Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

by **thephan** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 13:37:28

Saw a screen with Fox News on and it said DOJ is not pursuing charges against McCabe. That will go down well with their core was audience. Brace 4 tweets!

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 13:38:07

thephan wrote:https://www.wibw.com/content/news/County-in-rural-Kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt-567727951.html

County in Kansas tossing people in jail over medical debt. It hardly helps create a payment plan when you remove the wage earner, which then impacts the 2+ jobs he has to try and survive.

Yeah I sorta thought this was why we got rid of debtor's prison.

by **thephan** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 13:43:31

There were some recent news stories that some still exist. Maybe in Mississippi.

In VA we have worked hard not to take driver's licenses from people with unpaid court fees, etc. People cannot pay if they cannot get to work, and when they lose a job they become harder to employ since they get fired for not showing up for work. It also was a state charge to not pay court costs leading to jail time. So on and so on. It simply hobbles people. Must often non-white people.

by **06hawkalum** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:01:44

jamiethekiller wrote:Lotta lol there

Yup, the disingenuity is off the charts.

by **JUburton** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:03:27

06hawkalum wrote:
jamiethekiller wrote:Lotta lol there

Yup, the disingenuity is off the charts.

the plural of anecdote apparently appears to be IMPENDING DISASTER.

by **JUburton** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:04:18

JUburton wrote:
06hawkalum wrote:
jamiethekiller wrote:Lotta lol there

Yup, the disingenuity is off the charts.
the plural of anecdote apparently appears to be IMPENDING DISASTER.

This dumbass is a CHIEF SCIENCE OFFICER at some company and just went 'well forget all rational thought, I hung out with the most ardent supporters one day and that was enough to prove to me that any democrat is going to be absolutely murdered in november.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:35:05

Woody wrote:My current thought is that there’s no way Trump doesn’t win 2020. A Bernie nomination is his team’s wet dream IMO. SORRY.

I have not particularly been a Bernie Bro, so I feel I speak with some authenticity when I say:

That last part is nonsense.

Think about this on a state-by-state basis. You need PA, MI, and WI.

Now ask yourself:

Why would PA vote for ________ instead of Trump?
Why would MI vote for ________ instead of Trump?
Why would WI vote for ________ instead of Trump?

The only candidate for whom there is clearly and simply articulatable answer for all three of those questions is Bernie Sanders, and it isn't close. And Bernie might put certain states in play, and won't lose you any states you won.

by **jamiethekiller** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:39:11

1. it'd be a miracle if even LESS people voted in 2020 than 2016.
2. No way Trump has ADDED to his voting base.

even the smallest amount of higher voter turnout would reflect well for any democrat candidate over Trump. If the minority vote improves even 1% then Bernie will probably win.

by **thephan** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:48:46

NYT

President Trump asserted Friday that he had the legal right to intervene in federal criminal cases, a day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly rebuked him for attacks on Justice Department prosecutors and others involved in the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the president’s longtime friend.

In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The president said he had “so far chosen” not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he is not legally bound to do so.

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” he said.

Nuff said.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 14:55:40

thephan wrote:
NYT

President Trump asserted Friday that he had the legal right to intervene in federal criminal cases, a day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly rebuked him for attacks on Justice Department prosecutors and others involved in the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the president’s longtime friend.

In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The president said he had “so far chosen” not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he is not legally bound to do so.

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” he said.

Nuff said.

Well, sure this is why our Founding Fathers saw fit to enshrine the... <checks Constitution>… hmmmm, the Divine Right of Kings isn't in here, how odd.

by **Werthless** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 16:13:51

06hawkalum wrote:Yikes:

https://gen.medium.com/ive-been-a-democ ... 9ddaaf6d07

Please consult a doctor before reading to confirm your heart is healthy enough for pro-Trump material written by a liberal. May cause heart palpitations.

by **Werthless** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 16:17:52

Wolfgang622 wrote:
thephan wrote:
NYT

President Trump asserted Friday that he had the legal right to intervene in federal criminal cases, a day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly rebuked him for attacks on Justice Department prosecutors and others involved in the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the president’s longtime friend.

In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The president said he had “so far chosen” not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he is not legally bound to do so.

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” he said.

Nuff said.

Well, sure this is why our Founding Fathers saw fit to enshrine the... <checks Constitution>… hmmmm, the Divine Right of Kings isn't in here, how odd.

Justice Department is part of the executive branch.

by **Squire** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 16:45:58

jamiethekiller wrote:1. it'd be a miracle if even LESS people voted in 2020 than 2016.
2. No way Trump has ADDED to his voting base.

even the smallest amount of higher voter turnout would reflect well for any democrat candidate over Trump. If the minority vote improves even 1% then Bernie will probably win.

I think this is right. I can't imagine that there is any 2016 voter who didn't vote for him then but says "oh yeah....now I'm definitely on board". I also think there has to be some segment of voters who voted for him but thought he'd act Presidential once he got in there. I also tend to think he a more significant portion of his voters aged out than Hillary's.

by **CalvinBall** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 16:49:52

i know a few Rs who did not vote for him but will this time around.

by **Rockinghorse** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 16:56:24

They can weather a slight Dem increase in the three key states to win again, and if the voter suppression works as intended, there might actually be a drop-off in reported D votes

by **JFLNYC** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 16:58:02

Wolfgang622 wrote:
Woody wrote:My current thought is that there’s no way Trump doesn’t win 2020. A Bernie nomination is his team’s wet dream IMO. SORRY.

I have not particularly been a Bernie Bro, so I feel I speak with some authenticity when I say:

That last part is nonsense.

Think about this on a state-by-state basis. You need PA, MI, and WI.

Now ask yourself:

Why would PA vote for ________ instead of Trump?
Why would MI vote for ________ instead of Trump?
Why would WI vote for ________ instead of Trump?

The only candidate for whom there is clearly and simply articulatable answer for all three of those questions is Bernie Sanders, and it isn't close. And Bernie might put certain states in play, and won't lose you any states you won.

I guess we all exist in our own little echo chambers because based on everyone I’m speaking with and, not for nothing, editorials this week from Frank Bruni and Tom Friedman, the answer to all questions about beating Trump is definitely Bloomberg and definitely not Bernie — and it’s not even close.

As someone who voted for Bernie the only time I was given the opportunity to do so and did not vote for Bloomberg when given multiple opportunities to do so, I think I speak with some authenticity on the point. :lol:

by **Gimpy** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 17:02:00

I bet there are a lot of people who didn’t vote for him because they weren’t cool with how crass and terrible he was who’ve accepted the batshit insane stuff that has happened since Trump has been elected (since his ratfucking of our democracy has been normalized by the majority of the media/every republican elected official).

by **traderdave** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 17:22:26

The Pentagon on Thursday slashed billions of dollars in funding for 17 Navy and Air Force aircraft and other military programs to free up money for the construction of President Donald Trump's long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall, angering not just Democrats but also GOP defense hawks. Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved the $3.8 billion border wall request from the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon acknowledged that more cuts could be coming to provide additional funding for Trump's signature campaign promise.

There is bipartisan rebuking:

Mac Thornberry (R), Ranking R on the House Armed Services Committee
"The wall should be funded, but the funding must come through the Department of Homeland Security rather than diverting critical military resources that are needed and in law. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to determine how defense dollars are spent," he said. "The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress's constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action. I will be working with my colleagues to determine the appropriate steps to take."

@RepAdamSmith (Chair of the HASC)
Today’s reprogramming request confirms once again that the President is obsessed with fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense of our national security. This admin has already stolen billions from the DoD for the President’s vanity wall, and today they are doubling down.
4:20 PM - Feb 13, 2020

But, ultimately, this is all the Dems fault:

Kay Granger, R-Texas, the ranking member on the House Committee on Appropriations
"I unequivocally support President Trump's efforts to secure our nation's borders and support our men and women in uniform. Democrats have refused to work with us on border security, which has forced the President to redirect funds from other defense programs in the short term in order to secure the southern border," she said in a statement.

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 17:49:58

CalvinBall wrote:i know a few Rs who did not vote for him but will this time around.

yeah, you can pretty much expect the vast majority of people who voted Gary Johnson last time to go Trump this time

by **Bucky** » Fri Feb 14, 2020 18:00:19

then you have the 401k single-issue voters

Archived

Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?