Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

by **06hawkalum** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 00:46:30

momadance wrote:MSNBC literally just floated Trump shutting down November voting in certain states due to coronavirus.

That's ridiculously paranoid. Furthermore, this current coronavirus epidemic is expected to die out in the early summer.

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 00:58:36

06hawkalum wrote:
momadance wrote:MSNBC literally just floated Trump shutting down November voting in certain states due to coronavirus.

That's ridiculously paranoid. Furthermore, this current coronavirus epidemic is expected to die out in the early summer.

It was a blogger on the panel from theroot.com ... Williams quickly cut to commercial and cleared out the panel. It was such an asinine take. Started rambling about Trump seeing exit polls in Florida, Ohio, etc and declaring an emergency.

by **traderdave** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 09:20:31

momadance wrote:
06hawkalum wrote:
momadance wrote:MSNBC literally just floated Trump shutting down November voting in certain states due to coronavirus.

That's ridiculously paranoid. Furthermore, this current coronavirus epidemic is expected to die out in the early summer.

It was a blogger on the panel from theroot.com ... Williams quickly cut to commercial and cleared out the panel. It was such an asinine take. Started rambling about Trump seeing exit polls in Florida, Ohio, etc and declaring an emergency.

As Adam Schiff has learned (the hard way) there is PLENTY of legitimate Trump insanity without having to make stuff up. All this kind of stuff does is gives the right talking points and feeds into the "unhinged left" narrative. Democrats - The Party of Unforced Errors.

Separately, I read through and listened to quite a bit of the arguments from yesterday and it is really difficult to come away from it not having at least a twinge of fear for the future of our country. A Harvard law professor pushing the idea that a politician, especially the President, can do pretty much whatever they want to get re-elected if they believe their re-election is in the public interest sounds like a very slippery slope toward authoritarianism. Never forget who Trump is coziest with on the international stage.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:16:24

JFLNYC wrote:
Wolfgang622 wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:https://twitter.com/mikebloomberg/status/1222552068231176192?s=21

He may be going nowhere but his media stuff has been great.

Define “great.”

Stop. It’s hilarious.

De gustibus non est disputandum, I guess. I found it weird and unfunny and frankly kinda creepy.

This response tweet, however, was pure gold:

https://twitter.com/MorningBluberry/sta ... 23489?s=20

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:18:00

Secretary Wilbur Ross says coronavirus will be good for ::checks notes:: American jobs: "I think it will help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America."

by **Squire** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:13:23

As much as the purity test guys on this board detest him (and acknowledging I'm a former R).....I still think Bloomberg has a shot. If Bernie wins Iowa and NH, I think there is going to be a snapback among the centrists who fear Bernie getting the nomination who acknowledge that Biden isn't getting it done. Problem is....that I don't suspect that Bloomberg registers that well with the African American primary voters who support Biden.

by **slugsrbad** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:22:48

Bloomberg cannot win against Trump. I can see getting most of Bernie’s support behind Biden eventually, but the Bernie Bros would not accept someone who bought the candidacy. It would be worse than 2016 (I hope I’m wrong).

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:33:55

Oh this makes total sense.

@LindseyGrahamSC
Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle - and there is a lot to choose from - one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are “Blocking Witnesses.” This is an outrageous claim.

by **Gimpy** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:39:01

I think Bloomberg is just trying to guarantee a brokered convention by winning a few states and then would have the power to throw his delegates behind his choice.

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:39:03

momadance wrote:Oh this makes total sense.

@LindseyGrahamSC
Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle - and there is a lot to choose from - one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are “Blocking Witnesses.” This is an outrageous claim.

by **traderdave** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:43:56

momadance wrote:Oh this makes total sense.

@LindseyGrahamSC
Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle - and there is a lot to choose from - one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are “Blocking Witnesses.” This is an outrageous claim.

I guess he is technically correct because they haven't voted on witnesses yet. Once the votes are tallied, Senate Republicans will have blocked witnesses from testifying (assuming that the motion to call witnesses is actually defeated). Further, there is, in fact, "a lot to choose from" in the way of "insane things" from the impeachment proceedings - about 95% of them have come from the GOP side of the aisle.

by **Stripes** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:51:46

slugsrbad wrote:Bloomberg cannot win against Trump. I can see getting most of Bernie’s support behind Biden eventually, but the Bernie Bros would not accept someone who bought the candidacy. It would be worse than 2016 (I hope I’m wrong).

As a Republican, I disagree. I actually think Bloomberg would have the best chance out of all the Dem candidates of beating Trump. In fact, I believe he's the only that could actually defeat him in the general.

by **traderdave** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 13:53:00

Stripes wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:Bloomberg cannot win against Trump. I can see getting most of Bernie’s support behind Biden eventually, but the Bernie Bros would not accept someone who bought the candidacy. It would be worse than 2016 (I hope I’m wrong).

As a Republican, I disagree. I actually think Bloomberg would have the best chance out of all the Dem candidates of beating Trump. In fact, I believe he's the only that could actually defeat him in the general.

Why?

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:14:49

Mitch firing obvious shots at Rand.

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:17:03

Now Rand Paul denied by Roberts.

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:34:35

Now he's walked out of the chambers to talk to reporters.

@jamiedupree
Sen Paul reads reporters his question. It names the whistleblower and a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, accusing them of plotting together to impeach the President.

by **traderdave** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:44:54

momadance wrote:Now he's walked out of the chambers to talk to reporters.

@jamiedupree
Sen Paul reads reporters his question. It names the whistleblower and a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, accusing them of plotting together to impeach the President.

I really wish they would report this as the "alleged whistleblower". There has been no public acknowledgment that this guy is the whistleblower (nor should there be). There are, after all, rules against that; not that the Rule of Law party gives a single f about that.

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:45:33

Pam Bondi still obsessed about fishing in Norway.

by **momadance** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:47:51

traderdave wrote:
momadance wrote:Now he's walked out of the chambers to talk to reporters.

@jamiedupree
Sen Paul reads reporters his question. It names the whistleblower and a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, accusing them of plotting together to impeach the President.

I really wish they would report this as the "alleged whistleblower". There has been no public acknowledgment that this guy is the whistleblower (nor should there be). There are, after all, rules against that; not that the Rule of Law party gives a single f about that.

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1222950224064393216

by **Bucky** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 14:48:23

already taken down

Archived

Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over