Jump to content

DMC

Members
  • Content Count

    17,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About DMC

  • Rank
    Pithy Witticism

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

17,167 profile views
  1. On the other end of gerrymandering is the Virginia map proposed by their "bipartisan" commission: To be fair, while Virginia's delegation is currently 7 Dem 4 GOP, two of the Dems are in slight GOP seats. Other than the 7th the map doesn't look much different than the current one.
  2. Probably. Both the GOP and Latino groups are already challenging the Illinois map drawn for the state legislature - albeit this is ostensibly based on the map having to be drawn from population estimates to meet a deadline.
  3. Also the release of the Illinois map appears to have made Adam Kinzinger finally accept he's screwed...
  4. Yes I was referring sweet pies. The only real experience with savory pies I have is my mom used to occasionally make chicken pot pie growing up. It was ok - to be fair it was handicapped as it was one of her ways of getting rid of a bunch of old leftovers.
  5. But is the famed 4th district still in tact?!? That image is too small to tell and inquiring minds need to know! Right now the delegation is split 13 Dems to 5 GOP - with two Dems in (very) slightly GOP seats (both R+2). So, it would seem they shored up their incumbents' seats and the GOP lost the seat that's getting axed. No biggie - mayhaps Bustos retired a little too soon. Her 17th looks a bit skinnier, probably cutting out some rural voters. It's Kyrsten but I'll be damned if I don't feel weird every time I try to type it.
  6. That's my point. No matter who he nominated, it would take the encouragement of the White House - tacit or otherwise - for an AG to go ahead with aggressive prosecution. With Garland, even that might not have done the trick. With Jones, pretty sure it would have.
  7. I think he would have if it was encouraged by Biden and the administration.
  8. Doug Jones would have gotten confirmed and I definitely could see him being much more aggressive than Garland. In fact, his nomination rather than Garland would have been a signal that Biden/the administration were much more serious about aggressive prosecution - which of course would be a prerequisite no matter who was nominated.
  9. Another part of the issue there was how late Biden nominated an AG in the first place. Anyway, like I said, if Biden/the DOJ pursued this immediately, that's one thing. But yeah, that argument is moot.
  10. Trying to get a hold on this checks and balances discussion, it seems there are two issues. The first is getting Steve Bannon to comply. In that case, the House is moving swiftly to vote on a contempt report. After that, it is right to be cynical about both the DOJ's reticence to prosecute such citations (this goes back decades) and the ridiculous slowness of the courts if the House pursues a civil suit. That being said, I frankly don't care all that much. Let's stop acting like Steve Bannon is Sammy Gravano. His testimony - or lack thereof - is very unlikely to change anything one way or the other. Then, this complaint seemed to jump to prosecuting Trump. Which, first, this complaint is pretty damn late. It was very clear when Garland was nominated he would be reticent to aggressively pursue such action - I lamented that at the time. (Ironically, the news of Garland's nomination broke the morning of January 6.) Moreover, Biden rather quickly signaled he was not interested in such aggressive prosecution either. However, let's not act like if only we had a more aggressive AG this could be a cakewalk. First, actually convicting him of a federal crime would be an arduous battle. And then there's be the appeals battle which would probably go to SCOTUS. Most importantly, assuming super-AG can withstand all that, I'm still not sure it's the right move politically. While I'm NOT saying they are similar situations, the Gingrich Congress infamously lost seats in the 1998 midterms because the public was sick and tired of them trying to prosecute the president - and that president was still in office. Prosecuting Trump may galvanize the base, but does it help you win elections? Hell, back in July, 51% of voters said the indictment of Trump's CFO was politically motivated rather than prosecutors uncovering criminal behavior. I think if Biden/the DOJ struck while the iron was hot and initiated prosecution nine months ago that'd be one thing, but I suspect most voters are inclined to think that ship has sailed. Bottomline, the only way the Dems stop these fascists is by winning elections, and it's quite dubious an aggressive prosecution would help at this point.
  11. Yeah I don't see how De Blasio thinks he has a chance at the governorship..unless he thinks James isn't running. Then again, there didn't seem to be much point to his presidential run either.
  12. Well, I would hope they aren't calling Venezuela and Cuba "eurocommies," although I wouldn't put it past em.
  13. Even then I still don't really see it. The headline reads "‘The president’s decline is alarming’: Biden trapped in coronavirus malaise." So..people are supposed to take from that that "coronavirus malaise" is causing his cognitive decline? I think y'all are hearing zebras.
  14. I think you're revealing your own bias here. The article is predominately identifying the cause of his approval decline - the decline of his approval on covid. And then cites a number of people who assert that covid is indeed what's driving that decline. I thought it relevant to post here because just a few days ago we had a discussion on Biden's declining approval and its causes. Again, if you want to argue that, let me know.
  15. The sourcing of the information is perfectly fine. If I knew all citing the article would engender was whining about politico rather than actually responding to the content of the article I wouldn't have posted it.
×
×
  • Create New...