Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Next time you see a rabid dog, try to ask it not to bite you. You may have better success.

Point taken, but dogs totally love me.  Dogs and babies.  It's the Jesus look man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ormond said:

One of my former students just posted a link to this article on Facebook, about research which correlates the degree of "fragile masculinity" found in Google searches in congressional districts across the country with the vote for Trump in 2016 and Republican candidates in 2018:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/?fbclid=IwAR3x8F3rq3zncFZOh7tl1rN7mKetC1M4LSdKQ9caO1-Dl1YKMff8B9QUUpE&utm_term=.e0960e6889cc

I think the most interesting point to me in this article was that "fragile masculinity" was NOT correlated with support for either McCain or Romney, so this is actually a new issue in voting behavior. 

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that support for Trump is linked to an interest in penis enlargement. 

He's the incel President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I want this investigation to be thorough. I want it to be done right. The drips we're getting aren't enough to draw any firm conclusions (tantalizing as they are). I really hope there is some meat on these bones, but I understand that this all takes patience and I am willing to wait.

It's getting really hard, though. I want to see some sweet, sweet melt-down tweets.

Not exactly apropos of your post, but there's something throughout this process that has driven me crazy.  It's a statement that's usually made by someone sympathetic to Trump that goes along the lines of "he hasn't shown any collusion," "he hasn't shown any criminality," etc...

Not only are these claims questionable on their own merits, but it's like a very sad attempt at a Jedi mind trick by the Trumpist who wants us all to believe that the way this works is that Mueller needs to bring the end of the investigation now in order to proceed.  Of course, something much closer to the opposite is true.  It is an ongoing investigation, and they don't need to show shit until they feel like it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to perform a parody of The Beatles 'Taxman' called 'The Tariff Man!'. It practically writes itself.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How do you propose to abolish the Senate?

With style?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The admittedly biased folks on MSNBC are saying that the fact that Mueller is recommending zero jail time for Flynn strongly suggests that Flynn really gave up the goods to Mueller.   At this point does it not seem clear that it's all just going to come down to two things?

1) will Republicans continue to back Trump after Mueller's report?

2)  If #1 is affirmative, will voters re-elect Trump?

If by chance #1 is wrong I still have a hard time seeing the Senate removing him from office because there's no way Trump's masses turn on him en masse now matter what.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Funny how Scot and his white moderate counter parts in here are more forgiving of rich racist white killers than they are of women of color that actually care about people, isn't it?


 

Could you point out where I suggested AOC did something for which she needs to be forgiven?  Mistakes born of inexperience are hardly something to damn someone over.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

The admittedly biased folks on MSNBC are saying that the fact that Mueller is recommending zero jail time for Flynn strongly suggests that Flynn really gave up the goods to Mueller.

I don't think Flynn knows anything particularly compelling that he hasn't already told the prosecutors.

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

1) will Republicans continue to back Trump after Mueller's report?

2)  If #1 is affirmative, will voters re-elect Trump?

If by chance #1 is wrong I still have a hard time seeing the Senate removing him from office because there's no way Trump's masses turn on him en masse now matter what.   

1 is almost a certainty.  2 is what no one knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

With style?

What style?  Seriously, the most difficult thing to change in the US Constitution is the existence and structure of the Senate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't think Flynn knows anything particularly compelling that he hasn't already told the prosecutors.

I don't follow.  I feel like we're just now getting new glimpses into what Flynn has told the prosecution.  Sure, the process has been underway for some time.  I'm only saying that this rec that he gets no jail time is kinda, sorta an addendum on what he's told them in the 19 (19!) times he's met with them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What style?  Seriously, the most difficult thing to change in the US Constitution is the existence and structure of the Senate.  

Ya know, if I was 10 years younger I'd just do a facepalm emoji or something.  My response was a joke.  If you want to seriously read about the Senate I suggest Frances Lee's work

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I'm only saying that this rec that he gets no jail time is kinda, sorta an addendum on what he's told them in the 19 (19!) times he's met with them.  

Well, yeah, that's the basis of my assumption.  But maybe you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DMC,

I’m not saying the Senate is something that should be above change.  I’m simply pointing out that equal representation in the Senate is literally the only thing in the US Constitution that would require unanimous ratification to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How do you propose to abolish the Senate?

I didn't propose to abolish it, I posted an article, which I guess can look like an endorsement. I posted it because I'm interested in bold solutions. to these trying times and our diseased politics. Any changes to the Constitution are clearly off the table in the short term. I'm more in favor of something like packing the SC, as that at least is within the realm of the possible, although politically fraught. 

Of course there ways the Senate could end or be modified. For example, if New York and California demanded it in order for them to remain in the Union. It could happen after future, unseen, and perhaps horrible events. It could happen in a 100 years or 50 years or 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scot,

I know what you're saying.  I'm just being a smartass.  I don't think anyone actually wants to abolish the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I didn't propose to abolish it, I posted an article, which I guess can look like an endorsement. I posted it because I'm interested in bold solutions. to these trying times and our diseased politics. Any changes to the Constitution are clearly off the table in the short term. I'm more in favor of something like packing the SC, as that at least is within the realm of the possible, although politically fraught. 

Of course there ways the Senate could end or be modified. For example, if New York and California demanded it in order for them to remain in the Union. It could happen after future, unseen, and perhaps horrible events. It could happen in a 100 years or 50 years or 20.

Perhaps.  I just think the break up of the US is more likely than the elimination of equal sufferage from the Senate because of the way Art. V was written to protect the structure of the Senate.

; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.  US Const. Art V.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Scot,

I know what you're saying.  I'm just being a smartass.  I don't think anyone actually wants to abolish the Senate.

No, there are folks who really do want to either abolish the Senate or change it such that it does take population into account.  They make compelling arguments.  Which is part of the reason why I think a real Constitutional Convention should be held and that nothing should be off the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×