lately, his arrant fearmongering about the agonizingly slow approach of a fading column of frightened Central American refugees. The not-to-mention list takes us to his scorn for the poor everywhere, his dismantling contempt for the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, and his broad ignorance and overriding failure of human response. A Democratic victory in this midterm election, in the House, at the least, will put a halt to a lot of this and prevent something much worse.



Countless friends of mine have been engaged this year in political action, but, at my age, I'm not quite up to making phone calls or ringing doorbells. But I can still vote, and I ended that 1992 piece by saying how the morning after Election Day I'd search out, in the Times, the totals in the Presidential balloting, and, “over to the right in my candidate's column, count the millions of votes there, down to the very last number. ‘That's me!' ” I would whisper, “and, at the moment, perhaps feel once again the absurd conviction that that final number, the starboard digit, is something—go figure—I would still die for, if anyone cared.”



What I said I would die for I now want to live for. The quarter-century-plus since George H. W. Bush lost that election to Bill Clinton has brought a near-total change to our everyday world. Unendable wars, desperate refugee populations, a crashing climate, and a sickening flow of gun murders and massacres in schools, concert halls, churches, and temples are the abiding commonplace amid the buzz of social media, Obamacare, and #MeToo. What remains, still in place and now again before us, is voting.



What we can all do at this moment is vote—get up, brush our teeth, go to the polling place, and get in line. I was never in combat as a soldier, but now I am. Those of you who haven't quite been getting to your polling place lately, who want better candidates or a clearer system of making yourself heard, or who just aren't in the habit, need to get it done this time around. If you stay home, count yourself among the hundreds of thousands now being disenfranchised by the relentless parade of restrictions that Republicans everywhere are imposing and enforcing. If you don't vote, they have won, and you are a captive, one of their prizes.



When you do go to vote on Tuesday, take a friend, a nephew, a neighbor, or a partner, and be patient when in line. Just up ahead of you, the old guy in a sailing cap, leaning on his cane and accompanied by his wife, is me, again not minding the wait, and again enthralled by the moment and its meaning.


Roger Angell, a senior editor and a staff writer, has contributed to The New Yorker since 1944, and became a fiction editor in 1956. He is the author of “Late Innings.







https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/get-up-and-go

kcmets
Feb 05 2019 08:55 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Swing and miss Dems putting so many eggs in Stacey's basket?

Edgy MD
Feb 05 2019 09:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I didn't see.



What a thankless task giving the response is.

cal sharpie
Feb 06 2019 07:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I did see it. Actually, she was pretty good - probably the best one of those I've seen. Low bar, but still.

kcmets
Feb 06 2019 07:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:
What a thankless task giving the response is.

I suppose.
cal sharpie wrote:
Actually, she was pretty good - probably the best one of those I've seen.

Maybe you're right, I don't know. I was kinda depressed after sitting through

Hosehead and perhaps not properly focussed or something.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 06 2019 08:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nancy Pelosi is a boss. And he knows it.



https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/75E3/production/_105497103_pelosiclap.jpg>

Fman99
Feb 06 2019 08:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not a fan of the response to begin with. If you want to give a national address, go ahead and win the White House. That's just me.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 06 2019 11:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This has been happening since 1970. So not exactly new. Abrams was better than Bobby Jindal's Kermit impression in 2010 or Rubio's water-bottle grab in 2013. Of course, she had a lot more to work with.

Vic Sage
Feb 06 2019 11:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

why is the president the only one entitled to making a national address? Surely political issues need more discussion and debate, not less. Particularly in the truth-free zone that is now the white house.

nymr83
Feb 06 2019 11:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019




Unless Northam has convincing proof that he's not in that picture -- tough to pull off having already apologized- -- he should resign. Now give me a paragraph on Cindy Hyde-Smith.


is "Fuck her." a complete paragraph?

nymr83
Feb 06 2019 12:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

An Emerson College poll published over the weekend

...

The poll also found that the former vice president to be the only Democratic front-runner who would defeat President Donald Trump in a head-to-head match-up among Iowa voters: 51 percent to 49 percent.


obviously it is early and this one poll means almost nothing, particularly nationally, about Trump's standing. I raise it only to point out what i've said before - that Biden would have crushed him like a grape in 2016 ... and Democrats would do well to remember his "electability"

metsmarathon
Feb 06 2019 06:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So is anyone else completely shocked that the republican tax plan is leading to a ton of people finding out they owe the IRS more money now, after finding their weekly paychecks slightly fatter?



Almost like it was designed to do that to con people into voting red in the midterms or something.



Shocked.

nymr83
Feb 06 2019 06:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

LOL Virginia - in addition to Northam, the Attorney General apparently did the blackface thing too. and the Lt Gov is facing sexual assault allegations. meanwhile, the republicans control the house by 1 seat and the speaker is only in his position because they needed to decide an election by the equivalent of a coin-flip and that decided who was 3rd in line for the governorship. Train. Wreck.

seawolf17
Feb 06 2019 07:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Virginia: totally fucked.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 06 2019 09:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 06 2019 09:30 PM

.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 06 2019 09:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=seawolf17 post_id=2485 time=1549505068 user_id=91]
Virginia: totally fucked.



Fucked. But not totally. Resignations will likely come, but not three. There is no way that the party leadership will resign to the point that the next in line for the Governorship is a Republican. The only way a Republican takes over the Virginia Governorship is forcibly-- i.e., if there is a state equivalent of an impeachment process. Check the state laws and whether the state GOP has the votes. That's what I think.

nymr83
Feb 07 2019 05:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=2491 time=1549513755 user_id=68]
=seawolf17 post_id=2485 time=1549505068 user_id=91]
Virginia: totally fucked.



Fucked. But not totally. Resignations will likely come, but not three. There is no way that the party leadership will resign to the point that the next in line for the Governorship is a Republican. The only way a Republican takes over the Virginia Governorship is forcibly-- i.e., if there is a state equivalent of an impeachment process. Check the state laws and whether the state GOP has the votes. That's what I think.


If Northam resigns, can Fairfax appoint a new Lt Gov when he takes over, or does the position sit empty? I obviously have zero familiarity with state law.



My guess at this point is that Virginia Democrats are waiting to see whose career looks more salvageable. It is probably easier to save Fairfax - the allegations are unproven and they can point to Kavanaugh (I think I even saw that he hired the same lawyers and so did she?) as ironic as that would be. Nobody should be forced to resign over completely unsubstantiated allegations. The risk here is that something more comes out - unlike Kavanaugh's accuser, Tyson remembers exactly when and where the alleged incident occurred, but she also admits to an encounter that began with consent, so it is doubtful you can ever 'prove' otherwise.

Benjamin Grimm
Feb 10 2019 02:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Add Amy Klobuchar to the list of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.



http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/resizer/qLxjwDIeNyOT0V4IB4aCoqVOD7U=/1200x600/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-raycom.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ZEZTL3O7K5DCNEDQ443GCDXF6E.JPG>

Benjamin Grimm
Feb 14 2019 09:16 AM
Re: Politics 2019

McCabe Says Justice Officials Discussed Recruiting Cabinet Members to Push Trump Out of Office


The thriving New York Times wrote:
WASHINGTON — Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, said in an interview aired on Thursday that top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump's decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau's director, that they discussed whether to recruit cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office.

nymr83
Feb 14 2019 12:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Which really just fuels Trump's claims of "Witch Hunt"

A Boy Named Seo
Feb 14 2019 04:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

guys, I haven't been paying attention. They gave him like a billion in the budget agreement for some kind of border-related walls or fencing or barriers or some shit, and he's gonna declare an emergency anyway?

Benjamin Grimm
Feb 15 2019 09:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, it looks like Trump will be challenged in the primaries after all.



Former GOP Massachusetts governor Bill Weld is going to run.



https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160929184641-bill-weld-large-169.jpg>



Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld announces plan to challenge President Trump for Republican nomination

nymr83
Feb 15 2019 10:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Eh. I'd like to see a strong primary challenger but this isn't it.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 15 2019 11:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Holy crap, after that press conference, they may get another crack at exercising the 25th amendment.



It's such a national emergency that the only thing to do is..... go golfing at Mar-A-Lago for the weekend.



Can't wait for a real president to declare a national emergency over something that actually IS a national emergency, like, say, global climate change. So thanks for the precedent, Dolt45.

seawolf17
Feb 15 2019 11:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=2972 time=1550253523 user_id=54]
Eh. I'd like to see a strong primary challenger but this isn't it.



True, but it's a step. I didn't think we'd see anyone challenge him.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 15 2019 01:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

John Kasich is sitting by the phone, waiting for the call. A pretend moderate who checks all the RWNJ boxes.

Willets Point
Feb 15 2019 05:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

We need to oust this fucker from office NOW, while we still have some shreds of democracy to save.

Chad ochoseis
Feb 15 2019 05:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

John Kasich is sitting by the phone, waiting for the call. A pretend moderate who checks all the RWNJ boxes.


Real Wankers of New Jersey?

Right Wing, No Joke?

Republican, White, Not Jeb!

Really, We Need John???

Lefty Specialist
Feb 15 2019 07:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

All of the above, as well as Right Wing Nut Job. But he has a folksy way about him, so people will be fooled.

Valadius
Feb 15 2019 08:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I just want to make sure folks know - that stuff about Amy Klobuchar abusing her staff? It is very true and even worse than has yet been reported.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 15 2019 09:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Valadius post_id=2994 time=1550289452 user_id=87]
I just want to make sure folks know - that stuff about Amy Klobuchar abusing her staff? It is very true and even worse than has yet been reported.


Good. And I hope it all comes out. 'Cause I fucking hate her. She's a wimpy wimp who'd probably wanna play nice with Mitch McConnell and set the party back some more.

ashie62
Feb 15 2019 09:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I most likely woud support John Kasich in 2020



Not impressed by the Dems who have declared thus far.



Elizabeth Warren is very beatable.



Don't count president nutjob out yet

Lefty Specialist
Feb 16 2019 05:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

CBS counted him out.....after 21 minutes.



CBS leaves Trump for 'The Price is Right'

By Joe Concha - 02/15/19 12:18 PM EST



https://static01.nyt.com/images/2008/02/17/arts/17rhod600.1.jpg>



CBS cut away from President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border on Friday to return to its regularly scheduled programming of "The Price is Right" on the East Coast. All of the broadcast and cable news networks carried the declaration and press conference that followed, with only CBS deciding to cut away after 21 minutes before the event was complete.

Edgy MD
Feb 16 2019 01:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Drew Carey for prez.

MFS62
Feb 16 2019 03:44 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Drew Carey for prez.


He'd have a good shot at carrying Ohio.

Later

nymr83
Feb 16 2019 10:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Holy crap, after that press conference, they may get another crack at exercising the 25th amendment.



It's such a national emergency that the only thing to do is..... go golfing at Mar-A-Lago for the weekend.



Can't wait for a real president to declare a national emergency over something that actually IS a national emergency, like, say, global climate change. So thanks for the precedent, Dolt45.


eh. overblown media crap. if a president can bomb a foreign country without so much as complying with the war powers act requirements of bothering to inform congress after the fact, surely a president can build a wall.



in other words, while i don't at all approve of the way Trump went about it, this is not at all the worst abuse of executive power in the past 10 years.

Edgy MD
Feb 17 2019 08:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's a first, and that makes it something.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 17 2019 03:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:

Holy crap, after that press conference, they may get another crack at exercising the 25th amendment.



It's such a national emergency that the only thing to do is..... go golfing at Mar-A-Lago for the weekend.



Can't wait for a real president to declare a national emergency over something that actually IS a national emergency, like, say, global climate change. So thanks for the precedent, Dolt45.


eh. overblown media crap. if a president can bomb a foreign country without so much as complying with the war powers act requirements of bothering to inform congress after the fact, surely a president can build a wall.



in other words, while i don't at all approve of the way Trump went about it, this is not at all the worst abuse of executive power in the past 10 years.


Presidents (including Trump) have been using the Authorization to Use Military Force passed in 2001 to do pretty much anything they want, war-wise. We haven't been in a war declared by Congress since 1945.



What makes this different is that the House and Senate came to a deal and he just said 'screw it' and took money allocated for other things. That makes the appropriations process useless. It's why even Republicans and the Freedom Caucus aren't happy.



Now let's say President Elizabeth Warren said "We're going to take money from the Military to build winmills in West Texas", or President Kamala Harris declared a national emergency to impose Medicare for All. Because that's where this leads.

Edgy MD
Feb 17 2019 07:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Presidents (including Trump) have been using the Authorization to Use Military Force passed in 2001 to do pretty much anything they want, war-wise. We haven't been in a war declared by Congress since 1945.


Didn't President (G.W.) Bush receive Congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq?

Lefty Specialist
Feb 18 2019 10:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Presidents (including Trump) have been using the Authorization to Use Military Force passed in 2001 to do pretty much anything they want, war-wise. We haven't been in a war declared by Congress since 1945.


Didn't President (G.W.) Bush receive Congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq?


It was an open-ended authorization; it was intended as a response to Bin Laden's attack and has been used for interventions the world over ever since. There was no specific congressional authorization to invade Iraq.

Edgy MD
Feb 18 2019 11:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The official name of the joint legislation was Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. It sure seemed particular to the Iraq invasion to me.

nymr83
Feb 18 2019 12:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Edgy MD wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Presidents (including Trump) have been using the Authorization to Use Military Force passed in 2001 to do pretty much anything they want, war-wise. We haven't been in a war declared by Congress since 1945.


Didn't President (G.W.) Bush receive Congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq?


It was an open-ended authorization; it was intended as a response to Bin Laden's attack and has been used for interventions the world over ever since. There was no specific congressional authorization to invade Iraq.


You are thinking of Afghanistan.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 19 2019 09:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Journalism in the age of the crooked scumbag president Trump:



Alabama newspaper editor calls on KKK to lynch Democrats



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47295551


Alabama Senator Doug Jones, the Democrat who won a bitter race against Republican Roy Moore, expressed his shock over the "absolutely disgusting" editorial and said Sutton must resign immediately.


No response from the vile racist US Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith who, obviously, doesn't wanna offend her "enlightened" constituents. What a retard state. Slavery. Jim Crow. Bull Connor. George Wallace. Roy Moore. That clerk who refused to give out marriage licenses to same sex partners. It's the most religious state in the nation, too. What a shocker that is. I am shocked, shocked SHOCKED!

A Boy Named Seo
Feb 19 2019 12:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Hey, anyone watch Klobuchar on CNN last night? I can't say she's my first choice (538 has her voting w/ Trump something like ~30% of the time) but at least I appreciated knowing her stances after her straight-up responses (Kamala frustrated me with some evasive answers in her town hall).



Klobuchar said emphatically "no" to free college for all (she says she wants more Pell grants and easier means to re-fi for students) much to the disappointment of the lil college bro who asked the question.



She was a pretty clear "no" on medicare for all, too, saying she'd like to revive broken/dead parts of Obama Care and increase medicaid access. She said medicare might be a thing down the road, but she thinks she could make more progress faster in different ways.



She annoyed me a bit saying we've only been spectators when it comes to battling climate change (not everyone has!) and said she thinks a new green deal is aspirational and may not be attainable in 10 years. She said day 1 of her presidency she would re-join the international climate change agreement and reintroduce BO's clean power plan.



So I do have issues with her but would vote for her in a lightning fast second against the current asshole.

nymr83
Feb 19 2019 12:49 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Journalism in the age of the crooked scumbag president Trump:



Alabama newspaper editor calls on KKK to lynch Democrats



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47295551


Alabama Senator Doug Jones, the Democrat who won a bitter race against Republican Roy Moore, expressed his shock over the "absolutely disgusting" editorial and said Sutton must resign immediately.


No response from the vile racist US Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith who, obviously, doesn't wanna offend her "enlightened" constituents. What a retard state. Slavery. Jim Crow. Bull Connor. George Wallace. Roy Moore. That clerk who refused to give out marriage licenses to same sex partners. It's the most religious state in the nation, too. What a shocker that is. I am shocked, shocked SHOCKED!


disgusting.



Why should Hyde-Smith in particular have commented? she isn't the senator from Alabama. is every elected official required to say something about everything offense written in every paper? if she was asked about it and said "no comment", well, that would be bad, but you did a bad job explaining that.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 19 2019 01:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Oy. Bernie. Well, at least we know Larry David has a guaranteed SNL spot for the next year.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 19 2019 01:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019



Journalism in the age of the crooked scumbag president Trump:



Alabama newspaper editor calls on KKK to lynch Democrats



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47295551


Alabama Senator Doug Jones, the Democrat who won a bitter race against Republican Roy Moore, expressed his shock over the "absolutely disgusting" editorial and said Sutton must resign immediately.


No response from the vile racist US Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith who, obviously, doesn't wanna offend her "enlightened" constituents. What a retard state. Slavery. Jim Crow. Bull Connor. George Wallace. Roy Moore. That clerk who refused to give out marriage licenses to same sex partners. It's the most religious state in the nation, too. What a shocker that is. I am shocked, shocked SHOCKED!


disgusting.



Why should Hyde-Smith in particular have commented? she isn't the senator from Alabama. is every elected official required to say something about everything offense written in every paper? if she was asked about it and said "no comment", well, that would be bad, but you did a bad job explaining that.


My bad. I conflated Mississippi, the other retard state, and Alabama for some of my post --- the Hyde-Smith part. How the hell could anyone mix up those two states?



Meanwhile, looks like the scumbag president and Klepto Kushner tried to sell our nuclear secrets to the Saudis, probably for ten billion dollars in unmarked hundreds. Whatever's not nailed down. If they dont keep tabs on these crooks, they'll sell the White House and the Statue of Liberrty to China, next.

nymr83
Feb 19 2019 07:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

A Boy Named Seo wrote:

Hey, anyone watch Klobuchar on CNN last night? I can't say she's my first choice (538 has her voting w/ Trump something like ~30% of the time) but at least I appreciated knowing her stances after her straight-up responses (Kamala frustrated me with some evasive answers in her town hall).



Klobuchar said emphatically "no" to free college for all (she says she wants more Pell grants and easier means to re-fi for students) much to the disappointment of the lil college bro who asked the question.



She was a pretty clear "no" on medicare for all, too, saying she'd like to revive broken/dead parts of Obama Care and increase medicaid access. She said medicare might be a thing down the road, but she thinks she could make more progress faster in different ways.



She annoyed me a bit saying we've only been spectators when it comes to battling climate change (not everyone has!) and said she thinks a new green deal is aspirational and may not be attainable in 10 years. She said day 1 of her presidency she would re-join the international climate change agreement and reintroduce BO's clean power plan.



So I do have issues with her but would vote for her in a lightning fast second against the current asshole.


My issues with her not suprisingly run in the opposite direction, but yeah, she is the 'adult in the room' - certainly compared to Trump but I think compared to many of her primary opponents as well.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 19 2019 07:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Oh c'mon ferchrissakes. The adult in the room compared to Trump? How low do you wanna set the bar? What Dem candidate wouldn't be the adult in the room compared to Trump? This typewriter Klobuchar wants to bring back the SCOTUS filibuster. What a jackass. After the GOP rams Gorsuch and Kavanaugh '-- arch conservative wingnut political operatives onto the court . And she wants to play nice with the GOP? How the fuck do you do that? With Mitch McConnell, the most beastly political animal I ever saw. How the fuck do you compromise abortion rights? Do you make it legal in even years and illegal in odd years? Shes a fucking wimp, the kind of Democrat that's the reason the GOP has practically annihilated the Dem party to within an inch of its life. I'm dying to hear what Klobuchar will say when someone gets around to asking her about court-packing. Not that I don't already know. Thank God she has no chance to win.

Edgy MD
Feb 20 2019 06:33 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm pretty sure most or all of the candidates have no intention of coming out in favor of court packing.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 20 2019 07:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

They might be thinking it, but none would dare say it out loud before an election. If RBG hangs on and Clarence Thomas falls ill in 2021, there could be a swing the other way with a Democratic President and Senate. That's why it's vitally important to pick off as many Republican seats as possible. They'll need a flip of 3 seats net. Doug Jones will lose in Alabama (unless they nominate Roy Moore again). So that's four. If Sherrod Brown were to be President or VP they'd need 5. Also remember that Massachusetts has a Republican governor and if Warren were to win, a Republican would appoint her successor pending a special election.



So the task is a bit daunting. That's why I want Beto to run for Senate in 2020 rather than president. Those senatorial seats are going to be crucial.

nymr83
Feb 20 2019 08:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

They might be thinking it, but none would dare say it out loud before an election. If RBG hangs on and Clarence Thomas falls ill in 2021, there could be a swing the other way with a Democratic President and Senate. That's why it's vitally important to pick off as many Republican seats as possible. They'll need a flip of 3 seats net. Doug Jones will lose in Alabama (unless they nominate Roy Moore again). So that's four. If Sherrod Brown were to be President or VP they'd need 5. Also remember that Massachusetts has a Republican governor and if Warren were to win, a Republican would appoint her successor pending a special election.



So the task is a bit daunting. That's why I want Beto to run for Senate in 2020 rather than president. Those senatorial seats are going to be crucial.


you would think at this point after Jeff Sessions seemingly safe seat was lost, both parties would realize the incredible value of a senate seat and not risk one by appointing the person holding it to a cabinet position ever again if its going to mean a special election or opposing-governor appointment. Brown is probably an untenable VP pick for that very reason (voters could still choose Warren/Brown etc for the top of the ticket, but the party won't choose them for VP.)



You think Thomas isn't retiring during Trump's presidency? his wife is a big conservative political activist and has apparently been getting wined and dined by Trump - which is NOT the normal modus operandi for Trump.



I'd be very curious to see how Beto would do against Cornyn, who is pretty well liked, rather than Cruz - who pretty much is tolerated by his own party members. He lost 50.9 - 48.3 to Cruz. I'd guess 54-45 to Cornyn. his better bet for his own poltical future would be VP if that spot were available to him.

TransMonk
Feb 20 2019 08:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Lis_Smith/status/1098031322348617729[/TWEET]

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 20 2019 09:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm pretty sure most or all of the candidates have no intention of coming out in favor of court packing.


Because they're against it or because they're playing their cards close to the vest?

Edgy MD
Feb 20 2019 09:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't know. I imagine most because they are against it and a few because they are coy. But I'm certainly really breathlessly awaiting her answer, or anybody else's, on the subject.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 20 2019 09:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I don't know. I imagine most because they are against it and a few because they are coy. But I'm certainly really breathlessly awaiting her answer, or anybody else's, on the subject.


Did you leave out a "not" from your post?

nymr83
Feb 20 2019 10:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

meanwhile, Ginsburg was back in court today and delivered a unanimous opinion laying the smackdown on excessive civil forfeiture

Edgy MD
Feb 20 2019 11:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

I don't know. I imagine most because they are against it and a few because they are coy. But I'm certainly really breathlessly awaiting her answer, or anybody else's, on the subject.


Did you leave out a "not" from your post?

Yes. Apparently, the n, o, and t buttons are wobbly on my keyboard.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 21 2019 02:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There's some nutcase nutjob out in Wisconsin running for state Supreme Court who thinks that blowjobs should be illegal, as well as fucking your girlfriend.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26450473/mark-harris-north-carolina


We move along to Wisconsin, where a candidate for the state's supreme court named Brian Hagedorn has been brawling with his own idiocy. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:



Hagedorn, who is running for the state Supreme Court, wrote a blog beginning in 2005 in which he addressed readers as "fellow soldiers in the culture wars" while posting sometimes provocative comments on homosexuality and abortion....



Lawmakers could draw a distinction between same-sex relationships and bestiality as a matter of public policy, Hagedorn wrote. But he called the Supreme Court's decision overturning anti-sodomy laws a travesty that "should render laws prohibiting bestiality unconstitutional...There is no right in our Constitution to have sex with whoever or whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (or barn)," he wrote....





He went on to say his convictions on this issue and others were given to him by God.



"The Lord has laid three fundamental passions on my heart: 1) Protecting the dignity and sanctity of human life, 2) Defending and preserving the institution of marriage, and 3) Promoting racial reconciliation in the church and culture," he wrote in November 2005. Hagedorn, an evangelical Christian, wrote that he favored having someone who believes like him on the Supreme Court. "All things being equal, someone who acknowledges the true God, seeks wisdom from Him, and cares about all people because they have been made in His image is better than someone who is not a Christian," he wrote in October 2005.



Does it get worse? Of course, it gets worse. Again, from the J-S:



State Appeals Court Judge Brian Hagedorn in 2016 founded and now oversees Augustine Academy in Merton, which partners with Ambleside Schools International, a Christian, college-preparatory school that blends private and home-based education. The school's statement of faith says the school community believes that "Adam and Eve were made to complement each other in a one-flesh union that establishes the only normative pattern of sexual relations for men and women, such that marriage ultimately serves as a type of the union between Christ and his church."



In its code of personal conduct listed on the school teacher application, school officials say teachers may be fired and students may be disciplined or forced to withdraw from the school if they or their parents violate the code's policies. The rules include no "immoral sexual activity," defined as any activity that occurs outside of marriage between a man and a woman.








Let's make a quiz out of this post. Try and guess whether this nut is a Democrat or a Republican. And whether or not he's an aetheist. Although I think I gave that last one away in the excerpt quote.



Hey, don't laugh. Thanks to the scumbag in the oval office, there might be dozens of judges like this nutcase on the Federal bench soon enough. And they'll be in their early 40s. How the fuck are the Dems gonna fix that mess of a lifetime without packing the courts? Anybody got some other reasonable solution?

TransMonk
Feb 22 2019 09:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/_EthanGrey/status/1098795693785923584[/TWEET]

nymr83
Feb 22 2019 10:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

the filibuster "complaint" is the biggest joke in the world as the democrats did it first. its like the kid on the playground complaining "he hit me" when someone actually hit him back.



as for Garland, the way Republicans went about it was certainly underhanded, but Democrats have pretty much set the precedent that you can vote against judges for ideological reasons alone, so the Republicans could have just done that. don't like it? win the senate.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 22 2019 11:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, what Republicans did with Garland is completely unprecedented. They never even gave him a hearing. If you want to vote against him for ideological reasons, fine. But they didn't give him that chance. Moved pretty damn quick on Gorsuch, though.

cal sharpie
Feb 22 2019 12:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If Clarence Thomas retires next year then you can be sure that Mitch will find some way to not invoke the "Garland Rule"

Benjamin Grimm
Feb 22 2019 12:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I could imagine if Trump loses the election and Clarence Thomas retires or dies the next day, McConnell will not hesitate to push a hurried nomination through the Senate. And he'd blithely ignore all of the cries of hypocrisy.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 22 2019 01:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There'll be a lot of pressure on Thomas to retire at the end of this Supreme Court term.

nymr83
Feb 22 2019 02:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

There'll be a lot of pressure on Thomas to retire at the end of this Supreme Court term.


see my post above - his wife is being wined and dined by Donald.



When is the "hypocrisy" deadline to nominate a replacement? everyone's answer is going to be different, and ultimately they'll all just change their minds to suit their needs. if you go by McConell's previous statements, it's a 'presidential election year' - meaning December 31st 2019 should be the last day to confirm someone. unless something tragic were to create an unexpected opening, this coming summer seems to be the last chance at a planned retirement to meet that schedule.



but, they'll do what they gotta do and we all know it.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 22 2019 03:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:

There'll be a lot of pressure on Thomas to retire at the end of this Supreme Court term.




....but, they'll do what they gotta do and we all know it.


What a refreshing Elizabeth Warren video Transmonk posted above. Warren will also do what's gotta be done if she only gets the chance. She's a terrific communicator for one, and knows the issues and the war-like political climate between the parties. It'd be a terrible shame if she has electability issues because she's a woman or because of that stupid Indian ancestry thing. Not like that jackasss Klobuchar who wants to work with McConnell and gives us phony bad acting school Minnesota Nice stories of her alcoholic father. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm supposed to vote for Klobuchar because her father was a drunk.

Benjamin Grimm
Feb 22 2019 03:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'll enthusiastically vote for Amy Klobuchar in November 2020 if she's the nominee.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 22 2019 03:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019



Lefty Specialist wrote:

There'll be a lot of pressure on Thomas to retire at the end of this Supreme Court term.




....but, they'll do what they gotta do and we all know it.


What a refreshing Elizabeth Warren video Transmonk posted above. Warren will also do what's gotta be done if she only gets the chance. She's a terrific communicator for one, and knows the issues and the war-like political climate between the parties. It'd be a terrible shame if she has electability issues because she's a woman or because of that stupid Indian ancestry thing. Not like that jackasss Klobuchar who wants to work with McConnell and gives us phony bad acting school Minnesota Nice stories of her alcoholic father. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm supposed to vote for Klobuchar because her father was a drunk.


Oh, and the GOP Merrick Garlanded about 100 lower court Obama nominees. 100 ferchrissakes. Think about that for a few seconds before reading the rest of this post. 100 blockaded nominees. What were the Dems supposed to do if not kill the filibuster for those nominees? Win the Senate? The Dems did that. Reid was the Senate majority leader, not McConnell.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 22 2019 03:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I'll enthusiastically vote for Amy Klobuchar in November 2020 if she's the nominee.


So will I. I'll vote for Uncle Fester if he's the Dem candidate. I'm not wasting my vote on Jill Stein.

nymr83
Feb 25 2019 06:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019

American journalists working for Univision have been kidnapped by the Maduro government after asking Maduro questions he didn't like. Not even a mention on CNN/MSNBC where=batmagadanleadoff post_id=3314 time=1550873407 user_id=68]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=3312 time=1550873139 user_id=68]
=nymr83 post_id=3305 time=1550871580 user_id=54]




....but, they'll do what they gotta do and we all know it.



What a refreshing Elizabeth Warren video Transmonk posted above. Warren will also do what's gotta be done if she only gets the chance. She's a terrific communicator for one, and knows the issues and the war-like political climate between the parties. It'd be a terrible shame if she has electability issues because she's a woman or because of that stupid Indian ancestry thing. Not like that jackasss Klobuchar who wants to work with McConnell and gives us phony bad acting school Minnesota Nice stories of her alcoholic father. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm supposed to vote for Klobuchar because her father was a drunk.


Oh, and the GOP Merrick Garlanded about 100 lower court Obama nominees. 100 ferchrissakes. Think about that for a few seconds before reading the rest of this post. 100 blockaded nominees. What were the Dems supposed to do if not kill the filibuster for those nominees? Win the Senate? The Dems did that. Reid was the Senate majority leader, not McConnell.


Dems did the same thing to Bush nominees. Dems decided to be the ones to change the rules when it happened to them, though.

nymr83
Feb 25 2019 06:35 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Maduro has "detained" American journalists working for Univision - get the dictator out!



https://www.univision.com/noticias/america-latina/maduro-retiene-arbitrariamente-en-miraflores-a-un-equipo-de-univision-encabezado-por-jorge-ramos

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 25 2019 07:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=3426 time=1551144626 user_id=54]
American journalists working for Univision have been kidnapped by the Maduro government after asking Maduro questions he didn't like. Not even a mention on CNN/MSNBC where=batmagadanleadoff post_id=3314 time=1550873407 user_id=68]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=3312 time=1550873139 user_id=68]




What a refreshing Elizabeth Warren video Transmonk posted above. Warren will also do what's gotta be done if she only gets the chance. She's a terrific communicator for one, and knows the issues and the war-like political climate between the parties. It'd be a terrible shame if she has electability issues because she's a woman or because of that stupid Indian ancestry thing. Not like that jackasss Klobuchar who wants to work with McConnell and gives us phony bad acting school Minnesota Nice stories of her alcoholic father. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm supposed to vote for Klobuchar because her father was a drunk.



Oh, and the GOP Merrick Garlanded about 100 lower court Obama nominees. 100 ferchrissakes. Think about that for a few seconds before reading the rest of this post. 100 blockaded nominees. What were the Dems supposed to do if not kill the filibuster for those nominees? Win the Senate? The Dems did that. Reid was the Senate majority leader, not McConnell.


Dems did the same thing to Bush nominees. Dems decided to be the ones to change the rules when it happened to them, though.


Not nearly the same thing. Maybe a dozen or two Bush nominees were bottled up in committee while the Dems controlled the Senate. This is nothing like the en masse blockade of about 100 Obama lower court nominees. And no Supreme Court nominee was ever denied a hearing outright other than Merrick Garland.





Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren appearing on All in with Chris Hayes a few minutes ago, says that she'd kill the filibuster if need be. According to her, bless her soul, we shouldn't have a system where the GOP does whatever the hell it wants to do, shattering norms and abusing the rules to push their agenda while the Dems continue to operate under restrictions that the GOP would kill about as easily as flicking off a light switch. Makes Amy Klobuchar look like the wimpy jackass that she is to anyone that's paying attention. Maybe Klobuchar can clean Warrens' comb, too. And then, wipe Warren's ass after Liz finishes taking a shit.



I always wondered why the GOP didn't kill the filibuster before the midterms. Without the filibuster, they probably could've killed ObamaCare the way they would've wanted to and passed an even more draconian tax cut bill without having to work through the reconciliation process. McConnell's about as ruthless as they come, even by politician's standards, so I don't buy the idea that he's unwilling to kill it out of some respect for the process. I think there's a political calculation here that the Democrats could do more than the GOP without the filibuster. First off, they could easily repeal GOP legislation like the tax cuts for the rich. And they could give Puerto Rico and DC statehood, giving the Dems four more senators, which would go a long way to rectifying the structural unfairness of the Senate, where, thanks to the ridiculous electoral college, we have 70 senators for 30% of the population and 30 senators for 70% of the population. And then there's that court-packing issue, which I believe Warren is for.

nymr83
Feb 25 2019 07:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There is a Very strong argument that they cant give DC statehood without a constitutional amendment, though Puerto Rico could be done. Of course, a majority of Puerto Ricans cant even agree on whether that is desirable.



Who benefits most from killing the filibuster? Tough to say. There are two sides to it: who can pass more meaningful legislation and who is more likely to be able to protext their accomplishments by keepung the filibuster in place.



Given how current political alignments match up with states, it seems more likely that the Republicans could achieve a filibuster-proof majority at some point. Republicans are therefore more motivated to keep it.



On the flipside, you could say Democrats want to keep it to protect Obamacare and prevent huge tax and spending cuts.



Could Democrats do more without it? From a policy perspective, probably. The far-left wish list is probably longer than the far-right one at the moment.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 26 2019 02:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Killing the filibuster is a double-edged sword. When you're in the minority, you like the filibuster. When you're in the majority, you don't.



After Hurricane Maria and its aftermath I'm betting about 80% of Puerto Ricans would support statehood. They see what happens when you have taxation without representation. And hurricanes happen every year.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 26 2019 02:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Killing the filibuster is a double-edged sword.


That's probably why the GOP didn't kill the fiklibuster before the midterms. Not, as MCconnell falsely claims, out of respect for Senate norms and traditions. That animal concerned about preserving Senate traditions? What a joke. That comment was more insulting than Ivanka's comments about minimum wage.

nymr83
Feb 26 2019 02:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Killing the filibuster is a double-edged sword. When you're in the minority, you like the filibuster. When you're in the majority, you don't.



After Hurricane Maria and its aftermath I'm betting about 80% of Puerto Ricans would support statehood. They see what happens when you have taxation without representation. And hurricanes happen every year.


I'd be for it if they did a yes/no vote that got a majority (the most recent referendum was boycotted by a major party with historically low turnout and all previous polls were inconclusive.) Congress should pass legislation FIRST so that everyone knows it matters this time.



the flip side to that is that every single person born on that island has the right to move to any of the 50 states and do everything the rest of us do, including vote. so the urgency here seems pretty low.



As for the filibuster, I'm of mixed opinions - I don't think it should exist for any appointments - I think the president of either party deserves an up or down vote on all their nominees, and if you want to vote NO and force the president to compromise, that is just fine. for legislation, it does serve the purpose of providing greater continuity which is good for business in general when the laws aren't changing every 2-4 years. of course only a constitutional amendment could get us to a place where neither party is paranoid that the other party will turn around and fuck them the next time they take power.

nymr83
Feb 26 2019 02:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:

Killing the filibuster is a double-edged sword.


That's probably why the GOP didn't kill the fiklibuster before the midterms. Not, as MCconnell falsely claims, out of respect for Senate norms and traditions. That animal concerned about preserving Senate traditions? What a joke. That comment was more insulting than Ivanka's comments about minimum wage.


Even i'm annoyed by Ivanka's comment - there are plenty of arguments that minimum wages are actually harmful to workers, but i doubt she actually understands any of them and has never worked a day in her life, so she should probably STFU. i'm glad you managed not to call her unnecessary names though. she can be dead wrong, and you can call her out on that, without being insulting.



Have you seen Bernie's hair? he looks like much more of an "animal" than McConell. None of the party leaders on either side give a shit about "senate traditions" - When cosidering changes, they care about balancing what use they can make of that power now versus how it can screw them later.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 27 2019 05:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Shorter Michael Cohen: Donald Trump is a criminal.



Shorter Republicans: nananananananaNANANANANANANA ICAN'THEARRRRRRRYOUUUUUUUUUU

MFS62
Feb 28 2019 06:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nice to see that the five time draft dodger made it to Viet Nam - for a photo op.



Later

Lefty Specialist
Feb 28 2019 07:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, his summit was a big nothingburger. At least it gave Fox News something else to talk about, though.



I think House Democrats will want to speak to Alan Weisselberg soon. Cohen spent most of his day teeing him up.

MFS62
Feb 28 2019 10:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The most devastating takeaway from yesterday's hearing was that the Republicans are not angry that the occupant of the White House lied, they are incensed that Michael Cohen stopped lying.



From The New York Times:
"In a sane world, the fact that the president's former lawyer produced evidence that the president knowingly and deceptively committed a federal crime — hush money payments that violated campaign finance laws — is something that even members of the president's own party would find disquieting. But not today's Republican Party.



Instead, in the most transparent and ham-handed way, they saw no evil and heard no evil, unless it involved Mr. Cohen. Republicans on the committee tried to destroy the credibility of his testimony, not because they believe that his testimony is false, but because they fear it is true."


Later

MFS62
Mar 02 2019 08:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

What was all the excitement at the C-PAC convention about cattle?

I look around that room and think their sheep should be scared.

Later

ashie62
Mar 02 2019 07:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Green New New Deal is a reckless fantasy

MFS62
Mar 03 2019 07:19 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=3707 time=1551579153 user_id=90]
Green New New Deal is a reckless fantasy



I wonder how long it will take for the water from the melting ice caps to flood your bunker.



Later

smg58
Mar 03 2019 09:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=3539 time=1551359141 user_id=60]
Nice to see that the five time draft dodger made it to Viet Nam - for a photo op.



Later



I wish I can take credit for this one, but -- now he can say was shot down in Hanoi.

MFS62
Mar 03 2019 11:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=smg58 post_id=3716 time=1551628929 user_id=62]
=MFS62 post_id=3539 time=1551359141 user_id=60]
Nice to see that the five time draft dodger made it to Viet Nam - for a photo op.



Later



I wish I can take credit for this one, but -- now he can say was shot down in Hanoi.


Not bad either.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Mar 03 2019 02:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=3707 time=1551579153 user_id=90]
Green New New Deal is a reckless fantasy



Thinking we can have a habitable planet without urgent action is a far more reckless fantasy. The Green New Deal has gotten the conversation started at least.

nymr83
Mar 03 2019 07:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

=ashie62 post_id=3707 time=1551579153 user_id=90]
Green New New Deal is a reckless fantasy


Thinking we can have a habitable planet without urgent action is a far more reckless fantasy. The Green New Deal has gotten the conversation started at least.



Thats like saying i started the conversation on fixing our border by proposing motion-sensor activated machine guns every 3 feet facing Mexico

Lefty Specialist
Mar 04 2019 07:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 04 2019 02:41 PM

The Green New Deal is a marker. It's not a concrete set of legislative proposals. But we better get up off the couch before it catches on fire.



Your machine-gun analogy is apt. That's the kind of effort this will require. We'll need World War II levels of commitment. And every time we delay, it gets harder and more expensive. The good news is that an enormous amount of jobs can be created in the process, and it's infrastructure work we should have been doing anyway. If we don't, 30 years from now our kids will be looking back at us and grumbling about how stupid we were.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 04 2019 01:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

You've Got Mail!



Jerry Nadler makes a request for documents from, well, pretty much every character in Trump's Star Wars cantina. Elections, as they say, have consequences.

nymr83
Mar 04 2019 02:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

You've Got Mail!


how old/young do you have to be to NOT hear the AOL voice "you've Got Mail" in your head when you read that? under 30? older?

ashie62
Mar 07 2019 01:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Green New deal. Begins and ends a conversation

MFS62
Mar 07 2019 01:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Green New deal. Begins and ends a conversation for someone who has a limited vocabulary, like the people against saving the environment.

This was in our local paper today:

https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Study-CT-lakes-already-seeing-impact-of-climate-13670520.php?sid=591c902424c17c3e4b8c85fd&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newstimes_dailynewsletter

Climate change is REAL, Sparky.

Time to start doing something about it.



I fixed that for you.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 07 2019 02:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:

We've survived two years of the Trump 'administration' (barely)....


Ya Gorsuch for life think Kavanaugh for life so a record setting number of lower court confirmations -- almost all GOP political hack operatives and wingnuts? I don't.



It's too bad so many of those rampaging pussy hatters decided to figure out how the government works the day after election day. The day before, they voted for Jill Stein or stayed at home. They might be paying for it for the rest of their lives. We'll see if the Dems have the balls (and the pussies) to pack the courts when they're in power again. Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez probably do. Schumer, I dunno. There's no other fix, unless you think that waiting patiently for 40 years, hoping for Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to leave the bench under a Dem controlled government is a reasonable option.




Here's why we're not surviving the Trump presidency. Because another wackadoo wingnut nutjob judge just got confirmed to the Federal bench. It's only a matter of time before they start issuing radical regressive decisions that'll start the process of setting this country back centuries. The Federal bench is a ticking time bomb that hasn't yet exploded with retrograde decisions that are ineviatable. Trump has already flipped two Circuit Courts and is guaranteed to flip two more circuits before his first term is over.





This Is Why Republicans Don't Care What the President* Does, No Matter How Crooked or Barbaric



It's the judges, people. The judges.



By Charles P. Pierce

Mar 7, 2019


While nobody was looking, the Senate confirmed another real prize as a federal judge on Thursday, the 54th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday attack on civil rights marchers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, if you want to see how badly history can rhyme sometimes. Eric Murphy is 40 years old, so he'll likely be inflicting himself on at least the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for three decades.



He spent several years as the solicitor general for the state of Ohio. It was an eventful tenure there. From Cleveland.com:



He grew up in the Cincinnati area, graduated from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio and earned his law degree from University of Chicago. Before becoming Solicitor General, he practiced in the Columbus office of Jones Day. As Solicitor General, he successfully defended Ohio's methods of culling its voter rolls before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also defended Ohio's laws against gay marriage in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex nuptials nationwide.



This got Senator Sherrod Brown's attention.



Brown criticized Murphy for his arguments “against marriage equality” and his defense of a "voter purge that unfairly stripped Ohioans, innocent Ohioans, of their vote registration.” He also said Murphy defended the Trump administration's ban on people entering the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. “I cannot support nominees who have actively worked to strip Ohioans of their rights,” said a statement from Brown. “Special interests already have armies of lobbyists and lawyers on their side, they don't need judges in their pockets.”



I am sorry that we won't have Sherrod Brown's voice in the Democratic primaries this time around. But it's still an important voice in the Senate and in our politics.



Once, of course, Brown could've stopped this nomination just by virtue of his being one of Ohio's two U.S. senators. Under Barack Obama, during Pat Leahy's time as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy required that both of a state's senators had to return the "blue slip" to pass on a nominee. That was a nice civics lesson, but Republican senators had field days stalling Obama's nominees. And now, with Republicans controlling the Senate, the blue slip tradition is less than a formality. And the decision by Harry Reid when he was majority leader to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges has thrown the process into hyperdrive.



As you might expect, Murphy's career is littered with arguments and writings that put him safely into the Federalist Society's comfort zone. His particular speciality seems to have been defending voter-suppression statutes and, unfortunately, he was pretty good at it. The folks at the Alliance For Justice put together a rap shee...er...record of Murphy's cases.



He defended Ohio's voter purge in the Supreme Court case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018). In that case, Murphy fought to allow the state to target infrequent voters for removal from the voter rolls and to deprive them of the fundamental right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld Ohio's actions in a 5-4 decision. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent noted, the law Murphy defended will disproportionately disenfranchise people of color, veterans, and low- income and disabled people who face barriers that may prevent them from voting.



For example, it was used to remove 10% of voters in African-American areas of Cincinnati. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor lamented that the decision “entirely ignores the history of voter suppression against which the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] was enacted and upholds a program that appears to further the very disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters that Congress set out to eradicate.”5 In the same case, Murphy was also instrumental in pressing the U.S. Department of Justice, which had previously made clear that Ohio's practice violated federal law, to take the “really rare” step of switching positions.



This is what's going on when we're not looking. This is why no Republican cares that the president would steal soup.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26754299/donald-trump-judge-nominee-republicans/



This situation is so dire, that if you were following this topic closely, you could run google searches, and find new news articles on Trump's transformation of the judiciary every few hours.

nymr83
Mar 07 2019 07:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It is the job of the Legislature to pass laws and the option of the governor to sign them (or not). It is the job of any state's Attorney General to uphold the law and defend the law. The place to change the law is in the legislature and an AG who refuses to defend the law because of his own differing politics should be impeached.

MFS62
Mar 07 2019 07:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=3973 time=1552011259 user_id=54]
It is the job of the Legislature to pass laws and the option of the governor to sign them (or not). It is the job of any state's Attorney General to uphold the law and defend the law. The place to change the law is in the legislature and an AG who refuses to defend the law because of his own differing politics should be impeached.



As should judges who refuse to following sentencing guidelines. Unfortunately, Judges cannot be easily removed from office.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 07 2019 08:49 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=3977 time=1552013171 user_id=60]
=nymr83 post_id=3973 time=1552011259 user_id=54]
It is the job of the Legislature to pass laws and the option of the governor to sign them (or not). It is the job of any state's Attorney General to uphold the law and defend the law. The place to change the law is in the legislature and an AG who refuses to defend the law because of his own differing politics should be impeached.



As should judges who refuse to following sentencing guidelines. Unfortunately, Judges cannot be easily removed from office.

Later


That judge had it in for the prosecution throughout the whole damn trial.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 07 2019 08:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=3973 time=1552011259 user_id=54]
It is the job of the Legislature to pass laws and the option of the governor to sign them (or not). It is the job of any state's Attorney General to uphold the law and defend the law. The place to change the law is in the legislature and an AG who refuses to defend the law because of his own differing politics should be impeached.





And if the Supreme Court had a majority of open-minded judges who simply followed the evidence, Ohio's voter suppression law would've been stricken. But, unfortunately, the SCOTUS majority is comprised of wingnut political operative hacks who decide cases before they even read the briefs, then play insulting word games as a pretext to reverse engineer their rulings to rationalize their retrograde decisions. The court wouldn't even apply strict scrutiny even though Ohio's racist voter suppression law indisputably and disproportionately harmed minorities that are in a protected class of citizens. The Constitution is no match for a determined Supreme Court majority,

nymr83
Mar 07 2019 09:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=3977 time=1552013171 user_id=60]
=nymr83 post_id=3973 time=1552011259 user_id=54]
It is the job of the Legislature to pass laws and the option of the governor to sign them (or not). It is the job of any state's Attorney General to uphold the law and defend the law. The place to change the law is in the legislature and an AG who refuses to defend the law because of his own differing politics should be impeached.



As should judges who refuse to following sentencing guidelines. Unfortunately, Judges cannot be easily removed from office.

Later




do the guidelines give discretion? do they give reasons for the exercise of that discretion? was said judge within those reasons? i dont know who you are talking about if it was directed at someone specific

Lefty Specialist
Mar 08 2019 03:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

No worries, the DC judge will throw the book at him. He'll die in prison unless he's pardoned. And they may not be finished charging him yet- more things have been coming to light.

MFS62
Mar 08 2019 06:06 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=3985 time=1552021066 user_id=54]
do the guidelines give discretion? do they give reasons for the exercise of that discretion? was said judge within those reasons? i dont know who you are talking about if it was directed at someone specific



Guidelines can give the judge discretion to give a lower sentence if there are ameliorating circumstances. Those reasons include whether this was a first crime, the defendant has lived an exemplary life, if he has small children, etc. But on day 1, this judge stated he doesn't believe the Mueller probe was valid, even though the charges in this trial had nothing to do with the purpose of the Mueller investigation (Russian interference in the election). These crimes were for money laundering,and tax evasion If you or I did that, we'd be looking at striped sunlight for longer than 47 months. He should have recused himself but used it as a way to discredit Mueller. This defendant has not led an exemplary life and he will be sentenced in another court for some of those crimes in a few days. The reason the judge gave for the lower sentence are age and illnesses for which there are standard medications that would be available in prison.

Later

Edgy MD
Mar 08 2019 06:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Willie Mays Aikens was entrapped and he got 21 years.



21 years. He served 14 years before a second judge decided that sentence was insane.



He should have committed treason. And been white.

nymr83
Mar 08 2019 10:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=3992 time=1552050386 user_id=60]
=nymr83 post_id=3985 time=1552021066 user_id=54]
do the guidelines give discretion? do they give reasons for the exercise of that discretion? was said judge within those reasons? i dont know who you are talking about if it was directed at someone specific



Guidelines can give the judge discretion to give a lower sentence if there are ameliorating circumstances. Those reasons include whether this was a first crime, the defendant has lived an exemplary life, if he has small children, etc. But on day 1, this judge stated he doesn't believe the Mueller probe was valid, even though the charges in this trial had nothing to do with the purpose of the Mueller investigation (Russian interference in the election). These crimes were for money laundering,and tax evasion If you or I did that, we'd be looking at striped sunlight for longer than 47 months. He should have recused himself but used it as a way to discredit Mueller. This defendant has not led an exemplary life and he will be sentenced in another court for some of those crimes in a few days. The reason the judge gave for the lower sentence are age and illnesses for which there are standard medications that would be available in prison.

Later


ah, that judge. he definitely should have recused himself.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 11 2019 09:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The stupid.....it burns.....



Katrina Pierson Responds to WH Diversity Question By Asking How Many Black Staffers Abraham Lincoln Had

by Tommy Christopher | Mar 10th, 2019, 9:14 am 829





When MSNBC host Al Sharpton confronted Trump campaign senior adviser Katrina Pierson about the lack of black staffers in Trump's West Wing, Pierson offered a jaw-dropping excuse, asking Sharpton how many black people worked in Abraham Lincoln's West Wing.



On Saturday's edition pf PoliticsNation, Sharpton hosted Pierson and activist David Brock for a panel discussion, and toward the end of the segment, Sharpton asked Pierson about the lack of diversity in Trump's West Wing. “Historically, Republicans and Democrats have had major figures of the black community in the West Wing as part of their senior staff and administration,” Sharpton said, and asked “Who are the blacks in the West Wing under President Trump?”



“You mean those who actually took the job or those who've been offered? Because those are entirely different questions,” Pierson replied, and as Sharpton tried to cut in and refocus the question, Pierson claimed “I was offered Sarah Sanders' job.”



“I can understand why you're nervous,” Sharpton said.



“I'm not going to participate if you're going to continue to paint this president as racist,” Pierson said, and tried to change the subject to reparations. When Sharpton tried to turn the question to Brock, Pierson muttered “There's plenty of black people in the West Wing.”



“Well, I asked you to name them, and you started telling me… you turned down….” Sharpton said.



“Because I'm not going to participate in the attempt to make this all about race. It's ridiculous. How many black people were in Abraham Lincoln's West Wing?” Pierson asked.



As Brock and Sharpton derided Pierson's response, she added “Is Abraham Lincoln a racist because he didn't have a black person in the White House? This is insane. This is an insane discussion.”



“You can't name a black in the West Wing because we can't find one, Katrina,” Sharpton said. “I pity you. I'd sympathize with you, but telling me you applied, and other people…? Come on.”



“It's unthinkable in the 21st century that even a spokesperson for President Trump can't name a black in the West Wing,” Sharpton added.

Edgy MD
Mar 11 2019 11:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019

She's got a long history of making such statements. She's a clear case of loyalty over competency as a job requirement for the president.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 11 2019 12:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I cant believe she even gets invited to speak on what is supposed to be a credible news show. But then again, I also can't believe that Al Sharpton has been legitimized.

Edgy MD
Mar 11 2019 12:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I think she's an interesting case (in the abstract). I'm totally armchairing it here, but over the past two years I've come to discover a lot of the female devotees of the president have daddy issues. Just like a lot of the male devotees have bully issues.

nymr83
Mar 11 2019 06:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

the real answer to Sharpton is "how many blacks voted for Trump? how many are Republicans?" its absurd to think that the adminisrtation should be filling racial quotas. if only 5% of blacks voted Republican you'd expect the typical Republican administration to inadvertently reflect that just by making hires based on ideology.

Edgy MD
Mar 11 2019 06:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019

You're not supposed hire ideologues. You're supposed to hire talented administrators.



Only the best people, as the president said.



If a single name cannot be given, it's because there isn't one she can think of. And that's not an issue of a quota.



https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/06/30/gettyimages-632409430_slide-32ad42329dd38e0b5d254de2ef8812ea5e78358f-s800-c85.jpg>

nymr83
Mar 11 2019 07:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

every administration self-selects for ideology and candidates for the job self-select too.

Edgy MD
Mar 11 2019 07:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If you're suggesting that no black people will apply to work for his West Wing staff, and really no competent people will (except maybe the competently evil, like Stephen Miller), because they recognize that he's a hopelessly inept madman that openly harbors hostility toward the underclass, that implicates him at least as much.

MFS62
Mar 11 2019 07:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=4169 time=1552354907 user_id=54]
every administration self-selects for ideology and candidates for the job self-select too.



Then the current administration flies in the face of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest on more than just the ideological level. They aren't fit to serve or survive.



Later

nymr83
Mar 11 2019 08:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

the current admin has many issues. heck, i would turn down a position of offered one - the turnover rate seems absurd, who wants that "job security"?

Edgy MD
Mar 11 2019 08:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

My brother-in-law, big-shot wealth manager, was under the impression that he was in line to get an invite into the Treasury Department. I'm not sure he'd take it now.



If I was offered a position, I would gobble it up. I'd be fired by day three, but so be it.

nymr83
Mar 12 2019 06:30 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

My brother-in-law, big-shot wealth manager, was under the impression that he was in line to get an invite into the Treasury Department. I'm not sure he'd take it now.



If I was offered a position, I would gobble it up. I'd be fired by day three, but so be it.


would your current job have you back? you think you can get a book deal after 3 days?

Edgy MD
Mar 12 2019 07:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm out of work, but yeah, I'm sure I'd get new opportunities.



I haven't exactly been a high-salaried worker though. My brother-in-law, on the other hand, would be giving up the big time.

nymr83
Mar 12 2019 07:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

interesting info:



https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/InterimStatPack_JusticeAgreement.pdf



essentially, Roberts has agreed with the '4 liberals' far more often than with Gorsuch/Alito/Thomas this term. Kavanaugh has also agreed with the liberals more often in a limited sample size.



does this represent a kennedy-like shift to the center by Roberts? an anomaly brought about by small sample size? or perhaps an overreach by conservatives in the types of cases they are bringing forward hoping for favorable judgment?



of course, the term isnt over and the 'typical' 5-4 splits could be coming on cases undecided - Alito is the only one not to have written a majority opinion. Roberts has written 2 while the 4 judges to his left have written 8 and the 4 judges to his right have written 7 (but remember Kavanaugh missed seeral sessions) - Ginsburg (4) and Thomas (3) could be done writing majority opinions - the numbers aren't always equal of course but there is some predictive value in who has written already and how frequently.

whippoorwill
Mar 19 2019 08:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Beto O'Rourke to be in State College today, and so am I, although for a different reason. My daughter in law considering going to see him though. I wish he'd come to my red ass county and swing some votes

Lefty Specialist
Mar 21 2019 07:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm liking Pete Buttigieg (Boot-edge-edge) more and more. I'd say he doesn't have a chance, but I also said Donald Trump didn't have a chance. Intelligent, has command of the facts and doesn't bullshit you. The anti-Trump in every way.

TransMonk
Mar 21 2019 08:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I've been reading all of the Dem candidate's books as they announce. Buttigieg's book was the most pragmatic and straight forward. I really like him.



There's an enormous amount of time before some of the also-rans are weeded out and I hope Mayor Pete continues to impress and gain support. I'm very interested to see him debate.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 21 2019 08:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Plus, he'd pack the courts, which is a litmus test for me. But I don't think he has any chance at all.

MFS62
Mar 21 2019 08:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 21 2019 09:10 AM

Mayor Pete is very impressive.



As for the Orange mushroom, in one of his rants yesterday, he was talking about Mueller saying (I paraphrase, but its pretty close) "I was elected, Mueller wasn't. So why is Mueller writing a report? I don't get it and my supporters don't get it."



Memo to Donnie, many of your supporters don't get indoor plumbing. When they're not watching you or FOX News (that's redundant), they're watching an infomercial like: "Why I should wear shoes to a wedding?" or "If I divorce my wife, is she still my cousin?"



Later

Edgy MD
Mar 21 2019 09:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=whippoorwill post_id=4552 time=1553006791 user_id=79]
Beto O'Rourke to be in State College today, and so am I, although for a different reason. My daughter in law considering going to see him though. I wish he'd come to my red ass county and swing some votes



How'd this go over?

whippoorwill
Mar 21 2019 09:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Apparently okay. The article in the State College paper says there were several hundred people there.



The front page news in my local paper was a bunch of preschool kids taking a walk.





BTW is it true Beto wrote a story describing hitting kids with his car? If so, that's disturbing.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 21 2019 11:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

New Zealand sees a problem. Immediately fixes it.



We, on the other hand, support military weapons for civilians because FREEDOM.



Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand on Thursday announced a national ban on all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch last week.



“What we're banning today are the things used in last Friday's attack,” she said, adding: “It's about all of us, it's in the national interest and it's about safety.”

Edgy MD
Mar 21 2019 07:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

By the way, something very similar happened in Australia decades ago. There was a mass shooting, they quickly established a regime of strict regulation, and the gun murder stats cratered.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 22 2019 06:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

There was a shooting massacre killing 35 people in Tasmania in 1996. Australia then banned assault weapons. There hasn't been a mass shooting there since......1996.



Pretty simple, actually.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 22 2019 11:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So since Trump wanted Hillary to go to jail for conducting government business on a private e-mail account, when does Ivanka get fitted for her orange jumpsuit?



I'm sure Republicans will be furious and launch multiple investigations, and Fox News will be all over this 24/7.



Wait, what?



(insert Batmags rant here) :)

nymr83
Mar 22 2019 02:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

New Hillary new lately that she was doing, in the time between Obama's election and his inauguration, exactly what dems accused Flynn of doing when they brought up Logan Act nonsense. She is the gift that keeps on giving.

nymr83
Mar 22 2019 04:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The "witch hunt" is over. No new indictments recommended. how fast will democrats turn on Mueller?

Edgy MD
Mar 22 2019 08:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

We don't know. I wouldn't conclude anything about the substance of the report before I've seen it.

LWFS
Mar 22 2019 09:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=4826 time=1553287644 user_id=54]
New Hillary new lately that she was doing, in the time between Obama's election and his inauguration, exactly what dems accused Flynn of doing when they brought up Logan Act nonsense. She is the gift that keeps on giving.



?



Is the Logan Act nonsense to which you're referring is the nonsense for which he pled guilty, then abrogated his plea agreement?

Edgy MD
Mar 23 2019 08:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I couldn't part that sentence for the life of me. Drunk posting at 4:47 is sad.

MFS62
Mar 24 2019 08:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Another one of those "best people" Trump is nominating to an important position:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/donald-trump-just-picked-laughingstock-204024425.html

I don't want us to be in Kansas, Toto.

Terrifying.

Later

MFS62
Mar 24 2019 02:44 PM
Re: Politics 2019


The "witch hunt" is over. No new indictments recommended. how fast will democrats turn on Mueller?


Its isn't over, by a long stretch. From USA Today:
Will that be the end?

No.



Mueller is just one of many potential legal problems for Trump and his inner circle. The list of investigations encircling the president seems to be growing by the day.



More: Michael Cohen's testimony prompts a new question: In web of Trump investigations, is anyone safe?



Both the targets and the total number of investigations is unknown, but we know various probes have examined Trump's campaign, family, charity foundation, inaugural committee and his businesses.



In New York:



The state attorney general subpoenaed two banks this week for financial records relating to several Trump Organization projects, the New York Times reported.

Federal prosecutors are still investigating campaign-finance violations within Trump's campaign even after his former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violations stemming from hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Trump. Cohen has said he made the payments at Trump's direction.

Cohen said he's been in “constant contact” with federal prosecutors in New York about other investigations, but wouldn't elaborate.

Trump's inaugural committee was subpoenaed in February as part of an investigation into the group's fundraising activities.

State authorities in New York have been investigating Trump's private foundation.

In Washington and Maryland:



Attorneys general in Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit alleging Trump violated the Constitution's Emolument's clause, which bans gifts and payments from foreign governments. The case could allow officials some insight into Trump's business dealings and potential conflicts of interests.

In Congress:



Lawmakers are just getting started. The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee opened a sweeping investigation this month into Trump and his associates, requesting documents from 81 "agencies, entities, and individuals" connected to the administration and Trump's private businesses.

The House Oversight Committee is also examining a wide array of topics, including Trump's communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House efforts in a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, whether Trump played any part in securing top-secret security clearances for members of his family and whether Trump violated the Constitution by accepting profits from foreign governments. The Committee welcomed Cohen earlier this month, then laid out an investigative road map that could include other Trump Organization employees.

The House Intelligence Committee is expanding its own investigation of Russian election interference.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/20/robert-mueller-final-report-trump-russia-investigation-your-guide-what-to-expect/3143383002/

Later

Lefty Specialist
Mar 24 2019 03:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Barr's 'summary' sounds like a whitewash. We're going to need to see the full report.



Fortunately Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler aren't satisfied.

Edgy MD
Mar 25 2019 02:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I hope we have more people than Schiff and Nadler at the barricades.

nymr83
Mar 25 2019 05:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Avenatti going down!

MFS62
Mar 26 2019 06:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019


The "witch hunt" is over. No new indictments recommended. how fast will democrats turn on Mueller?


This is what we do know:

Trump publicly asked for help from Russia

He received that help

He benefited from that help

He rewarded that help

Then he lied about it.

The details of the report will tell us more.



And when is he going to admit that Russia is still trying to influence out politics and he isn't doing anything about it?



Later

Lefty Specialist
Mar 26 2019 07:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So we have a guy who was hired because he thought there was no need for a Special Counsel, saying that there was nothing to see in the report that he won't release to the public.



Well, alrighty then. Now we can get back to important stuff, like Hillary's e-mails.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 26 2019 08:27 AM
Re: Politics 2019

If the courts ultimately block the release of the Mueller report, the report will get leaked. -- if not before the courts rule.



Count on it.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 26 2019 08:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=5078 time=1553610430 user_id=68]
If the courts ultimately block the release of the Mueller report, the report will get leaked. -- if not before the courts rule.



Count on it.



Especially if the DOJ thinks Barr's interpretations are misleading.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 26 2019 08:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yep, it'll leak sooner or later. And pulling in Barr and Mueller himself to testify should be enlightening.



Plus everyone's forgetting about the SDNY and the NY Attorney General.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 26 2019 09:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump's DOJ will surely move to block Mueller and Barr from testifying before congress. And I wouldnt trust this weaponized Trump court now overloaded with wingnut political hacks who'll do whatever it takes to advance the GOP agenda to do the just thing.

nymr83
Mar 26 2019 10:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Yep, it'll leak sooner or later. And pulling in Barr and Mueller himself to testify should be enlightening.



Plus everyone's forgetting about the SDNY and the NY Attorney General.


Barr isnt forgetting about them. He flat out set part of what he has to to talk to Mueller about before releasing the report is any necessary redactions to material relatred to the ongoing work of things Mueller outsourced.



i don't get the phony outrage here. Barr has committed to releasing the report once properly removing things as required by law.



if he doesnt do that (do to pressure from Trump or whatever) it'll be time to criticize him, but right now its just unfairr.


saying that there was nothing to see in the report that he won't release to the public.


Where do you pull this complete bullshit from? he explicitly says he is planning to release what he can.


Barr Letter wrote:
As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.



Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.



Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Edgy MD
Mar 26 2019 11:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not outraged. I AM deeply suspicious, because (A) Attorney General Barr had the report for weeks before it was announced to be final, (B) that same attorney general auditioned for the role by writing a memo as a private citizen explicitly ruling out obstruction of justice, (C) his predecessor was fired explicitly for not protecting the president, which certainly implies a lot about what Attorney General Barr was hired for, (D) the president has explicitly and demonstrably valued personal loyalty above any other qualification for his cabinet officers and underlings, and (E) the president and his surrogates are taking victory laps all over the country. The longer they get to declare victory, the harder it becomes to reverse that narrative, no matter how unsupported it is by facts.



If we want an (F), no one of consequence has officially seen the report yet, and that's simply unacceptable.



The president is a gross and habitual criminal strongman. That the nation is being so deliberate in pursuing him for this is because (A) half the country wants to make sure that his end comes as constitutionally as possible without doing further damage to the democratic norms that he undermines every day, and (B) one third of the country is bizarrely defending him and the president repeatedly threatens to use his stature to mobilize this population against their own country.



If we want a (C), he and the Senate majority, while accomplishing little to nothing else, have been aggressively populating the judiciary with selections, often grossly under-qualified, made primarily for their expected allegiance should questions of their benefactors' criminality and abuses come before their court. This reality grows every day.



That anybody who would willingly associate with this administration is at this point held under deep suspicion should be unsurprising.

Edgy MD
Mar 26 2019 12:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And let's all take a cold shower with the fact that the same president promised to release his tax returns.

nymr83
Mar 26 2019 01:35 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

And let's all take a cold shower with the fact that the same president promised to release his tax returns.


but Edgy, they're under audit! (wheres the sarcasm meter?)

Lefty Specialist
Mar 27 2019 01:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/55460106_2409597265719522_5106558639968092160_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=70c2bf38c6f5f3ded6e3a554cba0d7fa&oe=5D05DDAB>

Edgy MD
Mar 27 2019 02:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

That's a nicely appointed mid-century modern ranch, Barrs.



You probably shouldn't hold your smoke over your wife's martini, but looking good otherwise.

nymr83
Mar 27 2019 02:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Amazing how he weighed more at age 10 than he did in his first go around as AG!

Lefty Specialist
Mar 27 2019 03:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He'll be losing a little weight under the hot lights of a House Committee invitation to testify.

nymr83
Mar 27 2019 06:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

he has nothing to hide (unlike his boss ... snicker)

Fman99
Mar 28 2019 06:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I really feel like it's time for this country to become, like, two separate countries. Sorry, Mr. Lincoln.

LWFS
Mar 28 2019 11:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Fman99 post_id=5321 time=1553775038 user_id=86]
I really feel like it's time for this country to become, like, two separate countries. Sorry, Mr. Lincoln.



Good luck with your economy, Heartland and New South!

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 29 2019 08:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Another presidential retard-fest last night, this time in Grand Rapids, Michigan, full of retards still waiting for Trump to get them back their $55.00 an hour high end factory jobs. Any day now. Of course, if those retards are out of jobs, they probably need affordable health care insurance like they need air to breathe. But the retards cheered for the destruction of ObamaCare as if Trump was giving out million dollar bills for free. They're also for voter suppression laws because those retards are also racists who think so little of African-Americans, that they have no problem supporting legislation whose main purpose is to prevent African-Americans from voting. What a party. And what a party did those retards have last night.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 29 2019 10:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Another presidential retard-fest last night, this time in Grand Rapids, Michigan, full of retards still waiting for Trump to get them back their $55.00 an hour high end factory jobs. Any day now. Of course, if those retards are out of jobs, they probably need affordable health care insurance like they need air to breathe. But the retards cheered for the destruction of ObamaCare as if Trump was giving out million dollar bills for free. They're also for voter suppression laws because those retards are also racists who think so little of African-Americans, that they have no problem supporting legislation whose main purpose is to prevent African-Americans from voting. What a party. And what a party did those retards have last night.


It looks like Charles Pierce is reading my posts. And responding.




[Quote] I'll Never 'Understand' the People Who Cheer for This Maniac



Even though it's really not that difficult.

By Charles P. Pierce

Mar 29, 2019





Ladies and gentlemen....the President* Of The United States...



“I have a better education than them, I'm smarter than them, I went to the best schools they didn't. Much more beautiful house, much more beautiful apartment. Much more beautiful everything. And I'm president, and they're not.”



"Little pencil-neck Adam Schiff. He's got the smallest, thinnest neck I've ever seen. He is not a long-ball hitter."



"If Hillary got in... you'd be doing wind.Windmills. Whee-eee!And if it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for that night. 'Darling, I want to watch television.' 'I'm sorry! The wind isn't blowing.' I know a lot about wind."



I'm sorry, Mayor Pete. I don't have to "understand" the people who cheer this maniacal prattle—even though that's not particularly hard. For the good of the country, their political power has to be crushed, repeatedly, election after election, until we are sure this mockery of democracy never happens again.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26986253/donald-trump-grand-rapids-michigan-rally/

Lefty Specialist
Mar 29 2019 08:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump never tires of his Nuremberg rallies. I'm waiting for him to advocate the death of one of his many enemies. It's coming, because every rally is just a little more unhinged.

MFS62
Mar 30 2019 05:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Trump never tires of his Nuremberg rallies. I'm waiting for him to advocate the death of one of his many enemies. It's coming, because every rally is just a little more unhinged.


The increasing number of people wearing the Q shirts is troubling. They are exponentially increasing the dark state hate rhetoric and he is catering to them. They are one scary bunch.



Later

Willets Point
Mar 30 2019 12:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Trump never tires of his Nuremberg rallies. I'm waiting for him to advocate the death of one of his many enemies. It's coming, because every rally is just a little more unhinged.


He already said that the Second Ammendment people could assasinate Clinton.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2019 09:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

There's a sucker born every minute. Now the scumbag in the White House is saying that the GOP won't give Americans the great health care system it's been promising until after Trump's reelected in 2020. So go out and vote for Trump if you want a great health care system that'll also protect the pre-existing conditions crowd. This should play well with the rubes in Grand Rapids who are still waiting for their $80/hr assembly line factory jobs to come back. And while everybody's distracted, waiting for that great big GOP health care system to materialize, first count daughter Ivanka will be stealing all the money she could lay her hands on.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2019 10:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019


There's a sucker born every minute. Now the scumbag in the White House is saying that the GOP won't give Americans the great health care system it's been promising until after Trump's reelected in 2020. So go out and vote for Trump if you want a great health care system that'll also protect the pre-existing conditions crowd. This should play well with the rubes in Grand Rapids who are still waiting for their $80/hr assembly line factory jobs to come back. And while everybody's distracted, waiting for that great big GOP health care system to materialize, first count daughter Ivanka will be stealing all the money she could lay her hands on.




Rubes and suckers? Holy moley, is good ol' Charlie lurking the CPF?





Re-Elect the President* and That Magic Healthcare Will Appear Before Your Eyes



Nobody believes this.



By Charles P. Pierce

Apr 2, 2019


"There's no point in being a grifter if it's the same as being a citizen."—Henry Gondorff, The Sting.



On the cable teevee this year, longtime religious bunco artist Peter Popoff has been gulling the rubes into buying his "miracle spring water" which, according to Popoff, will bring you CASH MONEY if you drink it, or sprinkle it on your wallet, or something. Now, though, Popoff has branched out, and he is pitching miracle seeds. I don't know what's actually supposed to grow from the miracle seeds, but Popoff promises that, if you plant them, you can expect to increase your monthly income. I find the connection between agriculture and currency dubious, but I'm more interested in what happens if you water your miracle seeds with the miracle spring water. Does an office of the U.S. Mint spring up amid the gladiolas? Do you suddenly have Tim Geithners sprouting all over your yard? I worry about things like this.



In any event, this is Peter Popoff's second time around the universe of suckers that make American entrepreneurship the envy of the world. He crashed and burned in the 1980s when his wife was caught on a concealed radio, feeding him details on the problems of the people who'd come to his hootenannies. This is not dissimilar to the several dozen times that El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has augered in, only to rely upon his hawk-like instinct to find the celebrity updraft and start again. It's no different now that he's president* either. From CNN:



"Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn't work. Premiums & deductibles are far too high - Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance," Trump said on Twitter. There is no evidence that there is another health care reform proposal coming from the GOP.



"The Republicans are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win back the House. It will be truly great HealthCare that will work for America. Also, Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions. The Republican Party will be known as the Party of Great HealtCare. Meantime, the USA is doing better than ever & is respected again!"





Just re-elect him and Truly Great Healthcare will appear right before your eyes!



Literally nobody believes this. But he will sell it relentlessly for the next couple of years and then, if he gets re-elected, and the Congress swings back, or if the current Supreme Court rules the way its political masters want it to rule, then the healthcare system will be thrown into chaos, and it will be decided that health-care reform is too deadly an issue. Meanwhile, Peter Popoff will get rich because there will be a run on miracle spring water because everyone is going broke from getting sick.



Act today!


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27017264/donald-trump-republican-healthcare-2020/

Ceetar
Apr 02 2019 11:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Those trump tweets are literal propaganda and they shouldn't be included in print. Paraphrase like the headline and leave them out.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 02 2019 12:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Some more embers from the dumpster fire:



Trump wants to close the border with Mexico. He's just dumb and evil enough to do it. The US only has a 3-week supply of avocados if he does so. Also, the entire US auto industry would grind to a halt within days, among other economic disasters.



He's gone all-in on the lawsuit to declare Obamacare illegal. This is a two-fer; if the court rules in his favor, 20 million people lose their health insurance. And after saying that he'll have a Republican plan ready (spoiler alert- there is no plan and there hasn't been one for 10 years of trying), he's pushed that off until after the election, basically putting out a neon sign saying "If you want to lose your healthcare, vote for Republicans in 2020".



Security clearances are a disaster. Not just Jared (WhatsApp buddy with the Saudis who's taking billions from shady countries) and Countess Ivanka (getting trademarks from the Chinese), but also others who should be nowhere near national secrets. What ally would share classified information with us right now? And as the cherry on top of the whipped cream on this turd sundae, a whistleblower, who's a career official who has worked for both Republican and Democratic presidents, was retaliated against for rejecting clearances in the most petty way. She suffers from dwarfism, and the Trump appointees intentionally put files she needed up high so that she couldn't reach them. Yes, really.





Oh, and he's appointed a Fox News loon to the Federal Reserve, he's disbanded the Homeland Security Domestic Terrorism Task Force, and tried to steal money from the Special Olympics. This is just in the past week.

kcmets
Apr 02 2019 12:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
The US only has a 3-week supply of avocados if he does so.

If this doesn't open some eyes, this country is going down the pooper.

Benjamin Grimm
Apr 02 2019 12:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Donald Trump probably doesn't even know what an avocado is.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2019 01:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:





He's gone all-in on the lawsuit to declare Obamacare illegal. This is a two-fer; if the court rules in his favor, 20 million people lose their health insurance. And after saying that he'll have a Republican plan ready (spoiler alert- there is no plan and there hasn't been one for 10 years of trying), he's pushed that off until after the election, basically putting out a neon sign saying "awIf you want to lose your healthcare, vote for Republicans in 2020"




The GOP's backed into a corner. The only way to protect pre existing conditions is by enforcing the Obamacare mandate. That's the only way that'll work. But the GOP doesnt want to admit that the Dems were right all along. And that's assuming they even want to protect pre existing conditions, which I doubt t.



What a scumbag party. What kind of bastard supports taking away grandpa's insulin? Because Betsy DeVos needs more money. Let's take all the tax revenues and give them to Betsy and the charter schools.



The whole country's being held hostage by 15% of the population consisting of backwards uneducated racist white men who, thanks to our cockeyed system of government, can control the Senate, despite its minority status.

TransMonk
Apr 02 2019 02:09 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I have no doubt that Republicans will keep pre-existing conditions protected. The rub is that they will allow insurance companies to charge whatever they want to cover individuals with those conditions. Sky high insurance rates will then become astronomical and most will not be able to afford the increase.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2019 02:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

That's protecting pre existing conditions only in the most hyper-literal technical sense.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 02 2019 05:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=6070 time=1554235782 user_id=71]
I have no doubt that Republicans will keep pre-existing conditions protected. The rub is that they will allow insurance companies to charge whatever they want to cover individuals with those conditions. Sky high insurance rates will then become astronomical and most will not be able to afford the increase.



Aaaand they'll blame the Democrats for that.

Fman99
Apr 02 2019 06:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So super sad at the direction things are taking.

nymr83
Apr 02 2019 07:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:
The US only has a 3-week supply of avocados if he does so.

If this doesn't open some eyes, this country is going down the pooper.


they are disgusting and this is a point in Trump's favor.

kcmets
Apr 02 2019 08:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Not liking guacamole is, ya know, kinda un-American!

nymr83
Apr 02 2019 08:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=kcmets post_id=6147 time=1554256955 user_id=53]
Not liking guacamole is, ya know, kinda un-American!



Un-Mexican!

kcmets
Apr 02 2019 08:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Not sure what your beef is, I'm just being silly.

nymr83
Apr 02 2019 10:03 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=kcmets post_id=6176 time=1554260225 user_id=53]
Not sure what your beef is, I'm just being silly.



Beef is awesome. I have no beef with beef, only avocados.

MFS62
Apr 03 2019 07:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm guessing the Chinese woman found on the MAR-A-LAGO property with a thumb drive containing malware wasn't there for a swim. She was there to get her security clearance from Donald Trump.



Later

Edgy MD
Apr 03 2019 11:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Damn it, now I want avocados.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 03 2019 12:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=6198 time=1554299382 user_id=60]
I'm guessing the Chinese woman found on the MAR-A-LAGO property with a thumb drive containing malware wasn't there for a swim. She was there to get her security clearance from Donald Trump.

Later





Yeah, the fact that she didn't have a bathing suit was an issue. If she'd just said she was a massage parlor millionaire, she'd have been fine.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 03 2019 01:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

=MFS62 post_id=6198 time=1554299382 user_id=60]
I'm guessing the Chinese woman found on the MAR-A-LAGO property with a thumb drive containing malware wasn't there for a swim. She was there to get her security clearance from Donald Trump.

Later




Yeah, the fact that she didn't have a bathing suit was an issue. If she'd just said she was a massage parlor millionaire, she'd have been fine.


I'm sure that what we know about this incident is just the tiny tip of the iceberg, but that the corrupt scumbag in the White House who no doubt uses Mar-a-Lago to conduct his scams out of view knows precisely what this woman with the malware was doing there.

whippoorwill
Apr 03 2019 01:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

=MFS62 post_id=6198 time=1554299382 user_id=60]
I'm guessing the Chinese woman found on the MAR-A-LAGO property with a thumb drive containing malware wasn't there for a swim. She was there to get her security clearance from Donald Trump.

Later




Yeah, the fact that she didn't have a bathing suit was an issue. If she'd just said she was a massage parlor millionaire, she'd have been fine.



Just skimming through this...I thought it said the fact that I didn't have a bathing suit and instantly looked to see who was skinny dipping. Lefty!

Lefty Specialist
Apr 03 2019 01:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Tough to hide the malware when yer nekkid.



If things are this lax, hell, I'll go down there for the weekend. I'm a white guy with some gray hair and a set of golf clubs. I'll blend right in.

Double Switch
Apr 03 2019 03:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

After following Donnie for decades - not on purpose, mind you, he's simply impossible to avoid - I highly doubt he knows anything "precisely."

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 03 2019 06:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=5078 time=1553610430 user_id=68]
If the courts ultimately block the release of the Mueller report, the report will get leaked. -- if not before the courts rule.



Count on it.



And here come the leaks. Mueller's investigators say the special counsel's report is way more damaging to Trump than Barr's letting on.

Double Switch
Apr 03 2019 06:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Before, I was disinclined to have the House Democrats pursue impeachment articles. Too much, too time consuming. But, with Barr obstructing the Mueller Report the way he is, given the way the GOP continues to support a criminal psychopath as the nation's president (and people who continue to support the GOP), I have to say it's time to draft articles of impeachment. Impeachment takes a long damn time but having the articles drafted chronicles the crimes. This needs to be done. Now I fully support at least drafting articles of impeachment. I wholeheartedly believe in documentation. And compliance. We make laws; this implies compliance. With all the laws, not just the ones Mitch McConnell likes.



It is difficult to believe anyone can continue to defend the GOP in the face of all this obstruction of justice.

nymr83
Apr 03 2019 06:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

CUT THE CRAP ALREADY - Barr hasn't obstructed anything, he is redacting information as REQUIRED BY LAW before releasing the report which he says is coming in April. that is hardly an unreasonable delay and there will be plenty of time for congress to draw their own conclusions from the report.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 03 2019 07:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

You cut the crap. Barr still hasn't committed to providing Congress with the full unredacted report and supporting evidence. Barr has the right to protect grand jury information and evidence of ongoing investigations from the public -- but not from Congress. As my good ol' friend Charlie P. wrote, the only people who've seen Mueller's special report other than the special counsel team, are the people who we can least trust.



And put me down for impeaching Trump, too. The Senate won't convict, but if Trump committed impeachable wrongdoing, the public will be smart enough to figure out that the scumbag Senate is backing g a scumbag president.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 03 2019 07:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=6292 time=1554339172 user_id=54]
CUT THE CRAP ALREADY - Barr hasn't obstructed anything, he is redacting information as REQUIRED BY LAW before releasing the report which he says is coming in April. that is hardly an unreasonable delay and there will be plenty of time for congress to draw their own conclusions from the report.



He could release the report to the Judiciary Committee, as requested (and subpoenad). Anything less smells like a coverup, fairly or unfairly.

Double Switch
Apr 03 2019 09:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=6292 time=1554339172 user_id=54]
CUT THE CRAP ALREADY - Barr hasn't obstructed anything, he is redacting information as REQUIRED BY LAW before releasing the report which he says is coming in April. that is hardly an unreasonable delay and there will be plenty of time for congress to draw their own conclusions from the report.



Completely unreasonable delay. Cut the crap? How charming. What's your skin in this game?

nymr83
Apr 03 2019 09:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm sick of the bullshit attacks on anything and everything related to Trump or anyone with any connection to Trump. Barr isnt his stooge and doesn't deserve the bullshit. Totally reasonable delay.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 03 2019 10:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=6319 time=1554350073 user_id=54]
I'm sick of the bullshit attacks on anything and everything related to Trump or anyone with any connection to Trump. Barr isnt his stooge and doesn't deserve the bullshit. Totally reasonable delay.



There's no reasonable doubt that Barr's a Trump stooge. He's so conflicted that he was confirmed only because the filibuster's gone. Only by the degraded standards of this administration could Barr possibly be considered an adult in the room. In a normal presidency, he'd be facing daily demands for his resignation. Just this week, Barr approved a letter to the fucking Oscar's committee, alleging bogus antitrust violations, all because Trump hates Hollywood. He's a hack political appointee who earlier in his career, covered up the Iran contra scandal.



You're tired of complaints about Trump's people? Like who? Klepto Kushner? Irrelevant Ivanka? Virulent homophobic know-nothing nutjob DeVos? I wonder why? All the best people.



Please.

Edgy MD
Apr 04 2019 05:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

After following Donnie for decades - not on purpose, mind you, he's simply impossible to avoid - I highly doubt he knows anything "precisely."


Or what "malware" is.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 04 2019 06:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

Before, I was disinclined to have the House Democrats pursue impeachment articles. Too much, too time consuming. But, with Barr obstructing the Mueller Report the way he is, given the way the GOP continues to support a criminal psychopath as the nation's president (and people who continue to support the GOP), I have to say it's time to draft articles of impeachment. Impeachment takes a long damn time but having the articles drafted chronicles the crimes. This needs to be done. Now I fully support at least drafting articles of impeachment. I wholeheartedly believe in documentation. And compliance. We make laws; this implies compliance. With all the laws, not just the ones Mitch McConnell likes.



It is difficult to believe anyone can continue to defend the GOP in the face of all this obstruction of justice.


Impeachment is a political act. And while I believe he's done enough to rise to impeachment level (certainly more than Bill Clinton ever did), there simply aren't 20 Republican senators who'll follow the process through to conviction. And a failed impeachment process will play right into the victimization mantra that Trump and Republicans feed on. Impeaching him will make it MORE likely he gets re-elected, not less.



Nancy Pelosi knows this. She won't even discuss the I-word. But she's empowered all of her committee chairs to go after Trump at every level- by demanding the Mueller Report, by getting 6 years of his taxes, by investigating the security debacles and a dozens of other things. Death by a thousand cuts is more effective.



Nobody despises Trump more than I do (well, except maybe his 3 wives or contractors he hasn't paid). But impeachment proceedings, while they may feel good, aren't the solution and could easily backfire, as they did on Republicans in the '90's. The solution is voting the bastards out. There's an election 19 months away and that's probably at least as long as impeachment would take.



Impeachment also sucks the air out of the room for anything else. Democrats need to be setting an agenda and getting control of the Senate back. Impeachment proceedings hinder both of those goals.



He's a dick. He's corrupt, arrogant and incompetent, and he's a huge national security risk. Let's keep uncovering the facts and keep our eye on the ball.

nymr83
Apr 04 2019 07:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

... a failed impeachment process will play right into the victimization mantra that Trump and Republicans feed on. Impeaching him will make it MORE likely he gets re-elected, not less.



...Nancy Pelosi knows this. She won't even discuss the I-word.



...impeachment proceedings, while they may feel good, aren't the solution and could easily backfire, as they did on Republicans in the '90's.



Impeachment also sucks the air out of the room for anything else. Democrats need to be setting an agenda and getting control of the Senate back. Impeachment proceedings hinder both of those goals.


this pretty much hits the nail on the head and Pelosi is a thousand times more politically astute than the morons screaming for impeachment.

Edgy MD
Apr 04 2019 07:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I disagree that impeachment is a political act. Folks may bandy it about as such, and certainly politics corrupt how they vote. But it's purpose is hygiene for the republic.



Secretary Pelosi and Speaker Schumer have every reason to publicly avoid it because it would be a fabulous waste of time and political capital. But if they are doing their jobs, they should be having back channel conversations across the aisle, finding out which senators they can count on to jump ff the president's bandwagon at which stages of malfeasance, and constantly trying to move that needle.



Because, while it may be a political loser, we may soon come to a point where it is an utterly necessary step for the safeguarding of the republic. We may well have reached and passed that point.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 04 2019 08:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Now, no impeaching is not the same as no investigating. The Mueller report need to be turned over to Congress and a redacted version (negotiated between Congress and the DOJ) needs to be available to the public. Apparently the Mueller people knew this and they wrote the report in such a way that this could be done easily without muting their conclusions.



The longer Barr delays, the more pressure there'll be. And more leaks.

Double Switch
Apr 04 2019 09:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Double Switch wrote:

Before, I was disinclined to have the House Democrats pursue impeachment articles. Too much, too time consuming. But, with Barr obstructing the Mueller Report the way he is, given the way the GOP continues to support a criminal psychopath as the nation's president (and people who continue to support the GOP), I have to say it's time to draft articles of impeachment. Impeachment takes a long damn time but having the articles drafted chronicles the crimes. This needs to be done. Now I fully support at least drafting articles of impeachment. I wholeheartedly believe in documentation. And compliance. We make laws; this implies compliance. With all the laws, not just the ones Mitch McConnell likes.



It is difficult to believe anyone can continue to defend the GOP in the face of all this obstruction of justice.


Impeachment is a political act. And while I believe he's done enough to rise to impeachment level (certainly more than Bill Clinton ever did), there simply aren't 20 Republican senators who'll follow the process through to conviction. And a failed impeachment process will play right into the victimization mantra that Trump and Republicans feed on. Impeaching him will make it MORE likely he gets re-elected, not less.



Nancy Pelosi knows this. She won't even discuss the I-word. But she's empowered all of her committee chairs to go after Trump at every level- by demanding the Mueller Report, by getting 6 years of his taxes, by investigating the security debacles and a dozens of other things. Death by a thousand cuts is more effective.



Nobody despises Trump more than I do (well, except maybe his 3 wives or contractors he hasn't paid). But impeachment proceedings, while they may feel good, aren't the solution and could easily backfire, as they did on Republicans in the '90's. The solution is voting the bastards out. There's an election 19 months away and that's probably at least as long as impeachment would take.



Impeachment also sucks the air out of the room for anything else. Democrats need to be setting an agenda and getting control of the Senate back. Impeachment proceedings hinder both of those goals.



He's a dick. He's corrupt, arrogant and incompetent, and he's a huge national security risk. Let's keep uncovering the facts and keep our eye on the ball.

I absolutely know all this. It's been my position as well until the "Barr redactions/4-page memo" of 22 months of investigative work and punting the full report. There remains no excuse for not doing it because it appears to be a fruitless venture. It demonstrates a lack of outrage. Continual kowtowing to the GOP in the Senate is weakness that is "crap" and needs to be "cut out."

Edgy MD
Apr 04 2019 10:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The only legitimate excuse for delaying the report this long is if there are warrants to get and arrests to make based on the information and The Department of Justice doesn't want to tip off the targets.



I certainly would love to believe in the integrity of Attorney General Barr, or any Republican who predated the era of President Trump. But I don't, because experience shows me that where Trump goes, integrity has lost 100% of it's currency.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 04 2019 10:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Barr was hired to be Trump's personal attorney. To do what Jeff Sessions wouldn't, because for all of Session's obvious vile racism, Sessions had ethics. Who could've known?

Lefty Specialist
Apr 04 2019 11:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:

... a failed impeachment process will play right into the victimization mantra that Trump and Republicans feed on. Impeaching him will make it MORE likely he gets re-elected, not less.



...Nancy Pelosi knows this. She won't even discuss the I-word.



...impeachment proceedings, while they may feel good, aren't the solution and could easily backfire, as they did on Republicans in the '90's.



Impeachment also sucks the air out of the room for anything else. Democrats need to be setting an agenda and getting control of the Senate back. Impeachment proceedings hinder both of those goals.


this pretty much hits the nail on the head and Pelosi is a thousand times more politically astute than the morons screaming for impeachment.


Ha! We agree. See what Trump's done to America?

Edgy MD
Apr 04 2019 12:03 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's worth noting that, with the report, the independent counsel's team prepared official summaries for every matter that was investigated. These were written to be released immediately with very little reason to review them for intelligence revelations.



Allowing these guys to do several victory laps before the report is public is queers the pitch of the report's findings. Beyond that, it allows the president and his attorneys to get ahead of everything. Move the bodies, even.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 05 2019 11:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Why is this woman polling so low?



Elizabeth Warren wants to kill the legislative filibuster.



https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/05/sen-elizabeth-warren-calls-for-ending-the-senate-filibuster.html



And her first order of filibuster free business should be to bring in Puerto Rico and DC. That's four more Democratic senators.

Willets Point
Apr 07 2019 11:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

She ranks highly in the Willets Point poll.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 07 2019 01:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney sez Dems will never get Trump's tax returns.



https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/07/politics/mick-mulvaney-trump-tax-returns/index.html



He may be right. The courts are rigged and Trump has been getting ahead of this tax return issue by quietly installing his lapdog cronies into key positions at the IRS, with a lotta help from Mitch McConnell and the rubber stamp Senste.



So whaddya expect when liberals voted for Jill Stein with a Supreme Court and 100 lower court vacancies on the line?



It's all kabuki theater to watch liberal pundits on the Rachel Maddow show talk themselves blue in the face , explaining how the rule of law will ensure that Trump's tax returns will get released when In the end, Neil Fucking Gorsuch and the 5-4s will decide everything.

MFS62
Apr 07 2019 03:37 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=6582 time=1554665221 user_id=68]
when In the end, Neil Fucking Gorsuch and the 5-4s will decide everything.



Sadly true.

Later

nymr83
Apr 07 2019 08:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney sez Dems will never get Trump's tax returns.



https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/07/politics/mick-mulvaney-trump-tax-returns/index.html



He may be right. The courts are rigged and Trump has been getting ahead of this tax return issue by quietly installing his lapdog cronies into key positions at the IRS, with a lotta help from Mitch McConnell and the rubber stamp Senste.



So whaddya expect when liberals voted for Jill Stein with a Supreme Court and 100 lower court vacancies on the line?



It's all kabuki theater to watch liberal pundits on the Rachel Maddow show talk themselves blue in the face , explaining how the rule of law will ensure that Trump's tax returns will get released when In the end, Neil Fucking Gorsuch and the 5-4s will decide everything.


Roberts wasn't appointed by Trump and has shown he doesnt give a shit - You may not like him but I have ZERO doubt that whatever Roberts rules in a hypothetical case about Trump's tax returns is the same thing he'd rule in a hypothetical case about Bernie's.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 07 2019 09:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 08 2019 09:01 AM

Roberts is the cocksucker that shredded the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County and every chance he gets on the grounds that [giggle] there's no more racism in the United States. [/giggle] So of course, North Carolina goes out and draws the most racist district lines since LBJ was president before the ink is even dry on that decision, and then is brazen enough, or stupid enough to openly admit that they were racially motivated. So now youse can vote suppress to your racists hearts desire. Which you will and which you do. Because you can't win elections honestly anymore because your party has lurched so far to the right that it doesn't really represent anybody anymore other than its donors -- like count Betsty Devos. And there's only one of her. Thank god. So rig elections and exploit the mentally challenged who are too fucking stupid to know they need affordable healthcare even though they do. Roberts openly mocks the notion of extreme partisan gerrymanding, acting ignorant to mathematical concepts that can be used to rig districts with surgical precision -- mathematical concepts that anybody smart enough to be on the Supreme Court should understand. Let's see what he does. He's voted with the liberals on a couple of hot issues recently, but those votes were technical and procedural in nature, not on the merits.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 08 2019 06:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The law's pretty clear about the IRS making tax returns available. In fact it was written for this express purpose. So their only hope is a Supreme Court which will find an excuse to rule in their favor 5-4.

nymr83
Apr 08 2019 06:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

The law's pretty clear about the IRS making tax returns available. In fact it was written for this express purpose. So their only hope is a Supreme Court which will find an excuse to rule in their favor 5-4.


what is the law and who is they? if the law says we get Trump's return then put them out there. if not, he has the same right to keep them private as anyone else and our curiosity - or the hopes of democrats in Congress to embarass him - shouldn't change that.

MFS62
Apr 08 2019 06:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019


what is the law and who is they? if the law says we get Trump's return then put them out there. if not, he has the same right to keep them private as anyone else and our curiosity - or the hopes of democrats in Congress to embarass him - shouldn't change that.


This law:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/11/congressman-rarely-used-law-could-make-trump-tax-returns-public/97788564/


The 1924 law gives congressional committees that set tax policy the power to examine tax returns. It was used in 1974 when Congress looked at President Richard Nixon's returns, and in 2014 when the Ways and Means Committee released confidential tax information as part of its investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's handling of applications for nonprofit status.


I guess they don't have a research department at FOXNews, or wherever it is you get your news. Or they are just ignoring the law, like the person they support.

Later

nymr83
Apr 08 2019 07:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Or I don't bother reading entire articles about big orange's tax returns, hence why i asked the question?

MFS62
Apr 08 2019 07:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Or I don't bother reading entire articles about big orange's tax returns, hence why i asked the question?


We get that.

[url]https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=i+don%27t+know+too+many+things+video+youtube#id=1&vid=d8905e35f210f5c7062e377c7f2df648&action=click



Later

nymr83
Apr 08 2019 07:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

go fuck yourself

Lefty Specialist
Apr 08 2019 08:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, that's pretty much what Mick Mulvaney is saying.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 08 2019 09:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:

The law's pretty clear about the IRS making tax returns available. In fact it was written for this express purpose. So their only hope is a Supreme Court which will find an excuse to rule in their favor 5-4.


what is the law and who is they? if the law says we get Trump's return then put them out there. if not, he has the same right to keep them private as anyone else and our curiosity - or the hopes of democrats in Congress to embarass him - shouldn't change that.

That's one way to look at the issue. Another way is to know that Trump's returns can be gotten under the law but that the 5-4's will block the release anyway because it can do whatever the hell it wants to do because it's all word play and word games.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 08 2019 09:15 AM
Re: Politics 2019



Lefty Specialist wrote:

The law's pretty clear about the IRS making tax returns available. In fact it was written for this express purpose. So their only hope is a Supreme Court which will find an excuse to rule in their favor 5-4.


what is the law and who is they? if the law says we get Trump's return then put them out there. if not, he has the same right to keep them private as anyone else and our curiosity - or the hopes of democrats in Congress to embarass him - shouldn't change that.

That's one way to look at the issue. Another way is to know that Trump's returns can be gotten under the law but that the 5-4's will block the release anyway because it can do whatever the hell it wants to do because it's all word play and word games.


NY state lawmakers to introduce bill to get Trump's tax returns.



https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/437800-ny-state-lawmakers-to-introduce-bill-to-get-trumps-state-tax-returns?amp

nymr83
Apr 08 2019 10:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

this exactly the kind of thing that shows how off their rockers democrats have become. the NY legislature should be governing NY not passing laws to target one person - the president - individually. this is the very definition of bad government.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 08 2019 11:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019


this exactly the kind of thing that shows how off their rockers democrats have become. the NY legislature should be governing NY not passing laws to target one person - the president - individually. this is the very definition of bad government.


The proposed bill would likely and necessarily be limited to NYS and not Federal returns. Supremacy clause, yada yada. So if Trump's NYS returns are sketchy, the state would also have jurisdiction and want to investigate. It sounds like a reasonable bill because only Congress but not state officials would be able to trigger it.



And don't think I haven't noticed your unintended but incredibly ironic and tone-deaf use of the phrase "very definition of bad government ".

Edgy MD
Apr 08 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019


this exactly the kind of thing that shows how off their rockers democrats have become. the NY legislature should be governing NY not passing laws to target one person - the president - individually. this is the very definition of bad government.


The president just threw his secretary of Homeland Security under the bus because she wasn't "tough" enough to double down on putting kids in cages.



This is a better example of bad government.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 08 2019 11:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

In 1901, the speed limit in Connecticut was 12 MPH. Changing situations often require new legislation. In the past it was more or less a given that the President wouldn't be hiding things on his New York state taxes. Times have changed.

nymr83
Apr 08 2019 12:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019



this exactly the kind of thing that shows how off their rockers democrats have become. the NY legislature should be governing NY not passing laws to target one person - the president - individually. this is the very definition of bad government.


The proposed bill would likely and necessarily be limited to NYS and not Federal returns. Supremacy clause, yada yada. So if Trump's NYS returns are sketchy, the state would also have jurisdiction and want to investigate. It sounds like a reasonable bill because only Congress but not state officials would be able to trigger it.



And don't think I haven't noticed your unintended but incredibly ironic and tone-deaf use of the phrase "very definition of bad government ".


If there is anything wrong with Trump's NYS returns - or anyone else's NYS returns - the appropriate agency in NY should look into them.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 08 2019 02:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019




this exactly the kind of thing that shows how off their rockers democrats have become. the NY legislature should be governing NY not passing laws to target one person - the president - individually. this is the very definition of bad government.


The proposed bill would likely and necessarily be limited to NYS and not Federal returns. Supremacy clause, yada yada. So if Trump's NYS returns are sketchy, the state would also have jurisdiction and want to investigate. It sounds like a reasonable bill because only Congress but not state officials would be able to trigger it.



And don't think I haven't noticed your unintended but incredibly ironic and tone-deaf use of the phrase "very definition of bad government ".


If there is anything wrong with Trump's NYS returns - or anyone else's NYS returns - the appropriate agency in NY should look into them.


If you have four or five minutes, here's the best piece I've come across so far, on Trump's taxes.



http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/trump-tax-returns-secret-congress-law.html

nymr83
Apr 08 2019 04:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

will read tonight assuming there is no paywall

Lefty Specialist
Apr 09 2019 11:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump fired the director of the Secret Service and made fun of his looks.



These are the people that would stand in front of a bullet for him and his worthless family. Maybe one will step aside one of these days.

nymr83
Apr 09 2019 11:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Democrats looking absolutely foolish today attacking Barr, who once again reiterates we'll have the report in about a week!

Lefty Specialist
Apr 09 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes, it's fiction. Mostly.



HOW IT ENDS



By Zoë Sharp



The Russian landed at Dulles after 48 hours of traveling. Of necessity, he came from Moscow by a circuitous route. A long way with a very specific task. There would be no return flight.



In the airport bars, the TVs were tuned to different news channels but the story was the same. First the president's campaign manager, then his lawyer, a Republican congressman, former aides, family members. Those who weren't indicted were subpoenaed. House arrest had become fashionable.



The Town Car sent by the hotel had a flat-screen for his entertainment on the 45-minute drive into D.C. The channel once snidely referred to as “state TV” now delighted in showing long shots through the White House railings of men in uniforms removing boxes of incriminating paperwork. The president himself was not in residence. He was holed up on home ground.



The walk across the hotel lobby included a brush with a businessman intent on his cellphone. The Russian did not touch the inside pocket of his coat, into which his new identity had been adroitly slipped, until he reached the desk and produced it.



The clerk was slow to respond. His attention was on the TV in the bar.



“They're saying the Russkies put him up to it,” the clerk said, handing over his room key. “And I voted for the guy!”



The Russian shrugged. “Fake news.…” But the clerk did not look believing.



He spent a day in his suite, watching the slow grind toward impeachment.



Around 11 p.m., his contact arrived. The man had been in deep cover for decades. In his briefcase was a bottle of Stolichnaya and a 9-millimeter Makarov semiautomatic pistol.



“There is no other way?” It was intended as a statement. It emerged as a question.



The contact shook his head. “When it comes out that he was handpicked at the highest possible level, our great nation will be the laughingstock of the world,” he said. “He must be silenced.”



They drank vodka until the early hours. The contact left for the airport. The Russian drank on alone. Throughout his career, he would have spent these hours going over the plan, the escape route. This time, there was no escape route — only honor. And death.



At 7 a.m., he showered. The bar of soap had the hotel name stamped into both sides. He made sure to wash his ass with it. Then he shaved and ate a last room-service breakfast. He dressed in the porter's uniform that had been obtained for him, tucking the Makarov into the back of his waistband.



When it was time, he went downstairs, took his place in the lobby before the entourage appeared. The hotel staff had been lined up to see their boss, the president, go by. A few of them applauded. Most did not.



The president didn't seem to notice. He waved, in his desultory fashion. The Secret Service agents clustered around him, ushered him toward the armored limo idling outside at the curb.



The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president's back, and squeezed the trigger.



The Makarov misfired.



The Secret Service agent at the president's shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.



The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.



It did not come.



He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.



“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …”

Lefty Specialist
Apr 09 2019 11:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=6740 time=1554829884 user_id=54]
Democrats looking absolutely foolish today attacking Barr, who once again reiterates we'll have the report in about a week!



A heavily redacted report. And he's made plain that the House will never see the actual unredacted report. This guy's not worth defending, don't even try.

Edgy MD
Apr 09 2019 12:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It seems obvious, doesn't it?



There's just no way to justly give AG Barr the benefit of the doubt. His entire existence in the role is because AG Sessions wasn't protective enough of the president.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 09 2019 01:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If the House gets a whitewashed version as expected, Barr will get a subpoena demanding the full report immediately.





(((Rep. Nadler)))

‏Verified account @RepJerryNadler



Congress is—as a matter of law—entitled to each of the categories AG Barr proposed to redact from the Special Counsel's report. Full release of the report to Congress is consistent with both congressional intent and the interests of the American public.



https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=392865

Edgy MD
Apr 09 2019 01:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And then, a grueling court battle.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 09 2019 02:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes indeed, but one that needs to be had.



Trump did an end-zone dance when Barr issued his first cover-up memo. I have no reason to believe this one will be any better as they're going to leave out the names and information of anyone who hasn't been indicted. The DOJ has a 'policy' that says a sitting president can't be indicted. Therefore, the whitewashed report will contain nothing about Trump, or Don Jr., or Jarvanka. Also, no grand-jury testimony (even though they could easily ask the judge to release it). There are going to be holes you could drive a Peterbilt through. It'll come out as a wrist-slap at worst.



I'd be glad to be wrong, but Barr doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Benjamin Grimm
Apr 09 2019 02:44 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It doesn't make any sense at all to say that a sitting president can't be indicted. What it means, given today's reality, is that if a president's party controls one or both houses of Congress, he can pretty much break the law with impunity. That can't be what the Founders intended.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 09 2019 04:31 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

It doesn't make any sense at all to say that a sitting president can't be indicted. What it means, given today's reality, is that if a president's party controls one or both houses of Congress, he can pretty much break the law with impunity. That can't be what the Founders intended.

Those who would disagree with you would say that a president could be indicted after he leaves office. But that also makes little sense because, first of all, he's no longer a sitting president after he leaves office and also, because a president could run out the clock on the statute of limitations by getting reelected as there are no laws tolling the statute of limitations for crimes committed by a sitting president. And being able to run out the clock is also absurd.

nymr83
Apr 10 2019 07:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Some politician was elected to congress in Georgia and claims to live there, but really lives in Tennessee... The state GOP sent her a gift basket to her TN home that ahe claimed to no linger live at - she promptly signed for it. Oops! Busted!



Her name isn't important and I wont post it as I mean this to be humorous and not a serious attack on her

MFS62
Apr 10 2019 07:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And a certain Treasury Secretary's (I won't name names) bank foreclosed on a 90 year old woman's home when she was 27 cents short on her mortgage payment.

https://www.ibtimes.com/steve-mnuchins-bank-foreclosed-90-year-old-over-27-cents-trumps-cabinet-pick-2453345



This was not meant to be funny.

Later

TransMonk
Apr 10 2019 03:37 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Bill Barr can take his place along with Conway, Sanders and Nunes in his sycophancy to the Cheeto In Chief.



He has now deliberately muddied the water on behalf of Trump multiple times.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 10 2019 04:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=6896 time=1554932273 user_id=71]
Bill Barr can take his place along with Conway, Sanders and Nunes in his sycophancy to the Cheeto In Chief.



He has now deliberately muddied the water on behalf of Trump multiple times.



Did you expect better from Barr? All of this corruption and norm-busting would not have been possible without the Senate's complicity, which the GOP will control for Trump's entire first term. This underscores how crucial it is for the Dems to grant statehood to PR and DC first chance they get. As things stand, the Dems have enormous structural difficulties taking control of the Senate what with our nutty bicameral system of government where senators represent states more so than people. I don't think the Dems are capable of taking the Senate any more without a wave election of almost historical proportions. And even then, their majority probably won't hold for more than two years, until the next federal election.

TransMonk
Apr 10 2019 05:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I didn't expect Barr to be better...but I didn't expect him to be so blatant about it.

MFS62
Apr 10 2019 07:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=6900 time=1554938499 user_id=71]
I didn't expect Barr to be better...but I didn't expect him to be so blatant about it.



This administration does blatant very well.

Later

nymr83
Apr 11 2019 01:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I wonder if Assange has any unreleased Trump dirt?

Lefty Specialist
Apr 11 2019 01:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

....and if he'll trade any of it for a lesser sentence. With this DOJ, anything's possible.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 11 2019 02:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Democracy Cannot Survive as This Kind of Puppet Show



Texas Republicans move to charge women who get abortions with murder, while a new report on ALEC shows just what a sham some state legislatures have become.



https://hips.hearstapps.com/rover/profile_photos/0b1812cd-e29f-44af-a0d3-74c35dc4b603.jpg?fill=1:1&resize=140:*>

By Charles P. Pierce

Apr 11, 2019





There is no place to start our tour except Texas, where, if the rest of us are lucky, they've finished rubberizing the walls of the state legislature chambers. From CNN:


House Bill 896, introduced in the Texas House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee, would remove the exception in the penal code for criminal homicide that applies to women and medical professionals and allow them to be charged with murder of an unborn child. The measure would be a blanket ban on abortion procedures in the state, allowing the state to enforce the bill "regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision." The landmark 1973 US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade affirmed the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

For years, the anti-choice movement would fumble and foozle around if you pressed them on their loose employment of words like "murder" by asking them what should happen to the doctor and/or the woman involved in the procedure. They seem to be losing that convenient ambivalence, at least in Texas.


Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt, a Republican who introduced the bill, argued that the legislation does "not specifically target women" nor is he "specifically criminalizing women," but "equalizing the law so that everyone that is culpable or takes part in what I call murder ... can be punished." The hours-long hearing remained largely civil until the committee heard from its first panel opposed to the bill. "The bill authors know that this legislation is unconstitutional because of federal judicial precedent set by Roe v Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice legislative intern Jasmine Wang said. "So even giving this bill a hearing is both a waste of time and resources." Leach took issue with Wang's testimony and went on to grill Wang on her stances on abortion. He also accused NARAL's witnesses of "sniggering" and "laughing" during others' testimonies.


They're feeling very emboldened these days, probably because of the ongoing stacking of the federal judiciary. "Fetal heartbeat" bills are advancing in eight states, including both Georgia and Ohio. In the latter, the bill is already on the desk of Governor Mike DeWine. From NBC News.


Ohio's closely divided politics have slowed the progress of the so-called heartbeat bill as it has caught momentum elsewhere, forcing years of debate in the state where the movement originated. Five other states have now passed similar bans, two of which have been blocked by the courts. Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who took office in January, has said he will sign the bill, after former GOP Gov. John Kasich vetoed it twice. State Rep. Michele Lepore-Hagan, a Democrat from a storied Youngstown political family, shed tears during the debate, exasperated at a bill she said would harm Ohio and its future.



"I'm concerned that we will have companies that will choose not to locate here due to our oppressive laws. I'm concerned that doctors will leave the state of Ohio," she said. "I'm concerned that our kids are going to leave, that we're going to lose a large amount of young people who don't want to live in an oppressive atmosphere."

It's here where I usually make a wisecrack about how these laws guarantee nothing but expensive and futile lawsuits that the state in question is bound to lose. However, looking at the current Supreme Court, I'm not sure those are very funny any more.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27116458/texas-republicans-abortion-murder-woman-doctor-alec-model-legislation/

Lefty Specialist
Apr 11 2019 02:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

One of these bad bills will sneak through to the Supremes eventually. Then it's showtime.



Abortion is already effectively banned in about 70% of America, due to laws passed that essentially make it impossible for clinics to operate due to onerous restrictions that make no sense except to make it impossible for clinics to operate.



It's actually good to see these guys show their hand and want to charge women with murder. That clarifies things. Even most strident anti-choicers don't want to go that far because they know that support for them collapses when they cross that line. So they prefer to treat the woman as an unwitting victim instead of an active participant in the process. So let's get it out in the open. Take the morning-after pill? Go to prison for life without parole. Miscarry? Let's call in the homicide team. Let's see how that plays.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 11 2019 02:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

It doesn't make any sense at all to say that a sitting president can't be indicted. What it means, given today's reality, is that if a president's party controls one or both houses of Congress, he can pretty much break the law with impunity. That can't be what the Founders intended.


Or you know what? Maybe it does make sense. Because on the last day of Trump's presidency, you know what the scumbag is gonna do? He's gonna pardon himself. And then the 5-4's will ultimately get to decide if that self-pardon is constitutionally permissible. And when they decide that someone who, when he becomes a president, is above the law for every crime he ever committed, it'll mean that that's what the founders intended. Because Neil fucking Gorsuch gets to decide what the founders intended.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 11 2019 02:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Benjamin Grimm wrote:

It doesn't make any sense at all to say that a sitting president can't be indicted. What it means, given today's reality, is that if a president's party controls one or both houses of Congress, he can pretty much break the law with impunity. That can't be what the Founders intended.


Or you know what? Maybe it does make sense. Because on the last day of Trump's presidency, you know what the scumbag is gonna do? He's gonna pardon himself. And then the 5-4's will ultimately get to decide if that self-pardon is constitutionally permissible. And when they decide that someone who, when he becomes a president, is above the law for every crime he ever committed, it'll mean that that's what the founders intended. Because Neil fucking Gorsuch gets to decide what the founders intended.


And even if the 5-4's decide that issue against Trump, they'll purposely take their time deciding the case rather than hearing it on an expedited basis, so as to, intentionally and by design, run out the statute of limitations clock on whatever federal crimes Trump is otherwise charged with.

nymr83
Apr 11 2019 02:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

if you charge someone with a crime you've already met the SOL requirement even if it takes years for them to exhaust appeals to your ability to do so.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 11 2019 03:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=7038 time=1555015848 user_id=54]
if you charge someone with a crime you've already met the SOL requirement even if it takes years for them to exhaust appeals to your ability to do so.



That's right. He can be charged as soon as he leaves office.

MFS62
Apr 11 2019 03:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Take the morning-after pill? Go to prison for life without parole. Let's see how that plays.


I heard, (But can't specify verse and paragraph) that one of the first 5 books of the Bible says "Life begins when blood flows" and even the most conservative doctor will tell you that starts at about two weeks. So, if they are going to rely on the Bible for their position against "murder", the the morning after (RU486) pill isn't killing anything because it isn't alive.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but I'd like to watch them try to explain how that is "murder".

OE: an article that says 14 days:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when3.htm



Later

Lefty Specialist
Apr 11 2019 06:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019

They won't stop at abortion. They're coming after contraception as well.

nymr83
Apr 11 2019 07:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019



if you charge someone with a crime you've already met the SOL requirement even if it takes years for them to exhaust appeals to your ability to do so.


That's right. He can be charged as soon as he leaves office.


Exactly, which why I think you are wrong when you say:


, they'll purposely take their time deciding the case rather than hearing it on an expedited basis, so as to, intentionally and by design, run out the statute of limitations clock on whatever federal crimes Trump is otherwise charged with.


he can be charged on January 21 2021 or whatever (if there is a basis for doing so) and that is the relevant date for the SOL even if his lawyers spend 3 years arguing "but he pardoned himself for all possible past, present and future crimes whether or not yet committed, investigated, or thought of on January 20th"

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 11 2019 09:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019




if you charge someone with a crime you've already met the SOL requirement even if it takes years for them to exhaust appeals to your ability to do so.


That's right. He can be charged as soon as he leaves office.


Exactly, which why I think you are wrong when you say:


, they'll purposely take their time deciding the case rather than hearing it on an expedited basis, so as to, intentionally and by design, run out the statute of limitations clock on whatever federal crimes Trump is otherwise charged with.


he can be charged on January 21 2021 or whatever (if there is a basis for doing so) and that is the relevant date for the SOL even if his lawyers spend 3 years arguing "but he pardoned himself for all possible past, present and future crimes whether or not yet committed, investigated, or thought of on January 20th"


Yeah. I know that. I realize that an indictment tolls the statute.

But can Trump be charged with crimes for which he pardoned himself? I think that this also has never been decided, along with whether a president can pardon himself in the first place. Going back to Grimm's post, it seems absurd that a president could pardon himself because he'd be above the law. But OTOH, wouldn't Manafort, for example, also be above the law if he were pardoned?

nymr83
Apr 11 2019 10:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, it worked with Nixon, right?

Lefty Specialist
Apr 12 2019 06:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

He can be charged with state crimes. I'd bet there's been a fair amount of New York State tax evasion going on. And I'm guessing Andrew Cuomo wouldn't be in a hurry to pardon him.

nymr83
Apr 12 2019 08:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

also true. even if he can pardon himself federally.



Ocasio-Cortez is an absolute disgrace. She told a war veteran who lost an eye in Afghanistan that he should "do something" about terrorism instead of criticizing terrorist-lover Omar. She makes Trump look highly intelligent.

ashie62
Apr 12 2019 09:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019


also true. even if he can pardon himself federally.



Ocasio-Cortez is an absolute disgrace. She told a war veteran who lost an eye in Afghanistan that he should "do something" about terrorism instead of criticizing terrorist-lover Omar. She makes Trump look highly intelligent.


I have to believe that Ilhan Omar, AOC etc are fearful for their lives



I don't like their policies but this incitement of h*te is very wrong

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 12 2019 09:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019




he can be charged on January 21 2021 or whatever (if there is a basis for doing so) and that is the relevant date for the SOL even if his lawyers spend 3 years arguing "but he pardoned himself for all possible past, present and future crimes whether or not yet committed, investigated, or thought of on January 20th"


Can a president pardon himself for future crimes not even committed yet? That sounds like the height of absurdity. If so, the president would never have to pay federal taxes anymore. And he could murder a mailman every day with impunity and immunity.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 12 2019 09:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

She asked him to do something about DOMESTIC terrorism.



The specific tweet:



You refuse to cosponsor the 9/11 Victim's Compensation Fund, yet have the audacity to drum resentment towards Ilhan w/completely out-of-context quotes.



In 2018, right-wing extremists were behind almost ALL US domestic terrorist killings. Why don't you go do something about that? https://t.co/rkb92IxkKX



— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) April 11, 2019




So of course the rightwing media ran with it because they're obsessed with her. And yes, she's getting tons of death threats because of that obsession.

ashie62
Apr 12 2019 11:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

There is part of the US that can't accept a Muslim Female of color speaking out at the front of the pack. There are also a large swatch of folks that can't separate the idea that Muslims=9/11



18 years after 9/11 and it is still an ill divisive issue to so so many

Ceetar
Apr 12 2019 11:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=7114 time=1555088457 user_id=90]
There is part of the US that can't accept a Muslim Female of color speaking out at the front of the pack. There are also a large swatch of folks that can't separate the idea that Muslims=9/11



18 years after 9/11 and it is still an ill divisive issue to so so many



to racists you mean.



people are still racist.



yes.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 12 2019 12:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019


There is part of the US that can't accept a Muslim Female of color speaking out at the front of the pack. There are also a large swatch of folks that can't separate the idea that Muslims=9/11



18 years after 9/11 and it is still an ill divisive issue to so so many


This kind of garbage doesn't help. May as well paint a bulls-eye on her back.



https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/04/ny-post-ilhan-omar-640x480.jpg>

LWFS
Apr 12 2019 06:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Ocasio-Cortez is an absolute disgrace. She told a war veteran who lost an eye in Afghanistan that he should "do something" about terrorism instead of criticizing terrorist-lover Omar. She makes Trump look highly intelligent.


I hate that I'm saying this, because I never really pegged you for one of those conservatives, but this is pretty damn disingenuous. Your diction tells me far less about the "story"/her actions here than it does about you.

nymr83
Apr 15 2019 02:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Omar is scum and was long before her most recent comments.

nymr83
Apr 15 2019 02:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019





he can be charged on January 21 2021 or whatever (if there is a basis for doing so) and that is the relevant date for the SOL even if his lawyers spend 3 years arguing "but he pardoned himself for all possible past, present and future crimes whether or not yet committed, investigated, or thought of on January 20th"


Can a president pardon himself for future crimes not even committed yet? That sounds like the height of absurdity. If so, the president would never have to pay federal taxes anymore. And he could murder a mailman every day with impunity and immunity.


It does seem absurd, but the way our country works he can certaintly try it and spend millions of dollars on both sides litigating it. Which is also nuts.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 15 2019 02:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=7217 time=1555359073 user_id=54]
Omar is scum and was long before her most recent comments.



Why, exactly? And please don't use out-of-context quotes. Because we have a president who makes her look like an amateur (and is trying to get her killed).

Edgy MD
Apr 15 2019 02:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I couldn't care a whit about Ocasio-Cortez or Omar. If they don't parse their words to avoid any opportunity for their opponents to twist them around, big whoop. They are back benchers on no major committees holding no chairs. If their opponents have got to look that deep to find an enemy to make a bugbear out of, they're in desperately bad shape.



Eyes on the prize: Our president can't say two sentences without willfully and unambiguously disgracing the country. This THINK OF THE VETERANS! angle cuts no ice with me.

nymr83
Apr 15 2019 08:16 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I couldn't care a whit about Ocasio-Cortez or Omar. If they don't parse their words to avoid any opportunity for their opponents to twist them around, big whoop. They are back benchers on no major committees holding no chairs. If their opponents have got to look that deep to find an enemy to make a bugbear out of, they're in desperately bad shape.



Eyes on the prize: Our president can't say two sentences without willfully and unambiguously disgracing the country. This THINK OF THE VETERANS! angle cuts no ice with me.


you are allowed to hate more than one person in politics. you can even hate people from different parties. Even if you took the position of "any democrat is worth voting for because i hate Trump" you could STILL take every opportunity to call out someone like AOC for how dumb she is because the real election in her district is the primary election anyway and you'll get an anti-trump democrat no matter what

Edgy MD
Apr 15 2019 08:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Fallacy. I didn't hate anybody in this discussion.



Nor have I taken any such position about "any Democrat."



Lastly, I have no reason to think of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez as being dumb. I think she's wrong about more than one or two things, but I disagree with all members of Congress about something.



They're not turning her into a lightning rod because she is dumb or because she is dangerous. They're doing it to paint the entire opposing party as guilty by association.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 16 2019 06:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Also no coincidence that they're women of color. Trump likes to build straw opponents that are highly flammable, and they check all the boxes. But say what you like about AOC, she isn't dumb.



As for winning the primary being tantamount to winning the election, vast swaths of the United States are gerrymandered to obtain just that kind of result, benefiting Republicans far more than Democrats.

Fman99
Apr 16 2019 07:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:
Eyes on the prize: Our president can't say two sentences without willfully and unambiguously disgracing the country. This THINK OF THE VETERANS! angle cuts no ice with me.


Right here.



How does he still have a 90% approval rate in his own party? He's moronic, belligerent, hateful, and wholly incapable of understanding anything complex or nuanced. He's about as equipped for this job as he'd be in a brain surgery clinic.



And somehow the entire voting right thinks he's doing a bang up job because why? He appointed conservative judges who love fetuses? Tax breaks for rich people? What am I missing here?

seawolf17
Apr 16 2019 07:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Fman99 post_id=7350 time=1555419673 user_id=86]And somehow the entire voting right thinks he's doing a bang up job because why? He appointed conservative judges who love fetuses? Tax breaks for rich people? What am I missing here?



This. The smart side of the GOP knows it, and they use him to that end. The dumb side of the GOP plays off the racism and homophobia and fake Jesusism and WHAMMO that's why we're fucked as a country.

MFS62
Apr 16 2019 07:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Eyes on the prize: Our president can't say two sentences without willfully and unambiguously disgracing the country. This THINK OF THE VETERANS! angle cuts no ice with me.


This veteran thinks of the President, and thinks he's a five time draft dodging racist sociopath.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Apr 16 2019 07:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=seawolf17 post_id=7351 time=1555419853 user_id=91]
=Fman99 post_id=7350 time=1555419673 user_id=86]And somehow the entire voting right thinks he's doing a bang up job because why? He appointed conservative judges who love fetuses? Tax breaks for rich people? What am I missing here?



This. The smart side of the GOP knows it, and they use him to that end. The dumb side of the GOP plays off the racism and homophobia and fake Jesusism and WHAMMO that's why we're fucked as a country.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Money for some, hate for the rest.



If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson

nymr83
Apr 16 2019 08:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

Eyes on the prize: Our president can't say two sentences without willfully and unambiguously disgracing the country. This THINK OF THE VETERANS! angle cuts no ice with me.


This veteran thinks of the President, and thinks he's a five time draft dodging racist sociopath.

Later


this 'Trump is a racist' thing is dumb too, he is nothing of the sort. A sociopath? umm... show me the diagnosis ('cause the layman's eye test sure doesnt help the case against you)

Ceetar
Apr 16 2019 09:03 AM
Re: Politics 2019

he's absolutely a racist. saying racist things and having racists kill people in your name is pretty damning evidence. Maybe "deep in his heart" he doesn't actually believe that one race is inferior, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has a beak, webbed feet, and the DNA test matches duck. Chances are, it's a fucking duck.





I suspect part of the "90% approval rating within the party" thing is part faulty measurements, and part the people that don't really approve of what he's doing hiding and not wanting to participate in these types of polls. Same thing probably happened before the election. If you recognize Trump as a disaster but were convince Hillary was going to be bad for you somehow, you might not want to stand up and be counted for Trump even if you voted for him.

metsmarathon
Apr 16 2019 10:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019



Edgy MD wrote:

Eyes on the prize: Our president can't say two sentences without willfully and unambiguously disgracing the country. This THINK OF THE VETERANS! angle cuts no ice with me.


This veteran thinks of the President, and thinks he's a five time draft dodging racist sociopath.

Later


this 'Trump is a racist' thing is dumb too, he is nothing of the sort. A sociopath? umm... show me the diagnosis ('cause the layman's eye test sure doesnt help the case against you)


i mean, can you at least agree that he's a buffoon, an asshole, and a terrible human being?



he may not be a racist, but he does racist things. he sure acts like a racist, and has no problem appealing to racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, and the like - bigots of all flavors, really. do we really need to know if he, himself, is a "racist" for that shit to be a problem?



he may not be a sociopath, but if he acts like one, and behaves like one, do we really need to know for certain that he is a medically diagnosable sociopath for that to be a problem?



look, i don't need to know if someone truly is lacking in intelligence or the ability to properly process rational thought, but if they're doing and saying dumb shit, i've gotta give that evidence a fair bit of weight as i evaluate the abilities of that person, and especially their suitability for high office and/or leadership roles.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 16 2019 11:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=7374 time=1555426262 user_id=54]this 'Trump is a racist' thing is dumb too, he is nothing of the sort. A sociopath? umm... show me the diagnosis ('cause the layman's eye test sure doesnt help the case against you)





He is very much something of the sort. From discriminating against black tenants in the '70's to calling for the death of the Central Park Five in the '80's, to calling Mexicans rapists and a hundred other things, he's racist through and through. Anyone who employs Stephen Miller on a regular basis fits the description.



Sociopath? Who knows. I don't need an advanced degree to know he's dangerous to America and Americans, though, specifically women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans, pretty much anyone who's not a straight white guy.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 16 2019 12:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And on the other end of the human spectrum, Pete Buttigieg was asked by a French reporter if he wanted to comment on the Notre Dame fire. He did.



"To the people of France I would like to say that Notre Dame Cathedral was like a gift to the human race. We share the pain but we also thank you for this gift to civilization."



Of course, he said it speaking in fluent French. Trump couldn't be that eloquent in English with a team of speechwriters.

Edgy MD
Apr 16 2019 04:49 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't particularly care if a guy is racist or not if he does racist things.



And the track record of the things he has done is pretty despicable.

A Boy Named Seo
Apr 16 2019 06:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

=nymr83 post_id=7217 time=1555359073 user_id=54]
Omar is scum and was long before her most recent comments.


Why, exactly? And please don't use out-of-context quotes. Because we have a president who makes her look like an amateur (and is trying to get her killed).



I wanna know why, too.

metsmarathon
Apr 17 2019 10:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

so trump wants to send illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to sanctuary cities.



he wants to send people who he believes, or at least claims, are violent terrible criminals, to the centers of population which represent high concentration of those who oppose him criminally.



in one fell swoop, he demeans the basic humanity of millions of innocent people whose greatest crime is seeking a better life, and also of millions of innocent american citizens whose greatest crime is disagreeing with donald trump.



this is everything you need to know about our current president. and, unfortunately, his supporters.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 17 2019 11:03 AM
Re: Politics 2019

What if Fox News covered Trump like they covered Obama? Priceless.



https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1118228314257350657/video/1

Double Switch
Apr 17 2019 11:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019


so trump wants to send illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to sanctuary cities.



he wants to send people who he believes, or at least claims, are violent terrible criminals, to the centers of population which represent high concentration of those who oppose him criminally.



in one fell swoop, he demeans the basic humanity of millions of innocent people whose greatest crime is seeking a better life, and also of millions of innocent american citizens whose greatest crime is disagreeing with donald trump.



this is everything you need to know about our current president. and, unfortunately, his supporters.


I live in a "sanctuary city" and am not at all worried about having more immigrants. Being a city of immigrants, they will feel at home here. And they will be a hell of a lot safer than staying where they are. Bringing them here works for me.



Now, for those whose instant, kneejerk response is "take care of our homeless first," I say "non sequitur." The "homelessness" issue is its own can of worms, has always been with us and always will be. In my humble, more immigrants is good for my city and the homeless won't even notice.

TransMonk
Apr 17 2019 05:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So, it sounds like Bill Barr is going to hold a presser tomorrow...an hour and a half before he intends to release his version of The Mueller Report (which he has apparently already shared with the White House. My money is he is announcing investigations into the oranges of the report in attempt to discredit what I can only assume will be pretty embarrassing stuff contained in it.



If that happens, fuck Bill Barr in his fat fucking face.

Edgy MD
Apr 17 2019 07:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The oranges?

MFS62
Apr 17 2019 07:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:
The oranges?


Flashback to when Trump couldn't pronounce origins, although he tried several times during a speech (or was it a tirade? I can't tell the difference when he speaks.).

Later

TransMonk
Apr 17 2019 08:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

[YOUTUBE]gxyUmpnaBEk[/YOUTUBE]

Double Switch
Apr 17 2019 08:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Sounded like he promised them "bullet surprises" along with those oranges.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 18 2019 06:06 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Also, Barr has given this report to the White House well in advance. They'll have plenty of time to produce their counter-spin. Meanwhile, Congress doesn't get the HEAVILY REDACTED report until he's finished giving his press conference. This guy has one job, and it's to cover Trump's ample ass.

MFS62
Apr 18 2019 06:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Also, Barr has given this report to the White House well in advance. They'll have plenty of time to produce their counter-spin. Meanwhile, Congress doesn't get the HEAVILY REDACTED report until he's finished giving his press conference. This guy has one job, and it's to cover Trump's ample ass.


At the end of the conference, I expect him to lift himself out of his chair, raise his right arm in the air, and say, "Mister Pressident, I can VALK!"



Later

metsmarathon
Apr 18 2019 07:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:


so trump wants to send illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to sanctuary cities.



he wants to send people who he believes, or at least claims, are violent terrible criminals, to the centers of population which represent high concentration of those who oppose him criminally.



in one fell swoop, he demeans the basic humanity of millions of innocent people whose greatest crime is seeking a better life, and also of millions of innocent american citizens whose greatest crime is disagreeing with donald trump.



this is everything you need to know about our current president. and, unfortunately, his supporters.


I live in a "sanctuary city" and am not at all worried about having more immigrants. Being a city of immigrants, they will feel at home here. And they will be a hell of a lot safer than staying where they are. Bringing them here works for me.



Now, for those whose instant, kneejerk response is "take care of our homeless first," I say "non sequitur." The "homelessness" issue is its own can of worms, has always been with us and always will be. In my humble, more immigrants is good for my city and the homeless won't even notice.


i also find it rather disingenuous that those who would shout "take care of our homeless first" or "take care of our veterans first" are also the first to rail against any, necessarily massive, social health and human services packages that would meaningfully benefit either of those populations.



"i want to help the homeless, but only if they already have jobs, speak perfect english, are well educated, and haven't developed or fallen victim to any vice"

"i want to help the veterans, but not if it means more government spending, or increasing access to quality, affordable healthcare"

Edgy MD
Apr 18 2019 08:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's the false dilemma fallacy.



>>> "We ought to help Puerto Rico."



>>> >>> "What about the HOMELESS on our STREETS?!"



>>> "We ought to help the persecuted Rohingya refugees."



>>> >>> "What about persecuted CHRISTIANS?!"



>>> "What the president is doing is plainly illegal."



>>> >>> "What about CLINTON?!! In1998!?!"



>>> "You need to shut the fuck up."



>>> >>> "What about YOU??!!"



In none of the exchanges, does the response refute the statement it's answering. It is just designed to deflect.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 18 2019 08:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Shorter Barr:



Nocollusionnoobstructionnothingtoseehere. Rinse and repeat.

TransMonk
Apr 18 2019 09:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

kcmets
Apr 18 2019 09:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

http://www.kcmets.com/CPF/harm.png>

Centerfield
Apr 18 2019 12:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's out. It doesn't seem there is much there. And maybe there is something redacted that could change that, but I haven't seen anything suggesting as much.



Vote him out in 2020. Be thankful that there was no collusion.

seawolf17
Apr 18 2019 12:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There is absolutely no way that Barr would release anything critical of the president or his thugs. Not a chance. So either there's really not enough there, OR it's redacted so hard we'll never see it.

kcmets
Apr 18 2019 12:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

A group of congresspeople supposedly is gonna have at the whole unedited thing.

If that's not good enough for everyone it will never be good enough.



My fear is Trump won the 2020 election this morning.

Ceetar
Apr 18 2019 12:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Centerfield post_id=7641 time=1555610920 user_id=65]
It's out. It doesn't seem there is much there. And maybe there is something redacted that could change that, but I haven't seen anything suggesting as much.



Vote him out in 2020. Be thankful that there was no collusion.



What? there was absolutely collusion.



There was meddling.



There was a dozen crimes and the report basically says Congress should impeach him.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 18 2019 01:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Mueller spent 22 pages detailing why he couldn't indict the president due to DOJ policy. Basically, anyone else could have been indicted had they done the same things. He tried to obstruct but was prevented from doing so by either the system or adults in the room. Attempted obstruction is still a crime even if it doesn't succeed. It's pretty clear Mueller is relying on Congress to impeach.



Congress needs to see the whole thing, including the supporting materials. Barr debased himself with the handling of this report, especially the spin around it, twisting Mueller's words. As bad as this is, the underlying evidence is surely worse.

Edgy MD
Apr 18 2019 02:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The strangest part was when John Dowd threw himself on the mercy of the special counsel, begging him not to interview the president under oath for national security's sake, because eventually the transcript would get out and all the rival leaders overseas would know what an idiot we have running the country. (That cat's been out of the bag a while now, Mr. Dowd.) He actually used the word idiot four times and dumbbell once in making the argument, more or less, the president was not mentally competent enough to testify.



Actually, that was the strangest part up until the next part, when Mueller inexplicably agrees to this maddening argument.



#CompleteExoneration

Lefty Specialist
Apr 19 2019 06:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Mueller wasn't going to compel Trump to testify because he knew it'd be tied up in the courts. And if you go into the investigation already knowing that you're not allowed to indict the president, his testimony would add little anyway since he's such an idiot.

Edgy MD
Apr 21 2019 08:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Oh, I think it would add so much.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 22 2019 10:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I know this'll shock some people but one of the nice sidelights of the Mueller report was proof that Sarah I Have No Soul Sanders was a liar.

Double Switch
Apr 22 2019 10:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

I know this'll shock some people but one of the nice sidelights of the Mueller report was proof that Sarah I Have No Soul Sanders was a liar.


And she totally sucks at it. When she lies outright to the press corps, she could at least hold back that attitude. Her actual biggest lie is "I'll get back to you on that."

Edgy MD
Apr 22 2019 09:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

She could, but her indefatigable ability to attack the press for having the gall to ask her questions that don't put her boss under the hot lights makes her one of the best soldiers the president has ever had. Her capacity to lie blatantly and shamelessly without stammering or sweating is as fascinating as it is evil.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 23 2019 06:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

She could, but her indefatigable ability to attack the press for having the gall to ask her questions that don't put her boss under the hot lights makes her one of the best soldiers the president has ever had. Her capacity to lie blatantly and shamelessly without stammering or sweating is as fascinating as it is evil.


Yeah, she's very good at her job, even though it's a job that shouldn't exist.

ashie62
Apr 24 2019 09:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Could all politicians of both parties please stop tweeting for at least a week, please.



I don't see any declared Democrat that I am confident can beat trump. Frightening

Lefty Specialist
Apr 25 2019 05:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, there was a time I didn't think Trump had a chance in hell of beating Hillary.



So Biden makes it 21 candidates. He's not even in my top 7 or 8, but if he gets the nomination I'll support him to the hilt. But really, there's better candidates than him.

kcmets
Apr 25 2019 10:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

You guys follow this a lot more than I do, but isn't 21 like the largest group ever?

I hope Biden's star fizzles quickly, keep things fresh.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 25 2019 12:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 25 2019 12:54 PM

Look like the scumbag 5-4's are gonna vote to allow a citizenship question to be included in the next census. Doesn't matter a damn that Wilbur Ross flat out lied and got caught red-handed in explaining why the citizenship question is needed. (To protect voting rights.) The 5-4s all but telegraphed their intention to allow the question to be included during yesterday's oral argument on the case. Scumbag Gorsuch pretty much said he'd allow the question in an opinion he wrote a few months ago. Ironic because Chief Judge Roberts has spent his whole career destroying the Voting Rights Act and wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County as well. Also ironic because this racist scumbag administration hasn't defended a voting rights claim since it was sworn in.



How many electoral votes will this cost the Democrats in a few years? Five? Ten? We'll see. Meanwhile, Amy Klobuchar wants to play nice with the GOP, even though Mitch McConnell will metaphorically slice her tits off with a machete dipped in salt every chance he gets and won't blink an eye. What an idiot. Can't we trade her for Al Franken?



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/opinion/citizenship-census-supreme-court-arguments.html



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27242913/census-supreme-court-voting-rights-act-john-roberts-conservatives/

Lefty Specialist
Apr 25 2019 12:54 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes, 21 is a record. There were 17 Republicans in 2016.



They're going to include the question, that seems pretty clear. But there'll be a campaign to massively refuse to answer the question. The penalty is $100 for not answering a question and no one has been fined since the 1960 census. So I'm not answering it and neither should anyone else. F 'em.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 25 2019 12:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:





They're going to include the question, that seems pretty clear. But there'll be a campaign to massively refuse to answer the question. The penalty is $100 for not answering a question and no one has been fined since the 1960 census. So I'm not answering it and neither should anyone else. F 'em.


That's another ridiculous delusional democratic fantasy. Easy for you to say. Try getting some alien to pull that crap under this administration. $100 fine? Trump'll send ICE agents to deport the poor bastard before he can close his door on the census taker. Butter knife. Gun fight.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 25 2019 01:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Not if millions of people do it. Not enough ICE agents. And census takers only come to your home if you don't return a form. Lots of people don't answer specific questions for a myriad of reasons.

batmagadanleadoff
Apr 25 2019 01:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

We'll see. People like you might ignore the question but noncitizens won't fill out the census altogether and will be undercounted. It won't matter to the administration how many people like you ignore the question because it can get citizenship info from several other sources,, some of which are even more reliable than the census itself. And anyways, citizen info is all a pretext. The whole point of the question is to discourage noncitizens from being counted.

Ceetar
Apr 25 2019 01:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=8238 time=1556219903 user_id=68]
We'll see. People like you might ignore the question but noncitizens won't fill out the census altogether and will be undercounted. It won't matter to the administration how many people like you ignore the question because it can get citizenship info from several other sources,, some of which are even more reliable than the census itself. And anyways, citizen info is all a pretext. The whole point of the question is to discourage noncitizens from being counted.



yup. And most of the damage has already been done. They've already floated the connection between the census and immigration/citizen status, and they've already established they're willing to kill immigrants if they feel like it or take their kids for shits and giggles, so they're going to scare them away from this regardless of the Supreme Court.



Even if we woke up tomorrow and this criminal administration was magically replaced by an average democrat one, it'll decades before the US repairs the damage it's done in re: immigrants.

Lefty Specialist
Apr 25 2019 01:55 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=8240 time=1556220415 user_id=102]
Even if we woke up tomorrow and this criminal administration was magically replaced by an average democrat one, it'll decades before the US repairs the damage it's done in re: everything.



Fixed that for you.

Double Switch
Apr 25 2019 03:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019


We'll see. People like you might ignore the question but noncitizens won't fill out the census altogether and will be undercounted. It won't matter to the administration how many people like you ignore the question because it can get citizenship info from several other sources,, some of which are even more reliable than the census itself. And anyways, citizen info is all a pretext. The whole point of the question is to discourage noncitizens from being counted.

Exactly. The census is meant to count people, not track people. To track people, they can use our SS#s far more effectively. After all, they issued them.



Long ago I knew a guy who believed his SS number and drivers license number were "his." When I pointed out that they were issued by the Fed and the State governments and he used them at their pleasure, he refused to discuss that. Good ol' Libertarian "head in the sand" PoV.



I will answer all the questions because it doesn't hurt me and I don't need the grief. However, if I were not a citizen, I'd be quite likely to blow off the whole business and wait 10 years for the return to sanity that is indicated by this pendulum swing into deep chaos. There must be a reciprocal motion to counteract our present situation in store for us. Not everyone shares the GOP death wish.

Ceetar
Apr 26 2019 07:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:





I will answer all the questions because it doesn't hurt me and I don't need the grief. However, if I were not a citizen, I'd be quite likely to blow off the whole business and wait 10 years for the return to sanity that is indicated by this pendulum swing into deep chaos. There must be a reciprocal motion to counteract our present situation in store for us. Not everyone shares the GOP death wish.


In moving forward, it will be important not to pretend that the US-Immigrant relationship was anything approaching peachy prior to this. Maybe they'll again feel comfortable going to the hospital when they're sick, but there's a lot of work to be done.

Edgy MD
Apr 26 2019 07:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's fun to watch footage from the "Anita Hill hearings" (actually the Clarence Thomas hearings), and see footage of then-Senator Biden with half the hair coverage he has now.

nymr83
Apr 30 2019 09:03 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Well, there was a time I didn't think Trump had a chance in hell of beating Hillary.



So Biden makes it 21 candidates. He's not even in my top 7 or 8, but if he gets the nomination I'll support him to the hilt. But really, there's better candidates than him.


says you, LEFTY specialist, but ask that question of the white factory worker in Wisconsin who voted for Trump. because he is the guy you need to convince and everyone says that type of voter is right in Biden's wheelhouse - the left will either fall in line (as you say "if he gets the nomination I'll support him") or they'll win California by 1 million unnecessary votes instead of 2 million.

nymr83
Apr 30 2019 09:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

2 assholes apparently recruited a gay man to make false accusations against mayor Pete. I'd say throw the book at them, but the 'Smollett precedent' is that you can now walk for this type of crime

Edgy MD
Apr 30 2019 11:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Are there still factory workers in Wisconsin?

Lefty Specialist
Apr 30 2019 12:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019


says you, LEFTY specialist, but ask that question of the white factory worker in Wisconsin who voted for Trump. because he is the guy you need to convince and everyone says that type of voter is right in Biden's wheelhouse - the left will either fall in line (as you say "if he gets the nomination I'll support him") or they'll win California by 1 million unnecessary votes instead of 2 million.


Well, funny you should bring up Wisconsin, because Trump's tariffs have been pretty devastating to Wisconsin farmers. So sez the American Enterprise Institute, those libruls.



https://www.aei.org/publication/backfire-economics-stung-by-trumps-trade-war-wisconsins-dairy-farmers-face-extinction/

TransMonk
Apr 30 2019 03:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

As a guy on the ground in WI, I'm not sure tariffs are going to make much difference. Wisconsin has been mired in resentment politics since Walker became governor in 2010. Since then, there have not been too many issues that are going to sway the "non-college educated white working class". Walker lost last year, but it was due to abnormally strong midterm turnout by liberal voters in Madison and Milwaukee. Outside the urban areas, Walker was still very popular and very few people rode the blue wave.



In my experience, rural Wisconsin votes the opposite of the cities more out of of resentment and spite rather than what may or may not be best for them (or the state/country) in the long run. It's no mistake that Trump was in Green Bay last week, rallying against baby-killing socialists. It will work in spite of tariffs and the economy. It is a cliche, but 2020 will come down to turnout in key areas, Wisconsin being one of them. Trump's base is as strong as ever here. He'll do everything he can to get them out.

Lefty Specialist
May 01 2019 05:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I will never understand why people vote against their own self-interest out of spite. But it's a strong theme in American politics right now.

Edgy MD
May 01 2019 06:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=8709 time=1556658505 user_id=71]It is a cliche, but 2020 will come down to turnout in key areas, Wisconsin being one of them. Trump's base is as strong as ever here. He'll do everything he can to get them out.



Isn't there just one stupid issue on which you can make the argument to this base that Trump has led you down the garden path? He's walked you to the curb and thrown you under the bus and grinned like an idiot tweeting pictures of you getting run over?



You can even get the front page of whatever paper they do or don't read show a big picture with a bus running over the whole state.

Willets Point
May 01 2019 08:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Another irony is that Green Bay's beloved football team is the only community-owned sports franchise in the United States, but "sOcIaLiSm Is EvIl!!!!" still plays well there.

kcmets
May 01 2019 04:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's not community owned it's just stock. Anyone can buy it when it's available,

but it's not publicly traded. The Celtics were a publicly traded company for many

years. Neither are an example of 'socialism' imho...

Edgy MD
May 01 2019 04:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

That testimony today was pretty horrible.



I can't for the life of me figure out what happens to somebody like AG Barr. What is there for him in this self-immolation on Trump's behalf?



There's a famous line from A Man for All Seasons: "It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ... but for Wales?"



It seems to me that there's no way Barr even gets Wales for the soul he's shed over the last few weeks. Senator Graham gets what? A 10% greater chance of being elected? What's the point? It's probably more lucrative to be an ex-senator than a senator anyhow.

kcmets
May 01 2019 05:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's both sides at this point. Very frustrating to listen to. And now there's a vow

to investigate why there was a two year investigation. Really.



One side is so pissed off they didn't get what they wanted so they grandstanded

all day because they're already campaigning - it's what their people want to hear.



The other side is pissed off because it's been a two-year three-ring circus which

came up without enough fluffernutter and feels the other side should concede.



I don't know how anyone can personally stick up for Trump, let alone support

him or laud him, but again it's what they think (know) a large segment of the

country wants to hear.



Shame on both sides, and just further cements why I'll never join a party again.

Edgy MD
May 01 2019 05:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I've never been in a party, but I got what I wanted: enough incriminating shit to justify removal of a horrible president from office.



Now I think I want public figures who don't lie under oath so brazenly as to call black white and up down.

Lefty Specialist
May 01 2019 05:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

One side has committed crimes and is trying furiously to cover them up, and the other is trying to do oversight. So yes, pretty equivalent.

kcmets
May 01 2019 05:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:
I got what I wanted: enough incriminating shit to justify removal of a horrible president for office.

Start the proceedings, I'll vote with ya.

kcmets
May 01 2019 05:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I thought he'd be gone two years ago, I even made a poll/contest.

nymr83
May 01 2019 08:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=kcmets post_id=8816 time=1556748303 user_id=53]
It's not community owned it's just stock. Anyone can buy it when it's available,

but it's not publicly traded. The Celtics were a publicly traded company for many

years. Neither are an example of 'socialism' imho...



socialism is on display in Venezuela for all to see.

Ceetar
May 02 2019 07:19 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=8877 time=1556764453 user_id=54]
=kcmets post_id=8816 time=1556748303 user_id=53]
It's not community owned it's just stock. Anyone can buy it when it's available,

but it's not publicly traded. The Celtics were a publicly traded company for many

years. Neither are an example of 'socialism' imho...



socialism is on display in Venezuela for all to see.




bullshit.

Lefty Specialist
May 02 2019 07:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Socialism is on display in Denmark for all to see. What's happened in Venezuela is a corrupt dictatorship.

Edgy MD
May 02 2019 08:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Arguing about Socialism is totally what the president wants. He needs to point to something and make it a more terrifying bogeyman than him.



Let's remove the president, clean out all the stink associated with him, and then argue about socialism.

Lefty Specialist
May 02 2019 08:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Arguing about Socialism is totally what the president wants. He needs to point to something and make it a more terrifying bogeyman than him.

Let's remove the president, clean out all the stink associated with him, and then argue about socialism.


Zachly. Amercans are woefully uninformed about what 'socialism' actually is ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"). When you explain it without labeling it, most people are in favor. But when you say "______ will make us just like Venezuela!", you have old white guys nodding their heads in agreement and voting to cut their benefits to enrich billionaires.

batmagadanleadoff
May 02 2019 01:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019


As a guy on the ground in WI, I'm not sure tariffs are going to make much difference. Wisconsin has been mired in resentment politics since Walker became governor in 2010. Since then, there have not been too many issues that are going to sway the "non-college educated white working class". Walker lost last year, but it was due to abnormally strong midterm turnout by liberal voters in Madison and Milwaukee. Outside the urban areas, Walker was still very popular and very few people rode the blue wave.



In my experience, rural Wisconsin votes the opposite of the cities more out of of resentment and spite rather than what may or may not be best for them (or the state/country) in the long run. It's no mistake that Trump was in Green Bay last week, rallying against baby-killing socialists. It will work in spite of tariffs and the economy. It is a cliche, but 2020 will come down to turnout in key areas, Wisconsin being one of them. Trump's base is as strong as ever here. He'll do everything he can to get them out.


This is a scary assessment. I know it's still early, but I think Trump's gonna get blown out in 2020. Liberals and Democrats are absolutely livid at the state of things. And those libs and dems that didn't vote in 2016, either out of laziness or indifference or general inertia or in believing that HRC was a lock are angry at themselves and won't make that mistake again in 2020. There are too many people out there that barely followed politics that are now suddenly politically obsessed, offended by the daily outrageousness that emanates from this crooked and loathsome administration.



This was evident during the midterms of a few months ago, when Dems turned out in historic numbers and, among other things, picked up about 40 House seats. Dem turnout was so strong that there were enough votes in their favor to pick up another 20 House seats but for the extreme and unprecedented way in which so many districts were gerrymandered in the GOP's favor. In Wisconsin, the GOP lost every statewide election. And Trump barely won the state in 2016, winning it by about 20,000 votes, becoming the first GOP president to win Wisconsin in more than 30 years, going back to Reagan's landslide '84 reelection.



The terrible consequences of Trump's victory, the magnitude of it all, makes many people forget how microscopically tiny Trump's 2016 margin of victory was. He lost the popular vote by more than three million and won by squeaking by in key swing states -- perfectly placed votes - about 20K in Wisconsin; 10K in Michingan where the scumbag GOP there threw out 75K Wayne County votes, most coming from Detroit, which was run by a GOP executive manager despite being one of the top five or six most liberal cities in America. Dems lost in 2016 because of turnout. I don't think Trump's picking up more voters. He's too despised.



I'm more worried about the Senate, where despite the favorable map (this time around, it's the GOP that'll be defending more than 20 seats) most of the races are in red GOP strongholds, which is the way it' s gonna be for a while given the structural set up that exists. Big trouble if the Dems don't get the Senate, even with a Dem in the White House, not only for legislation, but mainly, because of the RBG situation.

Lefty Specialist
May 02 2019 02:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump won't be that easy to beat. His hard-core supporters will stick with him and they'll turn out, too. A lot will depend on who gets nominated to oppose him. The smear campaigns have started already, and they'll be helped by the Russians because social-media moguls aren't interested in stopping them. But I do think there's enough pissed-off center-left voters to flip the states we need to return to sanity. No one will be taking this one for granted.



The Senate is the biggest concern after Trump. They'll need 4 pickups, because Doug Jones in Alabama is probably a goner unless they nominate another pedophile (or the same pedophile). They should have a good chance to flip Colorado and Maine, but after that the going gets tougher. Arizona, Iowa and North Carolina are vulnerable, but will be tough. Everything else is pretty much a lock for the GOP. Would have loved to see Stacey Abrams run for Senate in Georgia, but it was not to be.



Without the Senate, we'll get Obama-style gridlock for 2 to 4 years.

Double Switch
May 02 2019 02:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

(batmagadanleadoff ) ~ "There are too many people out there that barely followed politics that are now suddenly politically obsessed, offended by the daily outrageousness that emanates from this crooked and loathsome administration."


This is very cogent but I would say there may still not be enough outraged non-R voters to overcome the EC. Even though they appear to be the majority of the nation in philosophy, there is a reason that "haters gonna hate" gets more traction than "love thy neighbor as thyself."

Ceetar
May 03 2019 07:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

(batmagadanleadoff ) ~ "There are too many people out there that barely followed politics that are now suddenly politically obsessed, offended by the daily outrageousness that emanates from this crooked and loathsome administration."


This is very cogent but I would say there may still not be enough outraged non-R voters to overcome the EC. Even though they appear to be the majority of the nation in philosophy, there is a reason that "haters gonna hate" gets more traction than "love thy neighbor as thyself."


yeah, the system is heavily rigged.



People aren't paying (from what I see) enough attention to Florida. Letting Felons finally vote is huge, and they're trying all they can to stop it from happening.

Double Switch
May 03 2019 10:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 4 time(s), most recently on May 04 2019 07:35 PM


Double Switch wrote:

(batmagadanleadoff ) ~ "There are too many people out there that barely followed politics that are now suddenly politically obsessed, offended by the daily outrageousness that emanates from this crooked and loathsome administration."


This is very cogent but I would say there may still not be enough outraged non-R voters to overcome the EC. Even though they appear to be the majority of the nation in philosophy, there is a reason that "haters gonna hate" gets more traction than "love thy neighbor as thyself."


yeah, the system is heavily rigged.



People aren't paying (from what I see) enough attention to Florida. Letting Felons finally vote is huge, and they're trying all they can to stop it from happening.


Maybe one day Florida (and the rest of the South) will allow everyone to vote.



Then Friday, 5/3/19, everything went back to normal:
The largest expansion of voting eligibility in the country since the elimination of poll taxes and literacy tests in the 1960s suffered a setback Friday when Republican legislators in Florida voted to limit the scope of a new constitutional amendment restoring voting rights to most convicted felons.


Because all ex-felons always vote Democratic. ... where is that sarcasm emoji?

Lefty Specialist
May 04 2019 07:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump called Putin for an hour to cackle about how he was cleared of collusion.



Ronald Reagan now able to power 10,000 homes with the force of his body spinning in the grave.

Edgy MD
May 04 2019 07:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump solves energy crisis. — Breitbart.com

MFS62
May 04 2019 06:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Unlike the election of Mitch McConnell, today's Kentucky Derby showed that some people in that state can occasionally make the right decision.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
May 06 2019 08:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Democrats prepare to hold AG Barr in contempt of Congress.



https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/06/democrats-prepare-to-hold-william-barr-in-contempt-1302982



After that, the Dems will put Barr into a timeout for 30 minutes, give or take.

nymr83
May 06 2019 08:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019

get ready for endless litigation resulting from the Democrats circus act.



Democrats are demanding Barr turn over materials that the law says he shouldnt turn over. if they dont like the law, guess who has the power to change it?

Ceetar
May 06 2019 08:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=9252 time=1557153664 user_id=54]
get ready for endless litigation resulting from the Democrats circus act.



Democrats are demanding Barr turn over materials that the law says he shouldnt turn over. if they dont like the law, guess who has the power to change it?





no. wrong.

nymr83
May 06 2019 08:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Unlike the election of Mitch McConnell, today's Kentucky Derby showed that some people in that state can occasionally make the right decision.

Later


Based on his comments I'm thinking Trump had major dollars on "Maximum Security"

Lefty Specialist
May 06 2019 12:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=9252 time=1557153664 user_id=54]
get ready for endless litigation resulting from the Democrats circus act.



Democrats are demanding Barr turn over materials that the law says he shouldnt turn over. if they dont like the law, guess who has the power to change it?



That 'circus act' is called 'democracy'. Republicans should try it sometime.

Edgy MD
May 06 2019 03:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not even sure it should even be called "litigation," much less a circus act.

TransMonk
May 06 2019 06:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, I'm pretty sure DJT could have saved us all the circus act some time ago. This is ALL on him...and the Repubs who make excuses for him.

MFS62
May 06 2019 07:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019



Unlike the election of Mitch McConnell, today's Kentucky Derby showed that some people in that state can occasionally make the right decision.

Later


Based on his comments I'm thinking Trump had major dollars on "Maximum Security"


AHA!

We finally agree on something. :)

Later

batmagadanleadoff
May 07 2019 04:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The scumbag Republican (Repetitive!, Synonymous!) governor from Georgia who refereed his own campaign so that he could then steal his election by suppressing the vote and invalidating voter registration forms of likely Dem voters signed into law a measure that makes abortion a crime punishable by life in prison and the death penalty for any woman terminating her pregnancy. What a bunch of primitive barbarian Republicans that run this country, and the jackasses that vote them in.


On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women's reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/hb-481-georgia-law-criminalizes-abortion-subjects-women-to-life-in-prison.html



I hope this bill reaches the Supreme Court and is upheld. This is what it's gonna take to wake up the sleepwalking let's make nice with Mitch McConnell and William Barr Democrats. They're not there yet. Not even fucking close. I think they need to be abused about 89 and a half more times before they start doing what they should've been doing 20 years ago. Of course, if they're abused 89 and a half more times, by then there'll probably be a constitutional amendment prohibiting anyone from voting for Democrats.

Edgy MD
May 07 2019 05:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Who is making nice with Mitch McConnell and William Barr?

Lefty Specialist
May 08 2019 08:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Democrats: "We're worried that we might be approaching a constitutional crisis."



Trump: "Hold my beer."



BREAKING: President Trump "has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials" of Mueller report.

Ceetar
May 08 2019 08:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

wtf is the phrasing of that? 'asserted executive privilege'. bullshit. how about 'Trump refusing to release materials' 'Trump making up laws to prevent release of information'

Willets Point
May 08 2019 09:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=9391 time=1557268143 user_id=68] This is what it's gonna take to wake up the sleepwalking let's make nice with Mitch McConnell and William Barr Democrats.



The most concise term is Vichy Democrats.

Lefty Specialist
May 08 2019 09:27 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump's forcing Democrats down the impeachment path. It may not be where they want to go, but the complete stonewalling is going to leave them no other choice.

batmagadanleadoff
May 08 2019 10:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 08 2019 11:25 AM

=Ceetar post_id=9459 time=1557327225 user_id=102]
wtf is the phrasing of that? 'asserted executive privilege'. bullshit. how about 'Trump refusing to release materials' 'Trump making up laws to prevent release of information'



So whaddya gonna do? Charge Trump with a crime? You can't indict a sitting President, sez DOJ policy. Wanna indict Barr for lying to Congress? Good luck with that. It's Barr himself who decides on who to prosecute. Wanna impeach Barr? Or Trump? Run that idea through Mitch McConnell and the Republicans who comprise the complicit Senate majority even though they represent a small minority of the country. Wanna start legal proceedings to get all of the materials the GOP is refusing to turn over-- like the whole Mueller report and Trump's tax returns? I like what I'm hearing on MSNBC and what I'm reading in the WAPO. But Lawrence O'donnell and Laurence Tribe won't decide this issue -- Neil Gorsuch will. He has the last word, not Lawrence O'donnell. And the issue might be effectively decided earlier because the GOP has weaponized the lower courts with young idealogue political hack extreme wingnut nutjobs. It's a total takeover. Meanwhile Amy Klobuchar wants to make nice with Mitch McConnell. She's looking for bipartisan solutions and to bring back the filibuster so that Dems would need 60 votes to confirm their judges while the GOP would simply nuke it again when their nominees are up for confirmation-- all this after radical scumbag wingnuts Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are installed on the court with a simple majority.



They're probably hatching a plot for Neil Gorsuch to slip some antifreeze in RBG's coffee, while on the Dem side, Minnesota Nice Amy wants to go on a play date with Mitch McConnell.

nymr83
May 08 2019 11:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This was Trump's biggest "fuck you" yet. But Democrats in congress wont play fair, making baseless accusations against the attorney general and demanding he release things he is legally obligated not to, so fuck them, they got what they deserved.

Ceetar
May 08 2019 11:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019


This was Trump's biggest "]


They're probably hatching a plot for Neil Gorsuch to slip some antifreeze in RBG's coffee


They're so inept that if the democrats actually cared they'd have stopped this nonsense years/decades ago. But yeah, if it looks like they're going to lose for sure in 2020, I could see them pushing around some age/health limits/rules/nonsense to try to push her out. There's even probably a good argument for something like that, though RBG is almost definitely an outlier/exception.

Double Switch
May 08 2019 11:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019


This was Trump's biggest "fuck you" yet. But Democrats in congress wont play fair, making baseless accusations against the attorney general and demanding he release things he is legally obligated not to, so fuck them, they got what they deserved.


1. You consider a presidential "fuck you" to everyone who did not vote for Trump as appropriate?



2. Baseless accusations? Seriously? What a world of pretzel logic you live in.



3. You approve of a "fuck you" directed at the US Constitution.



I have to wonder at the level of your personal grievance that causes you to believe this is what a president does. You are a "grievance voter," aren't you.

Edgy MD
May 08 2019 11:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Trump's forcing Democrats down the impeachment path. It may not be where they want to go, but the complete stonewalling is going to leave them no other choice.


Well, if you ask me (and I do!), he's left Republicans no other choice in the same sense, but here we are.

Lefty Specialist
May 08 2019 11:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019


This was Trump's biggest "fuck you" yet. But Democrats in congress wont play fair, making baseless accusations against the attorney general and demanding he release things he is legally obligated not to, so fuck them, they got what they deserved.


Boy, there's a lot of wrongness there to deconstruct.



1) Democrats are playing fair. The problem is Trump isn't- by ignoring lawful subpoenas.

2) The accusations against Barr aren't baseless. He's lied to the Congress and got caught at it.

3) Barr can legally release the entire unredacted Mueller report. In fact it was even written that way by Mueller. Congressional committees see things that the public doesn't see all the time.

4) Democrats DIDN'T get what they deserved. That's why Barr's been cited for contempt of Congress.



Now, Trumps play is to sue and delay and hope the Supreme Court bails him out. We'll see if it works.

batmagadanleadoff
May 08 2019 11:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:


This was Trump's biggest "fuck you" yet. But Democrats in congress wont play fair, making baseless accusations against the attorney general and demanding he release things he is legally obligated not to, so fuck them, they got what they deserved.


Boy, there's a lot of wrongness there to deconstruct.



1) Democrats are playing fair. The problem is Trump isn't- by ignoring lawful subpoenas.

2) The accusations against Barr aren't baseless. He's lied to the Congress and got caught at it.

3) Barr can legally release the entire unredacted Mueller report. In fact it was even written that way by Mueller. Congressional committees see things that the public doesn't see all the time.

4) Democrats DIDN'T get what they deserved. That's why Barr's been cited for contempt of Congress.



Now, Trumps play is to sue and delay and hope the Supreme Court bails him out. We'll see if it works.

What's the point? You might as well try and convince Jeanine Pirro. Or your pet cat.

Lefty Specialist
May 08 2019 02:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

BREAKING: The @NYSenate PASSES the bill authorizing state authorities to release tax returns - including Trump's - if requested by House Committees by a margin of 39-21.



Well, alrighty then. They're also amending the double-jeopardy laws so that Trump can't pardon himself and his gang out of trouble in New York.

batmagadanleadoff
May 08 2019 02:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

BREAKING: The @NYSenate PASSES the bill authorizing state authorities to release tax returns - including Trump's - if requested by House Committees by a margin of 39-21.



Well, alrighty then. They're also amending the double-jeopardy laws so that Trump can't pardon himself and his gang out of trouble in New York.


Oh, I can assure that you that when we look back at this disgraceful era years from now, there will have been a whole slew of State and Federal laws since passed to plug up the holes Trump is exploiting and abusing. There'll be enough new "Trump" laws to fill a library. And you won't see no more scumbag crooks like first count daughter Ivanka and her mediocre fraud husband running the country no more.

Lefty Specialist
May 08 2019 02:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It'll be interesting if he gets prosecuted under New York State law for any crimes. And what if he's convicted? Can you be President and an inmate at the same time?



https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*oxqt0f_-Pi8hEl4H.gif>

nymr83
May 08 2019 06:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm done with this thread, enjoy your liberal-thought-bubble and the shock you will feel about losing again in 2020 because you wont listen to anything outside that bubble.

kcmets
May 08 2019 07:03 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I listened to quite a bit of today's proceedings.



It coulda just went:



The guy is a big lying wiener covering up for a bigger lying wiener.

You wieners are just pissed and you're afraid of him.

You're a wiener.

No, your're a wiener.

We just want the truth.

You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass.

But, but... the Russians.

Yes, yes... the Russians

You shut up, we're for the people.

You shut up, we're for moving on for the people.

Just shut up.

No, you shut up.

No you!

No you!

You!

You!

U!

U!

u!

u!



Yes, I find the whole thing this childish at this point.

Fman99
May 08 2019 07:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019


I'm done with this thread, enjoy your liberal-thought-bubble and the shock you will feel about losing again in 2020 because you wont listen to anything outside that bubble.


There are only two kinds of Republicans who support this president. Those too dumb to know what he really is (his "base"), and those who have no souls and are willing to look the other way on this despicable monster, because of tax breaks, or abortions, or whatever. You're one or the other.

Double Switch
May 09 2019 01:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019


I'm done with this thread, enjoy your liberal-thought-bubble and the shock you will feel about losing again in 2020 because you wont listen to anything outside that bubble.


What a strange concept, a liberal-thought-bubble. Hmmm, inside that bubble there is breathable air, sweet and clean. In a "black & white" world, if the opposite of a Trump minion is a liberal, then I am a liberal. But, only in that context.

MFS62
May 09 2019 07:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=9541 time=1557361782 user_id=54]
I'm done with this thread, enjoy your liberal-thought-bubble and the shock you will feel about losing again in 2020 because you wont listen to anything outside that bubble.



You want to do something really good for the country?

Don't vote.

Later

Lefty Specialist
May 09 2019 07:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=nymr83 post_id=9541 time=1557361782 user_id=54]
I'm done with this thread, enjoy your liberal-thought-bubble and the shock you will feel about losing again in 2020 because you wont listen to anything outside that bubble.





Well, I'd really like to hear a cogent, well-thought out case for 4 more years of Donald Trump. And not just that it'd 'own the libs'.



Go ahead, puncture my bubble. The problem is that a rational case can't be made FOR him. It's just OMG socialism! or something to that effect. And that's exactly the problem Hillary had 4 years ago. Her campaign was based entirely on 'you can't vote for this guy', not on what she'd do to make things better.

batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2019 10:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I love a good tomato and I've been noticing how good and cheap this year's crop has been, especially so early in the year, months before Summer. Not any more. The US is expected to break a tomato treaty with Mexico, which supplies 70% of tomatoes stateside. Prices are gonna skyrocket.





https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1SD07W

Edgy MD
May 09 2019 11:19 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm a little confused by all this "Break a Treaty and Negotiate a Better One" strategy.



Why would anybody faithfully sign a treaty with us if we didn't honor the last one?

batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2019 12:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm a little confused by all this "Break a Treaty and Negotiate a Better One" strategy.



Why would anybody faithfully sign a treaty with us if we didn't honor the last one?




The way this administration's going, they might cancel the Louisiana Purchase treaty next. Then you'd need a passport to enter Nebraska.





https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27420592/mexican-tomato-suspension-agreement/

Vic Sage
May 09 2019 12:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

who would want to enter Nebraska?

kcmets
May 09 2019 12:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The way this administration's going, they might cancel the Louisiana Purchase treaty next.

"We need to renegotiate, France gave us a raw deal. I don't blame France, I blame

past administrations for letting them take advantage of us for over two centuries.



Not under my watch!"

Lefty Specialist
May 09 2019 12:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm a little confused by all this "Break a Treaty and Negotiate a Better One" strategy.



Why would anybody faithfully sign a treaty with us if we didn't honor the last one?


Exactly what the Iranians are saying. And the Canadians and Mexicans. And the Europeans. And the Chinese.

Lefty Specialist
May 09 2019 02:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And just by the by, tariffs (they're actually taxes) on $200 billion of Chinese imports are going from 10% to 25% tomorrow. It's costing my company an estimated 4 million dollars, most of which will be passed on to our customers in the form of higher prices. MAGA!

batmagadanleadoff
May 10 2019 07:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump sez Barr will decide if Mueller testifies before Congress. What a con artist scam that is. That's what the scumbag sez publicly. In private, he's telling Barr in gangster speak "I wouldn't want Mueller to testify "- "It'd be a really good thing if Mueller didn't testify " " You know what I'm saying?"

Lefty Specialist
May 10 2019 10:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, Barr 'making the decision' is laughable. That decision's already been made by Donnie.

Edgy MD
May 11 2019 04:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Man I've been reading that report some more, and the redactions seem to get more strategic as we go.



Starting aroung page 50, when the Trump campaign starts coordinating with the Russian campaign and its cutouts, black ink is everywhere.

Double Switch
May 14 2019 05:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

What a Trump self-destructive week and it's only Tuesday. Talking farmer bailouts can only mean he might slightly perceive that a tariff war is not that great of an idea. ... nah.



And now, Slime Weasel Jr. claims he will show up in June to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. How can this possibly go wrong. Not a question. Quoting from WaPo: "several Republican senators openly urged Trump Jr. either not to comply with a subpoena issued by the committee — or invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if he appeared." Of course, Pimp Jr (that beard - please keep that tacky beard) has days and days to back out of this "closed" hearing. But invoking the 5th? Doesn't that mean a person understands what self incrimination means? That's an admission.



However, I can be properly called FOS since I am not a lawyer and have only the most superficial understanding of the undercurrents that occur when these tactics are employed. None the less, I look forward to this additional drama, just like I look forward to Mr. Mueller's testimony, or at least answering questions, and that crap weasel Barr giving another lecture on obfuscation. Contemptible.



So much turmoil, so little time. 2020 is upcoming in a rush.

Lefty Specialist
May 14 2019 06:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

SW Jr. will only appear behind closed doors, will only answer questions on a pre-approved list of topics, and will not testify longer than 2-4 hours. The fix is in.



And if you're scoring at home, 'farmer bailouts' are also known as SOCIALISM.

Double Switch
May 14 2019 07:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

And if you're scoring at home, 'farmer bailouts' are also known as SOCIALISM.


We know that but do they know that? Ha! I can't wait for the light to dawn. Mass hysteria.

batmagadanleadoff
May 14 2019 08:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:

And if you're scoring at home, 'farmer bailouts' are also known as SOCIALISM.


We know that but do they know that? Ha! I can't wait for the light to dawn. Mass hysteria.


Don't hold your breath.

Lefty Specialist
May 15 2019 07:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Government gives money to me: I deserve it.

Government gives money to 'them': Socialism!

MFS62
May 15 2019 07:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Government gives money to me: I deserve it.

Government gives money to 'them': Socialism!


Who can forget the signs at the Tea Party rallies that said "Government, keep you hands off my Medicare"?



Later

batmagadanleadoff
May 15 2019 02:20 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Sincerest apologies for a snarky post I wrote here a few months ago. It turns out that God really is rooting for the scumbag Trump to get reelected.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27478606/jim-bakker-pray-coin-president-donald-trump-45/

seawolf17
May 15 2019 02:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Fuck the GOP and their imaginary sky man.

LWFS
May 15 2019 02:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If it makes you uncomfortable, well... that's the point, I reckon.


[BLOCKQUOTE]MONTGOMERY, AL—Conveying her concerns that the additional obstacles presented by parenthood would be too much to bear, 12-year-old abuse survivor Abigail Dunn was reportedly worried Wednesday that she wouldn't be able to handle being a mom on top of everything else she had going on. “I have several book reports and a big algebra test coming up in the next few weeks, and I had even been thinking about trying out for my school's chorus, but giving birth and caring for an infant is going to really cut into my studying time,” said the seventh-grader, who acknowledged that the intense feelings of shame and fear associated with trauma had already placed her significantly behind her peers and added that there would likely be even greater challenges to raising the offspring of the man who attacked her. “This year has been hard in a lot of ways. We had to move to a new neighborhood, and my family life has been very, very bad, especially recently. My relationship with my stepdad is pretty much a nightmare. I wish I were responsible enough to look after a baby, but I'm just so scared that I won't be. I'm really sorry.” At press time, Dunn had expressed hope that her unborn child would be friends with the babies of all her fellow pregnant classmates. [/BLOCKQUOTE]

Lefty Specialist
May 16 2019 06:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Dunn had expressed hope that her unborn child would be friends with the babies of all her fellow pregnant classmates.



Kinda says it all. I imagine more than a few of them were raped. Doctors who perform abortions in Alabama will get longer prison sentences than rapists, too.



We're quickly devolving into two Americas. One who wants women to be barefoot and pregnant and buys magic prayer coins, and one who respects women, welcomes diversity, and thinks that prayer coins are a ridiculous scam.



I wasn't for it before, but I think we do need to add two justices to the Supreme Court. Otherwise all the progress of the last 60 years is going to get rolled back. I know it'll lead to a tit-for-tat when Republicans own all the levers again, but something has to be done. Their game plan is working to perfection so far. Eventually they'll overturn Roe v Wade. Then they'll overturn the state laws, making abortion illegal anywhere in the country. Then they'll make contraception illegal. They're not exactly making their intentions secret.



They're already planning an 'underground railroad' for women seeking abortions- and the Georgia law deals with this directly, making it a crime to help someone get an abortion, even if you take them out of the state.



I work for a company in Manhattan, but our main distribution center is in central Missouri, and I'm out there frequently. The culture clash is stunning- I've had to bite my lip more times than I can count. I'm betting demand for prayer coins is high. That's an America I don't want to live in.

Lefty Specialist
May 17 2019 06:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And not clicking the link, I did not realize that was from the Onion. The problem is, it's getting harder and harder to tell reality from the Onion.

batmagadanleadoff
May 17 2019 08:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Giving Puerto Rico and DC statehood will make it harder for the GOP to tit the Dems' tat.

Lefty Specialist
May 17 2019 08:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

True. And it needs to happen. There's a very long to-do list for the next Democratic president and Congress. (Hopefully in 2021)



Things we always assumed will need to be codified.

TransMonk
May 17 2019 08:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So, I finally made my way through the whole redacted Mueller Report. I encourage every American to do so. My takeaways:



1.) While the first volume details the investigation into conspiracy with the Russians and ultimately finds no slam-dunk proof that could be used to find anyone guilty of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, there was TONS OF COLLUSION. The amount of contacts with Russians is staggering. It also seems clear that the Russians were offering help and the campaign was receptive to that help, even if it was never clearly and specifically stated in any "smoking gun" revelation.



2.) There was TONS OF OBSTRUCTION.



3.) The report verifies and reiterates most if not all of the press reports regarding the Russian connections that have been reported over the past two years. In some instances, the report cites specific press reporting of events. I find it reassuring that as the President and his Republican minions have been crying "fake news", the press got nearly all of their reporting right.



4.) The report does highlight some events that had not previously been reported, but the vast majority of the report contained things that we already knew. To me, this is the scary part. America is the frog on the stove slowly being boiled to death. Had all of the info in the report hit on one day, I can't help but think that sentiment towards DJT would be much more uniformly negative.



5.) Barr's intervention, 4 page summary, judgement to clear the President on obstruction and 3 week delay in issuing the report has completely undermined the report. Dems should be SCREAMING for Mueller to testify as it seems to me pretty clear that Mueller's punt on judgement for obstruction was intended for Congress and not Barr.



6.) To me, the redacted Mueller report includes enough information to begin impeachment. I guess I understand why Dems are slow playing this, but I don't agree. The President broke the law. Mueller didn't indict because of DOJ protocol. If Congress does not attempt to hold DJT accountable, then they are impotent and useless. America might as well admit that we are now a dictatorship.



7.) I agree with Edgy that, while the report is "lightly" redacted, there is plenty left under the black that could be reveal more wrongdoing. Lots of investigations were handed off and I think there could be other shoes to drop for others involved.



8.) IMO, the best summary that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN should read would be the Introduction and Executive Summary to Volume II. This portion is only 8 pages long and contains very little redaction. It summarizes different attempts at obstruction, the reasoning for not bringing charges and clearly states that the SCO does NOT exonerate the President on obstruction. If anyone wants a link to these 8 pages, let me know and I will post.



I believe that Barr was installed to halt the investigation, that Mueller still had threads to pull and that Mueller was preparing a report for Congress to move forward with impeachment. Barr's intervention and interference was successful at changing the narrative by allowing DJT to repeatedly state the opposite of what the report actually says before anyone had a chance to see the report.



Bottom line: TONS OF COLLUSION, TONS OF OBSTRUCTION, READ THE REPORT, IMPEACH NOW.

Edgy MD
May 17 2019 09:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

1.) ...even if it was never clearly and specifically stated in any "smoking gun" revelation.


... that we've yet had access to.

TransMonk
May 17 2019 09:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Agreed.

batmagadanleadoff
May 17 2019 09:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

True. And it needs to happen. There's a very long to-do list for the next Democratic president and Congress. (Hopefully in 2021)



Things we always assumed will need to be codified.


There's no other reasonable solution. Hoping that Neil Gorsuch dies 25 years before the actuarial tables predict he's gonna die, and on top of that, hoping that the Dems control both the White House and the Senate when Gorsuch croaks prematurely is sticking your head in the sand. It's only a matter of time before liberals comes around to this.

batmagadanleadoff
May 17 2019 10:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't get too worked up when Amy Klobuchar sez she wants to make nice with the GOP because she's as likely to become our next President as I am, but it's another thing when Joe Biden sez it, too.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27507391/donald-trump-republican-party-joe-biden/

TransMonk
May 17 2019 12:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Naive at best...disingenuous at worst. Joe should know better.

Lefty Specialist
May 17 2019 01:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Joe should know better because he was there when Mitch McConnell stopped everything dead. He was there when Merrick Garland never got a hearing. To think that suddenly Republicans will have an 'epiphany' and start cooperating if Joe Biden becomes president is, um, what's a phrase stronger than 'fucking stupid'?



It's one of many reasons Joe Biden should not be running for president. Making nice isn't going to work in this hyper-partisan environment. Republicans will steal his lunch money, just like they stole Obama's.

MFS62
May 19 2019 05:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Even Pence is getting some protests in a kind of place where he used to be safe:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dozens-walk-mike-pence-apos-174345449.html



Later

Lefty Specialist
May 20 2019 06:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

My wife and I have mostly settled on who we want to win the nomination. (Spoiler alert- not Bill DeBlasio)



Unfortunately we settled on two different candidates, which has resulted in spirited debate (AKA arguments) in our household. Iowa is still 8 months away. Oy.

LWFS
May 20 2019 09:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Ours is the same sort of household right now. Let's just say she's leaning toward the more "electable" candidate.

Lefty Specialist
May 21 2019 06:30 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Ours is the same sort of household right now. Let's just say she's leaning toward the more "electable" candidate.


Same here. Her first instinct is 'make sure we get the f*cker out' and let the chips fall where they may. She doesn't trust women.

LWFS
May 21 2019 08:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:


Ours is the same sort of household right now. Let's just say she's leaning toward the more "electable" candidate.


Same here. Her first instinct is 'make sure we get the f*cker out' and let the chips fall where they may. She doesn't trust women.


I take it you're leaning toward women? (I am. Two of my top 3, including my first.)

Lefty Specialist
May 21 2019 09:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I am. She leans toward the man, I'm leaning toward the woman. MFS62 knows which one- it's a long story. :)

batmagadanleadoff
May 21 2019 09:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm rooting for Elizabeth Warren. She's enough lefty for me and comes off as the shitkicker who won't take no shit from the GOP that the Dems desperately need. But in the general, I'll vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. No need to keep any of that a secret.

Johnny Lunchbucket
May 21 2019 10:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=10670 time=1558452493 user_id=68]
I'm rooting for Elizabeth Warren. She's enough lefty for me and comes off as the shitkicker who won't take no shit from the GOP that the Dems desperately need. But in the general, I'll vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. No need to keep any of that a secret.



That's kinda where I am, though I'm less on board with Warren going in, I wanna make my mind up seeing them in action.



Generally I've been pulling levers for the ladies for at least a decade now. Guys suck.

Willets Point
May 21 2019 10:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think its most important to mobilize to retain the House, gain the Senate, and take as many governerships and state legislatures as possible. It's not going to matter who is President is these things are still held by Republicans and Democratic enablers.

Lefty Specialist
May 21 2019 11:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:

I think its most important to mobilize to retain the House, gain the Senate, and take as many governerships and state legislatures as possible. It's not going to matter who is President is these things are still held by Republicans and Democratic enablers.


True, but these complimentary objectives, not conflicting ones. A rising tide lifts all boats. The Senate is crucial; as many of Trump's enablers as possible need to be thrown out. That's why I'm pissed that people who'd make good Senate candidates in red/purple states, like Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper and Beto O'Rourke are running for president, the first two having about as much chance of being president as I do coming out of the Mets bullpen.

Lefty Specialist
May 21 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

Generally I've been pulling levers for the ladies for at least a decade now. Guys suck.


They do. The more women in office, the better. But my wife knows too many WOMEN who won't vote for a woman. It's something I can't explain, but some women just want a man in charge. And Hillary's catastrophic loss just seemed to harden that opinion on their part.



It's weird to be more feminist than your wife. But there ya go.

LWFS
May 21 2019 11:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

#TeamWarren



#Probably

seawolf17
May 21 2019 12:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I am *really* intrigued by the thought of Justin Arash (or some similar Libertarian candidate) getting some serious third-party play and siphoning off some voters from the incumbent.

Edgy MD
May 22 2019 06:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm more intrigued by Justin Arash siphoning off support in Congress for the wall of protection his party has built around the president.

41Forever
May 22 2019 06:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm more intrigued by Justin Arash siphoning off support in Congress for the wall of protection his party has built around the president.


Actually, it's Amash, with an M. He's my representative, in the Michigan 3rd. He's a nice guy.

Edgy MD
May 22 2019 06:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Of course it is. I just copied. My apologies.

41Forever
May 22 2019 07:27 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Of course it is. I just copied. My apologies.


I don't think he'll mind! He's been called a lot worse, trust me!



He's actually very interesting. He was very young when he was elected, and ran in a crowded primary field with some very established local leaders. His first couple re-elections he faced strong primary challenges from established, well-financed local leaders and prevailed. And his district was changed a little to include some of the southern areas of the state, but he continues to win.



He did a lot of innovative things to connect with voters, like posting every vote on his Facebook page and explaining why he did what he did. This was before they were all on Facebook. We liked it as reporters, for sure. He's a good interview, with strong positions. A criticism we hear is that he doesn't play well with the others, which is both a plus and a minus, because he is perpetually on the outs. He works hard. It's Gerald Ford's old district, which is neat.

batmagadanleadoff
May 22 2019 08:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

I'm more intrigued by Justin Arash siphoning off support in Congress for the wall of protection his party has built around the president.


Actually, it's Amash, with an M.... He's a nice guy.


You said the same thing about Donald Trump. So grain of salt on that.

batmagadanleadoff
May 22 2019 08:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

Of course it is. I just copied. My apologies.


I don't think he'll mind! He's been called a lot worse, trust me.... And his district was changed a little to include some of the southern areas of the state, but he continues to win....


Care to tell the home audience why Amash's district was "changed a little"? The Supreme Court knows why.

batmagadanleadoff
May 22 2019 08:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019



Edgy MD wrote:

Of course it is. I just copied. My apologies.


I don't think he'll mind! He's been called a lot worse, trust me.... And his district was changed a little to include some of the southern areas of the state, but he continues to win....


Care to tell the home audience why Amash's district was "changed a little"? The Supreme Court knows why.


Not that it's so hard to figure out, being that Michigan might have the most gerrymandered districts in the country and with those dirty lines, the Michigan GOP could hold legislative majorities with, perhaps, as little as 25% of the statewide vote.

Edgy MD
May 22 2019 08:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think North Carolina usually wins the "Most Gerrymandered" award, but Michigan is usually top five, along with New York.

TransMonk
May 22 2019 08:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

MGIM: Do you think the district generally supports Amash? Will he face grave backlash for his impeachment view? Is he in danger of losing to a primary opponent further to the right?

batmagadanleadoff
May 22 2019 11:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019



Edgy MD wrote:

Of course it is. I just copied. My apologies.


I don't think he'll mind! He's been called a lot worse, trust me.... And his district was changed a little to include some of the southern areas of the state, but he continues to win....


Care to tell the home audience why Amash's district was "changed a little"? The Supreme Court knows why.


OK. Time's up. Amash's district was "changed a little" because the scumbag Michigan GOP thought that Amash could spare a few GOP voters that were needed to protect GOP Tim Walberg's seat In the neighboring 7th district.. So the district lines were changed in a clearly unnatural way to dilute Dem votes so that Walberg could hold his seat. This was indisputably nothing but a politically motivated partisan gerrymander and there were inculpating emails exchanged between the scumbag Michigan GOP mapmakers and the scumbag Governor Snyder's staff proving all of this without a doubt.





But it appears that Amash is, maybe, one of those rare Republicans with a soul and a conscience. You won't hear him saying that Trump's a nice guy. (Because we're all stupid.). The Republican congressman who called for Trump's impeachment also complained about the partisan nature of the gerrymander to his district. I say maybe because, OTOH, maybe he was complaining because HE was the one who'd be sacrificing GOP votes for the benefit of somebody else. So maybe he complained out of self interest. Who knows?

Lefty Specialist
May 22 2019 01:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Amash is a libertarian. He's being true to his principles, something actually quite rare these days. He'll probably get a Trump-endorsed opponent in the primary for his trouble.



His defection doesn't mean anything in the broader Republican context, however.



Meanwhile, Infrastructure Week gets ruined again as Trump rushes out to a pre-planned podium to demand an immediate end to all investigations or he won't sign anything, forever. He's going to hold his breath until he turns blue. Nancy and Chuck were like, "Dude, WTF?"

Fman99
May 23 2019 08:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's so petulant and petty. What a baby. I am, as I often have been since 2016, embarrassed to live in a country where this person has been "elected" to office.

Lefty Specialist
May 23 2019 12:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Nancy expertly needling that verrrry thin skin.



'I pray for the president and wish his family and staff would have an intervention'



Tweetstorm in 3....2....1....

ashie62
May 24 2019 08:56 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's a long way off but none of the announced dems have me filled with confidence. I do like Pete B

Lefty Specialist
May 25 2019 07:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump allowing Barr to declassify any intelligence he cherry-picks to discredit his enemies is a 'holy shit' moment. This is the kind of stuff third-world dictators do.



They will do anything and everything to remain in power. I'm not exaggerating. This is Code Red.



What ally would dare share intelligence with us knowing it could be released to the Russians?

How demoralized must the Intelligence Community be that their work is being politicized?

How many lives is he putting in danger?



Understand that ANY of the Democrats running, even the ones I despise, are a better choice than this dumpster fire of a president. It doesn't matter if you're not inspired. It doesn't matter if they don't check all your boxes. It doesn't matter if they're too old, too young, black, white, gay, straight, male or female. Vote for them like your democracy and the rule of law depended on it. And drag your friends out to vote, too. Four more years of this and we won't have a recognizable country any more.

Edgy MD
May 25 2019 08:16 PM
Re: Politics 2019

We don't really have one now.



We're just such an adaptive species, we've learned to live with today's new normal. By Monday morning there'll be a new new normal and we'll drag our asses into work or school or church or pilates and by Monday evening, we will adapt again.

batmagadanleadoff
May 26 2019 04:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

We don't really have one now.




If you're talking about AG's, we haven't had one since the Obama administration. Sessions was an AG for brutal racist police forces and redneck whites who thought they were the ones being discriminated against. An out and out no doubt about it racist, only a retard state like Alabama could send that scumbag Sessions to the US Senate. But whaddya expect from a state where a serial pedophile could come within a point and a half of winning a US Senate seat? But who knew that Sessions, for recusing himself from the Russia investigation, might turn out to be the most ethical person to serve in Trump's disgraceful cabinet?

batmagadanleadoff
May 26 2019 04:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=11081 time=1558752973 user_id=90]
It's a long way off but none of the announced dems have me filled with confidence. I do like Pete B



It's simply mind boggling that this country could elect such a loathsome and crooked piece of shit like the orange scumbag to the WH in the first place and that after two years of his administration, with everything that we already know, that he isn't trailing every single Dem candidate by at least 25 points in the polls.



But right now, the country's so polarized and with so much of the electorate dug in, that there aren't gonna be any landslides soon.

Edgy MD
May 26 2019 05:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=11122 time=1558867475 user_id=68]If you're talking about AG's, we haven't had one since the Obama administration.



No, I'm responding to the post just prior to mine which ends with a sentence about not having a recognizable country.

MFS62
May 26 2019 07:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

On a weekend when Americans are honoring the memory of those who have given their all in its defense, donald is in Japan, awarding a judo trophy.

No surprise that he likes fat guys in a diaper.

Later

Lefty Specialist
May 26 2019 01:31 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And pardoning soldiers accused of war crimes like the guy turned in by his fellow SEALS because he made a point of aiming at women and children. I guess that's what makes America Great Again.

batmagadanleadoff
May 26 2019 02:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

In about two weeks, the 75th, or "Diamond " anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy Beach falls on the orange scumbag's watch. Let's see how this cofckucker with the rich man's privileged draft dodging exemption insults the memory of this upcoming event.



And a happy in advance 75th birthday wish to Met legend Bud Harrelson.

MFS62
May 26 2019 02:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019


In about two weeks, the 75th, or "Diamond " anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy Beach falls on the orange scumbag's watch. Let's see how this cofckucker with the rich man's privileged draft dodging exemption insults the memory of this upcoming event.

He'll refer to it as the Great Patriotic War.

https://friendlylocalguides.com/blog/difference-between-wwii-and-the-great-patriotic-war



Later

Edgy MD
May 26 2019 03:13 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There were very fine people on both sides.

MFS62
May 27 2019 06:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm sorry.

In my haste to say something sarcastic about donald, I mis typed.

I later realized it was sumo (not judo), a sport with great tradition in Japan, and got interrupted when I went back to correct it.

I did not mean to dishonor the sport nor the country.

Just him.



Later

MFS62
May 29 2019 08:30 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Mueller statement at 11:00. It will reportedly only deal with the first part of his report (Russian involvement in the election) not the second (Cover up).

Stay tuned.

But it was scheduled by the Justice Department, so I'm not expecting anything earth-shaking.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
May 29 2019 08:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm really beginning to sour on Mueller. Why not? When all's said and done, he's a Republican, after all. Maybe he can redeem himself a bit in my eyes today with his upcoming public statement.



Meanwhile, I'm rooting for Roy Moore in the retard state of Alabama's Republican US Senate primary. Are you?

Johnny Lunchbucket
May 29 2019 09:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

They should play the Marine hymn as he comes on stage

Johnny Lunchbucket
May 29 2019 09:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

oh well.



It was an explanation for him not appeararing before congress.



Russians interfered; Trump obstructed but can't do anything about the latter.

batmagadanleadoff
May 29 2019 09:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Omigod!! Mueller said he doesn't question the good faith of toady hack AG Barr. Pathetic.

batmagadanleadoff
May 29 2019 09:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5ce7042a128047ec7aa50ced/master/w_727,c_limit/CoverStory-STORY_blitt_shoeshine.jpg>

Lefty Specialist
May 29 2019 09:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

He basically said, "DOJ policy prevents me from indicting him. Congress needs to do its job."



The takeaway line is that if they could have cleared him of obstruction, they would have done so. They did not do so.



Pressure to impeach just kicked up a notch.

batmagadanleadoff
May 29 2019 09:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

He basically said, "DOJ policy prevents me from indicting him. Congress needs to do its job."



The takeaway line is that if they could have cleared him of obstruction, they would have done so. They did not do so.



Pressure to impeach just kicked up a notch.


Mueller did say that. Too bad Elizabeth Warren couldn't have been allowed to deliver that same message on behalf of the DOJ. It would have been a lot clearer and a lot more forceful.

seawolf17
May 29 2019 10:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

He basically said, "DOJ policy prevents me from indicting him. Congress needs to do its job."



The takeaway line is that if they could have cleared him of obstruction, they would have done so. They did not do so.



Pressure to impeach just kicked up a notch.

That's the way I read it too. The problem is, the GOP can read it the exact opposite way, and as such, that's what they're doing.

batmagadanleadoff
May 29 2019 10:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The real problem is FOX news. Trump's base watches FOX new, which spews lies and distortions and where the GOP can flat out like to the public without any accountability. Used to be that people could disagree over policies and such, but it was understood that the media wasn't distorting the underlying facts. If Watergate happened today, Nixon wouldn't resign as quickly as he did, if at all.

Double Switch
May 29 2019 10:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019


https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5ce7042a128047ec7aa50ced/master/w_727,c_limit/CoverStory-STORY_blitt_shoeshine.jpg>


They all have tiny hands.

Lefty Specialist
May 29 2019 11:30 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, Fox News is basically running with "not charged= innocent". As are the Trumpsters.

Willets Point
May 30 2019 08:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm sure the people who think the "military don't get enough appreciation" and must be treated with fawning reverence on all occassions will be up in arms about how Trump slighted the sailors of the U.S.S. John McCain.

Lefty Specialist
May 30 2019 08:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Somebody wanted to please Dear Leader. This is how authoritarians work, by getting the cooperation of those afraid to stand up for their principles (or a war hero).

Fman99
May 30 2019 07:56 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The whole thing sucks ass. I think it's time to draw a new line and send the red states off to go be their own country.

Lefty Specialist
May 31 2019 07:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Because apparently we need a tax on food and auto parts.



On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2019




I'm beginning to wonder....will other countries start interfering in our elections to promote Democrats? China certainly has an incentive. So do the Europeans. And Qatar. And Mexico, and Canada, and Japan. And, well, any other country he's pissed off. Mitch has worked with Trump to prevent any money going to secure our elections. May come back to bite them in ways they never imagined.

batmagadanleadoff
May 31 2019 07:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And while they're at it, maybe they could scratch Neil Gorsuch with a poison tipped umbrella.

Lefty Specialist
May 31 2019 08:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/61331956_3280504738641852_8969710516733739008_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQnUTXY8X54V0HAYG7aqDyQkZU9etW6ECQER4M94CXcENjZc9fttpqBD6OrLEv69qi0&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=48d4cdb90e229cf6004b669af1e21aa4&oe=5D8E0822>

batmagadanleadoff
May 31 2019 08:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/61331956_3280504738641852_8969710516733739008_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQnUTXY8X54V0HAYG7aqDyQkZU9etW6ECQER4M94CXcENjZc9fttpqBD6OrLEv69qi0&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=48d4cdb90e229cf6004b669af1e21aa4&oe=5D8E0822>

This a million times over. I was even thinking of writing a post on that. The messaging was as bad as it could get. "We did not find that the President didn't conspire... or we would have said so." It's muddled in double negatives on top of double negatives.



Why couldn't they fucking say that ..."If he was innocent , we would have said so?°" Meanwhile, Barr's cover up worked. Amash's Town Hall showed that reasonable thinking open-minded GOP voters sincerely believed that the Mueller report had nothing negative to say about Trump.

MFS62
Jun 05 2019 06:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

At least he only touched the Queen on the back.



A British interviewer asked him (diplomatically) whether he would have wanted to go to Viet Nam if he hadn't had those bone spurs.

Instead of saying something like "I would have been proud to serve my Country", he said (I paraphrase, but it is very close) "I was never in favor of that war. It wasn't like we were fighting Adolph Hitler, and it was far away".

Far away?

Far Away???



Fucking coward.

How any person who proudly served can like that five time draft dodger, much less support him is incomprehensible.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Jun 05 2019 06:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This one's for Batmags.



@IvankaTrump



En route to The Hague!



Clue Heywood‏ @ClueHeywood 5h5 hours ago

Replying to @IvankaTrump





So you waived extradition?

MFS62
Jun 05 2019 07:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Funny line about The Hague (the home of the World Court).

I'd be just as happy if they had their own Nuremberg.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 05 2019 09:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

This one's for Batmags.



@IvankaTrump



En route to The Hague!



Clue Heywood‏ @ClueHeywood 5h5 hours ago

Replying to @IvankaTrump





So you waived extradition?


The Hague is too good for this fucking count who's not satisfied with the hundreds of millions of dollars she was handed before she decided to raid the country's funds under the pretense of playing make believe politician. Her and her fucking nothing husband with the paid for Harvard degree who's essentially Trump's bagman, selling national secrets and military equipment to the Saudis in exchange for duffel bags stuffed with millions and millions of dollars. These two should end up like Mussolini and his mistress.



I wonder if they're still arguing with each other over which of the two future Presidents is gonna be President first?

Lefty Specialist
Jun 05 2019 12:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, tell us how you really feel. Of course, 'millions and millions' should be amended to 'billions and billions'.



More Ivanka goodness.....listen to her get booed.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-and-friends-host-brian-kilmeade-rushes-to-spin-away-boos-as-ivanka-trump-emerges-for-uk-presser

duan
Jun 06 2019 02:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

As you may know the Donald is basing himself at his "White House on the Wild Atlantic Way" (he hasn't actually called it that) Trump Doonbeg in West County Clare for his sojurn.

Anyway, part of that has meant An Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar met with him for a bit yesterday.



Miriam Lord's piece in the Irish Times is worth a read.

[url]https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/melania-like-quality-to-leo-s-sangfroid-in-face-of-trump-s-witless-remarks-1.3916073

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 06 2019 04:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And while we're passing out invites to DC and PR, let's not forget American Samoa and Guam. That'll be worth eight Democratic senators.





https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-democrats-win-the-senate-by-adding-states-its-been-done-before/

Lefty Specialist
Jun 08 2019 04:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Careful what you wish for. Guam has a hard Republican lean.

Edgy MD
Jun 08 2019 06:19 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And Puerto Rico was probably a good bet to split. Of course, that was before he responded to a natural disaster with Let them eat paper towels.

MFS62
Jun 08 2019 03:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, we won't be adding the moon as a new state.

Its part of Mars, y'know:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-erupts-over-trump-claim-190835373.html

He doesn't know anything about science, which is seriously scary. (Actually, I'm not sure he knows anything about anything he had to get out of a book.)

Later

Lefty Specialist
Jun 10 2019 01:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I know there's outrage fatigue, but Trump held up the entire D-Day memorial ceremony because he was having an interview with Laura Ingraham. There, in front of thousands of crosses of the graves of dead American soldiers, he bashed Nancy Pelosi and Robert Mueller. Meanwhile Emmanuel Macron and other world leaders cooled their heels.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 10 2019 02:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

I know there's outrage fatigue, but Trump held up the entire D-Day memorial ceremony because he was having an interview with Laura Ingraham. There, in front of thousands of crosses of the graves of dead American soldiers, he bashed Nancy Pelosi and Robert Mueller. Meanwhile Emmanuel Macron and other world leaders cooled their heels.




That's like 25 disgraces ago. Catch up.

Edgy MD
Jun 10 2019 02:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I really want there to be no updates in this thread unless there are developments in the president's removal.



There's enough disgrace to remove five presidents, for fuck's sake.

Double Switch
Jun 10 2019 03:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

I know there's outrage fatigue, but Trump held up the entire D-Day memorial ceremony because he was having an interview with Laura Ingraham. There, in front of thousands of crosses of the graves of dead American soldiers, he bashed Nancy Pelosi and Robert Mueller. Meanwhile Emmanuel Macron and other world leaders cooled their heels.


The worst part is there were millions of viewers of this who thought it was fantastic. That's our national cancer.

whippoorwill
Jun 10 2019 03:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Brainwashed. The new normal

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 10 2019 04:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=whippoorwill post_id=12604 time=1560203415 user_id=79]
Brainwashed. The new normal



Brainwashed or in on it. The Founders never envisioned a body of Congress that would shirk its Constitutional duties, or a DOJ that's essentially a mob law firm. GOP senators are too smart to be brainwashed. They're in on it. As is anyone smart enough to be a state GOP version of Huckabee Sanders, attending Trump's retard rallies in their (Authentic! Not counterfeit!) MAGA hats and cheering to lock her up while members of the press are caged in pens like cattle.

seawolf17
Jun 11 2019 07:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:

I know there's outrage fatigue, but Trump held up the entire D-Day memorial ceremony because he was having an interview with Laura Ingraham. There, in front of thousands of crosses of the graves of dead American soldiers, he bashed Nancy Pelosi and Robert Mueller. Meanwhile Emmanuel Macron and other world leaders cooled their heels.


The worst part is there were millions of viewers of this who thought it was fantastic. That's our national cancer.

THIS. THIS! A MILLION TIMES THIS. And that doesn't go away, no matter who's "in charge."

Ceetar
Jun 11 2019 07:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=12606 time=1560204162 user_id=68]
=whippoorwill post_id=12604 time=1560203415 user_id=79]
Brainwashed. The new normal



Brainwashed or in on it. The Founders never envisioned a body of Congress that would shirk its Constitutional duties, or a DOJ that's essentially a mob law firm. GOP senators are too smart to be brainwashed. They're in on it. As is anyone smart enough to be a state GOP version of Huckabee Sanders, attending Trump's retard rallies in their (Authentic! Not counterfeit!) MAGA hats and cheering to lock her up while members of the press are caged in pens like cattle.


It's a little of the 'in on it' but mostly it's apathy for humanity mixed with a bit of prejudice. If a decision isn't getting them money or power, or getting someone they know money or power that then in turn will be able to reciprocate money or power back at them in the future, they're aggressively disinterested and dismissive of it.



And now between them and Fox News, they've weaponized things like killing immigrants and poor people by enraging large swathes of people to be against health care and compassion and safety. They get votes by being pro kidnapping and killing brown children,and they've gerry-rigged the laws so that those people's votes count more.



This is why it's pointless to point out the hypocrisy, because it's NOT hypocrisy, it's basically treason. Turtleboy didn't believe Obama shouldn't nominate a judge in his last year, he simply wanted Obama to not get to do things that hurt his personal power and wealth going forward.

Edgy MD
Jun 17 2019 09:20 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If Speaker Pelosi is trying to be strategic, it's easy to see how it can backfire.



Epiphany: Yes, yes, impeachment proceedings spend political capital that is at risk, particularly if the president is made to leave office, and they want that capital guaranteed to be at work for them at the 2020 election polls. BUT ... if the Demorats in Congress continue to not move against this empire of iniquity, then it just encourages the president to lie, cheat, steal, betray in his 2020 campaign. All with impunity.



Stop being so finger-to-the-wind and do your jobs, please.

Lefty Specialist
Jun 18 2019 05:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The 'Oh yeah, I'll take help from foreign countries' moment should have been enough. Sometimes you have to screw politics and do what's right. Jerry Nadler's ready to go but he's being muzzled.

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 18 2019 06:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

A month or so ago, a guest on Bill Maher's show (I don't remember her name) suggested that the House slow-walk the impeachment hearings. They could keep exposing dirt and corruption but not throw it over to the Senate at all, or they could wait until after the November 2020 election. That way Trump gets the embarrassment and exposure, but not the vindication of a Senate acquittal.

MFS62
Jun 18 2019 06:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

A month or so ago, a guest on Bill Maher's show (I don't remember her name) suggested that the House slow-walk the impeachment hearings. They could keep exposing dirt and corruption but not throw it over to the Senate at all, or they could wait until after the November 2020 election. That way Trump gets the embarrassment and exposure, but not the vindication of a Senate acquittal.

The best of all possible worlds.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Jun 18 2019 07:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm fine with that. The House takes so much time off anyway that they could do it.



Bill Maher also has said on numerous occasions that Trump may not leave even if he loses. What then?

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 18 2019 08:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Maher does say that a lot. But even if Trump barricades himself in the White House, he'd still lose all of the constitutional power of the office at noon on January 20.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 18 2019 09:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Whaddya mean, wait after the 2020 election? There's no guarantee that the Dems will hold the Hiouse. And if they dont impeach him, hell run on that, too -- that the Hiouse didnt impeach him because he's innocent of everything. The Dems are pussies and bad at politics. Paralysis by analysis That's why they're where they are. They've lost the country. The Senate. The courts,, forever barring drastic change. Jesus H. Christ, their plan is for America to read the Mueller report because they dont know how to get a message across. 450 pages when half the electorate is dumb as dogshit.

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 18 2019 09:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think she means that you wait until after November, not after January. The idea isn't to get him removed from office because it won't be possible in the Senate, but to use the hearings in the House to expose all of his criminal acts.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 18 2019 09:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I think she means that you wait until after November, not after January. The idea isn't to get him removed from office because it won't be possible in the Senate, but to use the hearings in the House to expose all of his criminal acts.

That I'm all for. And it should've started already. This stuff about alternate realities is both accurate and obviously, extremely disturbing. I've been watching MSNBC town halls and get togethers in swing states and districts and its hair raising alarming what Trump voters believe. And these people dont look like crazies.

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 18 2019 09:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm wondering if this is Pelosi's plan, and she's working the timing. Maybe she thinks it's better to start it in 2020, so it's not as apparent that she's dragging it out to avoid the "vindicating" vote in the Senate. She can pretty much count on there being any number of words or actions by Trump that she can proclaim to be the tipping point that changes her mind.

Lefty Specialist
Jun 18 2019 11:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Democrats are like generals, who the saying goes are always fighting the last war. Their messaging sucks in the age of Trump. They play by the rules while Trump laughs at rules. They go by the book while McConnell has turned the book into confetti.



In spite of all this, I'm optimistic about 2020. If any Democrat besides Biden gets elected, there'll be accountability. And I'm a little more optimistic about the Senate than I was. I think some presidential also-rans are going to recalibrate and run for Senate. These debates will be the first weeding out.



There's time to do impeachment hearings (not necessarily impeachment) properly. We'll see.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 18 2019 12:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If you have the time, take a look at this video to watch a Dem that knows knows how to speak and to get a message across effectively. She's a brilliant public speaker and makes it look easy.



[Youtube]xJhkX74D10M[/YouTube]

Double Switch
Jun 18 2019 01:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Every time I get the opportunity to watch Elizabeth Warren hold a prevaricator accountable, it's a thrill. Watching a tough, brilliant person (male or female) drill into a criminal is a thrill and restores my belief that there is a right way to do business and to govern. It's what leadership actually looks like. Thank you for providing this clip.

Lefty Specialist
Jun 18 2019 02:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

She's head and shoulders above the rest so far. Unfortunately she and Bernie are competing for an overlapping subset of Democratic voters. I think she'll emerge as the 'anti-Biden', whether that means anything or not. But I'm on Team Warren.

Double Switch
Jun 18 2019 03:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

She's head and shoulders above the rest so far. Unfortunately she and Bernie are competing for an overlapping subset of Democratic voters. I think she'll emerge as the 'anti-Biden', whether that means anything or not. But I'm on Team Warren.


I also support Warren as well as Buttigieg. As for Bernie Sanders, I consider him a ~~~~~. I detest his insistence that he's supposedly Independent but gloms the Democratic Party when it suits him. I have never appreciated his "KMA" curmudgeon persona. Sadly, he still skims off far too much of the non-GOP voters.

Edgy MD
Jun 18 2019 06:20 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Benjamin Grimm wrote:

A month or so ago, a guest on Bill Maher's show (I don't remember her name) suggested that the House slow-walk the impeachment hearings. They could keep exposing dirt and corruption but not throw it over to the Senate at all, or they could wait until after the November 2020 election. That way Trump gets the embarrassment and exposure, but not the vindication of a Senate acquittal.

The best of all possible worlds.

Later

I disagree that this is the best of all possible worlds.

MFS62
Jun 18 2019 07:13 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He won't be able to use the acquit shit unless he is formally charged and tried. But the dirt will be out there for the voters to see.

I like it.

Granted, the best outcome would be impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate, removed from office, indicted by the FBI, found guilty in Federal and State courts and sentenced to hard time. But I said "possible worlds" (thank you, Voltaire) and meant its the best we can realistically expect in the limited amount of time before the elections.

What would be best for you?

Later

Edgy MD
Jun 19 2019 05:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Not a single day left in office. Not a moment in delayed in pursuit of that end. Not a single member of Congress strategizing about what's best for 2020, but instead doing the duty they pledged to do in their oaths.

MFS62
Jun 19 2019 05:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'd certainly support that.

Later

Fman99
Jun 19 2019 06:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Not a single day left in office. Not a moment in delayed in pursuit of that end. Not a single member of Congress strategizing about what's best for 2020, but instead doing the duty they pledged to do in their oaths.


^

Lefty Specialist
Jun 19 2019 07:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Short of a well-placed lightning bolt, instant gratification isn't going to happen. I agree the impeachment investigation needs to start post-haste, but it's not going to happen until Pelosi permits it. And understand that a majority of Americans are still against impeachment. They need to be led along. Starting real hearings are a part of that process.



Getting Bob Mueller's ass in a seat on TV is one thing they need to do right now. I don't care if he doesn't want to go or doesn't have anything to say that isn't in his report. I want him saying those things live on CNN.

Edgy MD
Jun 19 2019 10:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not asking for instant gratification. I'm demanding holding people accountable to their oaths.



I don't need to be told about where the majority of Americans stand. The obligation of the oath doesn't change.



They could hold town halls tomorrow across the country discussing the Mueller report, write editorials, throw rallies in hostile districts. Put Mueller in the hot seat. McGahn too. No negotiations. Compel them to testify. Don Junior too. If he lies, lock him up. If he takes the fifth, he can sit there while members of Congress read out his misdeeds and let America know why they are so evil. Has anyone interviewed his ex-wife? There's got to be something to be learned there.



If that doesn't move the needle, then it doesn't. Their job is the same, and if they ignore their oaths, then the president isn't alone in his perfidy, and he is emboldened in his criminal, anti-American, and desperately dangerous behavior.



The job is the job. Get it done. Their oath isn't to Nancy Pelosi.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 19 2019 10:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm not asking for instant gratification. I'm demanding holding people accountable to their oaths.



I don't need to be told about where the majority of Americans stand. The obligation of the oath doesn't change.



They could hold town halls tomorrow across the country discussing the Mueller report, write editorials, throw rallies in hostile districts. Put Mueller in the hot seat. McGahn too. No negotiations. Compel them to testify. Don Junior too. If he lies, lock him up. If he takes the fifth, he can sit there while members of Congress read out his misdeeds and let America know why they are so evil. Has anyone interviewed his ex-wife? There's got to be something to be learned there.



If that doesn't move the needle, then it doesn't. Their job is the same, and if they ignore their oaths, then the president isn't alone in his perfidy, and he is emboldened in his criminal, anti-American, and desperately dangerous behavior.



The job is the job. Get it done. Their oath isn't to Nancy Pelosi.


I heartily endorse this post. Especially this part:


Edgy MD wrote:
I don't need to be told about where the majority of Americans stand.


And if the Americans don't get it, it's the Dems fault. If the Dems can't get the message across, then they're not fit for the job because politics is all about persuading the electorate and if the Dems can't persuade, they should go home. Whichever party can do a better of of persuading wins. What a pussified party this is. If they got the message across, the electorate would be lining up at the White House with pitchforks and guillotines and the scumbags that are running that joint would need to call in the military to protect their asses. You wanna know when the pro-choice wing of the Dem base started going ballistic? The day after Bret Kavanaugh's confirmation. Not on election day, 2016. A day late and a dollar short. Because the stupid Dem party didn't think it was important enough during the presidential campaign to talk about the judges that the GOP would confirm. Who the hell is running things? Uncle Fester? There was no one on the Dem side to explain to the base that you have to have the courts if you wanna preserve abortion rights. It's funny how the evangelicals knew for decades that they'd need the courts to overrule Roe v Wade. The pussification continues. Hope Hicks is testifying behind closed doors today instead of on live TV so that the whole country could see what a fucking crook, enabler and bullshit artist she is. They'll probably treat her like the ghost of Audrey Hepburn and spend the first three paragaphs of coverage telling everyone what a classy lady she is and that she was a model, too. Maybe she'll end up on the twenty dollar bill because she's so much prettier, and whiter, than Harriet Tubman.

TransMonk
Jun 19 2019 10:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's sad that Justin Amash has been the best congressional communicator on the need to impeach.

Lefty Specialist
Jun 19 2019 11:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

True. The problem is that Democrats play by the rules. They issue subpoenas, Trump ignores the subpoenas. They sue to enforce the subpoenas, it grinds its way through the courts. And it wastes time, which is what Trump wants.



Hope Hicks is testifying behind closed doors today because that was the only way they could get her. And she has a Trump lawyer by her side objecting to every question, so don't expect much.



You could say 'Let's start an impeachment hearing' but what if the impeachment hearing meets the same stonewalling? No witnesses testify, more court filings, more delay. Then you're right back in the same place. Meanwhile Trump plays the 'they're persecuting me and no collusion, Mueller said so' cards.



Trump knows very little, and the little he does know is corrupt. One thing he is VERY good at, though, is using lawyers. He's used them all his life to wear down his opponents. He'll continue doing that.



I'm for impeachment hearings. But they may not turn out the way Democrats want. It could turn into a long legal wrangle where Americans throw up their hands and say they all suck. And if that long legal wrangle ends up in the Justice I Like Beer Supreme Court, it may be for naught.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 19 2019 12:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:



I'm for impeachment hearings. But they may not turn out the way Democrats want. It could turn into a long legal wrangle where Americans throw up their hands and say they all suck. And if that long legal wrangle ends up in the Justice I Like Beer Supreme Court, it may be for naught.


And if it turns out that way, whose fault would that be? The Dems. They lost the courts. They couldn't even stop people from voting for Jill Stein. The courts weren't even on their radar when they ran HRC. And you could tell, by Trump's rhetoric, that he's certain that the Supreme Court will bail him out of just about everything. He's probably right. Trump probably met with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh before they were confirmed and had all sorts of inappropriate and unethical dialogues with them that we'll never find out about. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were nominated for the same reasons that Wiliam Barr is the AG. It's all calculated. It's a take-over. Secretly, Trump probably couldn't give a flying fuck about abortion rights one way or the other and evangelicals. Hell, he probably holds evangelicals in contempt and thinks they're all rubes, saps and suckers. But Trump has a feral instinct for his own self-preservation and for advancing whatever his own self-interests are.



Why Mitch McConnell Outmaneuvers Democrats at Filling the Supreme Court


The boundless cynicism of Mitch McConnell is again on display. The Kentucky Republican, who is the Senate Majority Leader, told a home-state audience that, if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 2020, he will make sure that President Trump's nominee receives a confirmation vote. This, of course, conflicts with McConnell's view on the election-year nomination of Merrick Garland, in 2016. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, on February 13, 2016, McConnell announced that he would refuse to allow a vote on President Obama's nominee, and thus would keep the seat open for the next President to fill. McConnell has lately made a halfhearted attempt to distinguish the two situations; he said that Supreme Court seats should be kept open in election years when the Senate and the Presidency are controlled by different parties. (Needless to say, he did not raise this purported distinction in 2016.) But the main reason that McConnell might push through a Republican nominee to the Court while blocking a Democratic choice is simple: because he can.



There's another, less obvious reason that McConnell can game the Supreme Court confirmation process with impunity. The Republican Party has been far more invested in the future of the Supreme Court, and of the judiciary generally, than the Democratic Party has. Judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, are a central pillar of the Republican agenda, and Republican voters will forgive any number of other transgressions if the Party delivers on the courts.



Donald Trump understood this. That's why, during the 2016 campaign, he released a short list of possible nominees to the Court. The list was largely compiled by Leonard Leo, the executive vice-president of the Federalist Society, and the names on it demonstrated to the Republican base that Trump was serious about following its agenda—starting with overruling Roe v. Wade. Trump's nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and of dozens of other conservatives to the lower courts, have been crucial to the President's preservation of his stratospheric level of support from that base. Conservatives forgive Trump his louche personal life and his casual dishonesty because they know that they are getting the judges and the Justices they want.



Democrats are different. Consider what happened after McConnell blocked the Garland nomination. After a few days of perfunctory outrage, most Democratic politicians dropped the issue. Neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton, in their speeches before the Democratic National Convention, in July, 2016, even mentioned Garland—or the Supreme Court. Its future was apparently something that neither of them wanted to discuss, or thought that their party, or the nation, wanted to hear about.



Four years later, this pattern is recurring. Consider, for example, the Web sites of three leading contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Each site has thousands of words outlining the candidates' positions on the issues—and none of them mentions Supreme Court nominations, much less nominations for lower-court judges. These omissions are especially striking in Biden's case, because he served for decades on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including several years as the chair. He voted on more than a dozen Supreme Court confirmations (including, of course, that of Clarence Thomas) and, as Vice-President, he helped Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan win approval in the Senate. Likewise, since Warren was a law professor before she ran for office, she might be expected to focus on the significance of the Court. But, for the most part, Democrats barely mention it.



It's difficult to pinpoint why Republicans are so much more motivated by the Supreme Court than Democrats are. Complacency could be part of the reason. Despite a preponderance of Republicans on the Court for the past couple of generations, the Justices have expanded gay rights, including the right to marriage, and preserved abortion rights, by reaffirming Roe. But, thanks largely to McConnell, and, of course, to Trump, those days are likely over. Trump rallied his supporters by promising to appoint Justices who will vote to overturn Roe, and the day of that vote may soon be upon us. By the time Democrats wake up to the importance of the Court, it may be too late.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-mitch-mcconnell-outmaneuvers-democrats-at-filling-the-supreme-court





Let me comment on this last line in the article: "By the time Democrats wake up to the importance of the Court, it may be too late." -- It already is too late. If the Democrats just sit back passively, and wait, or hope, for things to happen in the natural course of events, they'll never get the courts back. Never. And I'm very comfortable in saying that. Never. Not 10 years from now. Or 40 years from now. Never. If the Dems don't do something drastic now, like packing the courts or successfully pushing for a Constitutional amendment to change the way SCOTUS judges are appointed or to reduce their lifetime term limits, they'll never have the courts again barring some Black Swan like event like three conservative judges riding in the same car on their way to some event when their car veers off of a cliff and plunges 300 feet into a ravine -- and that the Dems have the White House and Senate when this terrible tragedy happens.

Chad ochoseis
Jun 19 2019 01:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's not just the Supreme Court. The Republicans got smart in 2008 and figured out that the US Presidency just isn't that powerful of a position. Yeah, you're the "leader of the free world" and you get a big house and a neat airplane and bodyguards, but power mostly lies elsewhere.



So the R's went to the states. And they won legislatures and governorships. And that gave them power to gerrymander the House and appoint Secretaries of State who can control elections so they can get the US senators they need and take control of the courts. And it didn't matter much that Obama was President. And it doesn't even matter a hell of a lot that Trump is president, other than the embarrassment any thinking human feels when he opens his ugly corrupt mouth.



This country would be a lot better off if, say, 25 of the D's now running for president would go back to working on flipping their home states.



I'm looking at you, Beto.

Willets Point
Jun 19 2019 02:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

If Speaker Pelosi is trying to be strategic, it's easy to see how it can backfire.



Epiphany: Yes, yes, impeachment proceedings spend political capital that is at risk, particularly if the president is made to leave office, and they want that capital guaranteed to be at work for them at the 2020 election polls. BUT ... if the Democrats in Congress continue to not move against this empire of iniquity, then it just encourages the president to lie, cheat, steal, betray in his 2020 campaign. All with impunity.



Stop being so finger-to-the-wind and do your jobs, please.


Trump 2020 campaign motto: "EVEN THE LIBERAL PELOSI COULD FIND NO REASON TO IMPEACH THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER."

metsmarathon
Jun 19 2019 07:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Look, if the American people can sit through the past two years, and an impeachment trial in the house, and then re-elect trump and the republican senate after they vote to acquit, then we fucking deserve to have a republican senate and trump as our national leader.



But I've gotta believe that every single damned person who has not sold their soul into his base would see all the terrible awfulness that he's done, laid bare by the house and excused away by the senate, and rightfully clean the whole lot of those motherfuckers out of goddamn office for dereliction of duty.



And again, if not, we'll get what we all deserve.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 20 2019 09:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019


The pussification continues. Hope Hicks is testifying behind closed doors today instead of on live TV so that the whole country could see what a fucking crook, enabler and bullshit artist she is.


Lefty Specialist wrote:



Hope Hicks is testifying behind closed doors today because that was the only way they could get her. And she has a Trump lawyer by her side objecting to every question, so don't expect much.


My main man in political punditry, Charley Pierce, sez the Dems are pussies and closed session hearings are a fucking farce.



Excerpts:


From September of 1996 to March of 1998, Susan McDougal was incarcerated on a charge of civil contempt for refusing to answer what she believed were loaded questions before the Whitewater grand jury convened by that inexcusable excuse for a human being, Kenneth Starr. Get another special counsel, she told Starr's prosecutors, and I'll answer questions. Instead, she was chucked into jail and, as an added punishment, McDougal was shuffled all over the country in a series of meaningless transfers between facilities. Ultimately, after McDougal had served four months for fraud, Starr's office tried her for criminal contempt.... And Hope Hicks sleeps at home tonight.


There used to be actual consequences for refusing to testify when called before bodies like congressional committees and federal grand juries. People went to jail. They were fined within an inch of their net worth. These penalties could be assessed fairly or unfairly, but the ability to levy them had some power and authority behind it. Once again, all old things are made new again, or, as Peter Pan put it in a vastly different context, everything is possible if you wish it to be so.


A former staffer, backed up by a second-string lawyer from a lawless administration*, just told the Congress of the United States to take Article I of the Constitution and stuff it. And she slept at home Wednesday night.


Enough with this. Enough with closed-door hearings and backroom deals being cut for the purpose of being granted microscoping shards of the actual truth behind actual crimes. Drop a subpoena on Robert Mueller. Get into the pockets of stonewalling witnesses with fines sufficient unto their obstruction. Exercise the option of inherent contempt and exercise it vigorously. (emphasis added)


And, yes, open the damn impeachment inquiry. Announce it on live television, with bunting and balloons and band music. Either that, or stage an elaborate funeral both for the Constitutional order and the concept of irony. Bury them deep in the ground and go on with the farcical parade.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28116106/hope-hicks-testify-democrats-congress-contempt-impeach/



If the roles were reversed, if Hope Hicks was a Democratic staffer who blew off a Republican led House committee, Hicks would already be in chains in some dungeon of a shithole prison, having to drink piss laced water for beverage.

Ceetar
Jun 20 2019 12:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=13594 time=1560995497 user_id=83]
Look, if the American people can sit through the past two years, and an impeachment trial in the house, and then re-elect trump and the republican senate after they vote to acquit, then we fucking deserve to have a republican senate and trump as our national leader.



But I've gotta believe that every single damned person who has not sold their soul into his base would see all the terrible awfulness that he's done, laid bare by the house and excused away by the senate, and rightfully clean the whole lot of those motherfuckers out of goddamn office for dereliction of duty.



And again, if not, we'll get what we all deserve.



Except the people already overwhelming voted to NOT have the pedophile as president in 2016 and somehow he's still there.

metsmarathon
Jun 20 2019 02:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

i don't believe that everyone who voted for him is strictly part of his 'base'; that there were a great many voters who were hoping just for change, or to disrupt the system, or who thought his policies were best for the economy, or whatever, who are sane, rational beings at their core, and who would, when presented enough evidence would come to their senses that this man is not good for this country, and that those who would abdicate their constitutional responsibilities just to keep him in power are also very not good for this country.



and that no matter how gerrymandered the country is, and no matter how flawed the electoral college is, that the collective outrage over just what this president has done to ruin us should be more than enough to effect a sea change.



and if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter anyway, because all is lost.



what i'm saying is, the best of us has to be better than the worst of us. and we have to be willing to be the best of us, even if it allows the worst of us to be their worst.



if holding impeachment proceedings will cause trump's base to get fired up and come out to the polls, then so be it. the impeachment proceedings should fire up every other damned american - the actual and true patriots who love what this country is and should be - to step the fuck up and vote this clown and his enablers the fuck out of office.

Ceetar
Jun 20 2019 02:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=13700 time=1561063243 user_id=83]


if holding impeachment proceedings will cause trump's base to get fired up and come out to the polls, then so be it.



It won't. And there aren't a lot of them. They're an extreme minority that we're giving airtime to for some nonsense reason. They typically get small turnout to any of their things. meanwhile millions stormed the airports when Trump announced his Muslim ban. Sure, they've snuck it all in anyway less publicly to avoid that sorta thing, but let's not forget how worthless these white supremacists are and stop humoring them as anything but scum.



Polls suggest most people support health care for all. Support Roe v Wade. None of the businesses they get outraged at are hurt. Nike feels no worry about publicly supporting Kapernick. EVERY damn store in every corner is supporting Pride month.

MFS62
Jun 20 2019 04:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Here is what I would like to see happen.

I believe that Robert Mueller is a by-the-book person of integrity.

I think that if he were subpoenaed to appear in open hearing before a House committee, he would appear.

Then, if he were to be asked the question, "Do you think that if Donald Trump were not President, you found enough evidence to indict him for the crime of obstruction of justice?" he would say "yes".



Later

Lefty Specialist
Jun 21 2019 06:49 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Here is what I would like to see happen.

I believe that Robert Mueller is a by-the-book person of integrity.

I think that if he were subpoenaed to appear in open hearing before a House committee, he would appear.

Then, if he were to be asked the question, "Do you think that if Donald Trump were not President, you found enough evidence to indict him for the crime of obstruction of justice?" he would say "yes".



Later


Sadly, no. He would most likely reply, "I don't answer hypothetical questions". I would expect he'll say that a lot. Mueller's no amateur.

MFS62
Jun 23 2019 10:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

GOP State Senators join with right wing militias to avoid voting on reducing pollution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-statehouse-shut-down-lawmakers-171252495.html

Shocker.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 23 2019 11:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jun 24 2019 05:21 AM


GOP State Senators join with right wing militias to avoid voting on reducing pollution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-statehouse-shut-down-lawmakers-171252495.html

Shocker.

Later


That's a wild story happening out in Oregon.GOP state senators walked out of a session in order to thwart the Dem majority from passing a climate change bill that already passed in the House. Oregon requires a quorum of 20 state senators in attendance to vote, so the GOP, by walking out, has prevented the vote from even happening. So the Governor ordered state troopers to find the GOP fugitive senators, who are now in hiding, and to physically bring them back to the Senate. One renegade senator threatened to use deadly force against any trooper that tries to bring him in and now, right wing militias are joining in, taking the GOP's side and also threatening to use deadly force.



This upcoming Presidential election is going to be the ugliest one ever.

Edgy MD
Jun 23 2019 04:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

That's fucking insane. Why do so many people want war?



Oh, and that Senator Deadly Force should be arrested for making threats against the police. That's illegal even for white people.



https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/eastoregonian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/cb/7cb23d08-fe98-11e8-8f24-3fcd42b9932c/5c11eeef82fe6.image.jpg?crop=874%2C998%2C62%2C1>

Sen. Brian Boquist

Chad ochoseis
Jun 24 2019 07:55 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=13877 time=1561312233 user_id=68]
One renegade senator threatened to use deadly force against any trooper that tries to bring him in and now, right wing militias are joining in, taking the GOP's side and also threatening to use deadly force.




Right wing militias claim to be all about state's rights...most of the time.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 26 2019 12:09 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiED7FRIY63aH9h_ha3xCcN0YqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMLnhAg?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen



GOP makes unusually disturbing last minute request to SCOTUS in connection with pending census question case on which court's decision is expected any day now. If SCOTUS grants the GOP's request, any remote pretense of fairness on behalf of this extremely conservative court goes out the window and the Dems should grow some balls to pack that court first chance they get.

MFS62
Jun 26 2019 03:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019


https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiED7FRIY63aH9h_ha3xCcN0YqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMLnhAg?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

S.O.P. for those fu**ers.



Later

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 27 2019 07:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Today's the last day of this year's SCOTUS term, so decisions will be released today on every remaining undecided case, including the two biggies -- the census question case and the partisan gerrymandering case.



Fasten your seatbelts. (Though I'm not holding my breath with the conservatives running things).

Vic Sage
Jun 27 2019 08:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

first debate - consensus was that the big winners were Warren, Castro and Booker. Losers - O'Rourke, and the rest of the kiddie table.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 27 2019 09:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

SCOTUS allows extreme partisan gerrymandering to continue. Find your own link.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 27 2019 09:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMifWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJldXRlcnMuY29tL2FydGljbGUvdXMtdXNhLWNvdXJ0LWNlbnN1cy9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LXRvLWlzc3VlLW1ham9yLWNlbnN1cy1lbGVjdG9yYWwtbWFwLWRlY2lzaW9ucy1pZFVTS0NOMVRTMUJM0gE0aHR0cHM6Ly9tb2JpbGUucmV1dGVycy5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS9hbXAvaWRVU0tDTjFUUzFCTA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen



According to this link, SCOTUS rules against Trump administration on citizenship census question. But it's the only link I could find.



???????

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 27 2019 09:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019


https://news.google.com/articles/CBMifWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJldXRlcnMuY29tL2FydGljbGUvdXMtdXNhLWNvdXJ0LWNlbnN1cy9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LXRvLWlzc3VlLW1ham9yLWNlbnN1cy1lbGVjdG9yYWwtbWFwLWRlY2lzaW9ucy1pZFVTS0NOMVRTMUJM0gE0aHR0cHM6Ly9tb2JpbGUucmV1dGVycy5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS9hbXAvaWRVU0tDTjFUUzFCTA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen



According to this link, SCOTUS rules against Trump administration on citizenship census question. But it's the only link I could find.



???????


Why isn't any other print outlet reporting this?

Lefty Specialist
Jun 27 2019 09:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Supremes kicked it back to the lower court, which effectively bans the question since they have to start printing census forms soon.



But yeah, gerrymandering is A-OK. Mixed messages.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jun 27 2019 10:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Vic Sage wrote:

first debate - consensus was that the big winners were Warren, Castro and Booker. Losers - O'Rourke, and the rest of the kiddie table.


I'd agree with that. Warren came off genuine and passionate, most of the others were reading scripts in their head. O'Rourke wasn't good. Mayor Bill did better than I would have thought cuz he doesn't come off to me as warm or genuine irl. The NBC production was pathetic.



The other kiddie table guy I thought did OK was Ryan.



Booker's wandering blue eyes were pretty striking. Castro is an odd looking dude.

Lefty Specialist
Jun 27 2019 11:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

All Warren had to do was not screw up. She accomplished that.

DeBlasio was irritating, but he came off better than I thought he would.

Castro made some good points and raised his profile.

Beto needs to start running for Senate.

Booker gives a good speech, but we knew that already.

Don't see a lane for Klobuchar.

The rest need to move on to something else.

seawolf17
Jun 27 2019 12:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Beto needs to start running for Senate.

The rest need to move on to something else.


You have to figure that most of these folks figure they don't have a chance in hell, right? So you get on the stage, get some media, raise some money, and then go whole-hog into a Senate race thanks to the national exposure. I'm okay with this, because we *need* senators.

Lefty Specialist
Jun 27 2019 02:03 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Frankly, after last night, Castro might be a better bet for the Senate seat in Texas than Beto.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jun 28 2019 09:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Debate II reactions?



Biden got knocked around and wasn't good. Harris and Salwell took it to him. Harris was good but you could tell the whole "that little girl was me" thing was a rehearsed setup on her part.



Mayor Pete is a pretty small guy but came off well



I thought Gillibrand came off ... a little too anxiously (??) that's not the word though... I liked her stuff and wanted her to bring it just a little more



Bernie can still be most stirring guy. Let Me Be Cleyah.



Hickenlooper won't win. The other Colorado guy wasn't bad.



I was intrigued by the $12,000 Pyramid guy, probably not as president but maybe he'll give me 12K



The nutcase Williamson can go to New Zealand

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 28 2019 10:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I've already had it up to here with the post debate analysis. They're all over the place. Elizabeth Warren kicked ass except according to that article where she was awful. Awful? Really? Klobuchar was the winner of the first night except when she was the loser.



Show me the next set of polls that'll be coming out in the next few days and then we'll know who did well and who didn't.



I'll say this: Joe Biden can't speak on his feet. And I'm glad for that.



I don't like Kamala Harris. I cant quite put my finger on it but she strikes me as a big calculating phony.

Willets Point
Jun 28 2019 03:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Luckily there are a lot of public offices representing the great state of Texas available, so they can both run for something.

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 29 2019 08:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Sign me up for what Joe Scarborough said about the 2nd night of the Dem debates.



https://news.google.com/articles/CBMicmh0dHBzOi8vdGhlaGlsbC5jb20vYmxvZ3MvYmxvZy1icmllZmluZy1yb29tL25ld3MvNDUwODQxLXNjYXJib3JvdWdoLWFwb2xvZ2l6ZXMtZm9yLWRpc2FzdGVyLWFmdGVyLTIwMjAtZGVtb2NyYXRpY9IBdmh0dHBzOi8vdGhlaGlsbC5jb20vYmxvZ3MvYmxvZy1icmllZmluZy1yb29tL25ld3MvNDUwODQxLXNjYXJib3JvdWdoLWFwb2xvZ2l6ZXMtZm9yLWRpc2FzdGVyLWFmdGVyLTIwMjAtZGVtb2NyYXRpYz9hbXA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen



In summary, it was a clown show with the candidates lined up in a circular firing squad going after each other in order to separate themselves from the zillion other candidates instead of going after Trump. (Same observations made on Bill Maher's show last night, especially by Joy Reid).



And free health care for undocumented immigrants? This is what they break out with on the night of their coming out debutante ball? Where the hell did this idea come from? Do the Dems really think Americans are gonna go for that? Is this their genius plan for winning back swing states like NC and Fla? What's next? A multi-billion dollar bailout package for undocumented immigrants so they can buy homes, too?

kcmets
Jun 29 2019 08:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=14514 time=1561738847 user_id=68]I don't like Kamala Harris. I cant quite put my finger on it but she strikes me as a big calculating phony.



I think you put your finger on it and smushed it. They're all big calculating

phony's. Still, I kinda like her the best. Plus she's kinda hot! lol



There's a lot of time left for things to unfold, but it feels like four more miserable

years if the people went to the polls next Tuesday.

Willets Point
Jul 01 2019 11:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

"Liberal" Harvard University awards a fellowship to rightwinger who poisoned an entire city for fun and profit.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 02 2019 12:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Here's a chart of the upcoming 2020 US Senate races from fivethirtyeight.com. Even though the GOP is defending about as many seats as the Dems had to defend in 2018, all but two of the 2020 contests are in states that lean red. This shows how difficult it's become, between demographics and polarization, for the Dems to hold the Senate. As it stands, the GOP has held control of the US Senate for the last three Federal elections -- that's a full six year cycle where every single Senate seat was up for reelection. The 2020 election ain't gonna be easy for the Dems. They'll need to pick up three seats plus the White House to control the next Senate. Plus a fourth seat, figuring that Alabama retakes Doug Jones's special election seat. Then the Dems'll need at least one cushion seat, to account for Joe Manchin, who's in one of the nation's reddest states and probably won't vote with the Dems on anything that isn't viewed as moderate. Tough outlook ahead. And RBG ain't gettging younger. If the Dems can't get PR and DC into the union first chance they get, they're just pathetic. Which they probably are anyway. The Dems don't know how to fight back. If DC and PR leaned red, they woulda been granted statehood a while ago by the GOP. And if they resisted, the cutthroat GOP would've come up with a way to essentially blackmail DC and PR into joining the union by making them a hardball offer they couldn't refuse.





https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48181686251_e7d6e444f0_b.jpg>

Lefty Specialist
Jul 02 2019 01:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Martha McSally already lost in Arizona to a Democrat not that long ago. Just saying. It's all about the candidates.



Steve Bullock could win that Montana seat instead of getting .01% of the presidential primary vote, for instance.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 02 2019 01:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And Stacey Abrams could take a run at that Georgia seat. And Beto or Julian Castro could run for that Texas seat. And John Hickenlooper could run in Colorado. And on and on.

Double Switch
Jul 02 2019 02:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

What is good for all these Democrats is how they are forging name recognition. A lot of these candidates know they don't have a snowball's chance but - they are actively getting their names out there and making their personal policy plans known. This all is truly excellent and beats the hell out of being in the way of Bernie's neverending scold mode.



What's genuinely amazing is that 60+ years ago the Republicans attacked everything that was even slightly tinged "lefty" as voracious Commies at our door. Now they are not only opening that door but have welcomed in the worst of the worst in Putin's brigade. How can they adore a dictator-worshiping criminal who won't let the nation see his tax returns? Who are these "red" lovers? Why, they are "red" voters. So appropriate. So feeble in fortitude.



It's no surprise that the ghost of Roy Cohn operates inside Trump's spirochete-filled skull.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 02 2019 03:55 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump administration drops citizenship question from next census.



But the damage is already done. Expect many non citizens to skip the 2020 census.

Double Switch
Jul 02 2019 04:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Trump administration drops citizenship question from next census.



But the damage is already done. Expect many non citizens to skip the 2020 census.


I would not take the PoV that the Trump administration "dropped" the citizenship question as much as the SCOTUS refused to support the addition and called the reason for it presented by the Trump turds as "contrived." Apparently there is a limit to how much BS the SCOTUS is prepared to ignore.



In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the government had no choice but to proceed with printing the 2020 census forms without a citizenship question. Everyone in America counts in the census, and today's decision means we all will,” attorney Dale Ho of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement."



Within the next several hours, the toilet-seated rage tweeting begins.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 02 2019 04:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:


Trump administration drops citizenship question from next census.



But the damage is already done. Expect many non citizens to skip the 2020 census.


I would not take the PoV that the Trump administration "dropped" the citizenship question as much as the SCOTUS refused to support the addition and called the reason for it presented by the Trump turds as "contrived." Apparently there is a limit to how much BS the SCOTUS is prepared to ignore.



In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the government had no choice but to proceed with printing the 2020 census forms without a citizenship question. Everyone in America counts in the census, and today's decision means we all will,” attorney Dale Ho of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement."



Within the next several hours, the toilet-seated rage tweeting begins.


That's one Interpretation. Another is that the SCOTUS remanded the case so that the Trump administration could come up with a better bullshit story. The question should have been eliminated outright with finality the first time around, not remanded. Has this court ever ruled against Trump, yet?

Edgy MD
Jul 04 2019 05:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm sure the president is still grinding for his people to find a way around the rulings, and outright defiance isn't off the table. I expect no small amount of administration figures will be fired or be forced to resign — not so much for having principle, but for even hinting at the existence of principle in the universe — as the president fulminates at no one and everyone over his being checked.



Meantimes, Justin Amash has announced that he has left the Republican Party. This means any hopes that he would oppose Trump in a Republican primary are dashed, but fuels speculation that he will run in the general election on the Libertarian or an independent ticket.



I was thinking, hey, why not both?

MFS62
Jul 04 2019 06:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Tanks for Trump instead of toothpaste for kids.

Gosh, I'm really proud to be an American today.

Later

Edgy MD
Jul 04 2019 10:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=14845 time=1562092494 user_id=68]
Here's a chart of the upcoming 2020 US Senate races from fivethirtyeight.com. Even though the GOP is defending about as many seats as the Dems had to defend in 2018, all but two of the 2020 contests are in states that lean red.



Encourage several thousand retired and/or wealthy Marylanders, Illini, and Massachusettsans to set up residency in Iowa and North Carolina?



It'd help in the presidential race, too.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 04 2019 11:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm sure the president is still grinding for his people to find a way around the rulings, and outright defiance isn't off the table. I expect no small amount of administration figures will be fired or be forced to resign — not so much for having principle, but for even hinting at the existence of principle in the universe — as the president fulminates at no one and everyone over his being checked.




The Supreme Court didn't kill the census question, even though it could have. Instead, it gave the Trump administration a huge opening to come up with a less insulting reason for the question's inclusion.



Meanwhile, the latest is that Trump will bypass the legal system entirely by issuing an executive order to include the citizenship question on the census. This is a lawless administration.

MFS62
Jul 05 2019 06:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

My wife noticed this:

How fitting that on a day when this president (incorrectly) wanted to celebrate the military, he wanted a fly-over of Air Force 1, the plane that would be taking him away from the battle.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Jul 05 2019 10:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=15107 time=1562329072 user_id=60]
My wife noticed this:

How fitting that on a day when this president (incorrectly) wanted to celebrate the military, he wanted a fly-over of Air Force 1, the plane that would be taking him away to exile in Moscow when his term is over.

Later



Fixed that for you.

MFS62
Jul 05 2019 06:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

She was noting his cowardice, not his Treason.

But thanks for bringing it up.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 10 2019 10:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019

With a Supreme Court vacancy that, when filled, would determine the political and ideological lean of the high court, as well as about 100 lower court vacancies, the 2016 Presidential Election was the most consequential of perhaps, the last 100 years. Here's reason #79 to illustrate the point.



A Texas District Court Judge declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional under legal reasoning that most legal scholars and academics find to be absurd. That case is now before a panel of Circuit Court judges and the oral argument there, led by a wackadoo Trump judge, resembles a kangaroo court. When Obamacre is killed off, the Dems are gonna need a majority of 61 senators, among other things, to pass healthcare legislation. 61 because Joe Manchin. Good luck with that.





The Affordable Care Act Could Fall Courtesy of Nonsense Conservative Legal Arguments



They don't need to make sense. They just need the right judges—and they're everywhere in the federal judicial system.




By Charles P. Pierce

Jul 10, 2019


If you're one of the people whose lives were made easier by the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we here at the shebeen would like to welcome you cordially to the next 30 years of conservative Republican federal judges and the courts over which they preside, in which threadbare and fanciful legal theories don't even have to make any damn sense at all to be heard and, very likely, prevail.



Of course, many of you won't live to see the effects of the entire 30 years. You may be better off. At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser sends his regards.



The Republicans, by contrast, came to court today wearing their partisan hats. When Samuel Siegel, the first of two lawyers defending the law, was at the podium for his portion of the arguments, Judges Jennifer Elrod and Kurt Englehardt peppered him with questions, many of them delivered in a mocking tone. At one point, Englehardt even accused Siegel of making an argument that betrays the American Revolutionary War. Meanwhile, the three lawyers opposing the law did receive some critical questions from the two Republican judges, but those questions were not especially animated and they soon trailed off. Kyle Hawkins, the lawyer who delivered the bulk of the anti-Obamacare arguments, spent much of his time speaking before a silent panel, punctuated mainly by listless questions from Elrod that seemed designed primarily to give him something to talk about.



The whole matter is being fought out on the distant floor of our current political chasm. The suit was brought by Republican state attorneys general. The law is being defended by Democratic state attorneys general. The administration* has bounced between advocating partial and full judicial repeal, ending up supporting the latter. The arguments being made—and taken seriously—in the Fifth Circuit are farcical. Millhiser explains.



The premise of Texas is that the 2017 tax law, which zeroed out a provision of the Affordable Care Act that previously required most people without health insurance to pay higher taxes, actually repealed the entirety of Obamacare. The argument goes something like this: that provision, known as the “individual mandate” is actually drafted as two separate provisions. The first provides that most Americans “shall” carry health insurance. The second imposes a tax on people who fail to do so. After 2017, the amount of that tax is zero dollars.



In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court famously upheld the individual mandate as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. But wait! Because that tax is now zero, that means it's no longer a tax, so it must be unconstitutional. Worse, because the word “shall” still appears in the law, that means that the post-2017 version of Obamacare must now be read as a command to buy health insurance — and an unconstitutional one at that. There are numerous problems with this argument, but the biggest one is that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected it in NFIB. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that case:



Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Before 2017, in other words, the law gave people a choice between paying a tax or buying health insurance. After 2017, they fully comply with the law by either carrying insurance or paying zero dollars.



And here's where the whole business goes sideways. There's this legal principle called "severability," whereby, if a court strikes down part of a law, it asks itself whether other parts of the law must be struck down as well. This requires the court to do a little mind-reading, asking itself to judge whether the legislation would've passed had the legislature known that part of the law was unconstitutional. It would seem to the logical mind, however, that Congress itself had solved the severability question two years ago when it could muster the votes only to repeal the individual mandate.



Clearly, it would seem, Congress's intent, as expressed by its vote, which is a fairly compelling expression of the legislative mind, as you and me and James Madison understand it, was only to drop the mandate to zero dollars. (A lawyer representing the House of Representatives has appeared in court to defend this position.) The lawyers now seeking to invalidate the whole law simply blow by this obvious point and claim that the elimination of the mandate invalidated the whole law. They got a district judge to agree with them and so, here we are, on a trip to Crazytown, and the Fifth Circuit seems to be enjoying the view out the windows.



Especially happy with the scenery is one Kurt Engelhardt, a judge elevated to the set he now holds by El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago. From The New York Times.



Over all, though, the panel spent the most time on the question of whether the rest of the law should fall if Judge O'Connor was correct in scrapping the insurance mandate — and Judge Elrod and Judge Engelhardt, based on their questioning, seemed to firmly believe he was. Judge Engelhardt asked Mr. Letter, the House lawyer, why Congress could not remedy the situation by writing a new health law or set of laws. “They could do this tomorrow,” Judge Engelhardt said, leading Mr. Letter to dryly point out that Mr. Trump would need to sign off on new laws, too. And obviously the president would sign this, right?” he asked sardonically. “No, obviously not.”



Yes, if there's anything the past decade has taught us, it's that reforming healthcare in this country is one of the easiest lifts there is. Congratulations again to all those leftier-than-thou pundits who claimed that Hillary Rodham Clinton was "blackmailing" us by bringing up the importance of the federal courts as an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign. I say that on behalf of the estimated 24,000 people who won't be around to say it if this lunatic argument persuades the obviously persuadable on the Fifth Circuit bench and then gives the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court another chance to finish off Barack Obama's greatest accomplishment, which seems to be the whole point of this exercise in the first place.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28350325/obamacare-repeal-court-case-conservative-judges/



We'll have to wait and see if the Supreme Court, in the end, affirms NFIB. Roberts is gonna hafta side with the four liberals again.

metsmarathon
Jul 10 2019 10:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

but her emails....?

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 12 2019 12:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Here's another phase in the GOP strategy to suppress likely Democratic voters that among other things, sought to include a citizenship question on the census:



Alabama just filed a lawsuit in which the state argues that including undocumented immigrants when apportioning congressional seats deprives Alabama of its “rightful share of political representation,” on the premise that it's losing out to states with more non-citizens.



Stay tuned.

Ceetar
Jul 12 2019 12:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

saw that the Congressional Black Caucus is getting on the "attack the progressives that actually try to represent the people" train that Pelosi et al are driving. They're flipping their lid that anyone dares run against them in primaries with an actual progressive platform.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 12 2019 12:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=15729 time=1562954572 user_id=68]
Here's another phase in the GOP strategy to suppress likely Democratic voters that among other things, sought to include a citizenship question on the census:



Alabama just filed a lawsuit in which the state argues that including undocumented immigrants when apportioning congressional seats deprives Alabama of its “rightful share of political representation,” on the premise that it's losing out to states with more non-citizens.



Stay tuned.



Frivolous lawsuit. It's like saying that New York has too many big cities and Alabama is penalized by having fewer congressmen as a result.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 12 2019 01:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=15729 time=1562954572 user_id=68]
Here's another phase in the GOP strategy to suppress likely Democratic voters that among other things, sought to include a citizenship question on the census:



Alabama just filed a lawsuit in which the state argues that including undocumented immigrants when apportioning congressional seats deprives Alabama of its “rightful share of political representation,” on the premise that it's losing out to states with more non-citizens.



Stay tuned.


Frivolous lawsuit. It's like saying that New York has too many big cities and Alabama is penalized by having fewer congressmen as a result.



I wouldn't trust the Trump stacked courts as far as I can throw them.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 12 2019 01:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=15729 time=1562954572 user_id=68]
Here's another phase in the GOP strategy to suppress likely Democratic voters that among other things, sought to include a citizenship question on the census:



Alabama just filed a lawsuit in which the state argues that including undocumented immigrants when apportioning congressional seats deprives Alabama of its “rightful share of political representation,” on the premise that it's losing out to states with more non-citizens.



Stay tuned.


Frivolous lawsuit. It's like saying that New York has too many big cities and Alabama is penalized by having fewer congressmen as a result.



I wouldn't trust the Trump stacked courts as far as I can throw them. The pending Obamacare lawsuit also appeared to be frivolous, yet it's poised to receive a Circuit Court affirmance of an absurd lower court decision. The first step in the GOP's voter suppression strategy was to stack the courts with extreme radical nutjob judges.

Ceetar
Jul 12 2019 01:31 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:



Frivolous lawsuit. It's like saying that New York has too many big cities and Alabama is penalized by having fewer congressmen as a result.




I mean, haven't they been trying to argue that for 250 years?

seawolf17
Jul 12 2019 01:37 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Hilarious.



"Let's go to America for a better life."

"How about Alabama?"

"Are you kidding? That's worse than where we're coming from."

Lefty Specialist
Jul 12 2019 02:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump's machinations have all been about scaring immigrants from answering the census at all. That part's already pretty much baked in, whether the question's on the census or not. And just to drive the point home, he'll be sending ICE agents out this weekend to hunt the undocumented all across the country. Keeping America as White as Possible.

ashie62
Jul 14 2019 04:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I the dem opponent to trump is Kamala, Warren, Sanders or Biden we will see if democracy is still "The Great Experiment.'



VOTE! VOTE TWICE IF NEEDED!

whippoorwill
Jul 14 2019 08:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I really wish there were some Republicans running

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 14 2019 11:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump trails Biden, Warren and Sanders in latest poll predicting 2020 Presidential election. Also, Warren is zooming up in Democratic primary polls. She's within the margin of error for the nomination.

MFS62
Jul 14 2019 05:35 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=15884 time=1563127117 user_id=68]
Trump trails Biden, Warren and Sanders in latest poll predicting 2020 Presidential election.


That may be popular vote, and he lost that by 3 million the last time around.

Nothing to get excited about .... yet.

What I want to know is, where's Baron?

Later

Fman99
Jul 15 2019 06:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Ugh, the "new low" is always such a bummer. Election day 2020 can't come soon enough for me.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 15 2019 07:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Donald J. Trump

‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump



So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all)




Well, considering that 3 of the 4 he targeted were actually born in the United States, he may have a point.

Ceetar
Jul 15 2019 08:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's going to be exciting in November of next year when word leaks that certain "key" voting centers literally chased minorities away. just days after Trump tweets that maybe "they should do something about illegal immigrants" showing up at the polls.



It's encouraging that we're going to do nothing to prevent this obvious thing that's going to happen too.

Willets Point
Jul 15 2019 10:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Alabama was also happy to have people with absolutely no human rights counted as 3/5th a person toward congressional apportionment.

Edgy MD
Jul 15 2019 11:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Point.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 15 2019 11:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Decisions, decisions.



https://images.dailykos.com/images/696516/story_image/D_eOlmHWwAIhIe71?1563171955>

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 15 2019 11:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:

Alabama was also happy to have people with absolutely no human rights counted as 3/5th a person toward congressional apportionment.


Did I ever tell you that Alabama was a retard state? It still is.

MFS62
Jul 15 2019 07:09 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Decisions, decisions.



https://images.dailykos.com/images/696516/story_image/D_eOlmHWwAIhIe71?1563171955>


I wish I were a schizophrenic, so I could strongly support both options.

LOL!



Later

Lefty Specialist
Jul 18 2019 09:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, based on his Nuremberg rally he had last night in NC, I'd say the 'C' is appropriate.



It's becoming pretty clear that Trump's going to use a 'Whites Only' campaign theme. And Republicans are a lot more offended by someone being called a racist than they are by the actual racism itself.



Boy, if you know any non-MAGA people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, make sure they get to the polls next November. This is going to be the ugliest presidential campaign ever. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be dragged through the gutter. They're going to have to fight back, but not on Trump's terms. This'll be difficult, because the media, when given a choice between intelligent policy discussion and a food fight, picks the food fight every time.

Ceetar
Jul 18 2019 09:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:



Boy, if you know any non-MAGA people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, make sure they get to the polls next November. This is going to be the ugliest presidential campaign ever. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be dragged through the gutter. They're going to have to fight back, but not on Trump's terms. This'll be difficult, because the media, when given a choice between intelligent policy discussion and a food fight, picks the food fight every time.


It'd be nice if the democrats stopped with the 'just vote!' nonsense like it's not a rigged system. Urging turnout is fine, but how about working to make sure there are enough polling stations, and hours, in poor neighborhoods? Put together volunteers and what not willing to give rides, help people get to polling stations, help make sure people are _properly_ registered to vote and be prepared to counteract all the voter suppression and illegal purging that happens. Make sure these people you're trying to drive to the polls know what to do if/when they're illegally told they're not registered, or they have to show ID, or immigration status, etc.

Double Switch
Jul 18 2019 10:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Three states—Oregon, Washington and Colorado—conduct all elections by mail. A ballot is automatically mailed to every registered voter in advance of Election Day, and traditional in-person voting precincts are not available.



When this becomes the standard for the rest of the nation, save, of course, for the former CSA who deny persons of color a mailing address, then polling places (plus the thugs guarding them) and car service no longer are paramount. Oregon is not a truly blue state since most of its population could be called rural red, but Oregon at least is logical in providing a 21st century solution to getting out the vote.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 18 2019 11:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:



When this becomes the standard for the rest of the nation ...


Good luck with that one. The only realistic way to make that a National standard is to pass Federal legislation. That can only happen when the Dems score a trifecta, (Senate, House and White House, and then come to their senses and realize that they'll have to nuke what's left of the filibuster to pass that one, because there's no way they're ever getting a 60 seat senate filibuster proof majority in this climate. And as soon as that law goes into effect, Republicans will mount a legal challenge to the law on grounds the new law is unconstitutional and that the states have exclusive right to manage their elections, even Federal elections. And with this Trump court in place, the legal challenge will likely succeed. Heck, with this Trump court, the GOP doesn't even need to come up with an intelligent legal argument. Gibberish will do just fine. Look at Obamacare. It's been repealed. Declared unconstitutional by a wackadoo extreme conservative judge. Most people don't even know that because the ruling repealing Obamacare has been stayed pending the appeal process.



The courts are everything. They decide every single issue.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 18 2019 11:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:



Boy, if you know any non-MAGA people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, make sure they get to the polls next November. This is going to be the ugliest presidential campaign ever. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be dragged through the gutter. They're going to have to fight back, but not on Trump's terms. This'll be difficult, because the media, when given a choice between intelligent policy discussion and a food fight, picks the food fight every time.


It'd be nice if the democrats stopped with the 'just vote!' nonsense like it's not a rigged system. Urging turnout is fine, but how about working to make sure there are enough polling stations, and hours, in poor neighborhoods? Put together volunteers and what not willing to give rides, help people get to polling stations, help make sure people are _properly_ registered to vote and be prepared to counteract all the voter suppression and illegal purging that happens. Make sure these people you're trying to drive to the polls know what to do if/when they're illegally told they're not registered, or they have to show ID, or immigration status, etc.


Well, I voted early in NJ so I could do just that in PA in 2016. There wasn't a shortage of polling places in Philadelphia and the ID rules aren't onerous, but people didn't come out and vote. And Hillary lost by a razor's edge. But I intend to do it again in 2020.



'Just vote' isn't nonsense. Yes, there are problems, but by and large they can be overcome. Ask Doug Jones in Alabama. When 40% of perfectly eligible voters don't even bother to show up, that's a problem. The 'oh there are so many hurdles I won't even bother' mentality gets you a second Trump term. Democracy isn't a spectator sport.



I'm just one person. I can't drive the city of Milwaukee to the polls. Whoever the Democratic candidate is, they're going to have to do that heavy lifting. But for what it's worth, the governorships of both Michigan and Wisconsin flipped to the Democrats in 2018. So it can be done.

Ceetar
Jul 18 2019 11:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

That's bullshit. Hillary won by 3 million votes. Look at all those ridiculous maps showing large majority democrat votes leading to neutral to minority democrat wins. Yeah, sure, they could be overcome. Usain Bolt could beat me in a race if only his path was wet and had hurdles, but that doesn't mean it's fair, or that he wouldn't necessarily trip giving me the victory once every few hundred races.



You can't educate the masses. It doesn't work, and garbage democrat leaders making things seem pointless anyway doesn't help. Sure, you ignore that exhausted single black mother who can't manage to find the time out of a busy day or risk her job status to find her way to the poll because those two under-employed 22 year olds should get off their ass and vote, but that's hardly the point.



Except it's EXACTLY the point. Do you think these people feel represented by the Democrats? When the popular story, whether it's fully truthful or not, is that the party is antagonistic of the people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that they might actually feel represented by?



Trump is evil and a criminal and that might be enough this time. But let's not pretend things were fine before that. Immigrants and refugees weren't being treated nicely. ICE is more empowered, but they still existed. Cops were still killing black people before Trump stood up to encourage it.



The Democrats are proceeding like all that needs to happen is defeating Trump, hence the "just vote" stuff. Maybe fix something? Have some principles? no? Hell, Obama should've refused to step down until the election nonsense was resolved. We've established that it was tampered with, influenced, and everyone's like "oh, that seems bad. But maybe just vote?" like who cares?



impeach him. geeze. do it now. [url]https://www.gq.com/story/impeachment-and-the-triumph-of-fear



They could at least pretend that they're actually trying to govern and not just trying to get more power than the other side in the next election.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 18 2019 12:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=16268 time=1563472030 user_id=102]


They could at least pretend that they're actually trying to govern and not just trying to get more power than the other side in the next election.



Whole lotta truth in this little kernel of a sentence. They act as if the only reason they got voted into office is so that they could then get reelected.

Ceetar
Jul 18 2019 12:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019





They could at least pretend that they're actually trying to govern and not just trying to get more power than the other side in the next election.


Whole lotta truth in this little kernel of a sentence. They act as if the only reason they got voted into office is so that they could then get reelected.


You have to look no farther than how many people are running for the nomination, because everyone realizes there's a good chance simply an entry of "Democrat nominee" on the ballot gets the presidency.



Which, I mean, is pretty much the flip of 2016, when every Republican and Russian agent realized there was a lot of Clinton-hate that would ultimately work out in their favor.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 18 2019 12:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

There are only 5 serious Democratic candidates. The rest won't even be on the debate stage in September.



Trump isn't the only thing, they need the Senate, too. As for the Electoral College, that's not going to change. Yet Obama won it twice. Clinton, too. Obama not stepping down until the Russian interference was resolved? Really? And you're worried about Trump breaking the rules?



You want some principles? Google "Elizabeth Warren" and 'Plans', for starters. Hell, even Biden has some good ideas. All of them, down to Seth Moulton, would be better than Trump, and the executive branch as we've seen can get a lot done.



Yeah, yeah, everyone's trying to get more power. Being defeatist about it won't solve the problem.

Ceetar
Jul 18 2019 01:16 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The Mets won the World Series with Rafael Santana playing SS, no need to have a good SS on your team.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 18 2019 02:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

There are only 5 serious Democratic candidates. The rest won't even be on the debate stage in September.


Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren...



Who's the fifth? Buttigieg? Or am I forgetting someone obvious?

Ceetar
Jul 18 2019 02:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:

There are only 5 serious Democratic candidates. The rest won't even be on the debate stage in September.


Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren...



Who's the fifth? Buttigieg? Or am I forgetting someone obvious?





[attachment=0]pres.png[/attachment]

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 18 2019 02:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:

There are only 5 serious Democratic candidates. The rest won't even be on the debate stage in September.


Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren...



Who's the fifth? Buttigieg? Or am I forgetting someone obvious?




This is exactly, exactly, exactly what I was thinking when I read that sentence. Who's the fifth? Buttigieg came to me painstakingly as possibly the 5th serious candidate. But only because of how he's currently polling and fundraising. Still, I dont see him as a serious candidate, long term.

Edgy MD
Jul 18 2019 04:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I have trouble taking Sanders seriously. He made a successful run last time around, but largely because it was a field of three, the favorite was deeply damaged and problematic, and he was the only one who represented his ideological niche.



Without that exclusive on his ideological ground, Senator Warren should pick up a lot of his support, with him falling back into novelty status.



That said, the president has proven that novelty acts make good TV and have more staying power than I have given them credit for.



But I think they'll still be some stepping forward and falling back before Iowa. There usually is.

Double Switch
Jul 18 2019 04:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Double Switch wrote:



When this becomes the standard for the rest of the nation ...


Good luck with that one. The only realistic way to make that a National standard is to pass Federal legislation.


Maybe the other 47 states could look at what Washington, Oregon, and Colorado did and do that without the big federal bullwhip and shotguns pointed at them. It can't be that difficult if three states already have accomplished it. If/when California follows the lead, then the entire West Coast would be leading the country - that's progress. That will curdle some guts on the other coast.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 19 2019 06:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:


Double Switch wrote:



When this becomes the standard for the rest of the nation ...


Good luck with that one. The only realistic way to make that a National standard is to pass Federal legislation.


Maybe the other 47 states could look at what Washington, Oregon, and Colorado did and do that without the big federal bullwhip and shotguns pointed at them. It can't be that difficult if three states already have accomplished it. If/when California follows the lead, then the entire West Coast would be leading the country - that's progress. That will curdle some guts on the other coast.


It's nice to dream, isn't it? But in what alternate universe do (fill in the blank here with about 30 states, including the slavery states and ruby red flyover country states) pass laws to make it easier for citizens, especially probable Democratic voters like minorities and poor people, to vote? North Carolina is running to follow the West Coast's progressive lead on voting rights. Running.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 19 2019 07:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Vote by mail is going to expand. it's easy and increases turnout. So Republicans won't implement it, but blue states might. Increased turnout is bad for Republicans almost every time.



Buttigieg is #5, but he has serious flaws. His support from African-Americans is virtually zero, and it didn't help that a white cop shot an unarmed black man in South Bend a few weeks ago. He's smart, has good ideas, and has a future, but 2020 isn't his year.



Sanders is starting to fade. Elizabeth Warren is stealing a lot of his thunder, but there are Bernie dead-enders that'll never give up. He's a fundraising machine, so like last time, he'll probably stick around longer than he should. He won't get the nomination, though. It'll be interesting seeing him paired with Warren in the next debate.



I think it'll come down to Biden, Warren and Harris.

A Boy Named Seo
Jul 19 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Uphill battle for Pete for sure, but of the "big 5" names, he seems to have the most to gain by the herd thinning because a ton of people still don't know who is. I think he'll impress a fair amount o folks who haven't been paying attention yet.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 19 2019 11:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

People not paying attention is a big part of the reason Biden and Bernie have been leading the polls up til now. They're recognized names, and at this stage name recognition is a big part of polling.



Latest poll (Economist/YouGov) has Biden 25/Warren 16/Sanders 12/Harris 11/ Buttigieg 6 and no one else above 2. The top 5 split 70% of the vote so that's 30% up for grabs. And when your presumed front-runner has only a quarter of the vote, the situation is pretty fluid. Right now, Biden is taking an enormous amount of the black vote, especially since there are two actual black candidates in the race in Harris and Booker. That's his base; not surprising given he was Obama's VP for 8 years.



Biden's doing the Rose Garden strategy; he's campaigning very little and media appearances are carefully controlled. It makes you wonder; his campaign team obviously doesn't feel he can be let loose for fear of saying something dumb/insensitive/rude/politically incorrect. That's why i think he'll lose to Trump. He'll have to engage, and he may get his ass kicked when he does.

Ceetar
Jul 19 2019 12:13 PM
Re: Politics 2019

i mean, Trump has no chance of winning. He'd have to pull off some crazy stuff, which of course, is still very very possible. Things like threatening to close certain polls for 'security' insinuating ICE is going to show up and harass anyone that doesn't look like they belong (i.e. black people)

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 19 2019 12:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=16340 time=1563559992 user_id=102]
i mean, Trump has no chance of winning. He'd have to pull off some crazy stuff, which of course, is still very very possible. Things like threatening to close certain polls for 'security' insinuating ICE is going to show up and harass anyone that doesn't look like they belong (i.e. black people)







Or maybe the Russians out and out fuck with the vote count this time around.

Ceetar
Jul 19 2019 12:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=16341 time=1563560246 user_id=68]
=Ceetar post_id=16340 time=1563559992 user_id=102]
i mean, Trump has no chance of winning. He'd have to pull off some crazy stuff, which of course, is still very very possible. Things like threatening to close certain polls for 'security' insinuating ICE is going to show up and harass anyone that doesn't look like they belong (i.e. black people)







Or maybe the Russians out and out fuck with the vote count this time around.


Extremely possible.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 19 2019 12:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 19 2019 12:23 PM

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=16341 time=1563560246 user_id=68]
=Ceetar post_id=16340 time=1563559992 user_id=102]
i mean, Trump has no chance of winning. He'd have to pull off some crazy stuff, which of course, is still very very possible. Things like threatening to close certain polls for 'security' insinuating ICE is going to show up and harass anyone that doesn't look like they belong (i.e. black people)







Or maybe the Russians out and out fuck with the vote count this time around.


Although the Republican controlled swing states are so politically corrupt, they probably won't need the Russians to do it.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 19 2019 12:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=16343 time=1563560360 user_id=102]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=16341 time=1563560246 user_id=68]
=Ceetar post_id=16340 time=1563559992 user_id=102]
i mean, Trump has no chance of winning. He'd have to pull off some crazy stuff, which of course, is still very very possible. Things like threatening to close certain polls for 'security' insinuating ICE is going to show up and harass anyone that doesn't look like they belong (i.e. black people)







Or maybe the Russians out and out fuck with the vote count this time around.


Extremely possible.


Extremely possible or extremely likely?

Ceetar
Jul 19 2019 12:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

dunno, _I_ am not a Russian hacker.





But you're right, look to Florida. Since 2016 they restored Ex-Felons voting rights, would've been huge, but they've mostly blocked that now from what I understand.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 19 2019 12:56 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Outright Russian manipulation/hacking is my #1 fear. Because we're doing nothing to stop it (thanks, Mitch!). It doesn't have to be everywhere, just in a few crucial places.



The antidote, of course, is to swamp the vote so it's impossible to sufficiently manipulate. Somewhat like overcoming gerrymandering.

Double Switch
Jul 19 2019 03:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=16346 time=1563560552 user_id=68]
=Ceetar post_id=16343 time=1563560360 user_id=102]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=16341 time=1563560246 user_id=68]
=Ceetar post_id=16340 time=1563559992 user_id=102]
i mean, Trump has no chance of winning. He'd have to pull off some crazy stuff, which of course, is still very very possible. Things like threatening to close certain polls for 'security' insinuating ICE is going to show up and harass anyone that doesn't look like they belong (i.e. black people)







Or maybe the Russians out and out fuck with the vote count this time around.


Extremely possible.


Extremely possible or extremely likely?

Must it be one or the other? Both are probable.

Edgy MD
Jul 24 2019 07:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This hearing is nauseating.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 24 2019 07:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm unable to listen, although I heard the opening statements on the car radio as I was driving to work.



Can you describe the nausea in a way that won't make me vomit on my keyboard?

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 24 2019 08:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I guess what I'm asking is, are you nauseated by the testimony, or by the spin that's being put on the events?

Ceetar
Jul 24 2019 08:33 AM
Re: Politics 2019

from Twitter it looks like it's just reiterating things we already know, Mueller's just confirming it all, which we already knew.



also nothing will come from it, as usual.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 24 2019 08:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Pretty much as I expected. Mueller isn't speculating or going one inch past what was in the report. So this isn't a magic bullet for Democrats by any means. This also pretty much shuts down the impeachment drive. Only a blockbuster day would have given it any momentum, and this ain't it.

Ceetar
Jul 24 2019 08:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Pretty much as I expected. Mueller isn't speculating or going one inch past what was in the report. So this isn't a magic bullet for Democrats by any means. This also pretty much shuts down the impeachment drive. Only a blockbuster day would have given it any momentum, and this ain't it.


come on. Mueller could've been like "He's a fucking crook and I saw him with my own eyes blowing Putin while Putin flipped through the nuclear codes" and nothing would change.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 24 2019 09:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Whaddya expect from a fucking Republican?

Edgy MD
Jul 24 2019 11:15 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't think I had any expectations.



I just hate when hearings become an excuse to go on record as having taken a position so nobody really has to do anything. Stop grandstanding and just draw up the articles.

Double Switch
Jul 24 2019 12:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes.



The short answer.

metsmarathon
Jul 27 2019 04:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

You know, with all these calls to congressmen to stay home to fix their districts problems, I almost wonder if the president doesn't actually know how Congress is supposed to work.

Ceetar
Jul 27 2019 06:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=16872 time=1564267952 user_id=83]
You know, with all these calls to congressmen to stay home to fix their districts problems, I almost wonder if the president doesn't actually know how Congress is supposed to work.



Of course not, he's a blithering idiot. But he wasn't trying to of course, He was just saying something nasty about the opposition party, because that's been his ticket for attention and rallying the base for 4 years now.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 27 2019 07:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=16876 time=1564272443 user_id=102]
He was just saying something nasty about someone who's not a white male, because that's been his ticket for attention and rallying the base for 4 years now.



Fixed that for you.

MFS62
Jul 28 2019 02:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

They just keep doubling down on hate.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-appoints-beauty-queen-151922151.html

Later

Lefty Specialist
Jul 28 2019 03:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Good place for her. I'm sure she won't be sexually harrassed or anything.

MFS62
Jul 29 2019 09:16 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Let's go after those slumlords in Baltimore:

https://news.yahoo.com/jared-kushner-elijah-cummings-donald-trump-baltimore-kushnerville-035932046.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews

Later

ashie62
Jul 30 2019 05:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I kinda wish Kim had kidnapped Trump when Trump went on to North Korean soil

Lefty Specialist
Jul 30 2019 06:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=17024 time=1564485216 user_id=90]
I kinda wish Kim had kidnapped Trump when Trump went on to North Korean soil



And strapped him to a test rocket.



So his new Director of National Intelligence thinks that Hillary's the one who colluded with the Russians. Yeah, this'll go well.



We're so screwed.

Ceetar
Jul 30 2019 07:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

No, if Trump's gonna be remove hostilely, it has to be internally. If like, NK did it, Pence would start WW3.

kcmets
Jul 30 2019 03:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

CNN is airing two 'presidential debates' tonight and tomorrow night. Don't believe

me? You haven't tuned in to watch the three-day commercial they've been running.



Personally I have zero interest in what #14 or #22 has to say. Get back to me when

the herd is considerbly thinned.



CNN has become worse than ESPN? I'd say so...

Double Switch
Jul 30 2019 06:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

What I wish would stop is the mislabeling of these PSAs at "debates." They are not debates. They are simply talking heads at a podium babbling their bullet points. Ever since the Marco Rubio canned speech debacle, I easily skip these. There is not a thing of substance to be learned and no one "wins." There is nothing to "win."

seawolf17
Jul 31 2019 06:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

What I wish would stop is the mislabeling of these PSAs at "debates." They are not debates. They are simply talking heads at a podium babbling their bullet points. Ever since the Marco Rubio canned speech debacle, I easily skip these. There is not a thing of substance to be learned and no one "wins." There is nothing to "win."


Totally agree. I haven't even watched "highlights" of any of them.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jul 31 2019 07:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

There's no reason you can't watch and also have an understanding of the limitations of the format.



I think a lot of people are watching to see how these folks handle themselves in fake situations while making up their minds as to how they'll deal with real ones.



Me, I'm trying to determine which candidate will give the Rs the worst thrashing they've ever had.

Ceetar
Jul 31 2019 07:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

How many people watching the 'debate' (It's basically political reality show) have any doubt about who they're going to vote for? 0.1%? less?

TransMonk
Jul 31 2019 07:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

IMO, anyone not named Warren, Sanders or Buttigieg from Tuesday's debate should drop out today.



Many of them should run for Senate. That's how they would thrash the Rs.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Jul 31 2019 08:33 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=17151 time=1564578475 user_id=102]
How many people watching the 'debate' (It's basically political reality show) have any doubt about who they're going to vote for? 0.1%? less?



Jeez Ceets we're not all as hardheaded as you. I think most people have inklings, but there's plenty of time to decide

Ceetar
Jul 31 2019 08:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

=Ceetar post_id=17151 time=1564578475 user_id=102]
How many people watching the 'debate' (It's basically political reality show) have any doubt about who they're going to vote for? 0.1%? less?


Jeez Ceets we're not all as hardheaded as you. I think most people have inklings, but there's plenty of time to decide



I don't mean who you're going to vote for to nominate, i mean actual election. And even that's heavily influenced by the actual Democrat party who will have their thumb on the scale, as usual.



This stuff is all like intense discussion of 25 high school prospects when we all are going to root for which ever one the Mets select anyway. Or not root for the Mets guy no matter what.



And no one intensely watching political theater in July of 2019 is debating not voting in 2020.

seawolf17
Jul 31 2019 08:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=17152 time=1564578506 user_id=71]
IMO, anyone not named Warren, Sanders or Buttigieg from Tuesday's debate should drop out today.



Many of them should run for Senate. That's how they would thrash the Rs.



Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Delaney and Hickenlooper and Williamson aren't winning this nomination. Could Beto take Cornyn's seat? Maybe not, but he's got a much better shot there.

Double Switch
Jul 31 2019 09:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

There's no reason you can't watch and also have an understanding of the limitations of the format.

Ahhh, yes. But only if you have an iron constitution and can withstand nausea. My first televised debate was the infamous Nixon v. Kennedy affair. Then I watched the Lloyd Bentsen retort to Dan Quayle, who'd had the audacity (poor judgment) to compare himself to Kennedy. These "debates" have lost their luster, so to speak. My vote will be against the GOP no matter who ends up on the ballot. Count on that.



As for the second tier folks, they are positioning themselves for other markets so it's not all a waste of effort.

kcmets
Jul 31 2019 10:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

All debate debating aside, I have a solution to everything.



Put some wresting tights on Warren and Trump and get 'em in the squared circle

for a no-holds-barred-steel-cage death match.



Problem solved.



(I'm in Camp Warren nominee wise btw so far)

Willets Point
Jul 31 2019 10:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

In addition to things mentioned above, I'd prefer if debates were about actual substantive issues rather than who will deliver a pithy one liner or an embarrassing gaffe. These things really tell me nothing about a candidate's ability to do the job, but seem to carry a lot of weight with people who are most into debates.

seawolf17
Jul 31 2019 10:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets is right. There's definitely a difference between a one-on-one substantive debate and the clown car that results from putting ten people on stage at one time, all of whom are competing solely to have the best five-second sound bite.

Ceetar
Jul 31 2019 12:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'd rather see them all play poker. I think that'd tell me a lot.

metsmarathon
Jul 31 2019 02:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

there simply has to be a better way than this unmitigated nonsense. you could have a 4-person round-robin type format one night a week for the next many weeks, where the debaters would be able to dive into the more meaningful topics, give longer answers, and be less sound-bytey.



the more meaningless candidates would naturally fall by the wayside, and people might get actual answers and real policy to chew on.



bounce it around to multiple networks, or keep it on only one. whatever. it'd be more compelling than this shit. and far more useful.

Ceetar
Jul 31 2019 02:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

or, you know, they could simply engage. They could hold summits, interact on social media, do a Reddit AMA.



Or just keep doing the Boomer-TV thing and wonder why young people feel left out.

Lefty Specialist
Jul 31 2019 05:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The good thing is that these are the last of the 24-candidate debates. Things will tighten up significantly for September. The John Delaneys of the world will be gone.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 08 2019 10:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Words have consequences. Especially the President's.



Excerpt:


This country is sitting on a powder keg, and the president has decided his best chance at re-election is to start lighting matches and tossing them about. He's unleashed blatantly racist rhetoric towards a number of sitting members of Congress, most recently Maryland's Elijah Cummings. He has cast independent sources of information in our society—the free press—as enemies of the state. But his most virulent hate speech is often reserved for four congresswomen of color: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. The president will happily admit in private that he thinks doing racism is good politics, as he seeks to paint the four as The Other—foreign infiltrators trying to undermine America from within—and as standard-bearers of the Democratic Party.



His Republican colleagues, with a few exceptions, have been entirely complicit in these efforts.... When Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana got involved, for example, he characterized these sitting members of Congress as "the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." " This was part of a long soliloquy about how they fundamentally hate the country, for which he quickly admitted he had no actual evidence. Well, it seems describing four prominent women of color as the Biblical personification of conquest, war, famine, and death has some consequences. People are listening. Just check out this billboard from Cherokee Guns, a North Carolina gun shop.


https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/cherokeeguns-billboard073019-1564669097.png?resize=840:*>



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28576563/gun-shop-billboard-four-horsemen-squad/

Lefty Specialist
Aug 08 2019 11:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

One or more of these women will be shot at before election day 2020.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 08 2019 11:06 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

One or more of these women will be shot at before election day 2020.


And the President will enjoy it. He's a sociopath; a truly evil, depraved and broken man.

Double Switch
Aug 08 2019 11:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://youtu.be/nASeIfNcCi8



I think Pete Seeger and Lee Hayes would have approved of the use of their song.

A Boy Named Seo
Aug 08 2019 11:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

One or more of these women will be shot at before election day 2020.


Was telling my brother yesterday I'm terrified someone will try to do this.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 08 2019 11:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I also expect that someone will take a shot at both Trump and whoever the Democratic candidate is. It's inevitable.



If I'm Elizabeth Warren, I'm wearing bulletproof blazers right now.

Willets Point
Aug 08 2019 12:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

I also expect that someone will take a shot at both Trump and whoever the Democratic candidate is. It's inevitable.



If I'm Elizabeth Warren, I'm wearing bulletproof blazers right now.

It's amazing that no one has taken a shot at Trump yet, or attempted to gun down a MAGA/Tea Party rally, or opened fire at an evangelical megachurch, NASCAR race, or Wall Street investors conference. It's as if almost every mass shooting targets something that the right wing hates: Black people, Latin Americans, LGBT people, Islamic people (or Sikhs mistaken for Islamic people), Jewish people, women who refuse to have sex with men, public schools, government offices, a Democratic congresswoman meeting with her constituents, et al. One might even jump to the conclusion that left-wing political violence in the United States is extremely minimal while right-wing political violence is aided and abetted by terrorist-sponsoring organizations like the NRA and blessed by the Republican Party.

Edgy MD
Aug 08 2019 01:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, someone tried to take out the Republican Congressional Baseball Team. They were saved because a black, lesbian Capitol Police officer didn't go back where she came from.



But no, of course, an anecdote doesn't make an equivalency.

MFS62
Aug 08 2019 03:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He is trying to weaken our dollar, making imports more expensive.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-presses-fed-weaken-dollar-154859024.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews



Attention all shoppers!

Sooner or later he will irritate one of his gun totin' followers.

I wonder how FOX will spin this. Making our farmer's crops more buyable?

Later

ashie62
Aug 09 2019 10:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I have settled on mayor Pete

MFS62
Aug 12 2019 06:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

This would make Donald's head explode:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/barack-obama-new-york-street/2019/08/12/id/928305/



Later

Lefty Specialist
Aug 13 2019 06:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Ew. Never link to Newsmax. Make sure to run the anti-virus on your computer. And take a shower.

MFS62
Aug 13 2019 06:27 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Ew. Never link to Newsmax. Make sure to run the anti-virus on your computer. And take a shower.


I know. had a choice of sites with the same story, but this seemed to be the most complete. Other sites were begging for money or signatures.

I've taken a shower already, and am looking for a de-lousing powder.



Later

Double Switch
Aug 13 2019 08:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Ew. Never link to Newsmax. Make sure to run the anti-virus on your computer. And take a shower.


The reason why I did not check that link. Skin still creeping.

Double Switch
Aug 13 2019 09:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The Fabulist-in-Chief, President Donald von Munchausen. Not from Newsmax.



https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2019/08/09/bagley-cartoon-vox-populi/>



Cartoon

Lefty Specialist
Aug 13 2019 12:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

His whole point is to undermine the truth. In a world with no objective truth, the 'truth' is what he says it is.



Straight out of the Fascist playbook.

Double Switch
Aug 13 2019 01:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

His whole point is to undermine the truth. In a world with no objective truth, the 'truth' is what he says it is.



Straight out of the Fascist playbook.


What remains to be seen is just how many weak-willed, gullible fools there are who still lap up the Trump swill.

kcmets
Aug 13 2019 01:55 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:
What remains to be seen is just how many weak-willed, gullible fools there are who still lap up the Trump swill.

Watch One America News Network for a half hour for a week.

Double Switch
Aug 13 2019 04:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Double Switch wrote:
What remains to be seen is just how many weak-willed, gullible fools there are who still lap up the Trump swill.

Watch One America News Network for a half hour for a week.


I'd never heard of it so looked it up:



One America News Network, also referred to as One America News, is an American right-wing pay television news channel launched on July 4, 2013, owned by Herring Networks, Inc. The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates a news bureau in Washington, D.C. and New York City.



There are two chances I will look at this channel: slim and none. I also avoid as best I can any tv or radio facility owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group. I lose all the brain cells I can spare by drinking wine so none are left to waste on RW rage.

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 05:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Not endorsing OAN, but I watch it some to get another slant on things. How

much CNN can one watch? There's no rage on the news broadcasts. There are

ads for some evening shows that showcase two nut jobs - a guy that's always

'right' even when he's wrong and and a big-haired-blonde know-it-all who is also

obviously ultra conservative. I've never watched either show. I don't 'pay' for it,

it's included in my news row of about a dozen channels in my Fios package.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 14 2019 06:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I have watched OAN briefly on occasion (long-term exposure is hazardous to your brain cells).



They proceed from the assumption that you buy Trump's lies lock, stock and barrel. So their news is all tinged that way. They'll have a harmless puff piece followed by Seth Rich-type conspiracy-mongering. No deviation from the Administration line is permitted on any issue (even the worst bloviators on Fox stray once in a while). It's no wonder they're his new favorite network.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2019 07:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2019 01:11 PM

wrong.

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 07:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't know where you get this state tv stuff, we don't live in a communist nation.

Yet. It's important to watch all sides of everything to me. It's not like I'm gonna shoot

up any of the kool-aid news channels are selling from either side of the spectrum any

time soon.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2019 07:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2019 01:11 PM

wrong.

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 07:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Please don't paint me in that light.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2019 08:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2019 01:11 PM

wrong.

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 08:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Ok, excuse me while I go suckle up to Poppy Harlow's teet and un-propaganda myself.



Sheesh.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2019 08:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2019 01:11 PM

wrong.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 14 2019 08:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

If you kids don't stop I'm gonna turn this car right around.......



Sampling propaganda is not the same as believing it. I do it as well. It's important to understand what the other side believes, repulsive though it may be. It's a whole closed ecosystem which nurtures and feeds itself. And they believe the same thing about us sane people.

41Forever
Aug 14 2019 08:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=18763 time=1565792304 user_id=102]
i don't know who/what poppy harlow is.



She's very nice. Worked with her on numerous occasions.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2019 08:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2019 01:11 PM

wrong.

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 09:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Look, Comrade... all I did was respond to this so you don't need you to preach to me

unless it's about the Mets or the latest suds du jour.



Double Switch wrote:
What remains to be seen is just how many weak-willed, gullible fools there are who still lap up the Trump swill.

Watch One America News Network for a half hour for a week.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2019 11:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2019 01:11 PM

wrong.

Double Switch
Aug 14 2019 11:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=18794 time=1565805432 user_id=102]
enjoy your propaganda.



Way to miss the point. Kudos.

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 12:16 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Ceetar post_id=18794 time=1565805432 user_id=102]enjoy your propaganda.


Thanks, you too!

kcmets
Aug 14 2019 02:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Sweet mother of Rusty, you deleted everything and inserted 'wrongs?'



I'm sorry I fucking watch OAN on occasion. Talk about lack of tolerance and wearing

fucking blinders. It's my-way-or-the-highway is exactly what TRUMP does. But it's ok

if you do it. Got it.



I'm flabbergasted you think so little of me.

stevejrogers
Aug 14 2019 03:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=kcmets post_id=18815 time=1565813499 user_id=53]
Sweet mother of Rusty, you deleted everything and inserted 'wrongs?'



I'm sorry I fucking watch OAN on occasion. Talk about lack of tolerance and wearing

fucking blinders. It's my-way-or-the-highway is exactly what TRUMP does. But it's ok

if you do it. Got it.



I'm flabbergasted you think so little of me.



Damn, I just had the chance to quip that Ceets must have tuned out to MSNBC/CNN during the Obama years! ;)

metsmarathon
Aug 15 2019 09:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The leader of the free world tweets that it shows weakness to entertain the voices of those who disagree with you, and now Omar and Tlaib are banned from visiting Israel.



So much American greatness.

A Boy Named Seo
Aug 15 2019 10:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019


The leader of the free world tweets that it shows weakness to entertain the voices of those who disagree with you, and now Omar and Tlaib are banned from visiting Israel.



So much American greatness.


Not only that it shows weakness, but he also claimed they hate all Jewish people. This motherfucker is going to get one of these elected American representatives hurt or killed.


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1162000480681287683[/TWEET]

metsmarathon
Aug 15 2019 11:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

look, i get that israel is a key strategic ally, and that we need them and they need us...



but these congresspeople, and all of our politicians, take an oath to uphold and defend the united states. they take no oath of blind fealty to israel.

Centerfield
Aug 15 2019 12:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He doesn't actually give a shit about Israel. He just wants to villainize his enemies.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 15 2019 12:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=Centerfield post_id=18930 time=1565893582 user_id=65]
He doesn't actually give a shit about Israel. He just wants to villainize his enemies.





He doesn't give a shit about any issue. He's a complete opportunist and he'll pick whatever side of the issue he thinks will help his reelection.

metsmarathon
Aug 15 2019 01:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

this is true.



my issue is with any american who reflexively responds to anything even vaguely critical of israel as summarily anti-semetic.



i mean, i fully understand that anti-semites hate israel, and most of them are pretty critical of that country's policies and politics.

Double Switch
Aug 15 2019 01:21 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Here's a POV: I am Jewish by law. I can't do a thing about that. It's a simple fact. This does not make me an Israeli or sympathetic to Israel in any way, shape, or form. I find much to be embarrassed about concerning Israel's conduct. These are not the days of Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan.



This is Trump's way (abetted and goaded and cheer led by Stephen Miller) of wrangling more hate and nothing else. All Trump knows how to do is run* for president, not be president. What Trump has proven over these years is the US can stumble along without a president and without a Senate, leaving the House as the only adults in the room, including "the Squad."



* which he did not win by popular vote



The House representative who should be banned from everywhere is Steve King of Iowa. Gag me with maggots. He believes we all are products of rape and/or incest. Of course, he draws from personal experience and extrapolates a ridiculous conclusion.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 15 2019 02:20 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Bibi's doing this to suck up to Trump, his only real friend on the world stage, and to the right-wingers in Israel, whose votes he'll need to stay in office and quash an investigation into him that could land him in prison. Trampling on the rights of two Congresswomen is small beans compared to that.



It's a dumb move in the long term, but Netanyahu's not thinking long-term. Democrats will eventually regain power and they won't forget this. It's not anti-Semitic to point out that Israel does some very bad things.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 16 2019 07:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So, can Greenland buy US instead?

ashie62
Aug 17 2019 01:26 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I was reading an article about ethnic conflict in the U.S becoming comparable to the Bosnian and N Ireland conflicts. Conversation about how communal warfare from within cannot be controlled and a quote from James Baldwin about white life being a "sunlit playpen."



Thesis was that whites who grew up in suburbs and had not experienced racism lived in an America that just shrugs when Trump says and does what he does. I/we may find the behavior abhorrent and beyond reason but assume when he leaves America will "come back to its' senses." Question is has permanent damage been done?



I look back to 1830-1850's America and the "Know Nothings" party. This party was white, anti-elitist, and vilified at minimum Irish, German immigrants and the growth of catholicism in vile ways that to me seem similar to 2019.



We had a tradition in our house. Every friday me and my brother got to pick any snack and soda we wanted and watched the "Brady Bunch' and the "Partridge Family." Pretty easy living to the point of wtf.



My graduating high school class of 400 did not have one person of color. I joined the facebook group for our class sometime back. All, and I do mean all, sentiment posted about current politics was pro-Trump. The common argument was that we are not just white. We are Italian, German, Irish, Scottish or whatever and our ancestors built this country.



So, to my 1977 PHHS class I would ask how well off were your folks from about 1830 to 1850. Likely not that great.



I see now why I often shrug or just look the other way when Trump does hurtful damaging Godless acts. Trump's crap doesn't affect me personally, yet.



Ashie1 lived in Atlantic City. The law says says fire and police have to live in AC. I'd say 99% of them lived on North New Hampshire Avenue. Thats were me and Leece lived also. Total separation from the devastation that is AC.



Thanks for reading

MFS62
Aug 17 2019 03:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Thanks for posting. That is a far cry from what you usually post.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 20 2019 11:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/warning-or-threat-democrats-ignite-controversy-with-supreme-court-brief-in-gun-case/2019/08/16/2ec96ef0-c039-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html



Senator Whitehouse tells it like it is about the current Supreme Court majority. Reform or we'll restructure you. I'm all for skipping the part about waiting and seeing if the 5-4s can transform themselves into a fair and impartial majority.

kcmets
Aug 21 2019 04:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Sunlit playpen my ass.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 21 2019 06:28 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So Trump cancels a state visit to Denmark because they won't sell him Greenland. Says so right on Twitter.



Says he's thinking about a middle-class tax cut, but the economy is really humming along, honest. White House says no tax cut is under consideration. Then Trump comes out and says, yes, a tax cut is under consideration. And yells at the Fed to cut interest rates, which are already extremely low.



Then he said that any Jewish person who votes for a Democrat is guilty of ignorance or “great disloyalty,” using a term Hitler was fond of using about Jews.



THIS WAS JUST YESTERDAY.

kcmets
Aug 21 2019 06:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's been a bad last couple of days. Someone needs to pull out that old vaudeville

hook out from behind the curtain and get him off the stage (and some SERIOUS

mental health attention) pronto.



I get tired of repeating it, but why the fuck is everyone so afraid to oust him?

Ceetar
Aug 21 2019 07:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

no one's afraid to oust him, they want him there, it allows them to kill poor people, immigrants, and women.

kcmets
Aug 21 2019 07:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Using that "logic" everyone in Congress thinks that way? Absolutely absurd.

Ceetar
Aug 21 2019 07:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

well, the Republicans.



The Democrats are too focused on focus-grouping what would give them the best chance to gain control and misuse their office with apparently little awareness that that's exactly what they're doing already.

kcmets
Aug 21 2019 07:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Then say the Republicans and not 'no one's.'



Saves a step, eliminates busting my balls as well.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 21 2019 07:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Nobody will oust him or even seriously try. Trump has locked down 35-40% of voters, but anywhere from 80-90% of Republicans. Given those numbers, opposing him on any issue is suicide.



Are a lot of 'conventional' Republicans squeamish about him? You bet. But they dare not speak out. Besides, they're getting tax cuts for the rich and all the conservative judges their wealthy donors can handle. So there's no upside to rocking the boat.

kcmets
Aug 21 2019 07:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I get all that... Pelosi/Schumer, et Al are the real pussies. They should have acted

a year ago. What are they afraid of? I bet Trump knows some mob people who have

dirt on Ol' Chuckie for sure. You don't keep his gig without having some dirty laundry.

Edgy MD
Aug 21 2019 08:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

They are afraid that they'll look weak going into the election if and when he beats the rap. And he will run on triumphalism.



There is an upside to rocking the boat, of course, and that is the opportunity to challenge the awful, awful president. And I don't believe he has 80-90% support among republicans. I think those numbers are inflated due to people who identified as Republicans in the past no longer doing so when pollsters call.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 21 2019 08:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I agree that the numbers might be inflated, but even so, it's too big to ignore.



Yes, Pelosi is playing it too close to the vest. She's playing politics rather than integrity. But I see where she's going; she wants 'impeachment without impeachment'- investigations without actually bringing charges, which the Senate would never vote for anyway. She gets an assist from all the lawsuits currently blocking information and testimony. That allows her to run the clock into 2020, where it's most damaging. Of course, if the lawsuits fail, so does the strategy.



This is not saying I agree with it. I say have real impeachment hearings and damn the torpedoes. But that's just me.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 21 2019 08:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

They are afraid that they'll look weak going into the election if and when he beats the rap. And he will run on triumphalism.



There is an upside to rocking the boat, of course, and that is the opportunity to challenge the awful, awful president. And I don't believe he has 80-90% support among republicans. I think those numbers are inflated due to people who identified as Republicans in the past no longer doing so when pollsters call.




They'll look weak either way. When the campaign really heats up, and the point at which the time to start House impeachment proceedings has long passed, Trump will tell his base that the House's failure to impeach him is a sign of his innocence on all potential charges.



His support among Republicans is pretty locked in. I don't know if it's 80-90% or what the exact numbers are but it's locked -- whatever the numbers are. The latest political theory from a rising superstar in political science (she nailed the Democratic rout -- absolute trouncing -- at the last midterms when most pundits were still skittish about the Dems chances) is that the current electorate is polarized, extremely dug in and not subject to switching sides. She says that the Dems are better off, tactically, not going all in for this imaginary middle that can be swayed either way (not that those votes don't matter) but by going for people who identify as liberals and Democrats but don't vote. She says that's what really happened during the last midterms. The Dems didn't get middle voters and centrist Republicans to vote Dem -- instead they capitalized on enraged libs and Dems who finally decided to vote because of Trump and Trumpism. Slate ran a big piece on her last week and she's now starting to make the TV rounds.




Lefty Specialist wrote:

which the Senate would never vote for anyway.




If that's the logic, then the House should just go home (House go home! Get it? lol!) because the Senate ain't voting for anything the House passes.

Edgy MD
Aug 21 2019 09:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=19449 time=1566397752 user_id=68]They'll look weak either way.



Sure, so call me crazy, but if that's the case, they might as well do their oath-bound duty.



Impeachment isn't a political tactic. It's their job.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 21 2019 09:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=19449 time=1566397752 user_id=68]They'll look weak either way.


Sure, so call me crazy, but if that's the case, they might as well do their oath-bound duty.



Impeachment isn't a political tactic. It's their job.



Yes.

kcmets
Aug 21 2019 10:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

A-f'n-men, Edgewardo!

Fman99
Aug 21 2019 10:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=19449 time=1566397752 user_id=68]They'll look weak either way.


Sure, so call me crazy, but if that's the case, they might as well do their oath-bound duty.



Impeachment isn't a political tactic. It's their job.



^ I keep circling back to this too. If anyone was ever unfit for office, or evidently and blatantly doing impeachable things, it is the current officeholder.

ashie62
Aug 21 2019 11:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand D-NY has put forth a policy proposal for improvements in mental health care. She intends to target 1 People of Color 2 Students and 3 Rural America.



The idea is to have more care available where the greater number of providers are not.



She wants to "de-stigmatize" the negative image of treatment that can keep people from seeking treatment. She does not say how this would happen that I can see. I have been hearing a call to de-stigmatize this issue probably my entire adult life.



You could try to lose the term "mental health" and/or "mental illness". In a way similar to that we don't say "retardation" or "mongolism".



It is called "behavioral health." This would be a good start and path forward.



I like that she got this out before she drops out.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 21 2019 12:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

One of the side effects of Republican states refusing to take the free money that came with Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, was the closing of many rural hospitals in red states. It's not just mental/behavioral health, it's all kinds of health. That can't be undone until Republicans in those states are voted out.



It's just an example of how national initiatives need local buy-in to be effective under the current system. If you blow it up and go to single payer/Medicare for All/Medicare buy-in option, that's a different conversation.

MFS62
Aug 22 2019 03:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=19449 time=1566397752 user_id=68]They'll look weak either way.


Sure, so call me crazy, but if that's the case, they might as well do their oath-bound duty.



Impeachment isn't a political tactic. It's their job.


^ I keep circling back to this too. If anyone was ever unfit for office, or evidently and blatantly doing impeachable things, it is the current officeholder.


Unfortunately, he won't be taken out of the White House in handcuffs. But there's an ever increasing possibility he'll be taken out in a straitjacket (with Moscow Mike's lips still attached to his posterior)

Later

Lefty Specialist
Aug 26 2019 01:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Joe Walsh is running to primary Donald Trump.



No, not this guy:

https://www.945bayfm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/M_JoeWalsh630_CreditMyriamSantos_061118-1.jpg>



This Joe Walsh:



https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/joe-walsh-take-on-trump-in-2020-republican-primary/index.html



This Joe Walsh is a miserable excuse for a human being (ask his wife and kids), but anything that causes Trump a moment's pain is worth it.

MFS62
Aug 26 2019 07:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

One of his ideas in a just released article was to dissipate hurricanes by dropping a nuclear bomb into them.

If they want to test that idea (next time Donald is there) with a small tactical nuclear device on a hurricane right over Miro-Largo, I have no problem with that.

I was just thinking that we may never see the rumored "pee tapes". But there may be a better chance of seeing a 20 year old picture of Melania in a French Maid's outfit on Epstein Island.



Later

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 29 2019 02:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Mitch McConnell tells the Supremes (though he was probably only talking to the 5-4s) that he won't let the Dems pack the court and that he subscribes to RBG's statement that nine is the right number.



Hey Mitch: when the Dems are actually ready to pack the court, and able, there's not a goddamn thing you'll be able to do to stop it, if you're even still around. And RBG, didja even listen to her when she said Merrick Garland shoulda gotten a hearing and a vote? What a scumbag!



At least there's heated court packing talk in the air. That's the first sign.

MFS62
Aug 30 2019 07:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I the storm flattens Mir-a-Lago, I'll send Donald a roll of paper towels.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-canadian-prime-minister-kim-114241867.html

Later

Ceetar
Aug 30 2019 09:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019


I the storm flattens Mir-a-Lago, I'll send Donald a roll of paper towels.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-canadian-prime-minister-kim-114241867.html

Later


He's probably hoping so too, because I'm sure he'll pull seven insurance scams that will make him money.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 30 2019 12:56 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Ha. He won't even wait for the insurance. He'll have it rebuilt with government money from FEMA in weeks. And THEN he'll file a fraudulent insurance claim.

MFS62
Aug 30 2019 07:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Ha. He won't even wait for the insurance. He'll have it rebuilt with government money from FEMA in weeks. And THEN he'll file a fraudulent insurance claim.


This. To both.

Later

Double Switch
Aug 30 2019 07:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

As a non-believer, if Dorian nails both Mar-a-Lardo and Doral, I will become a true believe. Seems to have skipped over Puerto Rico.... cannot find any genuine news to the contrary...

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 31 2019 10:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump trails all of his likely challengers by significant margins in latest poll. It's still early but historically, no incumbent has ever been this far behind in a presidential election poll at this point in the campaign.



https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/31/politics/trump-democrat-matchups-analysis/index.html

MFS62
Aug 31 2019 03:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Trump trails all of his likely challengers by significant margins in latest poll. It's still early but historically, no incumbent has ever been this far behind in a presidential election poll at this point in the campaign.



https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/31/politics/trump-democrat-matchups-analysis/index.html


He'll start a war, declare martial law, and cancel the elections.

Later

metsmarathon
Aug 31 2019 05:37 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I can't believe this moron tweeted out a fucking classified image from a classified satellite just to taunt Iran.



Never in the history of our nation has one so recklessly clueless been in charge. Fuck, I wouldn't trust him to run a goddamned lemonade stand, and fuckwads out there think he's a super-genius playing eleventh dimension chess.

MFS62
Aug 31 2019 06:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=20496 time=1567294641 user_id=83]
Fuck, I wouldn't trust him to run a goddamned lemonade stand, and fuckwads out there think he's a super-genius playing eleventh dimension chess.



Most of the people who voted for him can't count to eleven without dropping their pants.

Later

MFS62
Sep 01 2019 11:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I am infuriated and frustrated by the Modesto shooting press conference.

The police chief said they are not releasing the name of the shooter.

Why not?

We deserve to know his name, the names of his family members who spawned him. the organizations to which he belongs, the media sites he frequents and the person who sold him the gun.



The Governor spoke about needing immediate action, and nobody in the room questioned him about the looser gun laws he signed and which went into effect in Texas today.



Then, the FBI agent said they determined he has nothing to do with international terrorism, and totally ignored the fact that he might be a domestic terrorist.



OE: I'm not the only one asking:

https://newsone.com/3885791/odessa-shooting-name-gunman-identity/

Later

TransMonk
Sep 02 2019 03:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=20501 time=1567296457 user_id=60]Most of the people who voted for him can't count to eleven without dropping their pants.



BOC!

Lefty Specialist
Sep 03 2019 06:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019


I am infuriated and frustrated by the Modesto shooting press conference.

The police chief said they are not releasing the name of the shooter.

Why not?

We deserve to know his name, the names of his family members who spawned him. the organizations to which he belongs, the media sites he frequents and the person who sold him the gun.



The Governor spoke about needing immediate action, and nobody in the room questioned him about the looser gun laws he signed and which went into effect in Texas today.



Then, the FBI agent said they determined he has nothing to do with international terrorism, and totally ignored the fact that he might be a domestic terrorist.



OE: I'm not the only one asking:

https://newsone.com/3885791/odessa-shooting-name-gunman-identity/

Later


We need to see the mangled and bloody bodies of the victims. High school students are signing documents to the effect that if they're killed in a mass shooting, they want the pictures of their bodies published. We sanitize these mass shootings. All you see are people laying flowers and lighting candles. Show what happens when 5 bullets from an AR-15 rip through the human body. We see churches full of people singing 'Amazing Grace' like that means anything. Show the American Carnage. People need to be revolted. They need to see the consequences.

Ceetar
Sep 03 2019 07:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Show the American Carnage. People need to be revolted. They need to see the consequences.




agreed. And I think keeping the shooter's name confidential might help. Instead of trying to politicize him "He was a liberal! he voted for Hillary! He was sick!" there's nothing to attack but the violence itself.



Oh, but keep doing it. Because the first time it'll turn into a nonsense story about should they show the pictures or not.



Or maybe someone should take out some ads showing it on Fox News, but I suspect they'd get rejected. Which is, you know, ridiculous.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Sep 03 2019 11:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes some of the most powerful stuff I've seen on shootings comes from doctors and others who have to treat the injuries

Vic Sage
Sep 03 2019 12:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

that was one of the reasons the populace turned against the vietnam war, seeing the nightly carnage on the evening news. The military has learned since then to tightly control press access during wars, so they can keep the public neutralized.



Many years ago, i worked for what used to be quaintly called a "pay per view" network. They showed mostly wrestling and concerts. I recommended they do a PPV event around a death penalty execution. Such things used to be public, but they've tried to sanitize and medicalize the procedure to avoid having the public rise in protest over government-sanctioned murder of its citizenry, just like they've done with our murder of the citizenry of other countries in wars and "police actions".

Lefty Specialist
Sep 03 2019 12:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And I want those pictures without the disclaimer that 'what follows may offend some people'. I want people offended and shocked. They need to be, because then suddenly the guy with the AR-15 isn't your strange neighbor anymore, he's a liability and a safety risk. Anyone who walks into a store with an assault rifle should be shot in the legs or tasered from behind by security. Not to kill him, but to incapacitate him. And to teach him a lesson about 'freedom'. He should be assumed to be a terrorist until proven otherwise from a hospital bed.



Yes, the military learned the lesson about carnage almost 50 years ago. About time we re-learn what the horror is all about, considering that Americans are dying at Vietnam-era levels.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 05 2019 03:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Court-packing is real. And it's happening. No. Make that -- it happened. And guess who did it? The GOP. Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.





https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28929249/arizona-doug-ducey-state-supreme-court-takeover/

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 05 2019 03:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Court-packing is real. And it's happening. No. Make that -- it happened. And guess who did it? The GOP. Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.





https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28929249/arizona-doug-ducey-state-supreme-court-takeover/

Lefty Specialist
Sep 06 2019 06:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Other presidents, when they make a small mistake, admit it or ignore it and move on. Not this one. He whips out the Sharpie and doubles down.



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-pointless-lie-hurricane-dorian-and-alabama/597469/

Chad ochoseis
Sep 06 2019 07:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

In 500 years, when the American Empire exists only in history books, kids will be learning about Trump's Sharpie in the same way that we learned about Nero's fiddle.

seawolf17
Sep 06 2019 07:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It's just so. goddamned. stupid. This guy can't even admit to being wrong about the tiniest thing, and everyone just fucking enables him. It's truly the darkest timeline.

Double Switch
Sep 06 2019 11:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=seawolf17 post_id=21047 time=1567776985 user_id=91]
It's just so. goddamned. stupid. This guy can't even admit to being wrong about the tiniest thing, and everyone just fucking enables him. It's truly the darkest timeline.



We are stuck in Sharpie-gate and still he has defenders who insist this batcrap crazy blather is no biggie. After four years of this concentrated exposed mania, one would hope that anyone who voted for him is nauseated, including his defenders who put GOP ahead of country. Moscow Mitch remains invested, which means I'm sending money to:



Amy McGrath for Senate

P.O. Box 875

Georgetown, KY 40324



There can be no way this woman is worse than Moscow Mitch.

TransMonk
Sep 06 2019 11:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Chad ochoseis wrote:

In [CROSSOUT]500 years[/CROSSOUT] 50 years, when the American Empire exists only in history books, kids will be learning about Trump's Sharpie in the same way that we learned about Nero's fiddle.


I fixed it. Though, at the rate we're going, 50 might be a stretch.

Lefty Specialist
Sep 10 2019 11:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Could be five. Turns out the president is such a national security risk that they pulled a top asset out of Russia to prevent him from being killed..



https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html

Ceetar
Sep 10 2019 12:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Could be five. Turns out the president is such a national security risk that they pulled a top asset out of Russia to prevent him from being killed..



https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html


Good reminder that George W was also a massive detriment to our country for reasons like this.

Edgy MD
Sep 10 2019 01:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Howzabout a stupid weather chart weakening him far more politically than the 448-page Mueller report?

metsmarathon
Sep 10 2019 02:16 PM
Re: Politics 2019

its ridiculous, right?



granted, it's also a simple, demonstrable thing that more people are able to relate to.



it also, really and truly shows how there's not a single topic remotely relevant to the governance of a great nation in a modern age that this idiot has a meaningful understanding of. aside, of course, from rousing a voting base with vitriol and hatred, and making empty promises.



but seriously. economic policy? foreign relations? history? military policy? military strategy and strategery? national security? the duties of any branch of the government? science or science policy? technology or technology policy? human rights? the constitution? weather? tariffs? diplomacy? civil rights? health care? mental health care? gun policy?



i mean, even conservative talking points - he doesn't know shit about. and demonstrates it clearly, over and over again, each time he speaks or tweets.



he's so out of his depth, it's embarrassing. or at least it would be if it weren't so terrifying.



my god, how do some 40% of the people not see it? are we all that polarized, tribalized, and politicized? is it some cult thing - some cognitive dissonance?



like, surely he's said shit about things that his supporters might actually have some knowledge of, or insight into. and surely they must see through his bluster and bullshit and boasting and notice that there's nothing at all substantive to anything that he says. nothing. it's like the cliff notes of the cliff notes, boiled down to a 5 step instructable, and retold by an 8-year old. and then you realize that's how he talks about every subject. which means... he doesn't know shit about any thing.



but somehow, there are millions - tens of millions of people who continue to lie to themselves, and allow others to tell greater and stronger lies about the same.



and i just don't see it. i don't know how this is. it cannot be just an education problem, as plenty of actual smart people have fallen to him.



i... don't get it.



is it me? is there something wrong with me?

Ceetar
Sep 10 2019 02:29 PM
Re: Politics 2019

well, it's WAY less than 40%.

Benjamin Grimm
Sep 10 2019 02:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I think there are many people who like what he's doing from a policy standpoint and are willing to look the other way regarding his blatant idiocy.



And others who don't realize he's an idiot because they too are idiots.

Edgy MD
Sep 10 2019 04:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I think a lot realize he's an idiot, but LUV owning libs, and if that means we let nihilism take over conservatism, whatever.



And no small amount of folks realize he's an idiot but wouldn't vote for a lamplighter if he or she didn't at least pretend to be anti-abortion.



So even right there, a bizarre coalition of people for the sanctity of human life and people who don't give a shit about anything — that's a real base. Not huge, mind you, but an impenetrable starting point.



I realized today that when I'm president, one of my signature programs would be the Universal Suffrage Act, creating a Suffrage Corps that works in every Congressional district to register and card 100% of all eligible voters — registering the homeless in shelters, registering Native Americans living on tribal land, paging high schoolers on their 18th birthday to come on down to the guidance counselor's office and get them signed up. Heck, hang out in parole offices and sign up ex-cons there.



It's the same body's job, supported by federal dollars, to encourage passionately all eligible voters to cast their ballot, any ballot, and to make it their business to establish polling places near where people are and transport those that do not live near polling places.

Fman99
Sep 11 2019 07:06 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=metsmarathon post_id=21438 time=1568146596 user_id=83]
its ridiculous, right?



granted, it's also a simple, demonstrable thing that more people are able to relate to.



it also, really and truly shows how there's not a single topic remotely relevant to the governance of a great nation in a modern age that this idiot has a meaningful understanding of. aside, of course, from rousing a voting base with vitriol and hatred, and making empty promises.



but seriously. economic policy? foreign relations? history? military policy? military strategy and strategery? national security? the duties of any branch of the government? science or science policy? technology or technology policy? human rights? the constitution? weather? tariffs? diplomacy? civil rights? health care? mental health care? gun policy?



i mean, even conservative talking points - he doesn't know shit about. and demonstrates it clearly, over and over again, each time he speaks or tweets.



he's so out of his depth, it's embarrassing. or at least it would be if it weren't so terrifying.



my god, how do some 40% of the people not see it? are we all that polarized, tribalized, and politicized? is it some cult thing - some cognitive dissonance?



like, surely he's said shit about things that his supporters might actually have some knowledge of, or insight into. and surely they must see through his bluster and bullshit and boasting and notice that there's nothing at all substantive to anything that he says. nothing. it's like the cliff notes of the cliff notes, boiled down to a 5 step instructable, and retold by an 8-year old. and then you realize that's how he talks about every subject. which means... he doesn't know shit about any thing.



but somehow, there are millions - tens of millions of people who continue to lie to themselves, and allow others to tell greater and stronger lies about the same.



and i just don't see it. i don't know how this is. it cannot be just an education problem, as plenty of actual smart people have fallen to him.



i... don't get it.



is it me? is there something wrong with me?



I have this conversation as an inner monologue all the damn time.

kcmets
Sep 11 2019 07:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

He's mentally unfit for office and not worthy of analysis at this point.



The fact that no one is doing anything about his removal is far more

disturbing to me than his daily CNN fodder.



Fuck Pelosi, Chuckles, Nader and 3/4's of the prez candidates. Cowards.

Lefty Specialist
Sep 11 2019 08:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I think a lot realize he's an idiot, but LUV owning libs, and if that means we let nihilism take over conservatism, whatever.



And no small amount of folks realize he's an idiot but wouldn't vote for a lamplighter if he or she didn't at least pretend to be anti-abortion.



So even right there, a bizarre coalition of people for the sanctity of human life and people who don't give a shit about anything — that's a real base. Not huge, mind you, but an impenetrable starting point.


And that's it. It's a base that fluctuates between 35 and 45% of Americans. There are people who won't vote for a Democrat no matter how bad the Republican is. (We saw that in North Carolina last night). There is a small subgroup who gets orgasmic every time Trump says something stupid to drive liberals crazy. They can be found in the comments section of any major metropolitan newspaper.



These are people who will flip if Trump loses. They won't accept a loss, just as Trump won't accept a loss, and many of them are armed.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 11 2019 08:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=kcmets post_id=21503 time=1568208721 user_id=53]
He's mentally unfit for office and not worthy of analysis at this point.



The fact that no one is doing anything about his removal is far more

disturbing to me than his daily CNN fodder.



Fuck Pelosi, Chuckles, Nader and 3/4's of the prez candidates. Cowards.



So I totally agree that Trump should be impeached. He's a disgrace, as any reasonably sentient person knows and his dirty laundry should be the focus of public congressional hearings even if the impeachment process will surely stall in Mitch McConnell's senate.



But let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment. What if you had a working and accurate crystal ball? Or what if Nancy Pelosi had that crystal ball? And the crystal ball can tell you precisely what the future would be. And the crystal ball tells you, (and Nancy Pelosi) that starting impeachment proceedings against Trump will energize and motivate his base to the point where he'll get reelected in 2020, while foregoing impeachment proceedings will result in the Democratic candidate taking back the White House next year. What if Pelosi thinks she has that crystal ball? Ideally, impeachment proceedings fall under the congressional oversight responsibilities, which are baked into the Constitution, so the issue shouldn't be politicized. But is that possible to not politicize a clearly political event? I mean, there's the practical reality of it all to consider, as well.

Ceetar
Sep 11 2019 08:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

What if the crystal ball shows you'll alienate all the "Bernie bros" or "squad" or whatever our hot phrase is this week that are sick of the nonsense in the democratic establishment and aren't even really democrats. All those people that won't vote if you DON'T impeach because they'll be discouraged by the "same old democrats". Not impeaching might be the 'political move' that loses the election.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 11 2019 09:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019


What if the crystal ball shows you'll alienate all the "Bernie bros" or "squad" or whatever our hot phrase is this week that are sick of the nonsense in the democratic establishment and aren't even really democrats. All those people that won't vote if you DON'T impeach because they'll be discouraged by the "same old democrats". Not impeaching might be the 'political move' that loses the election.


Well, that's the thing, this is just an exercise. Nobody really has a crystal ball. What I'm saying, and I don't know if I agree, is that you have to make real life practical considerations here. So on the one hand, I've felt very strongly that the House should've started impeachment proceedings against Trump long ago. But on the other hand, I kinda get Pelosi's thought process.

Edgy MD
Sep 11 2019 09:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

If I was Speaker Pelosi, I'd start impeachment proceedings immediately. Her oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, not to do what's necessary to win elections.



And then I'd smash that ball. Necromancy has no place in the governance of the nation.



Did somebody write above that Ralph Nader opposes impeachment? Nader?

Ceetar
Sep 11 2019 09:15 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I understand her thought process, it's a political gambit and not a governing one, and that's disturbing and frustrating from someone that has roughly zero faith that even if we do, and i do think it's likely, 'wrest' control of the government from these imbeciles, that we'll even manage to fix all the things that were damaged by this administration, never mind fix the problems that caused them.



Is she right? I'm no seer, nor political 'expert, but I fail to see how not just doing your job and saying killing immigrant kids and using disaster as an excuse to separate families is grounds for impeachment is going to energize people. I also don't think their are a lot of people out there that are going to be galvanized by the Senate not impeaching him to run out and vote where they wouldn't.



And there's that. Will the senate even actually hold the impeachment vote? or just ignore it like they do the rest of their job? There's a big difference between the two.

Edgy MD
Sep 11 2019 09:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
These are people who will flip if Trump loses. They won't accept a loss, just as Trump won't accept a loss, and many of them are armed.


I think data suggeststhat domestic terrorism goes up when the would-be terrorists' party is in power, controlling one or both houses and or possibly the White House. The thinking is that the crazies are more frustrated when the team they supprorted has all the cards but still can't get their extreme agenda passed into law. Then, the crazy thinking goes, the only option that's left is violence.



I'm pretty sure Congresswoman Omar is the person most in danger of political violence right now. It's the House that is allegedly blocking the extremist agenda, and the Trump-loving-wing of the press has made the four female froshes the defining symbol of the House more than Speaker Pelosi. Shameless Sean Hannity regularly goes so far as to call Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez the real speaker of the House.



But Ocasio-Cortez is pretty and entertaining, and she doesn't say nearly as many stupid or provocative things as Congresswoman Omar. And Omar is, you know, African-American, Muslim, and foreign-born.

Double Switch
Sep 11 2019 10:18 AM
Re: Politics 2019

For impeachment to happen, Mitch McConnell needs to be defeated in Kentucky. Period. Nancy Pelosi needs no crystal ball to know that. There is a candidate who might be able to oust McConnell and she is Amy McGrath. I suggest you read this interview with McGrath.



Remember, Nixon was re-elected before he finally was convinced to resign. Moscow Mitch is the biggest obstacle preventing the office of the president from being remediated. McConnell calls himself "The Grim Reaper," which proves that he has no intention of removing Trump. Therefore, McConnell needs to be removed. There's your primary issue: McConnell, not Pelosi's alleged misuse of a crystal ball.

Edgy MD
Sep 11 2019 10:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

For impeachment to happen, Mitch McConnell needs to be defeated in Kentucky.


Well, perhaps for removal to happen. Impeachment is up the House.



But I don't agree that impeachment proceedings and a trial in the Senate should not go forward because of the unlikelihood of a conviction. That's forsaking a vow to uphold and protect the Constitution, and the Constitution and the Republic are weakened when this happens.



We can't just pick the causes likeliest to succeed.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 11 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

You need 67 votes in the Senate to remove Trump. That ain't happening even if Chuck Schumer is your Senate Majority Leader. This isn't squarely on McConnell.

Double Switch
Sep 11 2019 11:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=21526 time=1568222058 user_id=68]
You need 67 votes in the Senate to remove Trump. That ain't happening even if Chuck Schumer is your Senate Majority Leader. This isn't squarely on McConnell.



How is this not squarely on McConnell? If he is defeated in re-election, he is no longer a factor. This will not happen easily or soon or before November 2020. If Trump is re-elected, it must happen. If not, we move on and repair the damage. Think outside the ball.

Double Switch
Sep 11 2019 11:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Double Switch wrote:

For impeachment to happen, Mitch McConnell needs to be defeated in Kentucky.



Oh, so sorry - for REMOVAL to happen. You knew that.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 11 2019 11:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=21526 time=1568222058 user_id=68]
You need 67 votes in the Senate to remove Trump. That ain't happening even if Chuck Schumer is your Senate Majority Leader. This isn't squarely on McConnell.


How is this not squarely on McConnell? If he is defeated in re-election, he is no longer a factor. This will not happen easily or soon or before November 2020. If Trump is re-elected, it must happen. If not, we move on and repair the damage. Think outside the ball.



Because GOP politicians aren't crossing Trump because they fear his base and primaries and the destruction of their political careers if they do. This is why everything that's been happening under this administration is happening.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 11 2019 11:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Double Switch wrote:

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=21526 time=1568222058 user_id=68]
You need 67 votes in the Senate to remove Trump. That ain't happening even if Chuck Schumer is your Senate Majority Leader. This isn't squarely on McConnell.


How is this not squarely on McConnell? If he is defeated in re-election, he is no longer a factor. This will not happen easily or soon or before November 2020. If Trump is re-elected, it must happen. If not, we move on and repair the damage. Think outside the ball.


Because GOP politicians aren't crossing Trump because they fear his base and primaries and the destruction of their political careers if they do. This is why everything that's been happening under this administration is happening.



And because the GOP is a broken and poisoned party. You'll get the same crap if McConnell is swapped out for a different GOP Senate leader. McConnell, among other things, didnt blockade Merrick Garland and about 100 lower court judges all by himself. And he didn't kill the SCOTUS filibuster all by himself either. I mean, that fraudulent so called moderate Republican, Susan Collins, as one example, went along with the whole package.

Ceetar
Sep 11 2019 11:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019

honestly McConnell should be impeached too, for failing to execute his duties as a Senator and bragging about it.

Edgy MD
Sep 11 2019 11:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

Edgy MD wrote:

Double Switch wrote:

For impeachment to happen, Mitch McConnell needs to be defeated in Kentucky.
Well, perhaps for removal to happen. Impeachment is up the House.


Oh, so sorry - for REMOVAL to happen. You knew that.


Sure I do. But the distinction is important.



And McConnell, of course, isn't subject to impeachment, but expulsion, which would be particularly challenging, since the majority of the chamber is complicit in his acts.

Double Switch
Sep 11 2019 12:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Double Switch wrote:

Edgy MD wrote:

Double Switch wrote:

For impeachment to happen, Mitch McConnell needs to be defeated in Kentucky.
Well, perhaps for removal to happen. Impeachment is up the House.


Oh, so sorry - for REMOVAL to happen. You knew that.


Sure I do. But the distinction is important.



And McConnell, of course, isn't subject to impeachment, but expulsion, which would be particularly challenging, since the majority of the chamber is complicit in his acts.

Which is why the drum I'm beating is to defeat McConnell's re-election; hence, my original article posting in favor of Amy McGrath. With him out of the Senate, the Russian influence drops significantly.

seawolf17
Sep 11 2019 12:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Regardless of who wins whatever election of your choice, the fact that there are "]
but somehow, there are millions - tens of millions of people who continue to lie to themselves, and allow others to tell greater and stronger lies about the same.



and i just don't see it. i don't know how this is. it cannot be just an education problem, as plenty of actual smart people have fallen to him.



i... don't get it.



It's this. This is what I just don't understand at all.

kcmets
Sep 11 2019 12:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:
Did somebody write above that Ralph Nader opposes impeachment? Nader?

*chortle chortle*



Jerrold Lewis Nadler!



He might be the biggest phony in the bunch. Oh we're gonna do this

and we're gonna do that whilst texting his staff is my car ready I have

three places I'd rather be...

Edgy MD
Sep 11 2019 01:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Congressman Nadler's got it easy, doesn't he? He can pretend he's all ready to go, but his damn hands are tied. SHOOT!

Lefty Specialist
Sep 11 2019 01:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I like Amy McGrath. I donated to her when she ran for the House (and lost). I'd like her to defeat Moscow Mitch, but she pulled her punches a bit in 2018, something she can't afford to do when running against a man who's done as much if not more than Trump to destroy competent government in this country. MM will have untold millions to spend her into the ground. I'd like to be optimistic (she's got a great back story and she's done some good commercials), but I think he won't have too much to worry about.



Now, even if he lost, there's no way you get to 67 in the Senate for removal. And if we're talking about this after the 2020 election that means Trump has won a second term, in which case all bets are off.

Ceetar
Sep 11 2019 02:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I kinda want to start a 'Trump: President for Life' Super PAC to see if it'd scare anyone into not voting for him. Donate all the money in ads for McGrath or something.

LWFS
Sep 11 2019 05:09 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Fuck goal-directed action; the job is to serve constituents and uphold the Constitution. If you don't impeach THIS guy, you create one hell of an inverse precedent.

metsmarathon
Sep 11 2019 07:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=LWFS post_id=21591 time=1568243340 user_id=84]
Fuck goal-directed action; the job is to serve constituents and uphold the Constitution. If you don't impeach THIS guy, you create one hell of an inverse precedent.



This.

Edgy MD
Sep 11 2019 07:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I never even heard the term "inverse precedent," and now I'm going to be the guy who can't shut up about "inverse precedent."

Lefty Specialist
Sep 12 2019 06:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I worry about a non-motivated base in 2020. Not impeaching is part of that; it's an enthusiasm-dampener.



I fear Biden will be a one-man base de-motivator. His pledges to work with the other side sound like they came out of the '80's. It's like he wasn't around for the Merrick Garland nomination. People want to get rid of Trump, but that's not the only thing they want. They want things made better. Biden's message is that he'll return things to the way they were when Obama was president. Well, things were BROKEN when Obama was president. We deserve better than that.



If Trump avoids a recession next year (and he'll do everything he can to avoid one whether it's legal/ethical/prudent long-term or not), and Biden is the nominee, I fear that Trump will run rings around him and Biden will wonder why his message isn't resonating. Hillary already did 'Trump's not qualified' and it didn't work.



As you may know, I'm firmly on Team Warren. She's not perfect. Trump will call her 'Pocahontas' until he's blue in the face. She can come off like a schoolmarm at times. A lot of her 'plans' revolve around having a Democratic Senate to back her up. But she's got a better idea of what she wants to do than Biden does. And I think she can connect with disaffected white voters better than Biden. When people really listen to her, they come away convinced.



Biden has a huge lead in the black primary vote right now. Blacks really hate Trump and they're pragmatic; if Joe is the best shot at this, they'll vote for him. Helps that he was Obama's loyal VP for 8 years. Warren hasn't really made a dent with this important constituency and that's a problem. (It's an even bigger problem for Kamala Harris.)



Another problem is Bernie. There's no getting around the fact that Warren and Sanders are driving in the same lane. They're splitting the leftward constituency and it limits their rise. Bernie Bros are the most die-hard of all. They won't be moved unless Bernie has a heart attack. They (and he) hung on much too long in the 2016 race. There's nothing that will motivate them to get out in 2020. Bernie can raise unlimited sums so he can stay in as long as he likes even if there's no shot (see 2016).



My fear is that Warren's rise will be limited, Biden will win primaries with pluralities and just run up the delegate score. And then he'll drag us down in November. I hope I'm wrong. If he gets the nomination I'll do whatever I can to help. But I won't be happy about it.

seawolf17
Sep 12 2019 07:06 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think most of us will pinch our noses and vote for Biden if we have to, but honestly, every day he becomes less and less appealing as a candidate. And I agree that he's coming right out of the Hillary playbook, which we know doesn't work.



Elizabeth Warren will go hard; she's my favorite right now as well. And I agree that Bernie needs to stand down sooner and throw his weight behind her. I thought Kamala Harris had a fantastic case too, but she just hasn't resonated for some reason. Buttigieg will be back in 2024 or 2028 if the country still exists at that point.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 12 2019 07:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=LWFS post_id=21591 time=1568243340 user_id=84]
Fuck goal-directed action; the job is to serve constituents and uphold the Constitution. If you don't impeach THIS guy, you create one hell of an inverse precedent.



Yes, yes and yes. But people usually act, in the first instance , in their own self-interest. And pols are no different. They care more about their next reelection campaign and their political careers in general than about what they're supposed to do for their constituents. Trump may have lost the popular vote to HRC by three million. And he's getting killed by every major Dem candidate in every single 2020 Presidential poll. But he's got the GOP base securely in his clenched fist. He owns that base. And so no GOP pol will cross him because Trump's a mean-spirited vindictive scumbag and he'll destroy the career of any Republican pol that crosses him. And that's why we're here.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 12 2019 10:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

She would know. She's on the inside.



Headline:



Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing “extraordinary” favors for Trump





excerpt:


The Trump administration, in other words, is behaving as if the Court is its personal concierge service — and the Republican-controlled Supreme Court is doing little to disabuse the administration of this idea.




https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20862320/sotomayor-supreme-court-favors-trump

Lefty Specialist
Sep 13 2019 06:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

In the debate last night, Beto came right out and said he'd come after assault weapons. I hope he doubles his security detail this morning.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 13 2019 07:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

In the debate last night, Beto came right out and said he'd come after assault weapons. I hope he doubles his security detail this morning.

Guess where the first threat came from.





https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEF971f5A0KpYR4AdeAL8akEqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMLnhAg?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 16 2019 12:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I hope the Dems use the latest Kavanaugh revelations as inspiration to pack the courts. First they block Garland and fill Scalia's seat with a dangerous extremist that would never have been confirmed if they didnt also kill the SCOTUS filibuster. Then they ram Kavanaugh through by, among other things, giving the FBI no more than seven minutes to investigate him -- and provided the FBI doesnt interview anybody -- which --- how could they in seven minutes?

Lefty Specialist
Sep 16 2019 12:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So many government agencies will need to be Roto-Rootered when this is all done. And I hope the next president allows things to be investigated, even though that'll be denounced by Republicans as 'partisan politics'.



As for impeachment, forget it. The same 67 Senators would be required and it's not happening unless Kavanaugh waves his Schwanzstucker in Elaine Chao's face on network TV.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 18 2019 04:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Whenever I come across an article written by Jamelle Bouie, I read it.



Mad About Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? The Best Way to Get Even Is to Pack the Court



Their lifetime appointments cry out for Democratic hardball.




By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/kavanaugh-trump-packing-court.html



excerpt:


Trump's Supreme Court appointments are mired in controversy. Justice Neil Gorsuch occupies a stolen seat, held open during Obama's tenure by a blockade conducted for nearly a year by McConnell, who cited a previously nonexistent “tradition” of tabling nominations made in an election year. (In the 20th century alone, the Senate confirmed Supreme Court nominees in five different presidential election years — 1912, 1916, 1932, 1940 and 1988). And of course Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed last September under clouds of suspicion that stemmed from accusations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct to a bevy of ethics complaints....



Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell's attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.



The reasoning underpinning this proposal isn't just about the future; it's about the past. We have had two rounds of minority government in under two decades — two occasions where executive power went to the popular-vote loser. Rather than moderate their aims and ambitions, both presidents have empowered ideologues and aggressively spread their influence. We are due for a course correction.



The goal isn't to make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy, but to make sure elected majorities can govern — to keep the United States a democratic republic and not a judge-ocracy. Yes, there are genuine constitutional disputes, questions about individual rights and the scope of federal power. At the same time, there are broad readings of the Constitution — ones that give our elected officials the necessary power to act and to solve problems — and narrow readings, which handcuff and restrict the range of our government.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 29 2019 07:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Texas is the new Alamo. If the GOP loses Texas, they're dead. They can't get tbe White House without Texas.





https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiXmh0dHBzOi8vdGhlaGlsbC5jb20vaG9tZW5ld3MvaG91c2UvNDYzNTI2LXBlbG9zaS10dXJuaW5nLXRleGFzLWJsdWUtaXMtb3VyLWhvcGUtZm9yLXRoZS1mdXR1cmXSAWJodHRwczovL3RoZWhpbGwuY29tL2hvbWVuZXdzL2hvdXNlLzQ2MzUyNi1wZWxvc2ktdHVybmluZy10ZXhhcy1ibHVlLWlzLW91ci1ob3BlLWZvci10aGUtZnV0dXJlP2FtcA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

MFS62
Sep 29 2019 09:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

McConnell could call a vote on a motion to dismiss, which would effectively amount to a vote to acquit Trump of wrongdoing.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/impeachment-memo-donald-trump-gop-leadership-senate-trial-000509287.html

Later

Edgy MD
Oct 01 2019 04:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Cart is ahead of the horse there, though.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 02 2019 08:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

A. Moat. With. Alligators.



One of the ideas Trump floated to secure the southern border. Also shooting refugees in the legs. Also electric spikes on the top of the wall.



And somebody was actually tasked with costing this out. What do live alligators cost these days, anyway?

seawolf17
Oct 02 2019 08:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://media.giphy.com/media/FgSTie8khl408/giphy.gif>

Ceetar
Oct 02 2019 09:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--hWVaeHXK_6dp25ZTXfrQXExX7NfFZr22ZH5ht37wP6GOM5Rit126puKxqmamrNBWziPuof26bXqiY4sAJ2BNtiCBwWHLw2y53zsHmebYaOqKS11W6jyRf17WFoJ9h24M7kZqWyli2kJES5ZrYxj045EV7axLlpjTGFR1-fqpljvDexjkUkVWya6JtTwXMIg0TguAjmLXiNi0pWugKTc_s62sCuUd_BkyroyFzg2WGNbFX-64c5mXqqPVJnJzoucfvMiqpabpwXK4sGqIj_eyxXYd7kXiosXlbv6HjzY0Zo2qTq6zQjjGsJywhO2v0ewt-FqvT2G-FZ45Jpvz5lUsKmct-GhwZW9tkZ6OB5e9TOpAoYYxgc9VmtYb_L8IgQ3Lcbw_DwCuVqm0nXJfTskZ39aZNy38kF5_IsfL7GoZWKcuLqOXFX8lWnvavWpBmxIQhiiORTWkCwBcAbPQDgyuQco94wtanObSPBt8U4-Cb-1bSeXFgjlVcrgm_9t_zBAd7iYi3NrPp1ebka4BJFUTaCc7sXBcIxNY2EKld7W2ukQqJ02fjRT2nIBvPsxoOIiaGOyKuEKYExsY99x33DzztpG111BusKfXaNs21SnFY0_blvW_VU2DMgYSj0Z7HsjbCMafnq0Jacy2oE3-tzz8UvsWBv5cOl0A-fNGhrxMdtZQ-3DOSR8UE=w344-h536-no>

Double Switch
Oct 02 2019 10:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

A. Moat. With. Alligators.


Doesn't that describe Florida? Doesn't seem to be efficient. Mar-a-Lago needs more alligators.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 02 2019 12:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:

A. Moat. With. Alligators.


Doesn't that describe Florida? Doesn't seem to be efficient. Mar-a-Lago needs more alligators.


It's already a nest of vipers.

Edgy MD
Oct 03 2019 06:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--hWVaeHXK_6dp25ZTXfrQXExX7NfFZr22ZH5ht37wP6GOM5Rit126puKxqmamrNBWziPuof26bXqiY4sAJ2BNtiCBwWHLw2y53zsHmebYaOqKS11W6jyRf17WFoJ9h24M7kZqWyli2kJES5ZrYxj045EV7axLlpjTGFR1-fqpljvDexjkUkVWya6JtTwXMIg0TguAjmLXiNi0pWugKTc_s62sCuUd_BkyroyFzg2WGNbFX-64c5mXqqPVJnJzoucfvMiqpabpwXK4sGqIj_eyxXYd7kXiosXlbv6HjzY0Zo2qTq6zQjjGsJywhO2v0ewt-FqvT2G-FZ45Jpvz5lUsKmct-GhwZW9tkZ6OB5e9TOpAoYYxgc9VmtYb_L8IgQ3Lcbw_DwCuVqm0nXJfTskZ39aZNy38kF5_IsfL7GoZWKcuLqOXFX8lWnvavWpBmxIQhiiORTWkCwBcAbPQDgyuQco94wtanObSPBt8U4-Cb-1bSeXFgjlVcrgm_9t_zBAd7iYi3NrPp1ebka4BJFUTaCc7sXBcIxNY2EKld7W2ukQqJ02fjRT2nIBvPsxoOIiaGOyKuEKYExsY99x33DzztpG111BusKfXaNs21SnFY0_blvW_VU2DMgYSj0Z7HsjbCMafnq0Jacy2oE3-tzz8UvsWBv5cOl0A-fNGhrxMdtZQ-3DOSR8UE=w344-h536-no>


Higher than 19? Man, that's no fair. What's the point?

Ceetar
Oct 03 2019 07:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, it's a strong weapon. 5% chance of your bunny not getting obliterated. Or you can use defense cards.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 06 2019 10:21 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Thank you, Susan Collins.



It's the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights as we've known them for the past almost 50 years. The Supreme Court decides to rule on one of those crazy wingnut restrictive abortion laws that went into effect right after Kavanaugh was confirmed to the high court, this law out of Louisiana. The court really has no business hearing the case because the Louisiana law, as everyone on both sides of the issue concedes, is identical to a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down (5-4) a few years ago. The difference this time around, though, is that swing vote Kennedy, the deciding vote on the Texas case has since retired, and has been replaced by Kavanaugh, who's been gunning for abortion rights throughout his whole career, despite what that scumbag phony Susan Collins will tell you. Collins thinks she's going to save her ass by posturing that she's for Trump's impeachment, knowing full well that even if she votes to remove Trump in a Senate impeachment trial, her vote, for practical matters, will be meaningless -- a dog and pony show vote just for display because there won't be enough Republican votes to ensure Trump's removal from office. But we're all stupid, Susan.



And it's even worse than that. The Supreme Court has also decided to hear a case challenging whether doctors and medical institutions even have standing to legally challenge abortion laws. If the Supreme Court decides this issue in the negative, legal challenges to abortion laws will fall to the patients themselves, forcing women, usually without the resources and now forced to go public and risk embarrasement and public harrasement to challenge the laws.



Here's the abortion rant from good ol' Charlie Pee:



excerpt:


If you have been concerned, as any thinking person would be, by the conservative project of salting the federal courts with specimens from the various wingnut welfare terrariums, then Friday was one of the days that you've been properly dreading. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case from Louisiana challenging that state's restrictions on reproductive rights, a case that leaves open to destruction at least the "undue burden" standard present since 1992 in the Court's Casey decision, if not the entire structure of reproductive rights that has been under assault ever since the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. From NPR:



Like the Texas law that the court previously struck down, the Louisiana law requires any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; it also requires that clinics that provide abortions be, in effect, mini-hospitals, with everything from wide corridors to expensive equipment.



The Supreme Court said in the Texas case that neither was needed to protect women's health and that both requirements imposed "a substantial burden" on a woman's right to abortion. Louisiana has conceded that its law is virtually identical to the Texas law. The difference between then and now is that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the decisive fifth vote in the 2016 Texas case, has retired and been replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, who has indicated his willingness to undermine or discard the 2016 decision.




And thereby hangs the decision. It's Justice Boof's big chance, and it's one of the primary reasons people fought so hard for his confirmation. His vote to uphold the Louisiana law is as predetermined an outcome as any in the history of the Court. If the law is upheld, then states will be emboldened to demolish a woman's right to choose by degrees, as many states already are doing. Roe will not be overturned. It will be completely cored out and useless as practical law. This is another part of the conservative project that will not stop if and when this administration* is sent packing. And Brett Kavanaugh is 54 years old.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29370417/ron-johnson-ukraine-aid-donald-trump/



And here's the analysis:



Here's How We Know the Supreme Court Is Preparing to Devastate Abortion Rights

There's no other reason for the justices to take up the Louisiana abortion case.



By Mark Joseph Stern





The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear June Medical Services v. Gee, a challenge to Louisiana's stringent abortion restrictions. There is very little doubt that the conservative majority will use this case to overrule 2016's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, allowing states to regulate abortion clinics out of existence. In the process, the Republican-appointed justices will set the stage for the formal reversal of Roe v. Wade. The court's decision to hear June Medical Services came with the alarming announcement that it will also consider whether to strip doctors of their ability to contest abortion laws in court. These aggressive moves augur an impending demise of the constitutional right to abortion access.



Perhaps the most important thing to know about this case is that it shouldn't be at the Supreme Court at all. It revolves around a Louisiana law that compels abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. In Whole Woman's Health, the justices addressed a virtually identical statute passed in Texas. It found that this requirement provided no health benefit to women. The court explained that an abortion law violates the Constitution if the burdens it imposes on patients outweigh the benefits. Because Texas' admitting privileges law provided no benefits, the court struck it down as an “undue burden.”



In light of this precedent, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should've made quick work of the Louisiana law. As the court was considering the case, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the bench. Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote in Whole Woman's Health, would be replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, a vocal foe of abortion rights.



Following Kennedy's retirement, the 5th Circuit defied Whole Woman's Health. The court ruled that admitting privileges actually benefited women by performing a “credentialing function,” and accused Louisiana doctors of having “sat on their hands” instead of trying to get these privileges. Moreover, even though the law would indisputably put some abortion providers out of business, another doctor could simply perform hundreds of extra abortions each year to pick up the slack. (Just one doctor in the entire state could continue to operate under the law.) Women would have to wait longer for the procedure, the 5th Circuit held, but that burden would not be unconstitutional.



All of this analysis is dead wrong. No Louisiana doctors “sat on their hands”; they were denied admitting privileges because nearby hospitals opposed abortion. More importantly, admitting privileges do not provide a “real” benefit to women, as the 5th Circuit claimed. They are, as the Supreme Court ruled, useless for patients. Since the Louisiana law imposed a significant burden on women by reducing abortion providers and increasing wait times—without providing any countervailing benefits—it is plainly impermissible under Whole Woman's Health.



Because the 5th Circuit refused to adhere to binding precedent, Louisiana's abortion providers asked the Supreme Court to step in and block the law. It agreed to do so—but only by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the court should allow the law to take effect and force the doctors to seek admitting privileges once again. His opinion was a rejection of Whole Woman's Health, dismissing the reality that Louisiana, like Texas before it, was trying to shutter clinics, not help women.



Given Kavanaugh's refusal to abide by precedent, the outcome of June Medical Services likely depends upon Roberts. It is true that the chief justice voted to block the law while the clinics appealed to SCOTUS. But his vote is best understood as a reminder to lower courts that they cannot flout liberal precedent just because Kennedy is off the bench. Roberts did not want the 5th Circuit to overturn Whole Woman's Health on its own—only the Supreme Court can reverse its own precedent. But Roberts dissented in Whole Woman's Health. And when the case comes squarely before him, he will probably follow his conservative instincts, overturn or hollow out Whole Woman's Health, and allow states to impose draconian regulations on abortion providers that obligate clinics to shut their door.



The clearest indication of Roberts' vote is the fact that the court scheduled June Medical Services for oral arguments. When an appeal presents no new question of law and is clearly resolved by precedent, SCOTUS sometimes issues per curiam summary decisions. That means the justices affirm or reverse a lower court ruling without oral arguments through a brief, unsigned order. They prefer to issue these decisions when six justices sign on, but that's not a rule, and the court has issued 5–4 summary reversals before.



Given that Whole Woman's Health obviously bars Louisiana's law, the Supreme Court should have issued a summary reversal in June Medical Services. Roberts could have joined the liberal justices once again to remind the 5th Circuit that it must still adhere to abortion precedent in a post-Kennedy world. The fact that he did not suggests that he is not prepared to reverse the 5th Circuit. Indeed, it raises the strong possibility that the chief justice is eager to overturn Whole Woman's Health altogether.



There is another ominous sign in Friday's order. When the court took on a challenge to the Louisiana law, it also agreed to hear Louisiana's challenge to the plaintiffs' standing. In almost every abortion case, clinics and doctors sue on behalf of their patients. The Supreme Court approved this practice 43 years ago, and for good reason: It would be cruel to force a pregnant woman to file a lawsuit in pursuit of an abortion, and clinics have a close relationship with patients, placing them in an excellent position to represent their interests. Now Louisiana wants SCOTUS to reverse more than four decades of precedent, compelling women to sue for themselves. The state argues that patients' interests actually conflict with clinics' because patients should want the so-called health and safety regulations that clinics resist.



T.J. Tu—an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the Louisiana clinics—told me on Friday that the consequences of abolishing clinic standing would be “radical and devastating.” Flagrantly illegal abortion restrictions would go unchallenged because no woman would want to march into court demanding a right to terminate her pregnancy.



“As a practical matter,” Tu said, “many women will not have the resources or the capability to bring these cases, even when the state is running roughshod over their rights. Women seeking an abortion already have to jump through so many hoops, like waiting periods and biased counseling. They cannot be expected to mount a legal challenge in order to exercise a constitutional right.”



Tu pointed out that stripping clinics of the right to sue would also have a “destabilizing effect on abortion jurisprudence.” Almost every other major abortion case aside from Roe was brought by doctors and clinics. “If the court said none of those plaintiffs ever had standing, what does that mean?” Tu asked. “Does the court take a body of abortion jurisprudence and say, ‘Never mind'? It would call all those cases into question.” Put differently, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether to overrule the foundation of modern abortion law, reaffirmed as recently as Whole Woman's Health.



If the majority takes that leap, it is only another short step toward overturning Roe altogether. If states can close every abortion clinic within their borders under the pretext of safety regulations, the right to abortion will exist in theory, not fact. Most if not all red states will promptly pass pseudo–health laws that make it impossible for doctors to perform legal abortions. Once abortion is effectively outlawed in much of the country, the conservative majority can conclude that abortion precedent is unworkable and unjustifiable and formally eradicate the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. We may soon remember June Medical Services as the beginning of the end of Roe.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-roe-v-wade.html

Fman99
Oct 06 2019 08:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Rule by the 38%. What a motherfucker this all is.

Edgy MD
Oct 07 2019 09:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Pennsylvania Polling of Likely Voters from Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus



Warren: 43%

Trump: 41%

------------

Warren +2



Sanders: 44%

Trump: 42%

------------

Sanders +2



Biden: 45%

Trump: 41%

------------

Biden +4



These polls were taken almost a month ago, September 7-9, and a lot has happened since then: The president has been placed under an impeachment inquiry, Senator Sanders has had a major health crisis, and Vice President Biden has been implicated in a scandal that may or may not stick to him.



Pennysylvania is what I watch closely, because (a) it is one of four battleground states that could swing this, and (b) her polling usually tracks close to national polling. Whether that needle moves and by how much is a big deal to me. I have my concerns about Senator Warren's electibility, as his candidacy against her will be repeating two labels over and over: "Pocahantas" and "socialist," and the president has flourished with weaker namecalling/labeling campaigns than those.



I have my concerns about the vulnerability of virtually all of them, frankly.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 07 2019 10:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump will go after any of them, but what concerns me is Biden's weak response to Trump's attacks. I mean, it's complete bullshit and Biden should be dragging the Trump kids through the mud, because there's plenty there. The problem is that Hunter Biden traded off his father's name. It's not corruption per se, but it has the appearance. Meanwhile, Trump's kids are running the golf resorts that he's steering presidential visits to, and nobody seems to think THAT's a scandal.



I really expected Biden to come out swinging, and he didn't (I would have if he came after my son). That and the magical unicorn belief that there are rational Republicans in Washington just puzzle me.



Bernie's heart attack is going to steer some of his supporters to Warren- I can't see how it doesn't. Trump will double down on Pocahontas, but he'll have to come up with something better than that against her. He's pretty much fabricated the Biden 'scandal', so I expect he'll manufacture something. The 'Warren is having BDSM sex with a 24-year-old Marine' attempt fell flat, with Warren giving the 'Go Cougars' epic troll response.



Every candidate is vulnerable/unelectable until they win.

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 07 2019 12:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Clarence Thomas has an unspecified illness. Let's hope he hangs in there until there's a Democrat in the White House.

Edgy MD
Oct 07 2019 01:35 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Meanwhile, Trump's kids are running the golf resorts that he's steering presidential visits to, and nobody seems to think THAT's a scandal.


Oh, I wouldn't say "nobody."

Lefty Specialist
Oct 07 2019 01:59 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, I was being a little sarcastic. By 'Nobody' I meant 'No Republicans'.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 07 2019 02:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Who talks like this???



“If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey,” he tweeted.

kcmets
Oct 07 2019 02:28 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Who talks like this???

Who allows presidents to talk like that? It's fucking insane and it happens daily

and here we are approaching year four. Unfit for office, unsafe commander in chief,

'half' the country has zero confidence in his reasoning and still it goes on and and on...

Frayed Knot
Oct 07 2019 03:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Who talks like this???


An entitled teenager with an ego problem.

Edgy MD
Oct 07 2019 03:53 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Ozymandias.

whippoorwill
Oct 07 2019 05:30 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:
Who talks like this???

Who allows presidents to talk like that? It's fucking insane and it happens daily

and here we are approaching year four. Unfit for office, unsafe commander in chief,

'half' the country has zero confidence in his reasoning and still it goes on and and on...

And unfortunately ‘half' has 100 % confidence

Lefty Specialist
Oct 07 2019 06:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And he's setting up a Turkish genocide of the Syrian Kurds, who we were relying on to fight ISIS for us. This is the thanks they get.

Double Switch
Oct 07 2019 06:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

"President Trump was definitely out-negotiated and only endorsed the troop withdraw to make it look like we are getting something—but we are not getting something," the National Security Council source told Newsweek. "The U.S. national security has entered a state of increased danger for decades to come because the president has no spine and that's the bottom line."

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2019 07:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

"President Trump was definitely out-negotiated and only endorsed the troop withdraw to make it look like we are getting something—but we are not getting something," the National Security Council source told Newsweek. "The U.S. national security has entered a state of increased danger for decades to come because the president has no spine and that's the bottom line."


I'm sure this withdrawal from Syria has nothing to do with Trump's spinelessness and everything to do with his greed. I'd bet anything that this cocksucker scumbag who's disgracing the White House every single second that he's there is profiting off of this decision. Because money is the only thing that he understands.

MFS62
Oct 07 2019 07:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019


I'm sure this withdrawal from Syria has nothing to do with Trump's spinelessness and everything to do with his greed. I'd bet anything that this cocksucker scumbag who's disgracing the White House every single second that he's there is profiting off of this decision. Because money is the only thing that he understands.


Bingo! It IS about money.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/ap-sources-trump-allies-pressed-232824422.html

Later

Double Switch
Oct 07 2019 07:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Meanwhile, someone has hijacked Lindsey Graham and stolen his phone, posting anti-Trump tweets. Nah. As for what Trump "understands," it's when he has been p-whipped.

MFS62
Oct 07 2019 07:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

And some personal Trump money, Trump Towers in Istanbul.

And he admitted to a conflict of interest.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conflict-of-interest-donald-trump-syria-kurds-turkey-235239996.html



Later

MFS62
Oct 09 2019 06:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

tRump said the reason he's not helping the Kurds is because "They didn't help us at Normandy".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-withdrawal-explanation-syria-kurds-isis-europe-215740775.html



What an ignorant schmuck.

Later

Double Switch
Oct 09 2019 08:12 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump is a feral cat. What he doesn't know about how to save his own backside would fill a New York City phone book (if such a thing still exists). Roy Cohn did not instruct him about how to get out of Dodge with his skin intact, but only how to pretend he has "won." Roy Cohn is dead. Trump will soon be dead. Anyone still insisting that Trump was legally elected US president will find themselves simply howling at the moon. Politics usually moves oh, so slowly, but now it's pretty much at lightning speed. If Lindsey Graham has found a way to escape Trump's ... (oh, don't make me go there) and that Moscow Mitch is finding a way to clean the brown off his own nose, the end is nigh. If you still believe in the GOP, you need professional help. Feral cats hiss out of fright - that is what Twitter is: Cat hissings.



Listen to Barbara Res if you don't think I know jack. Barbara does.

kcmets
Oct 09 2019 08:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

One day, hopefully very soon, we'll wake up to hear the nice people in white coats

have come to take him in for a nice long restful reitirement.

Double Switch
Oct 09 2019 08:49 PM
Re: Politics 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fn36l_z3WY

LWFS
Oct 09 2019 09:48 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Y'all are adorable. You guys think this is someone with the dignity of Nixon or something?



67 senators, men.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 09 2019 10:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm so sick of hearing how Trump's Syria pull-out decision was made on a whim, and wasn't thought through. Because I'm not buying that analysis. This was a well thought out decision that came from Russia. Trump's a fucking Russian puppet and it's too bad I won't be alive 35 years from now to read what the historians will be writing about this cocksucker in the White House, far removed from the emotions and partisanship of today.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 10 2019 05:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Presidential decisions can be broken down into three categories:



1) It benefits Trump.

2) It benefits Russia.

3) It benefits Trump AND Russia.



The American people don't even enter into the equation.



That's all you need to know. Any time Trump does something, just ask "Who benefits?"

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 10 2019 07:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-obliteration.html



Section 2 is the linchpin of whatever's left of the Voting Rights Act. And it might be in the Supreme Court's crosshairs. Plus, with Justice Roberts and his lifelong hard-on to destroy the VRA, you know how this is gonna end. Without Section 2, the states will have free reign to voter suppress the shit out of every single minority. And Amy Klobuchar wants to restore the filibuster, to make it even harder for Dems to appoint judges.

ashie62
Oct 10 2019 08:43 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The "who benefits" from a decision answer is the same nearly every time



I'm actually giving Trump too much credit by calling them "decisions."

Johnny Lunchbucket
Oct 10 2019 08:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

2 Ukraine-connected Giuliani associates arrested on multiple campaign fraud charges

kcmets
Oct 10 2019 08:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This is huge. CNN is saying there's reports that Trump has met frequently

with these associates. More to come for sure...

Edgy MD
Oct 10 2019 09:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And gosh, bygolly, John Dowd is representing them.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 10 2019 09:33 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

And gosh, bygolly, John Dowd is representing them.








Not Henry Rothblatt?

Johnny Lunchbucket
Oct 10 2019 09:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Bloomy reporting today of pressures put on Tillerson to interfere in a different Rudy-related Ukraine criminal procedding that Erdogan wanted released

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 10 2019 09:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

Bloomy reporting today of pressures put on Tillerson to interfere in a different Rudy-related Ukraine criminal procedding that Erdogan wanted released


None of this surprises me in the least. I'm certain that if we knew everything about this scumbag president and his scumbag administration and his scumbag family, all of the goddamn secrets, I'd bet my life that they probably already committed hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of impeachable offenses and outright felony crimes. It's a walking criminal organization.

Edgy MD
Oct 10 2019 09:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Agreed. And how in the world can the administration field spin all of this when five outlets are breaking five separate stories?



One by one, as people get the sense that the administration is not going to survive, they'll each start talking, first off the record, then on, then under oath, perhaps eventually as part of a plea agreement. There could be hundreds of witnesses to criminality, some clean-ish and some filthy dirty, all spilling their guts at once.



This is like shit hitting the fan, but it's like a brontosaurus shit, and an industrial-sized fan.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 10 2019 10:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Two of Rudy Giuliani's Associates Were Just Arrested Because Trumpworld Is an Open Sewer



excerpt:


The breadth and depth of the corruption remains breathtaking. There was not a single element of the 2016 Trump campaign that wasn't an open sewer, and the involvement of Russian money with the Republican Party as a whole never has been fully investigated. Congratulations again to the Supreme Court—and to former Justice Anthony Kennedy, in particular—for leaving American elections open to being run like a disreputable frontier casino.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29426305/rudy-giuliani-associates-arrested-trump-ukraine/

kcmets
Oct 10 2019 12:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Arrest was pushed up because the two were fleeing the country. New report

says they lunched with Guliani hour before being arrested.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 10 2019 02:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Arrest was pushed up because the two were fleeing the country. New report

says they lunched with Guliani hour before being arrested.


Yup, they caught them at Dulles. Here they are in happier times, with three of their good friends.



https://images.dailykos.com/images/726450/story_image/crooks.png?1570734144>

Lefty Specialist
Oct 10 2019 02:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019

But wait! there's more!



https://images.dailykos.com/images/726447/large/parnas_and_igor_fruman.JPG?1570733399>



I see the name Igor Fruman and my first thought is "The Sausage King of Chicago?".

Fman99
Oct 10 2019 07:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lol made the same mental connection. "You're Igor Fruman?"

Lefty Specialist
Oct 11 2019 06:15 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Oh, snap.



https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1182468483906527232

Johnny Lunchbucket
Oct 11 2019 06:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:


Arrest was pushed up because the two were fleeing the country. New report

says they lunched with Guliani hour before being arrested.


Yup, they caught them at Dulles. Here they are in happier times, with three of their good friends.



https://images.dailykos.com/images/726450/story_image/crooks.png?1570734144>


You'll never guess who also had plans to be in Vienna this week.

Centerfield
Oct 11 2019 07:16 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Oh please oh please let Rudy Giuliani go to jail. Oh please oh please oh please.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 11 2019 09:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019

DC Circuit Upholds Democrats' Subpoena for Trump's Financial Records



In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel upheld the Democratic subpoena for Trump's records from his private accounting firm Mazars.



Goes to the Supremes now. If they decline to take it up, things may get interesting.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 11 2019 09:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Oct 11 2019 09:40 AM

Lefty Specialist wrote:

DC Circuit Upholds Democrats' Subpoena for Trump's Financial Records



In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel upheld the Democratic subpoena for Trump's records from his private accounting firm Mazars.



Goes to the Supremes now. If they decline to take it up, things may get interesting.


Coincidentally, or not coincidentally, the 2-1 decision broke along partisan lines. The two judges in the majority were appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama. The lone dissenter was a Trump appointee, which means she's likely a batshit crazy wingnut, to boot. One of the majority voting judges then wrote a second opinion, blasting the dissenter's opinion which, if you read the whole thing and are at least open-minded about this, you will find is illogical and absurd.

Edgy MD
Oct 11 2019 09:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Hey, man, we spun off an in-impeachment thread. This is the Tulsi Gabbard thread or something.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 15 2019 09:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

https://i.imgur.com/jsK2OYT.jpg>

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 15 2019 09:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/jsK2OYT.jpg>


If the Dems can't take back the White House next year on this issue alone, then they're pathetic, which they probably are anyway, or the election is rigged and ratfucked. Which is what I was thinking anyways because the way I figure things, Trump's decision to pull out of Syria could not have made without Russia's blessing, and even more, without it's insistence. And Russia's not gonna do anything to severely jeopardize Trump's chance at reelection. So Russia must be feeling pretty confident that the 2020 election is in the bag. Which wouldn't shock me in the least.

Double Switch
Oct 15 2019 10:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019


If the Dems can't take back the White House next year on this issue alone, then they're pathetic, which they probably are anyway, or the election is rigged and ratfucked.


Using your reasoning, it's "the Dems" (whoever they may be) who are the problem here because they are pathetic. What is your opinion of the millions of brainwashed minions who identify as Republican and voted for Trump in spite of all the decades of proof he is incompetent? How is this "the Dems" fault? I have to wonder about your logic process just as I wonder about the mindlessness of Trump voters.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 15 2019 12:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:


If the Dems can't take back the White House next year on this issue alone, then they're pathetic, which they probably are anyway, or the election is rigged and ratfucked.


Using your reasoning, it's "the Dems" (whoever they may be) who are the problem here because they are pathetic. What is your opinion of the millions of brainwashed minions who identify as Republican and voted for Trump in spite of all the decades of proof he is incompetent? How is this "the Dems" fault? I have to wonder about your logic process just as I wonder about the mindlessness of Trump voters.


Because it's the Dems job to get their message out. Because politics is beyond ruthless. So the Dems should understand the climate they're operating in and act accordingly. They don't. Because the GOP seems to always be thinking 10 moves ahead while the Dems are two steps behind because they only react to the GOP instead of anticipating what the GOP might do.



You seem to think the electorate is dumb? Guess what. I agree with you. That's because most people are dumb. (Not this board. This is a smart forum. ) So the Dems should use that to their advantage. The GOP does.

whippoorwill
Oct 15 2019 12:10 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Or because there is no logic anymore

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 15 2019 12:15 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Double Switch wrote:


If the Dems can't take back the White House next year on this issue alone, then they're pathetic, which they probably are anyway, or the election is rigged and ratfucked.


Using your reasoning, it's "the Dems" (whoever they may be) who are the problem here because they are pathetic. What is your opinion of the millions of brainwashed minions who identify as Republican and voted for Trump in spite of all the decades of proof he is incompetent? How is this "the Dems" fault? I have to wonder about your logic process just as I wonder about the mindlessness of Trump voters.


Because it's the Dems job to get their message out. Because politics is beyond ruthless. So the Dems should understand the climate they're operating in and act accordingly. They don't. Because the GOP seems to always be thinking 10 moves ahead while the Dems are two steps behind because they only react to the GOP instead of anticipating what the GOP might do.



You seem to think the electorate is dumb? Guess what. I agree with you. That's because most people are dumb. (Not this board. This is a smart forum. ) So the Dems should use that to their advantage. The GOP does.


That and a terribly flawed and undemocratic system of voting where we have the electoral college and California, population like England's, gets the same two senators that Wyoming, population smaller than Brooklyn's does. Conservatives and gun rights advocates and abortion foes and yes, Republicans are all in the minority.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 15 2019 01:06 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The solution is to turn out more of us than them in enough states to garner 270 electoral votes. And sweep away a few Republican senators in the process. This is why I'm in no rush for them to finish the impeachment hearings. They're gold, Jerry, GOLD! Let them carry into the new year. Let Trump's obstruction wither as more and more people see they need to save themselves rather than him. The more comes out, the worse he looks.



I know you have the 37% of dead-enders that'll vote for Trump if he pulls down Vlad's pants and gives him a big old smooch on the butt. Democrats shouldn't waste their time on those people. What they should spend their time on is making sure their people can vote and get them to the polls. Voter ID and all the other hoops the GOP makes people jump through CAN BE BEATEN. It makes voting more difficult, but not impossible. Eric Holder and Stacy Abrams are working on that as we speak. Going 'woe is me' about rigging an election doesn't help, and rigging the next election is why Trump's in the docket right now. Russian Facebook trolls are a bigger threat than voter ID rules.



By the way, check and see if your voting rights are intact here: https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/





Also, population of England - 55.6 million. Population of California- 39.5 million. But the point stands. (Wyoming has 577,000).

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 15 2019 01:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:





Also, population of England - 55.6 million. Population of California- 39.5 million. But the point stands. (Wyoming has 577,000).


California's population is about the same as the combined population of the 22 least populous United States. But while California sends two senators to the US Senate, those 22 states send 44. And because the least populous states tend to be the smallest, the most rural and, well, least populated, the overwhelming majority of those states are red.

Double Switch
Oct 15 2019 01:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Or because there is no logic anymore


This resonates.



I do not think the electorate is dumb. Blamecasting solves nothing. It's Trumpian. No matter what happens, Trump blames. That's his "go to." Part of my preference for Democrats is they mostly don't play the blame/deflect game. They expect intelligence from their voters and so do I. Intelligence relies on education and, as is proven daily, Republicans abhor education.

Ceetar
Oct 15 2019 02:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

The solution is to turn out more of us than them in enough states to garner 270 electoral votes.




This feels like the democrat's "plan" and that's basically his point.



The Republicans have set up the system and beaten down the people to the point that some of them are afraid to go to the bathroom during their shift working for Amazon, and you want them to find their way to a poll where it may be understaffed, it may be hard to get to, it may not have great hours, and they may not be able to vote early.



But just go out and vote!



yeah, sure.

whippoorwill
Oct 15 2019 03:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I am becoming heavily involved in our local Democratic Party and we are pushing voter registration.

My fear is that they'll all vote republican because that's the new norm here (where I live)



We were blue for years so I don't know what happened

Willets Point
Oct 16 2019 09:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

My grandfather - a lifelong Democrat and union leader from Schuylkill County - must've been rolling in his grave when 70% of his hometown vote for Trump. Of course, 80% of the people who once lived there moved on to someplace else.

LWFS
Oct 16 2019 08:42 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I thought the letter to Erdogan was so bizarre, it had to be a well-turned parody.



Apparently, I wasn't the only one.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 17 2019 07:33 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And apparently Erdogan immediately threw it in the trash. Probably after a good chuckle with his henchmen.



https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/10/17/turkeys-president-threw-trumps-insane-threatening-letter-in-the-trash-bbc-reports/

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 17 2019 10:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Scumbag grifters and brazen violations of the Emoluments Clause, Exhibit 37,045:



Trump awards next year's G7 Summit world meeting to his own struggling Doral Rssort in Miami Beach.


This appears to be the first time in American history that a president has given such a massive contract to himself. Trump still owns the Doral resort, and can draw profits from it, though his company has said they will not over-charge the government.



The G-7 Summit rotates between sites chosen by the seven member countries, as well as by the European Union. The last time it was held in the U.S., in 2012, President Obama held it at the government-owned retreat at Camp David in Maryland. Before that, President George W. Bush held it at the exclusive, isolated resort of Sea Island, Ga. in 2004.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 17 2019 11:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, at least they're not over-charging, so there's that.



Hope President Pence can get some golf in.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 17 2019 11:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Well, at least they're not over-charging, so there's that.




They won't overcharge. Sure they won't. They're gonna fucking gouge the shit out of everyone like airports and the Mets do. Times 10.

Ceetar
Oct 17 2019 11:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

the membership at marolago or whatever that place is went up like 400% right? Given that you get to overhear state secrets by having membership, might be underpriced.

Double Switch
Oct 17 2019 12:19 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Hope President Pence can get some golf in.


Pence caddies while Mommy Pence swings the clubs.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 17 2019 12:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Elizabeth Warren doesn't fuck around and isn't gonna go for these insulting explanations as if we're all stupid.




"This is corruption, plain and simple," tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the Democratic presidential candidates in response to Trump awarding the next G7 to his Doral resort.

MFS62
Oct 17 2019 12:57 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The press release said that they "looked at other places and this won".

As a taxpayer, I'd like to know what other places and what rates (food, accommodations, access, security) those other places offered. Isn't it the job of the GAO (Government Accounting Office) to audit things like that? (That was a self-answering question)

Later

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 17 2019 01:09 PM
Re: Politics 2019

They probably checked out a local Wendy's and determined that it didn't seat enough people.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 17 2019 01:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So, we've reached the inevitable stage of "Yeah, we did it. So what?"



Mulvaney Acknowledges Quid Pro Quo In Trump Ukraine Call, Says ‘Get Over It'

The acting White House chief of staff told reporters, “We do that all the time,” when asked about withholding aid for political help.



Manu Raju Verified account @mkraju



Leaving the closed Sondland deposition, Adam Schiff told us of Mulvaney's comments: “I think Mr Mulvaney's acknowledgement means that things have gone from very very bad to much much worse.”



He declined to answer further questions including whether he wants to speak to Mulvaney.

11:13 AM - 17 Oct 2019

Lefty Specialist
Oct 18 2019 03:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And hilariously, an hour later puts out a statement that he didn't say [I]what everybody in the room and a national TV audience saw him say.[/I]

Edgy MD
Oct 18 2019 06:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

That's hard to do when the reporter asked you if he's correctly understanding your admission and you repeat yourself.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 18 2019 07:15 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So what are the boundaries for the most corrupt president in US history if the GOP controlled Senate won't remove him? If Trump is openly inviting foreign countries to dig up dirt on his political opponents, then he'll do everything he can to let Russia ratfuck the 2020 elections. Which he's surely doing as we speak or as I write. He has the power. And the scumbag GOP wants the elections to be rigged in their favor, anyways, even if it's cheating. Their whole operation is based, in key part, on rigging elections.



Sure, it'd be nice if the impeachment process at least sways the electorate against Trump. But so what if the election is rigged in Trump's favor?

Ceetar
Oct 18 2019 07:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Then you get four more years of democrats saying stuff like "we'll work through this. just vote. He can't run again." until 2022 when he says "I'm gonna run again, you need me" and they whine about it but do nothing and then he's elected again in America's final election in 2024.

Centerfield
Oct 18 2019 08:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

General James Mattis:




"I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor."




Hypocrisy is so blatant on the right that it hardly matters anymore, but every conservative should have to answer to why they are siding with the draft dodger over the four-star general.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 18 2019 08:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Jesus H. Christ, the scumbag is a dumbed down version of Colonel Kurtz operating in Cambodia without any restraints.

Edgy MD
Oct 18 2019 08:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=whippoorwill post_id=24475 time=1571173341 user_id=79]
I am becoming heavily involved in our local Democratic Party and we are pushing voter registration.



Good for you.



What am I saying? GREAT for you.

Edgy MD
Oct 18 2019 09:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24687 time=1571404519 user_id=68]
So what are the boundaries for the most corrupt president in US history if the GOP controlled Senate won't remove him? If Trump is openly inviting foreign countries to dig up dirt on his political opponents, then he'll do everything he can to let Russia ratfuck the 2020 elections. Which he's surely doing as we speak or as I write. He has the power. And the scumbag GOP wants the elections to be rigged in their favor, anyways, even if it's cheating. Their whole operation is based, in key part, on rigging elections.



Sure, it'd be nice if the impeachment process at least sways the electorate against Trump. But so what if the election is rigged in Trump's favor?



The red line is surely not an ethical or legal one, but rather it's the moment at which they come to an understanding that supporting him hurts them more than it helps them, and suspect that dynamic will remain in place in November 2020.



Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), given several tries, couldn't answer a simple question about whether it's wrong for a precedent to solicit the help of a foreign leader to aid his campaign. She's down nine points. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) had the same speech impediment, and he's down 3 points.



Senator Ernst's disapproval rating is now four points higher than her approval rating in her home state, and the big drop is among Republicans. Senator Ernst may be below water, but she's not lonely, joined down there by Senators Gardner, Martha McSally of Arizona, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, all Republicans.



And, surprisingly (at least at some level) the most vulnerable Democrats have crept up, with Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan up one point and Doug Jones of Alabama up three. Keep the heat on. Keep campaigning at the grass roots.



As Machiavellian as Senator McConnell has behaved to this point, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't abandon the president if it meant saving his majority. I have trouble imagining that he actually likes the guy.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 18 2019 09:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I know what you're saying. But it's a catch-22. Because if the GOP comes down hard enough on Trump to remove him, they end up, deservedly so, hurting their own party and undermining, probably killing their chances of winning next year's presidential election. It's not just their own skins those senators are out to save, it's the party's.



Meanwhile .... Kill the filibuster, Dems? Check! Pack the courts, Dems? Check. It looks like Charley Pierce is on board.



Excerpt:








This same kind of thing happened Tuesday night, when Senator Professor Warren found herself bullyragged for a yes-or-no answer on whether her Medicare For All plan will "raise taxes on the middle class." .... the question itself is idiotic.



In the first place, you can't ask that question without defining what the "middle class" really is, and nobody has seen fit to do that yet. In the second place, and this is the real kick in the head, none of the plans proposed by any of the candidates on stage Tuesday night has a snowball's chance in Qatar of becoming law as long as Republicans control the Senate, as long as Mitch McConnell remains in the Senate, and as long as John Roberts is across the street, playing shortstop. Also, not as long as money rules the Congress and the rules of the Senate remain the same.



All of them—Medicare For All, Medicare For Some, Medicare For Me, You, And Uncle Fud—are ... pipe dreams. What about a public option, you ask? How'd that work out for Barack Obama? And the Democrats had a brief working majority in the Congress when that sank without a trace, thanks to Republican intransigence and Joe Lieberman's love for Connecticut's insurance companies. Without, dare I say it, big, structural change, meaning at least the death of the filibuster and (arguably) some adjustment to the Supreme Court, both of which Warren is open to considering, nobody has a viable healthcare plan. And everybody on that stage knew it. (emphasis added)


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29503677/elizabeth-warren-middle-class-tax-medicare-for-all/

Edgy MD
Oct 18 2019 09:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think Majority Leader McConnell would rather save his majority than the president's presidency.



In fact, I think if there was 25th Amendment talk around the cabinet, his wife would sign on in a hot minute.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 18 2019 09:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I think Majority Leader McConnell would rather save his majority than the president's presidency.






You might be right. McConnell can practically shut down the Democratic presidency with a senate majority. And also Merrick Garland (verb) Ruth Bader Ginsburg and every other vacancy in the judiciary.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 18 2019 09:52 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

I think Majority Leader McConnell would rather save his majority than the president's presidency.






You might be right. McConnell can practically shut down the Democratic presidency with a senate majority. And also Merrick Garland (verb) Ruth Bader Ginsburg and every other vacancy in the judiciary.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 18 2019 10:57 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Mitch may want to save his Senate majority, but he's pretty far down the rabbit hole with both Trump and the Russians. I think Senate Republicans are deer in the headlights right now. They don't know what to say, especially since Mulvaney admitted to holding up money appropriated by Congress for political ends, then announced what Judge Napolitano on Fox called “about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create.”



Given that double-whammy, if I were a Republican Senator I'd be hiding in my office.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 24 2019 07:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

This is a, well, expansive view of presidential immunity.....



President Trump cannot be prosecuted even if he shoots someone, lawyer claims

Trump's own attorney asserts in court that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution while in office



https://www.salon.com/2019/10/23/president-trump-cannot-be-prosecuted-even-if-he-shoots-someone-lawyer-claims/

MFS62
Oct 24 2019 08:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

We realize he doesn't know anything about the Constitution. But apparently he also doesn't know anything about the Geography of the country of which he is President:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-building-wall-colorado-222136976.html

Later

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 24 2019 09:13 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I really think we need to amend the Constitution to add more clarity to what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, and also to specify that a President can in fact be indicted and prosecuted and convicted if he or she breaks the law.

Centerfield
Oct 24 2019 10:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I really think we need to amend the Constitution to add more clarity to what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, and also to specify that a President can in fact be indicted and prosecuted and convicted if he or she breaks the law.


I agree with this. But in this environment it really doesn't matter what it says. The Republicans will just do what they want anyway. Everyone agrees that it is wholly improper to ask a foreign government to influence an election for your personal gain. And there is overwhelming evidence that this happened. But the Republicans are just pretending it isn't the case.



"I understand that there is video of Donald Trump shooting the man on Fifth Avenue, but you have to understand, reducing congestion has always been a priority for this President. And I commend him for that. Anyone who doesn't think overcrowding in our cities is an issue doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't a good Christian."

Lefty Specialist
Oct 24 2019 10:48 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, no matter how clear the law was, Trump would find a way to break it. And he controls a Justice department who would refuse to prosecute, and courts who would find him innocent. Of course none of this applies to a Democratic president.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 24 2019 10:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Of course none of this applies to a Democratic president.


Yeah, because so long as the GOP has the White House and is in control, it'll be legal for a sitting Prssident to shoot somebody dead on 5th Avenue. Wanna know what the GOP sez a President can't do? Lie about a blowjob he got from an adult who consented.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 24 2019 11:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Lefty Specialist wrote:
Of course none of this applies to a Democratic president.


Yeah, because so long as the GOP has the White House and is in control, it'll be legal for a sitting Prssident to shoot somebody dead on 5th Avenue. Wanna know what the GOP sez a President can't do? Lie about a blowjob he got from an adult who consented.


I bet Donnie has gotten more of those in the White House than Bill ever did. (cough)Hope Hicks(cough)

Lefty Specialist
Oct 24 2019 12:49 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Tim Ryan dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination today, disappointing his supporter.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 30 2019 11:07 AM
Re: Politics 2019

IT WAS MURDER!



Renowned pathologist and forensics examiner Michael Baden says examination of Jeffrey Epstein's corpse points to homicide, not suicide.





https://nypost.com/2019/10/30/famed-pathologist-michael-baden-says-jeffrey-epsteins-death-was-homicide/

Lefty Specialist
Nov 01 2019 06:12 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Booing Voldemort at the Triwizard Tournament Demonstrates Hogwarts' Lack of Civil Discourse

by Steve Mullaney





Politics is a complicated endeavor and there are many different points of view — all of which are equally acceptable. Within our wizardry community, there are some who back the racist and violent policies of Lord Voldemort. There are others who are opposed to child kidnapping and racist violence. These viewpoints are equally acceptable to hold — and, if anything, those who are opposed to Lord Voldemort's political movement should do a better job of trying to understand the economic anxieties of his followers.



At the recent Triwizard Tournament, the anti-Voldemort movement demonstrated a lack of tolerance when they booed Voldemort as he appeared on the Jumbotron. Booing a psychopath who aspires to create a fascist ethno-state is uncivil and therefore wrong. There is a time and a place for everything. A sporting event is sacrosanct and definitively not the time to protest violence, racism, and corruption. Additional times that are also unacceptable to protest include before, during and after the atrocities that Lord Voldemort is perpetrating. Furthermore, it is also unacceptable to use wizardry to pause time to protest Lord Voldemort within suspended animation. I am, of course, in favor of peaceful protest — as long as it does not exist within linear or non-linear time.



Some people may claim that Lord Voldemort's near-constant rallies featuring calls to imprison, deport and incite violence against his political opponents are uncivil. Other people may say the actions taken by Lord Voldemort and his followers to enact his plans to imprison, deport and incite violence against his political opponents are uncivil. Both groups are wrong. The only thing that is truly uncivil is the act of booing Lord Voldemort as he appeared on the Jumbotron at a Triwizard Tournament. The act of booing may have hurt the feelings of Lord Voldemort. The act of booing may have also hurt the feelings of those who support imprisonment, deportation, and violence towards those different than themselves. As previously stated, kidnapping children from their parents and then sending them to Azkaban is a morally neutral political issue. Some people support child kidnapping and imprisonment, others are opposed to child kidnapping and imprisonment. We should not make the supporters of child kidnapping and imprisonment feel bad about holding that political opinion. Which, again, is morally neutral.



If Hogwarts wishes to reclaim the mantle of civil discourse, then it must immediately condemn any actions that make anyone feel uncomfortable at any time for any reason — specifically, supporters of Lord Voldemort. The Triwizard Tournament is our national pastime — we should all be able to enjoy the games after a long day's work, whether it's drafting and enacting policies that permanently traumatize children fleeing violence or accounting. As much as we would not want to live in a world where accountants were booed at Triwizard Tournaments just because they are accountants, we should also not want to live in a world where political leaders were booed for locking hundreds of children in cages and then denying them toothpaste. Civil discourse, at its root, means that nobody should ever feel shame or embarrassment for their political opinions because all political opinions are neutral and equal.



The Triwizard Tournament has the power to bring us all together: Lord Voldemort and his supporters with those opposed to Lord Voldemort who have yet to be imprisoned, detained, or murdered. Fortunately, this can all be solved by completely de-contextualizing Lord Voldemort from anything he has ever said or done and re-framing him as a purely neutral figure who should be met with polite applause at all times. Now, PLAAAAAAAY QUIDDITCH!

Lefty Specialist
Nov 01 2019 07:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The stupid is powerful with this one.



https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1189722490819481600

MFS62
Nov 01 2019 07:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Even Baron thinks that's dumb.

Later

Benjamin Grimm
Nov 01 2019 10:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Wow, is it at all possible to be less self aware?

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 01 2019 11:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not surprised. This guy has shown himself to be just about the dumbest guy in the public eye. I don't think he's ever said anything publicly that wasn't outright moronic. Sometimes I feel sorry for the guy. There's the money and the power and the masters of the universe connections but still, it can't be the greatest thing in the world to have been raised by his father.

Edgy MD
Nov 01 2019 11:25 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Wow, is it at all possible to be less self aware?


Does he realize Joe Biden has never had a presidency?

Willets Point
Nov 01 2019 01:43 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The Trump family, and more generally the Republican movement of the past 30-40 years, are a case study in psychological projection.

Ceetar
Nov 01 2019 05:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

He's as dumb as all the voters. It's literally someone up high saying "this is the talking point" and he just parrots it with no thought. the russian bots have more intelligence.

MFS62
Nov 01 2019 05:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:

The Trump family, and more generally the Republican movement of the past 30-40 years, are a case study in psychological projection.


That explains a lot.

Thanks.

Later

Double Switch
Nov 01 2019 06:03 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:
psychological projection.


This from the first line in that explanation is something, when I encounter it, always leaves me speechless: "... a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude." I'm never quick enough to answer in kind, but then later I assume my stunned silence might have been sufficient. ... or not.



There is no doubt, of course, that between Eric and Donnie Jr, it's difficult to differentiate between Dumb and Dumber. I note that, of late, Ivanka has been MIA, so therefore avoiding being "complicit" again. In the end, it may prove out that Tiffany has the brains (if only from Marla's side and one must wonder about her astuteness as well) and that most of what goes on seems to sail completely over the head of young Barron. But by no means does this mean they are unscathed.

Edgy MD
Nov 01 2019 08:38 PM
Re: Politics 2019

So, it's not going to be President O'Rourke any time soon.

Double Switch
Nov 01 2019 08:41 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

So, it's not going to be President O'Rourke any time soon.


Not only that, he refuses to run for John Cornyn's Senate seat. Pity.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 02 2019 03:55 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Double Switch wrote:

Edgy MD wrote:

So, it's not going to be President O'Rourke any time soon.


Not only that, he refuses to run for John Cornyn's Senate seat. Pity.


Beto blew any chance pf the Senate seat when he started talking about confiscating AR-15s and taxing churches. That's not going to fly in Texas. Probably better he stays out at this point.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Nov 02 2019 06:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I liked Beto more when he talked about confiscating guns than when he wasn't but you're right it was kind of a near-term political suicide. I'm hopeful that wouldn't necessarily poison him for the future though, and it would be nice if he could get elected to something.



Does Julian Castro inherit some of Beto's support? He scraped in on funding for the next round of debates this week

Double Switch
Nov 02 2019 11:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Double Switch wrote:

Edgy MD wrote:

So, it's not going to be President O'Rourke any time soon.


Not only that, he refuses to run for John Cornyn's Senate seat. Pity.


Beto blew any chance pf the Senate seat when he started talking about confiscating AR-15s and taxing churches. That's not going to fly in Texas. Probably better he stays out at this point.


Sadly, the entire state of Texas bears the broad-brush title of total gun-worshiping wingnuts. Beto must be the only exception.

Edgy MD
Nov 02 2019 05:33 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm not crazy about Castro, as he looks a little shifty to me. That's, of course, an observation of the very least substance.



But on the other hand, he'd be the first president with an identical twin. Think of the hyjinx!!

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 04 2019 07:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Jamal Khashoggi shocker. Arrest! Approval! The Turks taped the call and blackmailed Trump! The scandal of the century if it were anybody else.





https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7646171/Jared-Kushner-greenlit-arrest-Jamal-Khashoggi-phone-call-Saudi-Prince.html

Lefty Specialist
Nov 04 2019 11:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Jamal Khashoggi shocker. Arrest! Approval! The Turks taped the call and blackmailed Trump! The scandal of the century if it were anybody else.





https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7646171/Jared-Kushner-greenlit-arrest-Jamal-Khashoggi-phone-call-Saudi-Prince.html


He's capable of being blackmailed by half a dozen countries at least.

MFS62
Nov 04 2019 07:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

He's capable of being blackmailed by half a dozen countries at least.


We want the "pee tapes"! NOW!

Later

Double Switch
Nov 04 2019 07:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Jamal Khashoggi shocker. Arrest! Approval! The Turks taped the call and blackmailed Trump! The scandal of the century if it were anybody else.





https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7646171/Jared-Kushner-greenlit-arrest-Jamal-Khashoggi-phone-call-Saudi-Prince.html


Since it's Trump, it's just another Monday in the USA. Thanks for this, which I read thoroughly, and have added Daily Mail to my list of news sources.

Edgy MD
Nov 04 2019 08:08 PM
Re: Politics 2019

During a campaign rally in Kentucky Monday night, Republican Sen. Rand Paul demanded that the media reveal the identity of the anonymous whistleblower who raised concerns about President Trump's phone with Ukraine, sparking the impeachment inquiry.


Libertarianism.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 05 2019 06:39 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The lasting impact of Trump is that there will always be a significant portion of the American people who are willing to believe DOWN is UP as long as it irritates liberals.



The whistleblower's already been outed in right-wing circles. Trump knows exactly who it is. His lawyers have gotten death threats. But they want everybody to know so that they can intimidate any future whistleblowers. It's all part of the fascism. As is, "Yeah, there was a quid pro quo. So what?"



And we're still a year away from the election. Things are going to get more terrifying and unhinged. He'll escape removal by the Senate and declare war on his enemies, because he'll be unbound by any limits. It's kind of why I don't mind impeachment dragging out into 2020; it's one of the few things that are preventing him from being any worse. Once the spectre of impeachment and removal is eliminated, he will not care about the consequences. He'll call up Vlad on speaker phone and ask for help directly. What are they going to do, impeach him again?



This has always been the downside to impeachment. Whatever doesn't kill him makes him stronger.

Ceetar
Nov 05 2019 07:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

This has always been the downside to impeachment. Whatever doesn't kill him makes him stronger.


Sure, but you can't unimpeach him either, and there's not really a word for 'not removed by the senate' so, hopefully, the message can constantly "we can't allow an impeached president to do this" and "an impeached president doesn't have that power"



it won't be, because democrats can't find that explicitly in a rulebook.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 05 2019 08:09 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Because it isn't in the rulebook. There are no restrictions on an impeached but not convicted president, just like a bank robber who's indicted but not convicted. He walks free.

Ceetar
Nov 05 2019 08:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Because it isn't in the rulebook. There are no restrictions on an impeached but not convicted president, just like a bank robber who's indicted but not convicted. He walks free.


Yes, but certain traitors invented a "nah, we can't vote on that SC justice because I said so" rule and we just went with it. Push the fucking message a little bit no? People started seriously considering booting all trans people from the military cause the pedophile tweeted it. Democrats/etc can at least try to be a little forceful about "impeached presidents can't do that" to this sort of nonsense.

seawolf17
Nov 05 2019 10:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

There is no rulebook because (a) he doesn't care, and (b) neither do the unhinged shitbags in the Senate who are getting richer by the day because he's completely fucking insane.



The sane two-thirds of the country can say whatever we want but nothing changes unless they are out of office. And as much as that starts today, there's a LOT of time between now and next November for everything to completely catch fire.



There is no way he leaves office peacefully, regardless of how it happens. Absolutely no way.

Fman99
Nov 05 2019 10:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=seawolf17 post_id=26038 time=1572973895 user_id=91]
There is no way he leaves office peacefully, regardless of how it happens. Absolutely no way.



I've been saying this for some time. He couldn't even accept the fact that he lost the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million people. And it was 100% moot, his ego just could not admit it. Even now I'm sure he'd tell you it was rigged to look that way. So there's no chance he recognizes a legitimate electoral college defeat. He'd have to admit he didn't win and he's not ever done that once since ever.



Our best bet is that he dies in a grease fire of some kind.

Ceetar
Nov 05 2019 10:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

he's already done nonsense out of House of Cards (scamming FEMA for personal gain or whatever) so why not question the legitimacy of the election in the same manner?



I seriously think someone should start the President for Life superpac and spam the media with it, though actually donating all the donations to Warren or whatever, just CALL it that. Or something along those lines. Needs a double agent that pushes that "this is the last election" agenda from the pro Trump side and see if you can scare anyone off.

MFS62
Nov 06 2019 06:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump said the Kentucky gubernatorial election was about him.

Well, it was.

The Republican candidate was leading by 4% a few days before Trump spoke in his rally.

He lost.

He must be foaming at the mouth today.

Later

Edgy MD
Nov 06 2019 08:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

One of the weirder episodes of my online life in 2019 was getting trolled by Billy Ciancaglini, Philadelphia mayoral candidate. He kept accusing me of fucking with him, but considering he's from one of Philly's most notorious crime families, such an enterprise would be highly stupid.



Here's this morning's Philly Inquirer report on the election outcome.




Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney wins reelection without even campaigning. Now what?

by Chris Brennan, Updated: November 5, 2019- 11:40 PM




Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney coasted to victory Tuesday after months of avoiding the campaign trail and ignoring his GOP opponent, earning a second term despite not having detailed any clear plan for how he'll use it.



With 83% of precincts reporting, Kenney had more than 80% of the vote against Republican Billy Ciancaglini, and the mayor claimed victory shortly after 10 p.m.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 06 2019 11:31 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Interesting thing. The Virginia house and senate both flipping blue last night raised the possibility of Virginia becoming the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which would mean it would become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. There was a deadline proposed in 1972 when this was originally introduced, so there'll be some hue and cry over whether it can actually become law. But, interesting.

kcmets
Nov 06 2019 11:36 AM
Re: Politics 2019

As much as pains me to utter these words: Hillary should come in from the

weeds and run again for PrezUSA. She's the only one who can beat him.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 06 2019 01:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Um, no. I mean really, no.

Edgy MD
Nov 06 2019 01:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I find it hard to see Secretary Clinton would bring to the table that Vice President Biden does not.

kcmets
Nov 06 2019 01:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Biden's son will hang him if he's the guy. $50,000 a month for a job in the Uk-

raine for something he had zero experience in?



The other two are whack jobs, trillion dollars for this and trillion dollars for that

but we must cut the deficit while doing it!! LoFNl... they're both nuts.



At least Hillary can debate, is moderate and almost beat him last time. I can't

believe I'm typing this!!!

Vic Sage
Nov 06 2019 02:46 PM
Re: Politics 2019

actually, i'd like to see Bloomberg run as a Dem. His moderate liberality on most social issues, along with the natural fiscal conservatism of a billionaire, will make him a safe sort of MOR candidate for everybody. Since Jew Haters will already be voting for Trump, i don't see that as an issue this time. And, unlike Trump, Ron is a REAL billionaire with his own network, and he would have the funds to self-finance a kickass campaign.



While i would prefer a progressive like Liz or Bernie, that would be a riskier strategy than running a centrist. Progressives may not like Bloomberg, but we don't necessarily hate him, and we will vote for just about ANYBODY that we don't hate in order to stop Trump.

Willets Point
Nov 06 2019 03:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Ron? Is that a nickname for Michael Bloomberg?

cal sharpie
Nov 06 2019 03:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I don't see another candidate entering the race. It's just too hard. Also, recent history hasn't been encouraging for late-entry candidates: Wesley Clark, Fred Thompson - even going back to Jerry Brown in '76, Hubert Humphrey in '72. What we have is what there is. I'm not sure running a centrist is the right play, however. It's what the Democrats did last time and recent history has also shown that Democrats win with new candidates: Carter, Bill Clinton, Obama and lose with familiar candidates: Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. Yeah, Elizabeth Warren's super-detailed plans might be a bit of a stretch but she can generate energy. Can't see that with Hillary II or Mike Bloomberg.

LWFS
Nov 06 2019 06:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.



I trust Warren and a few months with the American people. She's a teacher. Explaining things is her thing.

Edgy MD
Nov 06 2019 08:25 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=LWFS post_id=26137 time=1573089747 user_id=84]
Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.



Why would you say that?

LWFS
Nov 06 2019 10:05 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

=LWFS post_id=26137 time=1573089747 user_id=84]
Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.


Why would you say that?



A hunch. Hillary-- with her history, her perceived capture by special interests, her insincerity-- left many, many votes on the bench... many votes eager to go Dem, but who just... couldn't... do it for her. Biden's her, only with particularly-untimely social mannerisms and an inability to speak with drawing his foot magnetically to/through his mouth.

Edgy MD
Nov 07 2019 05:58 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, the vice president can blow shit up with a stupid gaff, but I figured his Pennsylvania roots give him a stronger profile through that area than Secretary Clinton had, along with, hopefully, a willingness to campaign aggressively for those states.



I don't know who is going to be the candidate, but I suspect that the field is so competitive that, if Vice President Biden somehow makes it to the general election, he will have kept his foot in check.



In the general, he'd probably get to stick to his stump speech and his talking points and other notes, and not be put in the position of badly expressing abstract thoughts, except perhaps in the required two debates. And it'd be real hard to look more foolish than the president in the debates.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 07 2019 06:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

=LWFS post_id=26137 time=1573089747 user_id=84]
Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.


Why would you say that?


A hunch. Hillary-- with her history, her perceived capture by special interests, her insincerity-- left many, many votes on the bench... many votes eager to go Dem, but who just... couldn't... do it for her. Biden's her, only with particularly-untimely social mannerisms and an inability to speak with drawing his foot magnetically to/through his mouth.



This. Biden's entire rationale for his candidacy is 'I can probably beat this guy and then everything will magically go back to normal'. Joe Biden being a working-class guy is, to use his word, malarkey. He's been in Washington for almost 50 years. His campaign is stumbling, can't raise money, and he's prone to going off script.



What Hillary lacked was a reason to vote FOR her. Not that she didn't have policies; she did. But she was lousy at promoting them. Her rationale was 'how can you vote for that guy?'. Biden has the same game plan 4 years later. Hillary didn't motivate the base; neither will Joe.



Yup, trillions of dollars. But the dirty little secret is that we're spending trillions and trillions now and have shitty health care that leaves a huge portion of the country with no health care at all. How much is your deductible? How much do you pay even after insurance? How many times did you have to argue with someone over the phone about something? Are you afraid that you'll lose your insurance if your company downsizes? That's what the nay-sayers about Medicare for All don't talk about, because all that goes away.



Now, realistically, does Medicare for All pass in the first two years of a potential Warren presidency even with a Democratic House and Senate? No. But the Affordable Care Act could have been much better if they hadn't negotiated things away before they even started in the futile hope that they could get a single Republican to sign on to it. (Spoiler alert- they got none). And Trump has spent three years chipping away at it, including filing a lawsuit that could invalidate the whole law. If that happens, suddenly Medicare for All is going to start looking pretty good.



The point of planting a flag for Medicare for All is that you get something that's better than what we have now. It'll get compromised but maybe you get a Medicare buy-in at 55 or something like that. Politics is the art of the possible, and I'm betting Warren has a Plan B. (In fact I'm certain of it.)



Yeah, yeah, socialism. Any candidate from Bernie Sanders to John Delaney is going to be tarred by that brush, including Joe Biden. So I discount that. And remember, this is a president who's attacking Joe Biden's kid for trading on the family name! And getting away with it!!!!



I want a candidate I can vote FOR. Not one I have to vote for because the alternative is worse. We tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.

Vic Sage
Nov 07 2019 08:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:


Edgy MD wrote:


Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.


Why would you say that?


A hunch. Hillary-- with her history, her perceived capture by special interests, her insincerity-- left many, many votes on the bench... many votes eager to go Dem, but who just... couldn't... do it for her. Biden's her, only with particularly-untimely social mannerisms and an inability to speak with drawing his foot magnetically to/through his mouth.


This. Biden's entire rationale for his candidacy is 'I can probably beat this guy and then everything will magically go back to normal'. Joe Biden being a working-class guy is, to use his word, malarkey. He's been in Washington for almost 50 years. His campaign is stumbling, can't raise money, and he's prone to going off script.



What Hillary lacked was a reason to vote FOR her. Not that she didn't have policies; she did. But she was lousy at promoting them. Her rationale was 'how can you vote for that guy?'. Biden has the same game plan 4 years later. Hillary didn't motivate the base; neither will Joe.



Yup, trillions of dollars. But the dirty little secret is that we're spending trillions and trillions now and have shitty health care that leaves a huge portion of the country with no health care at all. How much is your deductible? How much do you pay even after insurance? How many times did you have to argue with someone over the phone about something? Are you afraid that you'll lose your insurance if your company downsizes? That's what the nay-sayers about Medicare for All don't talk about, because all that goes away.



Now, realistically, does Medicare for All pass in the first two years of a potential Warren presidency even with a Democratic House and Senate? No. But the Affordable Care Act could have been much better if they hadn't negotiated things away before they even started in the futile hope that they could get a single Republican to sign on to it. (Spoiler alert- they got none). And Trump has spent three years chipping away at it, including filing a lawsuit that could invalidate the whole law. If that happens, suddenly Medicare for All is going to start looking pretty good.



The point of planting a flag for Medicare for All is that you get something that's better than what we have now. It'll get compromised but maybe you get a Medicare buy-in at 55 or something like that. Politics is the art of the possible, and I'm betting Warren has a Plan B. (In fact I'm certain of it.)



Yeah, yeah, socialism. Any candidate from Bernie Sanders to John Delaney is going to be tarred by that brush, including Joe Biden. So I discount that. And remember, this is a president who's attacking Joe Biden's kid for trading on the family name! And getting away with it!!!!



I want a candidate I can vote FOR. Not one I have to vote for because the alternative is worse. We tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.


first of all, Hillary won by 3 million; if it weren't for interventions by the FBI and the Russians that cost her around 70,000 votes in key counties in key states, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. While i can see centrists being scared away from an election entirely by a choice between a lunatic and a perceived radical, i can't see progressives allowing Trump a 2nd term, no matter WHO the Dems nominate.



Yes, i normally vote for, not against, candidates, which has often led me to 3rd party voting... but not this time. We're not running against a fear of what Trump might do hypothetically, like we were last time, where Republicans can talk themselves into "well, we can control him. We'll get our tax cut and our judges, and ignore the rest." Because this time he's had 3+ years to show us what he HAS done. Once you've seen children in cages, you can't quibble about public option vs single-payer. And the Repubs who will not vote for a socialist of any sort, but can't vote for Trump again, are more likely to vote for a centrist than a progressive will choose to allow Trump to stay in power because "their guy/gal" didn't get the nom. IMO.

Vic Sage
Nov 07 2019 08:03 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:

Ron? Is that a nickname for Michael Bloomberg?


sorry, i have a friend by that name and got mixed up.

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 07 2019 08:23 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Vic Sage wrote:

Willets Point wrote:

Ron? Is that a nickname for Michael Bloomberg?


sorry, i have a friend by that name and got mixed up.


http://i.imgur.com/LdjvbmA.jpg>








Vic Sage wrote:









first of all, Hillary won by 3 million; if it weren't for interventions by the FBI and the Russians that cost her around 70,000 votes in key counties in key states, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. While i can see centrists being scared away from an election entirely by a choice between a lunatic and a perceived radical, i can't see progressives allowing Trump a 2nd term, no matter WHO the Dems nominate.



Yes, i normally vote for, not against, candidates, which has often led me to 3rd party voting... but not this time.... Because this time he's had 3+ years to show us what he HAS done. Once you've seen children in cages, you can't quibble about public option vs single-payer.


I've been saying this same thing for a while now. People forget how Trump squeaked by on the tiniest of margins. The horrible magnitude of his election is what's making people forget. This next time, Dem candidates should be able to run a "not Trump" campaign, because this time, we know for sure precisely what he is and he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. And not only can they, but they should. I mean, they have to campaign on their policies as well, but they should also trot out the not Trump agenda.

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 07 2019 08:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Vic Sage wrote:

Willets Point wrote:

Ron? Is that a nickname for Michael Bloomberg?


sorry, i have a friend by that name and got mixed up.


http://i.imgur.com/LdjvbmA.jpg>








Vic Sage wrote:









first of all, Hillary won by 3 million; if it weren't for interventions by the FBI and the Russians that cost her around 70,000 votes in key counties in key states, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. While i can see centrists being scared away from an election entirely by a choice between a lunatic and a perceived radical, i can't see progressives allowing Trump a 2nd term, no matter WHO the Dems nominate.



Yes, i normally vote for, not against, candidates, which has often led me to 3rd party voting... but not this time.... Because this time he's had 3+ years to show us what he HAS done. Once you've seen children in cages, you can't quibble about public option vs single-payer.


I've been saying this same thing for a while now. People forget how Trump squeaked by on the tiniest of margins. The horrible magnitude of his election is what's making people forget. This next time, Dem candidates should be able to run a "not Trump" campaign, because this time, we know for sure precisely what he is and he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. And not only can they, but they should. I mean, they have to campaign on their policies as well, but they should also trot out the not Trump agenda.


I don't know how people aren't totally fed up by now with not only Trump, but the whole GOP. The disgusting language and the daily ridiculous excuse mongering for their misdeeds that should insult the intelligence of any reasonably open-minded person. The bullying and the cheating and the climate crisis denial. And the persistent attempts to take away people's health insurance. Who the hell wants this and how could there be enough of them to vote this guy in again?

MFS62
Nov 07 2019 08:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 07 2019 08:43 AM

Who the hell wants this and how could there be enough of them to vote this guy in again?


You answered your own question:


the intelligence of any reasonably open-minded person

Those are not the people who voted for him and who still support him.

Check out the people behind him at his rallies. They are the primordial sludge at the bottom of the gene pool.

They look line they couldn't even spell "quo" if you spotted them the "q" and the "u".

Later

Lefty Specialist
Nov 07 2019 08:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes, Hillary got more votes, but you contest the election by the rules you have, so she lost. But maybe if people were a little more fired up in Milwaukee or Philadelphia or Detroit things might have been different. Chasing 'disaffected Trump voters' is a fool's errand. You need to motivate your base and chasing DTV's is a good way to do the opposite- it's one of the fears I have about Biden. I guarantee their base will be motivated, and with the barrage of bullshit we'll be subjected to for the next year, I'm not sure the 'disaffected' will abandon him anyway. Our enemy is the couch, not Trump. We show up, we win, simple as that. Ask them in Virginia.



Anyone who votes 3rd party must be immediately vasectomized for the good of the country.



Who the hell wants this and how could there be enough of them to vote this guy in again?



Oh, you'd be surprised. A huge amount of people in this country think that Trump is being unfairly targeted and Socialists are trying to steal the election. And it isn't just Fox viewers. Facebook is a bigger problem than Fox.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Nov 07 2019 10:17 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Vic Sage wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:


Edgy MD wrote:


Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.


Why would you say that?


A hunch. Hillary-- with her history, her perceived capture by special interests, her insincerity-- left many, many votes on the bench... many votes eager to go Dem, but who just... couldn't... do it for her. Biden's her, only with particularly-untimely social mannerisms and an inability to speak with drawing his foot magnetically to/through his mouth.


This. Biden's entire rationale for his candidacy is 'I can probably beat this guy and then everything will magically go back to normal'. Joe Biden being a working-class guy is, to use his word, malarkey. He's been in Washington for almost 50 years. His campaign is stumbling, can't raise money, and he's prone to going off script.



What Hillary lacked was a reason to vote FOR her. Not that she didn't have policies; she did. But she was lousy at promoting them. Her rationale was 'how can you vote for that guy?'. Biden has the same game plan 4 years later. Hillary didn't motivate the base; neither will Joe.



Yup, trillions of dollars. But the dirty little secret is that we're spending trillions and trillions now and have shitty health care that leaves a huge portion of the country with no health care at all. How much is your deductible? How much do you pay even after insurance? How many times did you have to argue with someone over the phone about something? Are you afraid that you'll lose your insurance if your company downsizes? That's what the nay-sayers about Medicare for All don't talk about, because all that goes away.



Now, realistically, does Medicare for All pass in the first two years of a potential Warren presidency even with a Democratic House and Senate? No. But the Affordable Care Act could have been much better if they hadn't negotiated things away before they even started in the futile hope that they could get a single Republican to sign on to it. (Spoiler alert- they got none). And Trump has spent three years chipping away at it, including filing a lawsuit that could invalidate the whole law. If that happens, suddenly Medicare for All is going to start looking pretty good.



The point of planting a flag for Medicare for All is that you get something that's better than what we have now. It'll get compromised but maybe you get a Medicare buy-in at 55 or something like that. Politics is the art of the possible, and I'm betting Warren has a Plan B. (In fact I'm certain of it.)



Yeah, yeah, socialism. Any candidate from Bernie Sanders to John Delaney is going to be tarred by that brush, including Joe Biden. So I discount that. And remember, this is a president who's attacking Joe Biden's kid for trading on the family name! And getting away with it!!!!



I want a candidate I can vote FOR. Not one I have to vote for because the alternative is worse. We tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.


first of all, Hillary won by 3 million; if it weren't for interventions by the FBI and the Russians that cost her around 70,000 votes in key counties in key states, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. While i can see centrists being scared away from an election entirely by a choice between a lunatic and a perceived radical, i can't see progressives allowing Trump a 2nd term, no matter WHO the Dems nominate.



Yes, i normally vote for, not against, candidates, which has often led me to 3rd party voting... but not this time. We're not running against a fear of what Trump might do hypothetically, like we were last time, where Republicans can talk themselves into "well, we can control him. We'll get our tax cut and our judges, and ignore the rest." Because this time he's had 3+ years to show us what he HAS done. Once you've seen children in cages, you can't quibble about public option vs single-payer. And the Repubs who will not vote for a socialist of any sort, but can't vote for Trump again, are more likely to vote for a centrist than a progressive will choose to allow Trump to stay in power because "their guy/gal" didn't get the nom. IMO.


Do you think conflicted Rs would vote for centrist-leaning Dem who's also a gay small-town mayor?



To me it looks like things could be break just right for Mayor Pete.

Centerfield
Nov 07 2019 10:24 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

Vic Sage wrote:

Lefty Specialist wrote:


Edgy MD wrote:


Run a centrist-- especially a centrist like Biden-- and even more Dems stay home in battleground states than did last time.


Why would you say that?


A hunch. Hillary-- with her history, her perceived capture by special interests, her insincerity-- left many, many votes on the bench... many votes eager to go Dem, but who just... couldn't... do it for her. Biden's her, only with particularly-untimely social mannerisms and an inability to speak with drawing his foot magnetically to/through his mouth.


This. Biden's entire rationale for his candidacy is 'I can probably beat this guy and then everything will magically go back to normal'. Joe Biden being a working-class guy is, to use his word, malarkey. He's been in Washington for almost 50 years. His campaign is stumbling, can't raise money, and he's prone to going off script.



What Hillary lacked was a reason to vote FOR her. Not that she didn't have policies; she did. But she was lousy at promoting them. Her rationale was 'how can you vote for that guy?'. Biden has the same game plan 4 years later. Hillary didn't motivate the base; neither will Joe.



Yup, trillions of dollars. But the dirty little secret is that we're spending trillions and trillions now and have shitty health care that leaves a huge portion of the country with no health care at all. How much is your deductible? How much do you pay even after insurance? How many times did you have to argue with someone over the phone about something? Are you afraid that you'll lose your insurance if your company downsizes? That's what the nay-sayers about Medicare for All don't talk about, because all that goes away.



Now, realistically, does Medicare for All pass in the first two years of a potential Warren presidency even with a Democratic House and Senate? No. But the Affordable Care Act could have been much better if they hadn't negotiated things away before they even started in the futile hope that they could get a single Republican to sign on to it. (Spoiler alert- they got none). And Trump has spent three years chipping away at it, including filing a lawsuit that could invalidate the whole law. If that happens, suddenly Medicare for All is going to start looking pretty good.



The point of planting a flag for Medicare for All is that you get something that's better than what we have now. It'll get compromised but maybe you get a Medicare buy-in at 55 or something like that. Politics is the art of the possible, and I'm betting Warren has a Plan B. (In fact I'm certain of it.)



Yeah, yeah, socialism. Any candidate from Bernie Sanders to John Delaney is going to be tarred by that brush, including Joe Biden. So I discount that. And remember, this is a president who's attacking Joe Biden's kid for trading on the family name! And getting away with it!!!!



I want a candidate I can vote FOR. Not one I have to vote for because the alternative is worse. We tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.


first of all, Hillary won by 3 million; if it weren't for interventions by the FBI and the Russians that cost her around 70,000 votes in key counties in key states, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. While i can see centrists being scared away from an election entirely by a choice between a lunatic and a perceived radical, i can't see progressives allowing Trump a 2nd term, no matter WHO the Dems nominate.



Yes, i normally vote for, not against, candidates, which has often led me to 3rd party voting... but not this time. We're not running against a fear of what Trump might do hypothetically, like we were last time, where Republicans can talk themselves into "well, we can control him. We'll get our tax cut and our judges, and ignore the rest." Because this time he's had 3+ years to show us what he HAS done. Once you've seen children in cages, you can't quibble about public option vs single-payer. And the Repubs who will not vote for a socialist of any sort, but can't vote for Trump again, are more likely to vote for a centrist than a progressive will choose to allow Trump to stay in power because "their guy/gal" didn't get the nom. IMO.


Do you think conflicted Rs would vote for centrist-leaning Dem who's also a gay small-town mayor?



To me it looks like things could be break just right for Mayor Pete.


No. I don't think so. I think the "on the fence" voters from the swing states need a straight white male centrist.



Joe Biden is a flawed candidate, but he's the best chance we have.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 07 2019 12:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Mayor Pete has an African-American problem. And just like there are people who would never vote for a woman or a black man, there are people who would never vote for a gay man. Turnout among evangelicals would be off the charts.



As for Biden being the best chance, well the primaries will tell the story there. His lead in national polls is a product of two things; familiarity and the fact that Bernie and Warren are splitting the vote on the left. If one or the other got out, Biden would be swamped. The Real Clear Politics national average is Biden 28.6, Warren 21.4, Sanders 18.1. So I don't buy that he's the best shot we have.

Edgy MD
Nov 07 2019 02:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Everybody's got a bias problem with trying to win back the middle. The field has at least four people of color. It has five women. Mayor Buteigeig would bring a male spouse into the White House. Senator Sanders is Jewish guy who hasn't lived in Brooklyn in decades but still sounds like the Brooklynest guy you could meet. He and Senator Warren also unapologetically carry the target brand of "liberal" around, which Senator Sanders additionally has "socialist" at the top of his résumé. And we know from experience that prejudice won't merely leak into the general election, it will be not-so-subtly weaponized.



I hate the idea of any of that being considered relevant, but I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind. So while Vice President Biden isn't my guy, I understand folks seeing him as the best chance of bringing down the president. In a way, I guess that Congressman O'Rourke was ideal as far as checking most of those "let's be safe boxes, but he failed most other tests.



Basically, even though it's a furious argument in Democratic circles, I can't blame anyone for going the safest route, and I can't blame any one for not doing that. I'm not even sure what I'm going to do. In the end, though, the primaries will hopefully sort things out clearly.

Willets Point
Nov 07 2019 03:31 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Looks like Ron is entering the race, oddly as a Democrat: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html

Lefty Specialist
Nov 07 2019 05:14 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Willets Point wrote:

Looks like Ron is entering the race, oddly as a Democrat: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html


He'd originally said he'd only get in if Biden didn't. So he apparently doesn't think old Joe is the best chance we have.



Just what we need, two New York billionaires going against each other.

cal sharpie
Nov 08 2019 07:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Ron won't be in any debates since he won't be looking for contributors.



My thought is that he takes votes away from Biden and maybe Buttiegieg thereby helping Warren and Sanders who he is trying to stop.

Vic Sage
Nov 08 2019 08:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Willets Point wrote:

Looks like Ron is entering the race, oddly as a Democrat: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html


He'd originally said he'd only get in if Biden didn't. So he apparently doesn't think old Joe is the best chance we have.



Just what we need, two New York billionaires going against each other.


well, one NY billionaire and one guy who lies about being a billionaire.

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 08 2019 08:20 AM
Re: Politics 2019

If Trump wasn't already a billionaire before he became president, I'd bet anything he's a billionaire today. It's an open secret that most politicians that hold major offices became wealthier by multiples once they're elected. Plus it's this dirtbag. Money was probably the main reason he ran for President in the first place. Jeez, he's probably a liberal deep down. He doesn't give a shit about policies or this country or the blue collar workers in the midwest who were fooled into thinking they were gonna get back their $50/hr. factory jobs, other than to use them to stay in office. So he could steal money and feed his perpetually starved ego. God only know what the hell he's been stealing and what he's been selling to the Saudis for money through back channels and Jared the bagman.

seawolf17
Nov 08 2019 08:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Absolutely. He's richer than he's ever been, which is why he can say whatever he wants. I believe it's called "fuck you money."

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 08 2019 08:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Absolutely. He's richer than he's ever been, which is why he can say whatever he wants. I believe it's called "fuck you money."


I agree. The other day, a NY court fined Trump about $2M for his abuses realting to some Trump charities. That's a joke. It's like a regular guy going out and spending for a nice fancy dinner.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 08 2019 08:45 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I definitely think he'll draw from Biden and Buttigieg, which is why I think on second thought that this may not go anywhere. Maybe once his people put a few polls in the field and realize that he's the best thing Warren could ask for. She's already tweeted him her 'Billionaire cost calculator' showing him how much her wealth tax will cost him.



Plus he's quite open about grabbing your guns and wants to tax your Big Gulp Coca-Cola. Yes, that'll play really well among non-college educated whites. About as well as his 'Stop and Frisk' policy will play among blacks and Latinos.

MFS62
Nov 08 2019 06:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I proudly served my country to protect his right to be an elitist asshole.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-jr-book-lengthy-rant-203340027.html

This son of a five time draft dodger who has never served says his family has sacrificed as much as military families?

Dante would have built their own circle.



Later

kcmets
Nov 08 2019 07:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Anyone who votes 3rd party must be immediately vasectomized for the good of the country.


Why do we keep going back to this? I voted for Oprah in NY, Hillary

still won by a landslide.

Edgy MD
Nov 09 2019 01:56 PM
Re: Politics 2019

A despot in power can frequently trigger despotic dreams in others.



Please vote as you see fit.

Edgy MD
Nov 11 2019 08:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Hey, anybody in [CROSSOUT]Southwest[/CROSSOUT] Southeast Nassau County (and parts of Suffolk!), here's your chance to run for Congress. Representative Peter King is packing it in.

Edgy MD
Nov 11 2019 09:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Meanywhile, former coal executive (and convicted felon) Don Blankenship has announced his bid to run for the presidency on the Constitution Party ticket.



Blankenship did a year in federal lockup for conspiring to violate mine safety standards while he was in charge of Massey Energy.



No known relationship to former major leaguer Lance Blankenship.

Ceetar
Nov 11 2019 09:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

Hey, anybody in Southwest Nassau County (and parts of Suffolk!), here's your chance to run for Congress. Representative Peter King is packing it in.


SE Nassau.



I was gonna say, I could switch my residency back to my parents if need be. They're represented by Democrat Gregory Meeks though.

Edgy MD
Nov 11 2019 09:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

The compass on my fingers doesn't work that well while typing.

G-Fafif
Nov 11 2019 12:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm adjacent to King's district. He was my Congressman one residence and redistricting ago. King's someone I won't miss in the least in the public arena, but I learned he is a legit MLBS during an unexpected conversation with him a few years ago.



“I want to spend more time with my baseball team,” would have been the classy way to bow out.

ashie62
Nov 12 2019 05:02 AM
Re: Politics 2019

It would appear a Pentagon Asst Director rolled over on Trump in a released house deposition. She showed them the Ukraine "money."



Nikki Haley rolls with book. Highlights on Wapo



Trump is going to have to resign. Cut some deal to avoid prosecution and begone

MFS62
Nov 12 2019 05:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=ashie62 post_id=26372 time=1573560178 user_id=90]
Nikki Haley rolls with book. Highlights on Wapo



She's either trying to be his VP if he runs again or Mrs. Trump #4.

Or both.

Later

Willets Point
Nov 12 2019 08:53 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump's creepy "spiritual adviser" Paula White was the mentor to Darryl Strawberry.

LWFS
Nov 12 2019 05:03 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Man, if these guys think Stephen Miller's emails were racist, they should see the things he's been saying, writing, and practically screaming in public any time he's had a platform since he was in high school.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 13 2019 07:50 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Todd Zeile and Gary Apple doing an SNY Pre-Impeachment show, sponsored by your Tri-Honda dealers. Gelbs has a goofy interview with Adam Schiff that, as always, provides no useful details.

LWFS
Nov 18 2019 11:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

President goes to Walter Reed for annual physical... three months ahead of schedule. And there wasn't a whiff of the standard Secret Service complement on-site beforehand, nor any advance notice given to WR hospital staff. And the White House didn't mention it until hours after the fact. AND Mr. Orange didn't make a public appearance yesterday, and he isn't expected to make one today.



Yeah, nothing fishy going on.

Benjamin Grimm
Nov 18 2019 11:37 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I think they're going to find that he has no heart. And no brain. And no courage.

Centerfield
Nov 18 2019 11:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Man, if these guys think Stephen Miller's emails were racist, they should see the things he's been saying, writing, and practically screaming in public any time he's had a platform since he was in high school.


So this story is just going to go away huh?

LWFS
Nov 18 2019 11:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019



Man, if these guys think Stephen Miller's emails were racist, they should see the things he's been saying, writing, and practically screaming in public any time he's had a platform since he was in high school.


So this story is just going to go away huh?


Where's the leverage? He serves at the pleasure of blahblahblah, and for a good number of the guys who support blahblahblah, Miller's "hard-line stance" is a feature, not a bug. ("I mean, I don't agree with the way he says these things, but you can't argue that he has a point," etc.)

Lefty Specialist
Nov 18 2019 12:32 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Stephen Miller's overt white supremacy is a feature, not a bug. He's not going anywhere.

Edgy MD
Nov 19 2019 07:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Is Secretary Pompeo's yellow-belliedness a feature or a bug.



TIME reporting that the secretary is looking to jump ship and run for the Senator from Kansas. I don't know who that would be against, but I would love to debate him.

Edgy MD
Nov 20 2019 09:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

And South Korea signs a new defense agreement ... with China.



If I could holler loud enough, would the Trump supporters give in?

Edgy MD
Nov 21 2019 09:51 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Prime Minister Netanyahu indicted: bribery, fraud, breach of public trust.

Benjamin Grimm
Nov 21 2019 10:01 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Wow, there's a lot of that going around.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Nov 21 2019 11:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I watched a little of the debate last night and confess I still have no idea where the Ds are going to go, I just hope its not Biden, who I think looks terrible and out of touch in these bebates and is obviously getting smeared with a lot of shit, which isn't his fault, but still "leads." I'd trade Booker for Biden in a second.



Are the far-lefts now getting all they can get? Seems like "momentum" is with the centers now



As far as debate performance goes the best ones last night were Buttigeg (again), Klobuchar (for the first time IMO) and Yang (a goofy guy but he has something).



Booker's been pretty consistent too but doesn't appear to inspire passion. I wanted to like Harris, I think she's sharp, but she comes off frosty and calculated in all these events as flawed as they are they are helping me to make up my mind.



Interested to know your-all's takes

TransMonk
Nov 21 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 21 2019 11:14 AM

I am supporting Warren, but Mayor Pete is a close second. I agree with you completely on Biden.



I took an online quiz a couple days ago that asked 10 policy questions and matched you up with a candidate based on the answers and I ended up being matched up with Yang...which surprised me. I agree with a lot that comes out of his mouth, but he sometimes comes off like he running for student council rather than POTUS during the debates.



I too want to like Harris, but I don't feel like her message has been clear enough yet. When she launched, she gave a speech where she used the phrase "Let's speak truth" throughout. I wish that she would use that phrase all the time like Warren's "I have a plan for that". I feel like "Let's speak truth" is a great phrase and would draw more people into her plans and it sets her up well as a contrast to Trump.

Ceetar
Nov 21 2019 11:14 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I hate them all and the entire party, does that help?



I don't watch the reality debate shows but from the unavoidable conversation around social media and the office (kidding, no one talks here) it seems like Warren is the one that checks enough of the boxes for more people.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 21 2019 11:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Biden is safe comfort food for a lot of people. They know he won't screw things up like Trump did. And a lot of people are looking for safety.



I'm a Warren fan but Medicare for All took her off her game; she seemed to have all the answers, but her answers here were too long in coming and poorly formed when they did come. And Bernie being in the race means that there's 15% of votes that she really needs, she's not gonna get. I'm concerned that Democrats are going to 'settle' for Biden. Which will be a shame because he won't inspire the base any more than Hillary did. (Yes, I know she got more votes, but not in the right places)



I wanted to like Kamala but she just never caught fire; it's too late now. I like Pete Buttigieg (in 2028). The rest, go home.



And debates with 10 people on stage are just stupid. They bent over backwards to be inclusive and this is what they wound up with.

batmagadanleadoff
Nov 21 2019 12:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Biden is safe comfort food for a lot of people. They know he won't screw things up like Trump did. And a lot of people are looking for safety.



I'm a Warren fan but Medicare for All took her off her game; she seemed to have all the answers, but her answers here were too long in coming and poorly formed when they did come. And Bernie being in the race means that there's 15% of votes that she really needs, she's not gonna get. I'm concerned that Democrats are going to 'settle' for Biden. Which will be a shame because he won't inspire the base any more than Hillary did. (Yes, I know she got more votes, but not in the right places)



I wanted to like Kamala but she just never caught fire; it's too late now. I like Pete Buttigieg (in 2028). The rest, go home.



And debates with 10 people on stage are just stupid. They bent over backwards to be inclusive and this is what they wound up with.


I'm scoring a very high similarity score with your post. I never knew what the big deal was with Harris from the get-go. And I don't think Harris has that "extra" pizzazz to win. I can't explain this, but I think that a winning candidate has to have that something extra personality-wise to win and Harris ain't got it the way I see things. Also, I hate Klobuchar. I think my blood pressure goes up whenever she opens her yap. I'm so sick of hearing about all the supposed bills she passed as if she's gonna get more stuff passed than any other candidate.


Lefty Specialist wrote:

I'm concerned that Democrats are going to 'settle' for Biden. Which will be a shame because he won't inspire the base any more than Hillary did.


If the specter of another Trump presidency -- or the specter of any other GOP president, really -- all by itself -- isn't enough to motivate the Democratic electorate, then they don't deserve a Dem president. At the end of the day, the GOP is always unified, and has their talking points down pat. We have jackasses that'll stay home because Bernie this or Bernie that or who'll vote for Jill Stein in a swing state, no less, to make a point. What point? I'm still waiting on that.



I think I took that same poll that TMonk did. A WAPO poll? I'm most aligned with Warren and Buttigieg, according to my responses.

seawolf17
Nov 21 2019 01:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=26941 time=1574363505 user_id=68]If the specter of another Trump presidency -- or the specter of any other GOP president, really -- all by itself -- isn't enough to motivate the Democratic electorate, then they don't deserve a Dem president. At the end of the day, the GOP is always unified, and has their talking points down pat. We have jackasses that'll stay home because Bernie this or Bernie that or who'll vote for Jill Stein in a swing state, no less, to make a point. What point? I'm still waiting on that.



Completely agree. I can't imagine why anyone would not vote next fall, but millions will do just that.

Lefty Specialist
Nov 21 2019 02:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Understand that the Trump campaign's main strategy will be to get Democrats NOT to vote. They'll do this with misinformation (aided and abetted by the Russians and Facebook) not designed to build Trump up but to tear everyone else down. It's a very small step from 'I'm not excited by this candidate' to 'what's the difference, I'm not going to vote'.



There'll be other third-party alternatives thrown in there; if not Tulsi Gabbard, someone else will step up. And Trump will stoke resentment at everyone and everything. This is how autocrats work, and he's been really good at it so far. I'm hoping for a fired-up electorate, but I'm fearing a confused, infighting, pissed-off electorate.

Ceetar
Nov 21 2019 03:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

don't forget threatening to deport non-white people, closing polls, removing people's voter registration without telling them, etc.

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 01 2019 10:11 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's after midnight. Thanksgiving weekend is officially over. So let's talk (the other) turkey.



It's a mad, mad, mad, mad country.



Most Republicans think Trump is a better president than Lincoln: poll



Excerpt:


A majority of Republicans ranked Donald Trump over Civil War hero Abraham Lincoln when asked which was the better president, according to a poll....


https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/most-republicans-think-trump-is-a-better-president-than-lincoln-poll/

MFS62
Dec 02 2019 06:10 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'd like to see a geographic breakdown of the voters. I'm guessing that many of the voters who identified themselves as Republican live in the south, where Lincoln is still a four letter word. And with a sample size of 1,500 voters in total, this can be crucial to the results.

Later

Lefty Specialist
Dec 02 2019 06:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Wayne Messam, Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock have left the presidential race. If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?



Bullock should immediately run for Senate in Montana, as Hickenlooper did in Colorado. It's a winnable seat in 2020.

Ceetar
Dec 02 2019 07:47 AM
Re: Politics 2019


It's after midnight. Thanksgiving weekend is officially over. So let's talk (the other) turkey.



It's a mad, mad, mad, mad country.



Most Republicans think Trump is a better president than Lincoln: poll



Excerpt:


A majority of Republicans ranked Donald Trump over Civil War hero Abraham Lincoln when asked which was the better president, according to a poll....


https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/most-republicans-think-trump-is-a-better-president-than-lincoln-poll/




You ask me a stupid question like that, and I might pick the stupid answer too. Nevermind that there's a large contingent of MAGAnuts that were always just doing it to get a rise out of people. The crowd that photoshops him onto Rocky or whatever was going on. those guys. And so many others are just flat out clicking whatever box is pro-Republican. Ask 99% of the people that answered this poll, in a more neutral setting, to rank their top three presidents and no one's putting this idiot on there.

Lefty Specialist
Dec 02 2019 11:00 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, this is triggering stuff. "Bet this'll piss off the libs."

ashie62
Dec 02 2019 11:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump is not going to lose a Senate trial



Who can beat him in 2020? I'm going with Pete Buttigieg to stand up to Trump's bombast and histrionics. Mayor Pete will need, say Cory Booker as VP to pull in black Democrats.



I don't see Sanders, Warren or Biden as able to win. It astounds me that Trump is "likely" the betting favorite at the moment

Lefty Specialist
Dec 02 2019 11:42 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Trump is not going to lose a Senate trial



Who can beat him in 2020? I'm going with Pete Buttigieg to stand up to Trump's bombast and histrionics. Mayor Pete will need, say Cory Booker as VP to pull in black Democrats.



I don't see Sanders, Warren or Biden as able to win. It astounds me that Trump is "likely" the betting favorite at the moment


Trump will not be removed by the Senate no matter what happens.



Buttigieg polls disastrously with black voters. Like, zero percent in a state like South Carolina. He won't get the nomination unless that changes drastically. And there are people who simply will not vote for a gay person, no matter how eloquent and intelligent he is.

Edgy MD
Dec 02 2019 01:17 PM
Re: Politics 2019

It's a pretty safe bet, but I'll certainly disagree with "no matter what happens." History tells us things that happen tend to keep happening, until they don't. Things that don't happen tend to keep not happening, until they do.



Big shot self-promoters with no experience in government get a lot of eyebrow-raising, early polling attention based on their name recognition, and then they fade pretty quickly once the primaries start. At least, that's the way it tended to happen before Donald Trump. I'll be damned if I'll give up hope on him getting the ejection he surely (and sorely) deserves 10 times over.

LWFS
Dec 02 2019 03:52 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I've heard enough about Buttgieg's time in South Bend (granted him via an electoral imprimatur of 850 or so votes, mind you) to understand why he gets so little of the black support. Let him serve for a while and show me something before he gets my vote for President of the country.

Edgy MD
Dec 02 2019 07:01 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Let's raise a glass to Representative Duncan Hunter. It's unusual when a guy who is caught red-faced is literally caught red-faced.



[fimg=600]https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/wra0Sy.PUrNOCgpnQ17aIQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI-/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/VGlkx5kgC.MbhbfQ3GqEsw--~B/dz0wO3NtPTE7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5de55d512500004f19d2ee21.jpeg[/fimg]

LWFS
Dec 02 2019 10:24 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Funny how these witch hunts seem to keep finding witches.

Fman99
Dec 03 2019 05:56 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So the Republicans in Congress now are denying that the President did anything wrong. Are they all just the biggest bullshitters ever? Or have they legitimately drank the Kool Aid?

Lefty Specialist
Dec 03 2019 06:08 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=Fman99 post_id=27418 time=1575377781 user_id=86]
So the Republicans in Congress now are denying that the President did anything wrong. Are they all just the biggest bullshitters ever? Or have they legitimately drank the Kool Aid?



Yes, and yes.

MFS62
Dec 03 2019 06:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Are they all just the biggest bullshitters ever? Or have they legitimately drank the Kool Aid?

You forgot to add corrupt.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-border-wall-400-million-093622936.html



I was in the Army Engineers and I'm glad they still have their standards. But he put money over effectiveness, spending our money on a needless endeavor.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 03 2019 09:26 AM
Re: Politics 2019



Are they all just the biggest bullshitters ever? Or have they legitimately drank the Kool Aid?

You forgot to add corrupt.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-border-wall-400-million-093622936.html



I was in the Army Engineers and I'm glad they still have their standards. But he put money over effectiveness, spending our money on a needless endeavor.

Later


I smell kickbacks. A duffel bag stuffed with millions headed for Mar-a-Lago. That's why this cocksucker is in the White House: to steal and to use the power of his office to exact vengeance on his enemies.

TransMonk
Dec 03 2019 11:22 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Kamala Harris drops out. I'm surprised and mildly disappointed.

Johnny Lunchbucket
Dec 03 2019 11:38 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Yeah, as discussed above she seemed a little too chilly and rehearsed in debate.



Behind the scenes there was apparently a good deal of Wilponian whos-in-charge-here dysfunction that contributed. Involving her sister as a key player was probably foolish though I dunno if she was a force for good or evil.

TransMonk
Dec 03 2019 11:44 AM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm guessing she shoots up to near the top of the veep list, though we are still some time away from that sweepstakes.

Edgy MD
Dec 03 2019 12:02 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I'm surprised that she left before Iowa, if only because she seemed to have her own niche.

Lefty Specialist
Dec 03 2019 12:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

She never caught fire, which is too bad. Never really seemed to have a plan to win. All the internal bickering was a sign.

whippoorwill
Dec 03 2019 01:27 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=27440 time=1575397361 user_id=71]
Kamala Harris drops out. I'm surprised and mildly disappointed.



Wow me too on both counts. Heck.

LWFS
Dec 04 2019 12:32 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

I'm surprised that she left before Iowa, if only because she seemed to have her own niche.


She also avoids the tarnish of a single-digit Iowa flameout. Also... she gets to skip being in Iowa in December!



In all seriousness, though, it's kind of a fucking travesty that we've got an army of ridiculous, mediocre white dudes-- Bennet, Delaney, Steyer, Gloomy-- are still out there while a legit-if-flawed candidate is shunted to the side.

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 04 2019 01:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

So theoretically, Trump could run for reelection even it he was impeached and removed, right? I mean, there's no rule against that, right?



Of course, if the base was still behind Trump so that he'd secure the nomination, then the Senate wouldn't remove him in the first place. But this is just a hypothetical.

ashie62
Dec 04 2019 03:35 AM
Re: Politics 2019

She flat out ran out of money and a top aide offered a letter of resignation the other day.



She was for racial justice but had trouble making that jive with her prosecutorial background

Lefty Specialist
Dec 04 2019 05:40 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=LWFS post_id=27479 time=1575444738 user_id=84]
In all seriousness, though, it's kind of a fucking travesty that we've got an army of ridiculous, mediocre white dudes-- Bennet, Delaney, Steyer, Gloomy-- are still out there while a legit-if-flawed candidate is shunted to the side.



Delaney, Steyer and Bloomberg are self-funding. They can go on forever regardless of polls. Other campaigns are run on a shoestring. Bennet probably has money left over from his senate campaign (as did Warren, Sanders and Booker). And of course, Tulsi's funded by the KGB. :)

Edgy MD
Dec 04 2019 07:34 AM
Re: Politics 2019


Edgy MD wrote:

I'm surprised that she left before Iowa, if only because she seemed to have her own niche.


She also avoids the tarnish of a single-digit Iowa flameout. Also... she gets to skip being in Iowa in December!



In all seriousness, though, it's kind of a fucking travesty that we've got an army of ridiculous, mediocre white dudes-- Bennet, Delaney, Steyer, Gloomy-- are still out there while a legit-if-flawed candidate is shunted to the side.


If it helps it go down better, she was preceded out the door by several mediocre white dudes.

TransMonk
Dec 04 2019 01:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27482 time=1575446674 user_id=68]
So theoretically, Trump could run for reelection even it he was impeached and removed, right? I mean, there's no rule against that, right?



Of course, if the base was still behind Trump so that he'd secure the nomination, then the Senate wouldn't remove him in the first place. But this is just a hypothetical.



It is my understanding that if the Senate were to convict, they could prohibit him from running again in their decision...but that they would have to specifically disqualify him from future elections in their ruling. This could also be specified in the language of the impeachment articles from the House. If the House's articles include a disqualification from future elections and the Senate approves the articles, then he would be disqualified. However, I am not a lawyer and this is all uncharted territory. I would expect the Trump admin/campaign would fight any ruling as far as they could since there is no precedence.

Double Switch
Dec 04 2019 03:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Just now sat down to read this news on CNN: "Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Tuesday said he is "1,000% confident" that Russia, not Ukraine, meddled in the 2016 US presidential election, breaking from President Donald Trump and others in his party who have pushed the discredited conspiracy theory."



Now I await (not holding my breath, mind you) how long it takes Senator Goober Kennedy (R- LA) to board the Lindsey bus.

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 04 2019 05:39 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=TransMonk post_id=27572 time=1575489895 user_id=71]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27482 time=1575446674 user_id=68]
So theoretically, Trump could run for reelection even it he was impeached and removed, right? I mean, there's no rule against that, right?



Of course, if the base was still behind Trump so that he'd secure the nomination, then the Senate wouldn't remove him in the first place. But this is just a hypothetical.



It is my understanding that if the Senate were to convict, they could prohibit him from running again in their decision...but that they would have to specifically disqualify him from future elections in their ruling. This could also be specified in the language of the impeachment articles from the House. If the House's articles include a disqualification from future elections and the Senate approves the articles, then he would be disqualified. However, I am not a lawyer and this is all uncharted territory. I would expect the Trump admin/campaign would fight any ruling as far as they could since there is no precedence.


Lazy me. Tha answer's in the Constitution itself. (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7). In an impeachment trial, the Senate can vote to remove and also, to disqualify. You are correct. But I don't see the legal challenge toa disqualification vote. It's in the Constitution and it's unambiguous. Not that that would discourage a challenge.

Double Switch
Dec 04 2019 06:34 PM
Re: Politics 2019




So theoretically, Trump could run for reelection even it he was impeached and removed, right? I mean, there's no rule against that, right?



Of course, if the base was still behind Trump so that he'd secure the nomination, then the Senate wouldn't remove him in the first place. But this is just a hypothetical.


It is my understanding that if the Senate were to convict, they could prohibit him from running again in their decision...but that they would have to specifically disqualify him from future elections in their ruling. This could also be specified in the language of the impeachment articles from the House. If the House's articles include a disqualification from future elections and the Senate approves the articles, then he would be disqualified. However, I am not a lawyer and this is all uncharted territory. I would expect the Trump admin/campaign would fight any ruling as far as they could since there is no precedence.


Lazy me. Tha answer's in the Constitution itself. (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7). In an impeachment trial, the Senate can vote to remove and also, to disqualify. You are correct. But I don't see the legal challenge toa disqualification vote. It's in the Constitution and it's unambiguous. Not that that would discourage a challenge.


I knew you would ferret this out because it was asked and answered earlier, probably a few pages back in this very thread. What continues to bewilder me is why Trump wants to continue to expose himself to all this potential prison-destination scrutiny. I need to go back to the story I read a few years ago as to who it was who convinced him to run. Also, I continue to harbor deep animosity toward that Jewish lawyer who came up with the tactic of disparaging "liberals." He died a few years ago and I meant never to forget his name but indeed I have. New York guy, too. I, as a Jew, wish I believed in hell so I could send him to it.

LWFS
Dec 04 2019 07:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Roy Cohn, d'ya mean?

MFS62
Dec 04 2019 07:31 PM
Re: Politics 2019

In the Less Wilpon? thread, Lefty Specialist wrote,
But yeah, I'm definitely determined to stay alive for five years and outlast the Wilpons.

I want to live long enough to piss on Trump's grave.

Later

Double Switch
Dec 04 2019 07:50 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=27671 time=1575513092 user_id=60]
In the Less Wilpon? thread, Lefty Specialist wrote,
But yeah, I'm definitely determined to stay alive for five years and outlast the Wilpons.

I want to live long enough to piss on Trump's grave.

Later



Please organize the party. I will be there even if I have to move off the dirt over my own grave.

Double Switch
Dec 04 2019 07:51 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=LWFS post_id=27668 time=1575512593 user_id=84]
Roy Cohn, d'ya mean?



No. Way after that bit of mucous. I'll go search it out.

MFS62
Dec 08 2019 05:49 AM
Re: Politics 2019

More "there were good people on both sides":

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-south-carolina-governor-nikki-171344681.html



And this was blatant, too:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-pro-israel-group-114207225.html



Later

Lefty Specialist
Dec 08 2019 06:46 AM
Re: Politics 2019

=MFS62 post_id=27671 time=1575513092 user_id=60]
In the Less Wilpon? thread, Lefty Specialist wrote,
But yeah, I'm definitely determined to stay alive for five years and outlast the Wilpons.

I want to live long enough to piss on Trump's grave.

Later



I'll join you, but I'll have be sure I drink a ton of beer the night before.

Edgy MD
Dec 09 2019 07:47 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The Washington Post reports "Democrats expected to draft two articles of impeachment against Trump."



Two? Don't they mean, like, 52?

Ceetar
Dec 10 2019 07:04 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

The Washington Post reports "Democrats expected to draft two articles of impeachment against Trump."



Two? Don't they mean, like, 52?


they don't have time to announce 52, they got a meeting right after to support Trump's trade thingy.

MFS62
Dec 12 2019 06:54 AM
Re: Politics 2019

He's a slug:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-mocks-greta-thunberg-after-she-wins-time-person-year-n1100531

She has Asperger's Syndrome and is trying to save the world.

Where's Baron?

Later

Lefty Specialist
Dec 12 2019 09:29 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Greta's updated Twitter page:



Greta Thunberg

@GretaThunberg

A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.




Never get into a social media fight with a 16-year old.

Edgy MD
Dec 12 2019 01:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

I met a guy online today who's wife of 16 years is so slavishly devoted to the president, that when he mentions a policy that concerns him, she tells him to go "home." Apparently, he was born abroad.



This is how we talk to one another now.

Lefty Specialist
Dec 12 2019 06:22 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Yes, they really did this. An uncomfortable reminder of how Trump feels about 'uppity' women.



https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1205156430879379460/photo/1

Double Switch
Dec 12 2019 06:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019

If Greta were a US citizen and old enough, she could kick his ass for president too.





Time Mag is a private entity who can pick whomever they want. What a nasty crybaby we have in the WH. Nauseating.

Lefty Specialist
Dec 14 2019 05:11 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Meanwhile, in the UK, Boris Johnson and the Tories win a stunning victory, which greases the skids for crashing out of the EU with or without a deal on January 31. It'll be a disaster, but they brought this on themselves. In 10 years, we may see a united Ireland and an independent Scotland as a result.

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 19 2019 05:41 AM
Re: Politics 2019

While all sentient people were aghast yesterday at the GOP Rep. who compared Trump to the historical Jesus at his trial, a Federal Appeals court declared ObamaCare to be unconstitutional. The deciding vote -- a Trump judge.



https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/475186-appeals-court-strikes-obamacare-mandate-sends-case-back-to-lower-court



Meanwhile, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind Trump having to carry his own cross to his crucifixion site. But then, do they start a religion based on him, where he floats in the sky invisibly and makes things happen, provided you ask him telepathically? And what if you ask the invisible sky Trump to reinstate ObamaCare, assuming it's eventually rescinded? I'll bet he'd give Ivanka a lot of money if that's what she wanted and she asked for it, telepathically of course.

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 19 2019 01:45 PM
Re: Politics 2019


While all sentient people were aghast yesterday at the GOP Rep. who compared Trump to the historical Jesus at his trial, a Federal Appeals court declared ObamaCare to be unconstitutional. The deciding vote -- a Trump judge.



https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/475186-appeals-court-strikes-obamacare-mandate-sends-case-back-to-lower-court



Meanwhile, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind Trump having to carry his own cross to his crucifixion site. But then, do they start a religion based on him, where he floats in the sky invisibly and makes things happen, provided you ask him telepathically? And what if you ask the invisible sky Trump to reinstate ObamaCare, assuming it's eventually rescinded? I'll bet he'd give Ivanka a lot of money if that's what she wanted and she asked for it, telepathically of course.


Trump just went on television to bullshit everybody some more -- that is to say, he opened his mouth to speak. On ObamaCare, he said that the Courts just knocked out the individual mandate even though the mandate was already rescinded a few years ago. And then he said that Americans will get better pre-existing medical conditions coverage than what ObamaCare provided even though the GOP hasn't lifted a finger to make any kind of pre-existing coverage happen.

Ceetar
Dec 19 2019 10:40 PM
Re: Politics 2019

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=28639 time=1576759279 user_id=68]


Meanwhile, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind Trump having to carry his own cross to his crucifixion site. But then, do they start a religion based on him, where he floats in the sky invisibly and makes things happen, provided you ask him telepathically? And what if you ask the invisible sky Trump to reinstate ObamaCare, assuming it's eventually rescinded? I'll bet he'd give Ivanka a lot of money if that's what she wanted and she asked for it, telepathically of course.





You'd only really be able to pray for conquest over preteen girls, your own daughter, McDonalds and for no one to see you cheat at golf.

Edgy MD
Dec 19 2019 10:58 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Anybody want to hazard what the deal is with Representative Gabbard? Can she really just be a Manchurian candidate right out in the open as Secretary Clinton seems to suggest? Or is there a different long game she's trying to play?



I mean ... present? You fucking kidding me?

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 20 2019 06:05 AM
Re: Politics 2019


While all sentient people were aghast yesterday at the GOP Rep. who compared Trump to the historical Jesus at his trial, a Federal Appeals court declared ObamaCare to be unconstitutional. The deciding vote -- a Trump judge.



https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/475186-appeals-court-strikes-obamacare-mandate-sends-case-back-to-lower-court






Follow-up to yesterday's ObamaCare decision. Of course, it's about the courts. It always is. Everything, in the end, is about the courts.



Attention Democratic Debaters: It's No Longer About Healthcare, It's About the Courts



A federal court's decision on Obamacare earlier Thursday should throw those Medicare For All debates into sharp relief.




Something happened in a Washington courtroom on Wednesday that had a material impact on the debate between seven of the Democratic presidential candidates in Los Angeles on Thursday night. From The New York Times:


But the appeals panel did not invalidate the rest of the law, instead sending the case back to a federal district judge in Texas to “conduct a more searching inquiry” into which of the law's many parts could survive without the mandate. The 2-1 decision, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, left the fate of the nearly decade-old health law in limbo even as access to health care has become a central issue in the presidential race. Republicans, for whom a decision to throw out the law heading into the presidential election year could have been a political nightmare, seemed relieved, while Democrats issued a flurry of statements emphasizing that the law was still in grave danger.



The ruling was issued almost exactly a year after Judge Reed O'Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth struck down the entire law, saying the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the Affordable Care Act because it was “the keystone” of the law, essential to its regulation of the health insurance market. With Judge O'Connor now facing a time-consuming assignment from the appellate court, the case is unlikely to be resolved before next year's presidential election.



Now this puts the angels-on-the-head-of-a-policy debate among the Democratic candidates into very sharp relief. The issue for them now isn't healthcare. The issue is The Courts—perhaps the single most important issue that Democratic voters choose to ignore, year after year, election cycle after election cycle. The majority on the Fifth Circuit, which struck down the mandate, is largely a creation of the last two Republican presidencies. (In fact, to the surprise of essentially nobody, this administration* reversed the Obama administration's position on this case, arguing for the removal of the individual mandate.)



Here's the thing going forward: without a change in administrations, a change in the Senate, and a long-term transformation of the federal courts, any argument among the Democratic candidates about healthcare are essentially sterile ones. Debates between Medicare For All, Medicare For Some, Medicare For Left-Handed People On Wednesdays—these are all essentially academic, because none of those plans are going to survive the sinkholes already in place. That's what's waiting for any of them if they happen to get elected, and that very much includes Joe Biden, who still believes in unicorns that sneeze rainbows.



The debate is now the courts, not the budget and not the tactics and not really even about the candidates themselves. It's about the long work of reinstalling sanity as an essential part of running a democratic republic. Everything else is dumbshow.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30287337/democratic-debate-healthcare-courts-obamacare-decision/



I think Pierce was writing about packing the courts, because the only way the Dems are ever going to get back the courts after the GOP tremendous en masse blockade of judicial nominees during the last two years of Obama's last term -- vacancies that are now being filled at a frenetic pace by the GOP. So why didn't Pierce say so? He doesn't pull punches or make veiled suggestions. in his writings.



Anyways, this piece is a good start. When I can find an article like this just about every day -- when I can tune in to Joy Reid or Lawrence O'Donnell or Chris Matthews or Chris Hayes at any time on any day of the week and expect to catch five minutes devoted to the state of the Federal judiciary, then I'll know that Dem politics is finally in the right place.



Meanwhile, that wimp centrist Amy Klobuchar is getting kudos all over the web for answering a lame-o softball question during yesterday's debate about the kind of judges she would nominate. She answered more or less, that she would nominate liberal judges. Wow. How impressive. /rolls eyes.

batmagadanleadoff
Dec 22 2019 09:59 AM
Re: Politics 2019

Wowza!



Trump must remain in power to stay out of prison: Watch what he does after Senate acquits him

We're about to get Trump squared: He'll triple down on trying to steal the election after the Senate lets him off






The danger of impeaching Trump without removing him from office has always been that we will have blown the last “check” we have on him. When the Senate lets him off without even a slap on the wrist, Trump will be even more unrestrained than ever. Steel yourself. We're about to get Donald Trump squared.



The last time he felt he'd gotten away with his crimes was when special counsel Robert Mueller failed to find evidence of a conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Russians during the 2016 election. Less than 24 hours after Mueller lamely testified as much to Congress, an apparently giddy Trump picked up the phone and called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and tried to get yet another foreign leader to help him steal an election. He offered Zelensky a bribe to get him to investigate his likely opponent in 2020, Joe Biden, and tried to strong-arm Zelensky into making Ukraine the scapegoat for the 2016 Russian hacking of Democratic emails.



He won't be able to stop himself from doing it again. He's not going to stop at doubling down. He'll triple down on everything he's pulled over the last four years.



He's going to call Putin and promise to lift the sanctions if he chips in to get him re-elected. He'll call Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey. He'll talk to President Andrej Duda of Poland. He'll reach out for help from every wannabe Mussolini from South America to Singapore. And he'll get it. They'll find ways to slip him money under the table. They'll turn loose hit squads of trolls to infect American social media with campaign propaganda.



He's going to put the full weight of his Department of Justice behind efforts to suppress the votes of poor people, young people, blacks, Latinos, women, the LGBTQ community — in fact anyone likely to vote Democratic. He'll call for “investigations” of every Democratic presidential candidate who's going up in the polls and announce he's got “dirt” on every one of them. He's going to unleash an army of surrogate liars to spread falsehoods about his opponent. He's going to go from one rally a week to two to three; maybe he'll hold a rally every other night. He's going to turn Air Force One into an airborne criminal command post.



He's going to wave unindicted co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani like a red flag and tweet out every red-meat lie he blabs on Fox. Then he's going to pardon his indicted co-conspirators like Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone and line them up at rallies alongside the murdering war criminals he's already set free.



Donald Trump is the O.J. of American politics. He murdered American democracy, and his search for the “real killer” produced a villain: Joe Biden.



Trump has been daring the Democrats to impeach him since the day he took office — hell, since the day he was elected. Remember all those Trump Tower meetings with Russians during the transition? Flynn's phone calls with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the ones he lied about to the FBI? The tsunami of lies that came out of Trump's mouth at his first formal press conference? Every time he talks to the press on the White House lawn? His insane clown tweets? Firing James Comey and then bragging about it to Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office — while giving them top secret information about ISIS we had received from the Israelis?



He's been practically shouting, “Catch me if you can.” When he gets caught, it's “What are you gonna do about it?” His Republican backers in the House mimicked Trump's attitude during the impeachment debate on Wednesday. They didn't bother arguing that Trump had done nothing wrong. Not one of them stood up for their moment at the mic and defended Trump's character. They like it that he's a ruthless, soulless thug. He's their kind of guy, the Republican president they've been waiting for since Ronald Reagan.



Democrats aren't used to playing for keeps with psycho killers who can't be bothered to read the rules, much less play by them. That's why it has taken three years to impeach a president who began committing impeachable offenses during his first few weeks in office.



But now that we've gone and done it, and now that the Republican O.J. is going to walk out of the Capitol a free man, what do we do now?



Well, we'd better learn to play hardball and get a pitcher who will throw straight at the batter and knock him out of the box. Playing by gentlemanly rules doesn't work. This isn't about our sacred Constitution, or the almighty rule of law, or the solemn duty of the House of Representatives, and stop with the quotes from Federalist 53. At this point, it's only tangentially about Trump's crimes. This is about power. Trump and his minions will be utterly unbound in their effort to hold onto power, and we will have to be even more driven to take it from them.



Republicans have taken an openly sick delight in electing Trump. They are proud of him. He's the perfect avatar of their party. All he cares about — and all his entire party cares about — is power. Impeaching Trump won't remove him from office, and we'd better get serious about removing him at the ballot box. Republicans — Mitch McConnell, especially — have already shown us what they'll do with the power they will seize with four more years of Trump. They'll cram that nightmare down our throats.



They've already cut taxes for the wealthy and driven the budget into a hole. They've packed the federal courts with the simpering incompetent children of the Republican conservative “revolution” and jammed two yes-men punks onto the Supreme Court in a pure exercise of rank political power. If Trump is re-elected, they'll strip-mine Social Security, murder Medicare and shred the social safety net, and they won't stop there. Even as the dead bodies from one mass killing after another pile up in the schools, churches, streets and shopping malls, they'll remove the few controls states have been able to put on gun ownership. They will turn voting into more of an exercise in futility than it already is. They'll commit every crime they can to nullify the demographic changes that are on the horizon before new voters will have a chance to save us.



On the day after Trump is set free by the Senate, we will face the most important question in our lifetimes, and the choice has never been clearer. Do we want to live in a free country or in Donald Trump's fundamentalist, oligarchical, authoritarian nightmare?




https://www.salon.com/2019/12/21/trump-must-remain-in-power-to-stay-out-of-prison-watch-what-he-does-after-senate-acquits-him/

Edgy MD
Dec 22 2019 05:04 PM
Re: Politics 2019

The top item on Vladimir Putin's Christmas list was a Democratic presidential candidate. Imagine how pissed he's going to be when he wakes up Christmas morning and finds out his parents got him Tulsi Gabbard.

Lefty Specialist
Dec 23 2019 12:00 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Trump, verbatim, trying to do everything he can to break wind.



I never understood wind. I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody. I know it is very expensive. They are made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none, but they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right spewing, whether it is China or Germany, is going into the air. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. After a certain number, they make you turn the windmill off, that is true. By the way, they make you turn it off. And yet, if you killed one, they put you in jail. That is OK. But why is it OK for windmills to destroy the bird population?

LWFS
Dec 23 2019 12:23 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Edgy MD wrote:

The top item on Vladimir Putin's Christmas list was a Democratic presidential candidate. Imagine how pissed he's going to be when he wakes up Christmas morning and finds out his parents got him Tulsi Gabbard.


GABBARD: hi, mr president



PUTIN: excuse, please? new phone who dis?



GABBARD: present

Fman99
Dec 23 2019 03:36 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Lefty Specialist wrote:

Trump, verbatim, trying to do everything he can to break wind.



I never understood wind. I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody. I know it is very expensive. They are made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none, but they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right spewing, whether it is China or Germany, is going into the air. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. After a certain number, they make you turn the windmill off, that is true. By the way, they make you turn it off. And yet, if you killed one, they put you in jail. That is OK. But why is it OK for windmills to destroy the bird population?


Totally incoherent garbage. Anyone who reads this and then advocates that this "person" should remain in office is a liar, or a dunce.

Benjamin Grimm
Dec 23 2019 05:09 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Well, we DO have a world. He was right about that. Pretty insightful!

kcmets
Dec 23 2019 06:07 PM
Re: Politics 2019

Going after the mentally-unfit-for-office seems a much better and quicker solution

to ousting the fucktard than all the silly impeachment this and that which in the end

will seemingly never work anyway.

Edgy MD
May 07 2020 02:18 PM
Re: Politics 2019


Wowza!



Trump must remain in power to stay out of prison: Watch what he does after Senate acquits him

We're about to get Trump squared: He'll triple down on trying to steal the election after the Senate lets him off






The danger of impeaching Trump without removing him from office has always been that we will have blown the last “check” we have on him. When the Senate lets him off without even a slap on the wrist, Trump will be even more unrestrained than ever. Steel yourself. We're about to get Donald Trump squared.



...



Then he's going to pardon his indicted co-conspirators like Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone and line them up at rallies alongside the murdering war criminals he's already set free.


https://www.salon.com/2019/12/21/trump-must-remain-in-power-to-stay-out-of-prison-watch-what-he-does-after-senate-acquits-him/


Didn't even need to get out the pardon pen for General Flynn.