pacino wrote:Sam Brownback may take an ambassadorship and leave Kansas. Bully for Kansas!

I hope the budget for his department is next to nothing

pacino wrote:you joke but that sentiment is already being repeated ad nauseum among conservative circles

that's why I joke, I know this'll be the talking point for a while

and they'd be dumb not to honestly, one of the few positives to come out

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:
I hope the budget for his department is next to nothing

assign him to one of the 6 travel ban countries and eliminate State's security budget for that post.

his pants will be brown in back

Obviously can't trust the jobs numbers since Beltway swampdwellers produced them, but looks like just a touch under last year's February results.

Bill Kristol predicted the ACHA bill would never get a vote on the floor.

Well, I guess that means that not only will it get to the floor but it'll sail through Congress.

The President of South Korea has been forced from office.

To expound on TV's post:

"South Korea has been plunged into a period of political uncertainty after the President, Park Geun-hye, was forced out of office by a corruption scandal. The country's Constitutional Court upheld a parliamentary vote to impeach Park over allegations of corruption and cronyism. She becomes the country's first democratically elected leader to be forcibly removed."

See, Congress, it can be done.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/asia/sout ... index.html

for a corruption scandal!

Rasmussen has President Mr Trump's approval rating at -4. Wow.

he'll probably get a dead cat bounce around summertime, I would think. The economy is still doing well.

traderdave wrote:To expound on TV's post:

"South Korea has been plunged into a period of political uncertainty after the President, Park Geun-hye, was forced out of office by a corruption scandal. The country's Constitutional Court upheld a parliamentary vote to impeach Park over allegations of corruption and cronyism. She becomes the country's first democratically elected leader to be forcibly removed."

See, Congress, it can be done.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/asia/sout ... index.html

goes to show you, just put your shadowy weird cabal people in your cabinet or NSC and you're totally fine!

The Savior wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Gorsuch receives a well qualified rating from the ABA.

Hopefully the Dems are forced to filibuster by their base, so McConnell can unleash the nuclear option, allowing any other nominee from Mr. Trump who might actually change the balance of the court to be confirmed by majority vote. Easy to see Collins/Murkowski and maybe institutionalists like McCain unwilling to go nuclear in that situation when doing so for such a well qualified nominee filling a slot held by an arch conservative is significantly less difficult.

Yeah, let's hope. This are the things to be hopeful about.

It is! Liberal interest groups seem unsatisfied with Dem opposition so far, but many senators are signalling a fight. I'd guess 10 or so will peel off to vote for cloture in a tactical retreat and the war is saved for another day, but it seems parts of the Dem base will be looking for more.

thephan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Gorsuch receives a well qualified rating from the ABA.

Hopefully the Dems are forced to filibuster by their base, so McConnell can unleash the nuclear option, allowing any other nominee from Mr. Trump who might actually change the balance of the court to be confirmed by majority vote. Easy to see Collins/Murkowski and maybe institutionalists like McCain unwilling to go nuclear in that situation when doing so for such a well qualified nominee filling a slot held by an arch conservative is significantly less difficult.

Gorsuch should be looked at as a gift as Trump & Friends could have done so many other horrible things. He is not a bad candidate, but in light of the stupidity of the Merrick Garland affair, it is sad. No one except crazy liars can make a reasoned case against Garland. Hell, he might have been the most seasoned, qualified and proven justice nominee in my life time. So the GOP brought that shame forward, and shows it has no actual interest in the proper governance of the US, only partisanship.

I would argue that in order to have proper governance the country needs a court that protects our constitutional rights without inventing new ones while serving as a check on the power of the federal government, and we're more likely to get that from a court with Gorsuch on it than Garland. So there was plenty of interest in the proper governance of the US. Democrats would've done the same if roles were reversed, and not because they are terrible partisans, but because the court is important and the parties disagree on it.

thephan wrote:Regarding the nuclear option, that would finish the decent into autocracy. If that route is taken, there is no real reason to believe in the system representing the will of the people. It is as simple as that. Honestly, as a frequent JH defended, and as at least on PM said apologist, the desire to use the nuclear option is truly the worse thing you have said in memory.

For those who have not lived under an actual nuclear threat, the term carries weight as it is assured unilateral destruction, which was omnipresent throughout my childhood. The fear, almost expectation, of total obviation was a source of constant threat whenever tensions were high, which was often. That is not the United States of America that the Founders established, in fact it is they type of tyrannical rule that they rebelled against.

The nuclear option would mean a simple majority of the Senate could end debate on nominations, rather than needing 60 votes. I don't know if this is satire or sarcasm or something from you, but Mitch going nuclear - bringing the same confirmation standards to SC justices as Harry Reid brought to the rest of the Senate Judiciary & executive branch nominees - is a somewhat different prospect than nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union or tyranny or autocracy.

I heard him interview with mr. Cones on Bloomberg Radio and he seems to be walking the president's GDP and growth promises. It starts with this year is half over and the numbers are there for baked in, that makes it someone else's fault for not hitting the number. Then there's the promise of all these ceos who are going to do all these great things that they promised they will come in the future, but no commitment. The new commitment part is actually smart, except he was waxing on about previous presidents growth promises being unrealistic and that they won't do that. I think we're too little too late in that regard. We heard immediacy, and specifics. Both GDP, and job growth rate. Again immediately.

When he took office there were 96 MILLION people out of work. Now unemployment is down to 4.7%!!!!!

"turns out the CIA actually hacked the DNC and made it look like the Russians." - a bunch of Conservative pundits right now, and a bunch of barking seal Trump cultists for the next however many years.

Youseff wrote:"turns out the CIA actually hacked the DNC and made it look like the Russians." - a bunch of Conservative pundits right now, and a bunch of barking seal Trump cultists for the next however many years.

Come on, name their leader, besmirch the name of Sean Hannity.

feels like Scott Pruitt pulled a Jeff Sessions on the CO2 question. Doesn't make his views more right, but makes his incompetence more obvious

Sooo the CIA was in the bag for Trump, by that logic? I want to move to Denmark

Woody wrote:Sooo the CIA was in the bag for Trump, by that logic? I want to move to Denmark

That's where they want you to go.