Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Unwashed

U.S. Politics: Pooch Been Screwed

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Hard to say considering I haven't seen any polling between the two.  They're obviously the only two serious contenders at the point.  That being said, I sure hope not.  Crist has reached the "perennial candidate" phase of his career, which is never the guy you want as the nominee.  I think Fried would run a lot better against DeSantis and the few head-to-heads out there support that.

I found one, but I've never heard of it:

http://stpetepolls.org/files/StPetePolls_2021_State_DEM_May26_NC7H3.pdf

I'd assume most of Crist's lead, given the margin, is just due to name recognition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd assume most of Crist's lead, given the margin, is just due to name recognition. 

Yeah unless someone else serious runs Fried's support is gonna shoot up among the primary electorate, especially as she garners expected institutional and activist support.

Share this post


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

Yeah unless someone else serious runs Fried's support is gonna shoot up among the primary electorate, especially as she garners expected institutional and activist support.

What makes you so bullish about her? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

What makes you so bullish about her? 

I'm not, particularly.  I just think Demings and Fried are the best statewide candidates they got - and by a significant margin.  I suppose you could say I'm more bearish on Crist than bullish on Fried.  I like Jane Castor, a lot, but I think she should wait.

Share this post


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

I'm not, particularly.  I just think Demings and Fried are the best statewide candidates they got - and by a significant margin.  I suppose you could say I'm more bearish on Crist than bullish on Fried.  I like Jane Castor, a lot, but I think she should wait.

That's fair. I hate to take cheap shots at politician's looks who aren't terrible people, but Crist's skin does look like the epitome of balding tires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Crist's skin does look like the epitome of balding tires.

He's like George Hamilton's long lost brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 4:05 PM, horangi said:

Yes- which is what they should be doing- maintaining the legal institutions outweighs the individual outcomes.  Otherwise you are granting essentially line-item veto by court.  Now if there was discretionary authority provided in the law, then by all means flex it to the max.  But I suspect the exclusion is pretty clear cut in this case. 

Oh. Yes. Let’s make fucking sure those territories keep getting treated like shit because those laws absolutely weren’t written to be racist as fuck. Spectacular reasoning that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Keystone XL is dead, cancelled by the contractor.

I thought this happened before, and then it came back to life after Trump was elected. Or is this a more permanent cancelation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS surprises again: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf

In a 5-4 they narrowed the definition of "violent felony" to make it harder for the mandatory minimum sentences of the Armed Career Criminal Act to apply. The 5: the three liberals, Gorsuch, and Thomas.

That's a hell of a line-up. Thomas only agreed in judgment, not the reasoning. But in this court make-up, I'll take whatever I can get.

Also, it's another example of Thomas still having his own idiosyncrasies on a few issues rather than 100% of the time taking the conservative stance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden’s DOJ doing a bang-up job fucking over every group that actually worked to get Biden elected; this time by backing religious schools who want to discriminate against LGBTQ students.

Quote

The filing came in a federal lawsuit in Oregon from students at religious schools who are suing the government for providing funding to schools with discriminatory policies. Tuesday, DOJ had said that it will continue to defend it.

During PRIDE, no less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@The Great Unwashed

25 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Biden’s DOJ doing a bang-up job fucking over every group that actually worked to get Biden elected

If they got someone elected to make sure the DoJ only did things for their political benefit, then they should have been throwing their money at Trump, whose DoJ was perverted to political ends. The DoJ is just saying that it's obliged to do its job is to defend the law, at least while the policy around it is still under review. 

25 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

During PRIDE, no less. 

Until Pride Month is a federal holiday, yes, during Pride. They're obliged to make their filings in reasonable time, and this was an update to a previous filing.

Slate has a level-headed piece on this, pointing out that the DoJ's doing its job means that the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities won't get to do it instead, because they would present far more extreme arguments concerning religious liberty and exemption from massive swathes of civil rights law.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Federal judge confirmed (well, almost, technically there will be one more vote this afternoon, but it's a formality at this point).

1. How sad, but not surprising, that it's only now that we'll have the first Muslim federal judge ever.

2. I'm legit a bit surprised that 33 Republican senators were willing to vote in favor of a Muslim judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fez said:

Another Federal judge confirmed (well, almost, technically there will be one more vote this afternoon, but it's a formality at this point).

2. I'm legit a bit surprised that 33 Republican senators were willing to vote in favor of a Muslim judge.

Either they want to get the judge in so they can shout about his Sharia Law agenda, or maybe they weren't even paying attention and voted wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fez said:

2. I'm legit a bit surprised that 33 Republican senators were willing to vote in favor of a Muslim judge.

The GOP doesn't seem to be putting up a fight on the district court nominees but I expect the appellate nominees to have near party line votes.  That makes sense in terms of relative importance.  Kinda like how Cece Rouse got 94 votes as CEA chair but wouldn't get anywhere near that if she was up for, say, Treasury Secretary.

Share this post


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

The GOP doesn't seem to be putting up a fight on the district court nominees but I expect the appellate nominees to have near party line votes.  That makes sense in terms of relative importance.  Kinda like how Cece Rouse got 94 votes as CEA chair but wouldn't get anywhere near that if she was up for, say, Treasury Secretary.

In terms of relative importance, I agree. But considering how out-and-out racist the GOP base now is, I figured only the 5 or 6 "usual suspect" GOP senators would vote in favor of a Muslim judge specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fez said:

I thought this happened before, and then it came back to life after Trump was elected. Or is this a more permanent cancelation?

That was DAPL. Keystone XL has had some setbacks that looked bad, but the contractor cancelling the contract is the final nail in the coffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Islamophobia inside the beltway, this blowup over Ilhan Omar's tweet is pretty disgusting.  For the uninitiated, here's a rundown of the situation:

Quote

Rep. Ilhan Omar is forcefully denouncing "harassment & silencing" from her own Democratic colleagues after a dozen of them issued a late-night statement criticizing her for comparing war crimes committed by the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban. [...]

And Omar made an additional attempt to defuse the tension on Thursday, with some guidance from Democratic leadership. She issued a "clarification" that stated she was "in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems." [...]

Rather, her Democratic colleagues took issue with her "false equivalencies" between the U.S. and Israel on one hand, and Hamas and the Taliban on the other. The critical statement from 12 Democrats, led by Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), rebukes Omar’s comments during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Monday, when she asked Secretary of State Antony Blinken about a International Criminal Court probe of allegations against both the Taliban and the U.S. in Afghanistan and by Hamas and Israel in their own recent Middle East conflict.

It's also important to share Omar's original tweet that sparked the controversy.  In it, she shares a video where she simply asks Blinken about the US' opposition to ICC investigations in both Palestine and Afghanistan (and the US' general opposition to the ICC):

That is NOT a false equivalency between US/Israel and Hamas/Taliban.  Acknowledging atrocities have been committed by all parties mentioned would not be controversial if stated by a white male.  The Democratic MCs seizing on the rightwing fear-mongering and demonization of Omar is preposterous and needs to stop.

Share this post


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

That is NOT a false equivalency between US/Israel and Hamas/Taliban.  Acknowledging atrocities have been committed by all parties mentioned would not be controversial if stated by a white male.  The Democratic MCs seizing on the rightwing fear-mongering and demonization of Omar is preposterous and needs to stop.

They've probably internalized the reflexive opposition to "both sides" in the domestic context and transferred it to this "all sides" comment in an international one. :)

More seriously, it would be controversial no matter who said it. In theory, everybody knows of the various things the US has done (and continues to do), but in practice, it's very bad form for American politicians to lump it into the same basket as our enemies. There are some Democrats who are in districts where people will not care (a few might even applaud), but there are also quite a few in districts where such comments can be used against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

More seriously, it would be controversial no matter who said it.

No, it demonstrably wouldn't.  Hell, even Rashida Tlaib does not garner rightwing attacks when making comparatively much more "inflammatory" tweets like this:

ETA:  Sorry the tweet is so long.  Can't figure out how to just paste the tweet at the bottom - "Enough with our country funding..."

Edited by DMC

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...