Which is why R’s probably won’t lose 1,000 seats like D’s did. However, it is a potentially bad group for R’s because of their geographic dispersion.
Which is why R’s probably won’t lose 1,000 seats like D’s did. However, it is a potentially bad group for R’s because of their geographic dispersion.
Flake has been speaking for 15 minutes and the most substantive thing he's said is “I say to all of our colleagues: for this process to be a ...process, we must have open minds.”
He wouldn’t have survived his primary here for a reason.
It's depressing to watch this Kavanaugh business. It demeans the role. It's a good job the country itself manages to get by so remarkably well, because institutionally it appears to be fucked at every level nowadays.
I just barely remember the Thomas one but that was also insane. The morning and afternoon hearings have been insane for totally different reasons. What is truly sad is the morning seemed like both left and right watched the same hearing. Afternoon is all partisan.
What do normal people think of this?
The worst part is how thick the senators seem to be. This Blumenthal one is upping the ante on the div that went before him (who set a high bar).
Lindsey Graham, in full meltdown mode because the Democrats are finally willing to play the game the Republicans have been playing for 20 years, has been a highlight
Getting a female prosecutor to cross examine the witness claiming to be a victim of sexual assault and then dismissing them two questions in when she addresses the accused perpetrator is a bad look for the GOP members of that committee and an even worse look for a judge looking for his second lifetime appointment.
Is the face of a man being challenged for the first time in his life at 53 years old.
Normal Americans are smart and pay no mind outside of “Washington is the worst place in the country.” The tv news coverage will dictate a lot.
Women I personally known in their 30’s and 40’s were pissed and crying. We pretty much just accepted the office was shut down today. But that group of women has gotten so political this year it is hard to describe. They used to be interested and involved in politics, but local stuff like school boards. They have just completely moved into national activism.
The conservative men I know and can talk politics about while just kidding around calling each other baby killers were really quiet this morning and totally aggrieved this afternoon.
Originally Posted by mikem
I don’t know people in their twenties anymore.
If you're going to be evil, at least be competently evil. A Supreme Court justice is such a huge deal, and it's clear that the Republicans didn't do due diligence in making sure their ultra-conservative nominee was impeccably crystal clear. They need to be tracking down school friends, colleagues, and anyone who might possibly have been in a situation who could have been aggrieved at some point. Nothing like this should ever catch them by surprise - especially so close to a tough midterm, meaning that time is limited.
I suspect that the Republicans never thought to ask anyone who wasn't in "their circle" as to whether there would be problems with the nomination. Which is crazy, because they're not going to be the ones with charges to make.
They already knew and just ignored it. McConnell advised against picking him but Trump.
Reading about him, he does seem to have built a career by being a bit of an ultra-conservative shill. That said, I don't know that you can seriously judge people based on their behaviour as a teenager/student, short of them having committed actual, proven crimes. I know it's seen as a massive issue, but does the 'balance of the court' really make as big a difference to things as the hysteria would suggest? I can't imagine them being able to overturn Roe v Wade or the Brown case, for example, without causing some sort of revolution. Or is it all the little things? Baing a bit more conservative and allowing states to steadily erode into things/being very 'liberal' with the extent of the President's powers etc?
I think the most disturbing thing I read was that he was high-school buddies with that Gorsuch chap they appointed last year. I don't know why but I didn't like the idea of that one bit
You've been coming across as very right wing in your past couple of days of posts, Niko. Hadn't had you down as that before.
I do wonder about Roe v Wade. Assume that Kavanaugh or equivalent gets in, the pressure will really be on them to act on it. The Republicans have been saying they want to overturn it but they need a majority solidly conservative Supreme Court for what, 20 years? And soon they'll have it.
But the other thing is that if they do overturn Roe, they'll risk the loss of millions of single-issue voters. And they know that - it's definitely the biggest single issue for a huge number of people, because when they're backed into a corner, they can always play what even more cynical Christians refer to as the abortion juke. "Sure, maybe Christianity does say we should be nice to poor people, and maybe we're handing the country over to corporations, and sure people are dying because they don't have healthcare, and maybe they'll cut healthcare to a dinosaur colouring book and a pocket calculator with a face drwan on it - but the other side literally kills babies". They'd have a real risk of losing the conservative catholic voters, who typically put abortion first, then a big gap, then support a litany of social welfare initiatives.
But if they do get the court, and then really obviously do nothing... the landscape might get complicated.
I bet he's been to about a hundred dinner parties since June 2016 and hasn't once been able to say he supports Brexit. He's obviously going to vent on here.
Mate, I've got 3 kids, I haven't been to a 'dinner party' for about 7 years. I'd tell anyone anyway, even though I didn't actually vote, so I could more safely lol from the sidelines at my wife/her family whilst not being directly accountable and, you know, sovereignty etc.
I've never voted for Labour, mind. Nor would I, in all likelihood.
'Da Nang Richard' is straight into the top five Trump nicknames.
I realise that they had to get him in, but there is something pretty interesting/great about Trump and that not caving in on this judge. I think pretty much every 'normal' politician would have shat the bed and pulled him, but what you gonna do mate out-lie and out-bully Donald J. Trump? You need a new approach.
From reporting it seems it was the opposite, Trump caved and wanted a full FBI investigation which would have destroyed him. McGahn (the guy that chose Kavanaugh and all these other numpties that will make certain that China will overtake the US sooner rather than later) pulled through instead.
Hopefully we can move on to be enraged about something else now.
Yeah, because he probably didn't know how FBI checks worked. Once it will have been explained to him that he couldn't just give them forever to go through every aspect of his life, he then comes out to bat and starts slamming people.
That's giving Trump way too much credit.
If any other Republican had been elected, can you tell me a notable policy/personnel difference?
I have no idea whether Trump wanted to stick with him or not, but I do know that he will claim the e-victory regardless and ride the rage-wave all the way to the re-election.
If Beto O'Lib beats Ted Cruz in Texas only for the democrats to lose New Jersey because they stuck with a corrupt pro-business asshole that even the corrupt pro-business people don't like, I will lol.
I think a 'moderate' Republican would have either shit it and pulled the nomination, or just hidden away and hoped it went through without tainting them. The Donald mate comes out the front door and starts baiting 'Da Nang Richard' calling the media Democrats.
No 'moderate' Republican would have got elected. The Republican party is just these nutters. Ted Cruz has claimed that O'Rourke will ban barbecue food and make ISIS-sympathiser education mandatory.
For a sign of what counts as moderate, Jeff Flake's (what a fucking slug, I actually hate him more than the likes of Steve King who is at least honest about his racism) sons gaming/twitter accounts got made public recently. Goes by the name of n-wordkilla41 (censorship is on my side not his) or something.
Did you see that video of Beto O'Rourke that Cruz shared on Twitter? It was him talking to a congregation at some black church and saying that police killings of unarmed black men have to stop and that he supported the 'Take a Knee' protests and Cruz seemed to think the video made O'Rourke look bad. It was just baffling.
It had black people applauding him. Preventing black people from being happy is the only part of the GOP platform that the base actually likes. You'll note they're actively avoiding talking about their massive tax cut that they said was incredibly popular, weird that.
O'Rourke is a proper politician to get behind. He might be a bit too Obama on the pragmatist-idealist spectrum, but he's a hard fucking worker
I hate this push to get him to run for the big boy job if he wins. Motherfuckers, you will likely not win Texas again for a decade, do not remove the only way you'll have that senate vote.
But yeah on a policy level he's a shitlib who will try to be bipartisan because he somehow hasn't realised the game is rigged.
How you spend 6 months turning the ACA into a giant subsidy for the insurance industry to get Republican votes, have them vote unanimously against it and send most of it to be challenged by the Supreme Court and STILL try to compromise with these lizards is beyond me.
The reason why is there still isn't anybody on the Democratic ticket who could win in 2020. O'Rourke maybe could, but his would be a totally feckless presidency if he went in that early.
Trump won by 50k across 3 states because of a terrible democratic turnout for a bad candidate. They run any of Warren/Gilibrand/Harris/Bernie and it'll be fine. I even think Biden could win but it'd be touch and go. The scary part is I seriously think if anyone who preaches what they should (Medicare 4 All, Corporate Gains back to 30% etc.) will get an independent challenge from Michael Bloomberg which might be just enough to split the vote for Trump.
Of those 4, only Harris would run, and she's probably the best candidate they have. But I'm not sure the increased Dem turnout wouldn't be offset by increased Republican turnout.
Is Bloomberg trying to run independent? Haven't heard anything there
There isn't going to be increased Republican turnout. Their core vote is old people who already vote. Trump got the same as Mitt Romney despite the voting population increasing by 15 million people.
He keeps dropping hints about 'If the Democrats move too far left', the mans a rampant egomaniac and he has enough money to make the kind of grifter consultant base spend a lot of time convincing him he should for a paycheck.
I don't think so, the foregone conclusion aspect of 2016 (obligatory lol) meant that all sorts of people affiliated with either party stayed home. Trump's going to lose the popular vote regardless, but who's to say Wisconsin / Michigan / Pennsylvania haven't gotten more polarized since the last election?
When I talk to people I usually take your point of view, that I can't see how Trump wins the next election, but I guarantee that the Democratic party is fucking quaking it their boots about choosing the right candidate and that's only going to hurt their chances. They should coalesce around someone as soon as possible
He'll win the next election because growth is high (unless that bubble bursts) and the opposition won't be able to stop themselves looking like mentals.
This. The left are so far up their own arse nowadays, they lose the election regardless of what Trump does.
Ah yes the people turning up to Trump rally's wearing Q shirts because they believe *checks notes* that Donald Trump is working with Robert Mueller to secretly arrest Hollywood paedo's... Those people are normal.
Incredibly normal.
I am enjoying people railing against small states having the same voting power as larger ones without being able to connect the dots towards less federal government.
The House was supposed to increase with population but they froze it in 1910 for some reason I'm not sure of because I didn't take a class in American Civics.
WSJ have an op-ed out claiming tax dodging is okay because ‘all rich people do it’. Would love to see this type of thinking applied to other laws.
Without seeing the article, doesn't that depend on what you are defining as 'tax dodging'?
Trump winning the next election will be worth it for the meltdown alone which will eclipse the first.
Come again?
Personality politics, lads. There's no bigger personality than Don.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dogs-bi...xes-1538780049
He goes on to say, journalists get annoyed about this but I bet they have had a speeding ticket or an illegal fishing license at one point so all is fair.Unfortunately, the most interesting revelation is one the Times buries—the astonishing degree to which father Fred Trump patiently financed and strategically connived in the creation of what the paper calls the “Donald Trump myth.” Think Joseph P. Kennedy. There’s even a parallel in the displacement of firstborn son Fred Jr. from his original slot as heir apparent.
In one way excruciatingly detailed by the Times, however, Mr. Trump and his sire are nothing new under the sun. Nobody in their right mind from the compulsive accumulator class pays the punitive federal estate tax. From an early age, such people make sure their lifetime achievements are not sucked up and splattered away in 15 seconds of federal spending. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, all apparently in the pink of health, have been working for years to shield their assets from the taxman. Sam Walton, the saintly founder of Walmart , in his autobiography advised: “The best way to reduce paying estate taxes is to give your assets away before they appreciate.”
Because politicians find it useful to appease both the envious and the wealthy, the IRS code features both an estate tax and ways to avoid it. A loophole the Times accuses the Trumps of using is a so-called grantor-retained annuity trust, described as “one of the tax code’s great gifts to the ultrawealthy.” Unsurprisingly, it also happens to be a favorite of the Sulzberger family, which owns the New York Times.
Show me a wealthy entrepreneur whose family paid the death tax of 55% (now 40%) and I will show you an entrepreneur who died unexpectedly. Or who, like Miami Dolphins owner Joe Robbie, watched from beyond the grave as his careful arrangements were upended by his squabbling heirs.
(As the piece notes, Donald Trump 'earned' at least $413 million from this tax dodge.)Also, let’s note an important underpinning of many such newspaper investigations. Journalists are as unlikely as the next person to adhere rigidly to the law in their driving habits, their use of pharmaceuticals, their failure to procure a valid fishing license.
Here is the full times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...red-trump.html
Reply With Quote
