US Politics: Sorry, we do make the rules.

[Fragile Bird]

47 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Republicans are engaging in a genocide and dems are bragging about McCarthy getting mildly embarrassed 

Fucking fuckers.

[Tywin et al.]

Right now every flight in the US is being grounded.

Gremlins...

[DireWolfSpirit]

The worse problem with the Biden classified documents discovery, is that it benefits the traitorous former Presidents position when he can point the finger elsewhere.

All his neophytes can now deflect and try to alter the narrative of Trumps inexcusable behavior. 

Its most unfortunate.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 hours ago, DMC said:

That was only if Newsom got to appoint a replacement before 2024.

So, if Feinstein decided to retire this year (to spite Porter) for Health Reasons, Porters campaign would be dead before it even starts. Ofc, more sensible reading is, that she can read the writing on the wall/has inside knowledge, that Feinstein will indeed not seek reelection.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So, if Feinstein decided to retire this year (to spite Porter) for Health Reasons, Porters campaign would be dead before it even starts. Ofc, more sensible reading is, that she can read the writing on the wall/has inside knowledge, that Feinstein will indeed not seek reelection.

She's obviously assuming Feinstein won't run, yes.  And she's almost certainly right about that.  Other potential candidates surely are too - Adam Schiff, Ro Khanna - but she clearly wanted to get the jump on them.  Schiff and Khanna are criticizing her for announcing the run during the current weather emergency.

Anyway, Feinstein's clearly not resigning before her term ends, so Newsom's promise only is relevant if she dies in the next 18 months or so.  Even if that happens, I wouldn't call Porter's campaign "dead," just means she'd be going up against an appointed incumbent - which is carries considerably less weight than an elected incumbent.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The worse problem with the Biden classified documents discovery, is that it benefits the traitorous former Presidents position when he can point the finger elsewhere.

 

All his neophytes can now deflect and try to alter the narrative of Trumps inexcusable behavior. 

 

Its most unfortunate.

 

 

Let them try to make as much hay as they can, as it really does seem to be apples and oranges .

Edited January 11 by Jaxom 1974

[Fragile Bird]

I wonder if Trump will argue that if a search was done you’d find everybody who worked in a high office took home some forbidden documents and he’s the only one being picked on.

[Gaston de Foix]

11 hours ago, BBB Jacelyn said:

What was it, that the representative was reading? 

The Silent Art of Not Giving a Fuck    ???

What bravery

It was super thirsty.  I don't care how smart Katie Porter is: her treatment of her wounded warrior fellow was disgraceful.  The texts speak for themselves.  No matter what, California will elect a Dem Senator and we have some great choices: Ro Khanna, Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee. 

As for DiFi, good riddance.  Maybe Lindsay will give her a hug on her way out.  

[Gaston de Foix]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I wonder if Trump will argue that if a search was done you’d find everybody who worked in a high office took home some forbidden documents and he’s the only one being picked on.

That's exactly what he will argue.  It's not a great legal argument (essentially, it's a claim of selective prosecution because of his political status as a declared presidential candidate and views).  

Plus he will argue that NARA didn't provide sufficient guidance for a toddler's attention span.  Plus he delegated to staff members.  Plus the government routinely overclassifies documents.  Plus, he didn't know.  The government has to prove intent. 

The only "iffy" argument he may or may not make is about his status as President.  The President is the "god" of the classification system, he can declassify anything he likes.  But for Trump to make that argument would amount to a concession that he knew the documents were classified at the time and took them anyway.  

 The audience that has to grasp the key distinctions between him and Biden/Clinton/Strobe Talbot is not the trial judge, it's a jury.  A couple of MAGA-heads could lead Jack Smith to having a very public fall.  CYA might take over.  Alvin Bragg is exhibit A there.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Anyway, Feinstein's clearly not resigning before her term ends, so Newsom's promise only is relevant if she dies in the next 18 months or so.  Even if that happens, I wouldn't call Porter's campaign "dead," just means she'd be going up against an appointed incumbent - which is carries considerably less weight than an elected incumbent.

Well, how much of an incumbent bonus does Feinstein have at this point? I mean her cognitive abilities have been put into question publicly not that long ago (anonymous staffer claiming she is losing the plot). So my guess is, that she is probably vulnerable to a primary challenge at this point. The knives were out, and Porter just took the first stab so to speak. So would her primary  prospects be better against Feinstein than against Bass or Lee?

[Gaston de Foix]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, how much of an incumbent bonus does Feinstein have at this point? I mean her cognitive abilities have been put into question publicly not that long ago (anonymous staffer claiming she is losing the plot). So my guess is, that she is probably vulnerable to a primary challenge at this point. The knives were out, and Porter just took the first stab so to speak. So would her primary  prospects be better against Feinstein than against Bass or Lee?

If her cognitive abilities have substantially declined as has been credibly reported, I imagine she would get roasted at a primary debate with Schiff or Porter.  But I can't really see a universe where Porter runs against Feinstein and everyone else sits out.  Feinstein should have retired earlier, and has been making bad decisions for a while.  But I hope someone (next of kin, staff, Schumer) will tell her in no uncertain terms to go.  

[BigFatCoward]

WTF are 89 year olds doing with any responsibility at all?  Why are so many of your politicians so old? 

 

Edited January 11 by BigFatCoward

[Jaxom 1974]

Obviously our Democratic leaders are all so old because they eat children and bathe in their blood underneath pizza parlors...duh...

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Bit uncalled for, as the question why you put your octogenarians in the senate (or keep them on the courts) instead of a retirement home is kinda justified.

Anyway...

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

If her cognitive abilities have substantially declined as has been credibly reported, I imagine she would get roasted at a primary debate with Schiff or Porter.  But I can't really see a universe where Porter runs against Feinstein and everyone else sits out.  Feinstein should have retired earlier, and has been making bad decisions for a while.  But I hope someone (next of kin, staff, Schumer) will tell her in no uncertain terms to go.  

Kinda not answering the question/missing the point (maybe I've put it badly).

Do you think Porter (or Schiff) would have a better primary prospect against Senator Feinstein or appointed Senator Bass (or Lee)?

As I don't think there's really much of an incumbent bonus for Feinstein at this point. 

I don't think Porter announcing her intention to run is a disgraceful treatment of Feinstein. That ship sailed with the reports on Feinstein's cognitive decline. The proverbial sharks were circling, question really just who would bite first. 

Isn't there a saying in English Politics about the public liking the treason, but not the traitor? Anyway, like I said, I think it's kinda nonsensical here. There's apparently a general feel/consensus that Feinstein would or should retire. Porter just re-emphasized that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is something else about to drop on George Santos (if that is really his name)?

 

Edited January 11 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Wilbur]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is something else about to drop on George Santos (if that is really his name)?

 

You can't go around scamming big donors out of real cash and expect to walk away unscathed.

[Gaston de Foix]

43 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Bit uncalled for, as the question why you put your octogenarians in the senate (or keep them on the courts) instead of a retirement home is kinda justified.

Anyway...

Kinda not answering the question/missing the point (maybe I've put it badly).

Do you think Porter (or Schiff) would have a better primary prospect against Senator Feinstein or appointed Senator Bass (or Lee)?

As I don't think there's really much of an incumbent bonus for Feinstein at this point. 

I don't think Porter announcing her intention to run is a disgraceful treatment of Feinstein. That ship sailed with the reports on Feinstein's cognitive decline. The proverbial sharks were circling, question really just who would bite first. 

Isn't there a saying in English Politics about the public liking the treason, but not the traitor? Anyway, like I said, I think it's kinda nonsensical here. There's apparently a general feel/consensus that Feinstein would or should retire. Porter just re-emphasized that.

Oh I see.  The saying his he who wields the knife never wears the Crown. 

The thing about incumbent bonus is that most people don't pay close attention to politics.  DiFi has been around forever, voting for her in California is probably just muscle memory.  Whereas Lee or Bass don't have universal name recognition throughout California.  An aside, I wonder would Bass give up the mayoralty of LA? 

So, FWIW I think she probably has a better shot against an appointee especially since Newsom's desperate promise to appoint a black woman limits his choices.  

[Gaston de Foix]

2 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

You can't go around scamming big donors out of real cash and expect to walk away unscathed.

As enjoyable as this is, I can't imagine a world where he actually resigns.  What else does he have going for himself?  House Ethics ain't gonna do squat.  He's made a deal with McCarthy.  He's sticking around. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, how much of an incumbent bonus does Feinstein have at this point? I mean her cognitive abilities have been put into question publicly not that long ago (anonymous staffer claiming she is losing the plot). So my guess is, that she is probably vulnerable to a primary challenge at this point. The knives were out, and Porter just took the first stab so to speak. So would her primary  prospects be better against Feinstein than against Bass or Lee?

The primary is going to be incredibly crowded with or without Feinstein.  And yes, if Feinstein did run she would have a lot of trouble getting in the top two of California's jungle primary.  Frankly, the Dems quite possibly could split the vote so much with so many quality candidates the a Republican could possibly sneak into the two two (and then get walloped, but still).

Anyway I think it's irrelevant because I think there's, like, a 98% probability Feinstein isn't going to run.

ETA:  I think Bass' Senate prospects are done.  She chose to be mayor of LA instead.

Edited January 11 by DMC

[Zorral]

30 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

As enjoyable as this is, I can't imagine a world where he actually resigns.  What else does he have going for himself?  House Ethics ain't gonna do squat.  He's made a deal with McCarthy.  He's sticking around. 

Moreover, he himself declared "I am not resigning and that's that. So there."