Jump to content

U.S. Politics - Oh no! Here we Don McGahn. Recuse or pack.

Lykos

By Lykos,
in General Chatter

 Share

Recommended Posts

Martell Spy Council Member

Martell Spy

Posted
Posted

Exclusive: DOJ mulling potential special counsel if Trump runs in 2024

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/03/politics/doj-trump-investigation-expansion-special-counsel/index.html

Quote

As Donald Trump inches closer to launching another presidential run after the midterm election, Justice Department officials have discussed whether a Trump candidacy would create the need for a special counsel to oversee two sprawling federal investigations related to the former president, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ormond Council Member

Ormond

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not to rain on everybody else's parade (and not to diminish your parental pride), but the everybody else is 40+ line isn't great. I know problem everywhere, that the young don't vote. But that's how we all end up with conservative goverments ruining everybody's life.

Well, in "things are still not good but better than they used to be" news, pollsters at Harvard have reported that 40% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say they "definitely" plan to vote, which would mean 2022 is on track to at least match the youth turnout % of 2018, which was a record. We can hope that holds up.

https://iop.harvard.edu/fall-2022-harvard-youth-poll 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Secretary of Eumenes Council Member

Secretary of Eumenes

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Did @Fire and Jace write this?

the Superstar Losers:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/11/beto-orourke-stacey-abrams-superstar-loser/671959/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

 

 

 

It does sound like something I'd say, screech, or scree: 

3 hours ago, Gorn said:

How do you call a politician that came within 1% of winning their race? A loser.

Easy. You see that they are not the winner, and next time you would like to win so you say LOSER 

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY PARTY YOU USELESS FUCKING LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSERS 

You know why Republicans win races? Because they back fucking WINNERS. And if a loser tries to talk to them they spit in that useless fuckhead's face and kick them into a pile of neglected children, to feed to 'gators. Democrats see a winner and poke her so full of goddammit holes in the interest of "pushing the party blah or dragging it duh" that people literally felt unable to vote in opposition to a (semi)sentient cashew because of a bunch of high-school political sentiments that make folks feel icky for engaging with the world as it is (well, how it used to be)so they choose to live in asinine constructed realities where they can pass around entirely superfluous datas (but only theHappE datas! The sad datas isn't reliable datas) until they all feel warmish and fuzzish enough to group-ejaculate at that poll that shows Beto WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR AAAAAAHHHHHHHHLLLLULULULUL FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK YES! YES! OH!

OH

OOOOOHHHH

OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH

the MARGIN of erROR (which never goes in the sad direction, only the happy error exists)

OH YEEEEEEEESSSSS

Oh Beto. Be my president! The political clickbait industry says you're only gonna lose by a million or so... that's just...

 

OOOOOOHHHH IT JUST DOES IT FOR ME BETO, IM VOTING AGAIN RIGHT NOW, OH BETO YOURE MAKING ME VOTE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAAAAAAAAIN

....

After all those votes you gave me you still lost? Well I voted. A LOT. Like just again and again. So, uh, I don't think it's me. I never have a problem getting non-losers to the winners podium...

 

 

 

Democracy allows you to earn your lot. I honestly, actually, wanna help. But I'd be lying if I said your sufferings were anything but deserved for existing in optimistic greenhouses managed by snake oil salesmen who discovered that you don't even have to deliver pickles in a boot when all you're selling is CGI Carrie Fisher's "Hope"

 

Edited by Fire and Jace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fez Council Member

Fez

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fire and Jace said:

You know why Republicans win races? Because they back fucking WINNERS. And if a loser tries to talk to them they spit in that useless fuckhead's face and kick them into a pile of neglected children, to feed to 'gators.

Trump lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mindwalker Council Member

Mindwalker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Exclusive: DOJ mulling potential special counsel if Trump runs in 2024

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/03/politics/doj-trump-investigation-expansion-special-counsel/index.html

 

Cool. Maybe Mueller is still available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DMC Council Member

DMC

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Did @Fire and Jace write this?

the Superstar Losers:

The article is far too reasonable and coherent for that.  Especially considering it's not asserting this is a bad thing at all - primarily by relying on Julia, one of my favorite people in the world (or at least the discipline):

Quote

Even though Abrams and O’Rourke have been helpful to their party, the golden age of superstar loserdom is closely tied to our current era of what Azari has called “weak parties and strong partisanship.” For one thing, vilification of the opposition allows challengers to especially despised candidates to quickly become household names. Even in extreme-long-shot races, donors have shown a willingness to pour vast amounts of money into these boondoggles. McGrath burned $90 million on the way to her 20-point loss. Harrison raised $130 million in his Senate race and fared only slightly better. In his contest against Ted Cruz, O’Rourke raised $80 million, including $38 million in a single quarter, the most of any Senate candidate in history—all to no avail.

Other than maybe Abrams and Georgia, the contests mentioned were always long-shots at best.  In the past, that meant the Dems would have difficulty recruiting any quality candidate and they'd basically concede the election (or literally concede it like the 24 GOP and 12 Dem MCs that are running uncontested).  People always whine about the Dems being shitty at party building, but that's exactly what these candidates are doing in raising - and subsequently spending - exorbitant amounts of money in losing efforts. 

It'd be one thing if there were potential candidates that promised to perform better than such "losers," but the fact is other than the Castros in Texas - who themselves unsurprisingly decided to take a pass this cycle - there isn't in any of these races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DMC Council Member

DMC

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Any predictions where we stand in the key senate races @DMC

Before you ask key races.

PA, AZ, GA, NV.

I always try to be reasonably optimistic regarding predictions so right now I'd say the Dems take AZ, GA, and PA while Laxalt (and Lombardo) take Nevada to retain the 50/50 split.  For a surprise GOP victory that hasn't been discussed here I'll go with Drazan winning in Oregon.  Also expect Evers to lose in Wisconsin and Lake is a rather easy call in Arizona.  I think Kelly will retain in Kansas though.  A fun upset for Dems for gubernatorial races would be Hofmeister in Oklahoma but I'm not that optimistic.  For the House I'll peg the GOP at 230 seats.

ETA:  Warnock wins in another runoff.

Edited by DMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fez Council Member

Fez

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, DMC said:

I always try to be reasonably optimistic regarding predictions so right now I'd say the Dems take AZ, GA, and PA while Laxalt (and Lombardo) take Nevada to retain the 50/50 split.  For a surprise GOP victory that hasn't been discussed here I'll go with Drazan winning in Oregon.  Also expect Evers to lose in Wisconsin and Lake is a rather easy call in Arizona.  I think Kelly will retain in Kansas though.  A fun upset for Dems for gubernatorial races would be Hofmeister in Oklahoma but I'm not that optimistic.  For the House I'll peg the GOP at 230 seats.

ETA:  Warnock wins in another runoff.

On the senate, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Ryan wins in OH. I think Vance is just that bad. Otherwise, same senate map as you have.

I do think Drazan wins Oregon, and I don't even think it's a surprise; the signs have been there for a while. On the other hand, I think Evers hangs on in WI (but, I think the GOP gets their supermajority in the state leg so he becomes entirely redundant). Hochul wins New York by a large margin and makes everyone who said Zeldin had a shot look really silly.

Somewhere between 225 and 230 House seats for the GOP sounds about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ormond Council Member

Ormond

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

As awful as Vance is, hasn't Ohio drifted towards awful for a while now? So the probability for Ryan picking up that seat are extremely low.

I just don't see the "extremely" given how close the polls have been in this race. I know people say in the past Republicans generally do better than their polling in Ohio, but even if Ryan underperforms his present polls by a few %, he'll be doing a lot better than the party-building "losers" DMC mentions in his post 9 places above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tywin et al. Council Member

Tywin et al.

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

They should get paid the going rate, but a large % should go to the victim(s) of the crime(s) and the rest to any dependent family of the prisoner.

Fuck that, this is a truly horrible idea.

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...