Oh, he can have his recount if he wants it, but asking for a full hand recount of a US House seat race because you lost isn't the best use of money... recounts are find if you think that the results might be overturned or if you have evidence of bad stuff happening, but recounting a race outside of the automatic recount range, when you've got no real case for why the results might be overturned, it's kind of a waste of time. But sure, if he wants a recount they should recount it. The results will very likely be similar to the first count. More importantly, though, I think that the recount is perhaps more about how much he dislikes ranked choice voting than it is about really thinking that the results might be overturned... those quotes there aren't about how this recount will overturn the result, they're about how bad ranked choice voting is.
As this shows yet again, Poliquin has heard his party's "question voting systems" demand loud and clear, so he's doing just that by continuing to make his false claims about how ranked choice is "chaotic" and how this recount is needed because people were confused by that awful ranked choice thing... which, again, isn't true at all. I'm not sure how a recount will change his hatred of ranked choice voting, and the claims that a recount is needed because the supposed (not real) "black box" computer systems which counted the vote were human-made databases that don't sound like they were particularly complex really somehow is a problem that a full paper recount will fix?
I don't really get it, but the way he is challenging the concept of voting is right in line with Trump's comments these last few months, and that's the real point here: challenge voting systems whenever you can, in order to make people less trusting in our democracy because that helps discourage liberals from voting.
All of that aside, yes, a full paper recount will be an interesting thing to see the results of. How close will it be to the machine count? If they go through with the full recount, it'll be interesting to see how close the results are to the machine count.
I can only imagine how he would whine about scored voting. Nah, it would pretty much look exactly like this. So, since they aren't pulling back, why should we? Let's push all the way for scored voting next time, really give him something to cry about.
So I guess Poliquin realized that the recount probably won't make him the winner (though I'm sure they will continue with it anyway), so his newest legal tactic is to sue again, this time saying 'if you won't approve my last lawsuit to declare me the winner because I was ahead on election day, then order a full new election for the race'. https://bangordailynews.com/2018/11/28/p...rict-race/ Given how the judge ruled on his preliminary injunction back near election day -- that is, denying it -- I highly doubt this latest lawsuit will get him his seat back either, just like the other suits. But he's obviously going to try every legal tactic he can think of to overturn the voters' decision and ranked choice voting while he's at it. Fortunately, I think he's very unlikely to accomplish either one of his goals.
Our country did that. The USA did that. This is indefensible.
They're brown people though, do they count? That is, will people in this country take this anywhere near as seriously as they should? The Trump right supports this kind of despicable behavior I'm sure, I just hope the majority of people who oppose it can do something... we probably can't just let anyone in to the country who wants to come, but the inhumane depths Trump and his supporters are willing to descend to are disturbing...
Trump is a personality cult at this point. I personally know someone who believes in some insane prophecy that Trump will "walk in a sinner and walk out a saint", that he's the salvation the world needs.
But what does it matter? There can be no middle ground here, there isn't even a conception of what a middle ground could even be that isn't ridiculous on it's face. What do you do, tear gas half a child?
Star Trek has always been political. I've heard lots of people that whine and complain when Star Trek "gets political" and has a message, saying the federation is "too self righteous". They tend to be bigoted regressives that somehow managed to become Star trek fans. I don't know how that happened.
I know it's always the same length, but somehow this lame duck session feels longer than ever...
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Trump is a personality cult at this point. I personally know someone who believes in some insane prophecy that Trump will "walk in a sinner and walk out a saint", that he's the salvation the world needs.
I am glad I do not know people like that.
Quote:But what does it matter? There can be no middle ground here, there isn't even a conception of what a middle ground could even be that isn't ridiculous on it's face. What do you do, tear gas half a child?
It's unfortunately easy for humans to convince themselves that people they consider to be enemies aren't really human, and Trump and many of his supporters surely have done this... and the racism part surely made it much easier.
He didn't get the memo that republicans want to put out the narratives that the dems are the reason the government shutdown is looming, so he's being completely honest here. Worse, he basically exposed that their strategy failed last time, what makes him think it'll go any different this time?
Sure he's a moron, but he's the one moron who could doom the entire planet, purely because of the things he can do with his dumb power. Global warming is getting worse, right now, and there's not a thing we can do about it. Even if a dem becomes president, without a full depuring of all his judge appointments across every level of the judicial branch, and a dramatic shift in how politics is done, there's no chance significant regulations for pollution are going to pass.
Is it any surprise? We're talking about a president who's own staff hides papers from him because they're both afraid he'll break the whole planet and because they know hiding documents is enough to make him forget about it.
So, the latest is that Trump might cave and sign a Wall-free budget extension. All that "I'll never sign another one of these if it doesn't include the wall!" stuff he was saying probably was just bluster, like usual...
May he continue to not get his wall, because it's totally unnecessary and would only exist to make the environment worse and Trump's ego better.
In other news, Bruce Poliquin lost the previous round of his suit against the election results in Maine district 2, as the (Trump-appointed!) judge rejected his suit against ranked choice voting. Poliquin reacted by ending his call for a full recount, which is interesting, but also suing to block the election results from being confirmed as he appeals the decision: https://www.pressherald.com/2018/12/18/i...as-winner/ because he's a sore loser who is unwilling to admit that he actually lost, which he did. Fortunately he probably won't have much more of a chance of winning in higher courts than he did at the last one.
Yeah, thanks Fox News, now we have a government shutdown over the wall. Just great...
In even worse news though, Trump's support for Putin is now too much for Mattis to handle, and he's quitting, meaning an anti-democratic loon now is running US foreign policy. The damage is already bad -- withdrawing from Syria now, with ISIS not actually defeated, is a big mistake; abandoning the Syrian Kurds is maybe an even bigger one and makes it even more likely that they will reconcile with Assad; and a big withdrawl in Afghanistan is also probably a bad move. I mean, Afghanistan is a horrible mess, and we are definitely not winning that war... but when it's the country that gave us 9/11, and when the Taliban, if allowed to return to power, would be probably the most regressive and violently anti-female regime in the world yet again, we can't afford to leave either. It's a horrible mess we're stuck in there but just abandoning them and leaving is probably an even worse move than staying is, sadly.
And the idea that this may leave to Trump trying to withdraw from NATO, bomb North Korea and maybe set off a horrendous war there, etc? There are a lot of scary possibilities now that the few people restraining him on foreign policy are now gone. Congress can do some things to stop him or slow him down, but will they?
I want to reassure you. Instead I'll say this. No one's there to stop him from making the new lead of the justice department halt the investigations into Trump.
But yes, that is true. Fortunately he hasn't tried it yet. He did finally do his first trip overseas to visit the troops, though, later into his administration than any other recent president... and as expected he messed it up badly, revealing a covert navy SEAL team and not meeting with any Iraqi officials. I'm sure the troops that had to be there to meet with him were pretty thrilled to be around him... yeah...
Meanwhile the government shutdown continues, and will continue to probably at least until the new congress comes into session. And even after that, it'll only depend on if Trump caves and signs a no-wall bill, because nothing with the wall in it will be getting out of Congress, that's for sure... yes, Democrats often cave, but I don't think they will this time.
I don't see Trump shuttering the Mueller investigation at this point. The longer it goes on, the more politically suicidal such a move will be, especially with the recent election making it clear to everybody else on earth that his brief run of undisputed authority is at an end. The GOP assumed the House of Representatives was theirs for a generation and this has to have been a brutal wake-up call for any Republican whose face and Donald Trump's ass don't fit together with atomic precision.
Not just did, will continue to do; the Senate confirms judges, after all, so while the House can do a lot to slow down or stop Trump, they can't do much about his and McConnell's push to get as many far-right judges on the bench as possible.
Fortunately other than that things are looking up, with the Dems taking conrol of the House today, and locally with Janet Mills' confirmation as Governor yesterday. Good riddance 2018, may 2019 be a whole lot better! A few good things happened in 2018 (Red Sox winning the World Series, the election results), but way more bad...
So, which Democrat should be our nominee for 2020 to run against Trump? There are good reasons to support almost any of the top seven or eight candidates for sure, or more... and reasons to not support each of them. So it's going to be tough to decide.
- Biden: The positive is that he's well known, popular, and will run straight for the group that won Trump the election, middle-class people in Pennsylvania and the Midwest. The negative is that he is moderate, old, and has a lot of baggage (Anita Hill hearing, crime bill, all those photo ops with women, etc).
- Beto: The positive is that he's got the most momentum right now, probably, and clearly is a good speaker able to inspire people. The negatives are that he just lost a major race and is also pretty moderate.
- Senators running for President -- Harris would be a great president, and I might vote for her in the primaries, but a half black-half Indian woman versus Trump, would we win? Booker would also be good, but I don't know if he'll get out of the primaries. As for Bernie and Warren, it would be amazing if America would elect a clearly liberal president, but Bernie is also pretty old and has some baggage from the 2016 campaign (and I didn't support him then), and Warren... I just don't think she can win either. The whole claiming-native-american-ancestry thing is kind of weird, she's probably only a pretty low percent native.
The big fight in the Democratic primaries is likely to be left versus center -- do we go with someone farther left, like Warren or Bernie, or someone more in the center? Should we nominate another white man, or a woman and/or minority? How much should expectations about how someone will do against Trump matter in the primaries? After all, you never know how things are going to go in an election, anyone could win (or lose) really.
Like, I think Biden would probably win by the most in the general election, but I don't know if he'll get through the primaries, and right now I'm not thinking of him as my top pick, as much as I have thought positively of him. I mentioned some of his drawbacks earlier, but he is definitely getting old, and we've got some great younger candidates. But really right now I don't know who I'd vote for, if/when it's still competitive by the time we have a primary here.
I read all those fluff pieces about Warren's (true and verified) claim to ancestry. Let me add something. In Oklahoma, just about everyone you can talk to here has someone or another connected to native ancestry. Supposedly I have a Cherokee "princess" in my line. (Never mind that such a creature doesn't exist. "Princess" was a title inappropriately shoved onto Pocahontas to make her a more valuable trophy wife for John Smith when he abducted that child back to England to parade her around, since the daughter of a chieftain does not inherit the role, it's determined democratically.) Point is, while it was dumb to claim herself a minority on her college application, it's trivial compared to all the baggage literally any republican candidate brings just by being a member of that fascist party. I'm not in a position to say exactly what the cutoff range for native ancestry should be, that's up to the tribes, and she's in no position to say she's a citizen of any such tribe, also up to them. At least she got that out of the way early.
And yes, Trump WILL mock her for it, repeatedly, regardless of the fact that he himself swore to donate money if she took the test, HE asked for it. And so what? Literally any other candidate, Trump will do the same thing. ABF, learn this one lesson. Don't shy away from a candidate just because Trump can make fun of them for something. That is always going to happen. Pick the candidate that best represents the values you want the nation to be led with. Promote them. The only true way to know if a candidate has a chance, after all, is to TRY, not just give up before it even starts, and frankly she's still the best candidate on offer right now. When a large amount of the party simply declares "no one will vote for them", it becomes self fulfilling. Don't do that. Stop doing that.
In other news, the OPM just gave advice to federal workers: Take maintenance jobs to pay your rent. How tone deaf. As though most of them even have the skills needed for such a job. Do most people really not see things like car repair, electrical work, and IT as actual skillsets that take years to learn and decades to master, often involving years at school to specifically train for those skills?
(8th January 2019, 11:24 AM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: [ -> ]I read all those fluff pieces about Warren's (true and verified) claim to ancestry. Let me add something. In Oklahoma, just about everyone you can talk to here has someone or another connected to native ancestry. Supposedly I have a Cherokee "princess" in my line. (Never mind that such a creature doesn't exist. "Princess" was a title inappropriately shoved onto Pocahontas to make her a more valuable trophy wife for John Smith when he abducted that child back to England to parade her around, since the daughter of a chieftain does not inherit the role, it's determined democratically.) Point is, while it was dumb to claim herself a minority on her college application, it's trivial compared to all the baggage literally any republican candidate brings just by being a member of that fascist party. I'm not in a position to say exactly what the cutoff range for native ancestry should be, that's up to the tribes, and she's in no position to say she's a citizen of any such tribe, also up to them. At least she got that out of the way early.
And yes, Trump WILL mock her for it, repeatedly, regardless of the fact that he himself swore to donate money if she took the test, HE asked for it. And so what? Literally any other candidate, Trump will do the same thing. ABF, learn this one lesson. Don't shy away from a candidate just because Trump can make fun of them for something. That is always going to happen. Pick the candidate that best represents the values you want the nation to be led with. Promote them. The only true way to know if a candidate has a chance, after all, is to TRY, not just give up before it even starts, and frankly she's still the best candidate on offer right now. When a large amount of the party simply declares "no one will vote for them", it becomes self fulfilling. Don't do that. Stop doing that.
On policy she's one of the best, sure, but how good of a speaker is she? How well will her responses to Trump's constant stream of "Pocahontas" insults be? And anyway, while Trump will certainly use mocking nicknames and such for whichever Dem runs, she's one he's already attacking; it's probably easier to land attacks when the issue is already in voters' minds. And it's not only Trump, she's been getting criticism from our side for the native-heritage thing too, and her responses continue to not exactly resolve the issue. "I have a tiny bit of native heritage way back" is, as you say, many people in this country (though surely fewer here in New England than in Oklahoma), and most then don't claim native ancestry as she kind of has.
Voting just for values is fine though, and she is good on the issues, yes. I'm not sure who'd be best on that, it is still early in the cycle. We have a lot of good candidates, and she is a good candidate.
Quote:In other news, the OPM just gave advice to federal workers: Take maintenance jobs to pay your rent. How tone deaf. As though most of them even have the skills needed for such a job. Do most people really not see things like car repair, electrical work, and IT as actual skillsets that take years to learn and decades to master, often involving years at school to specifically train for those skills?
What's the problem? Can't they just ask their fathers for a few million dollars to get past the bad times, like Trump did?
Seriously though this shutdown is pretty high stakes, and I don't know how it will end. The Dems show no signs of caving so far, thankfully, but with Trump being so adamant that he gets his wall (since he must know this is one of his last chances to get it built) despite congress refusing to give him the money for it, will Republicans in Congress eventually abandon him and open government again? So far McConnell refuses to do that, as he clearly thinks that it helps him politically to continue to obey Trump, but they have to be getting closer to a breaking point the longer this drags on, and the more people get hurt by it...
(9th January 2019, 10:05 PM)A Black Falcon Wrote: [ -> ]
(8th January 2019, 11:24 AM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: [ -> ]I read all those fluff pieces about Warren's (true and verified) claim to ancestry. Let me add something. In Oklahoma, just about everyone you can talk to here has someone or another connected to native ancestry. Supposedly I have a Cherokee "princess" in my line. (Never mind that such a creature doesn't exist. "Princess" was a title inappropriately shoved onto Pocahontas to make her a more valuable trophy wife for John Smith when he abducted that child back to England to parade her around, since the daughter of a chieftain does not inherit the role, it's determined democratically.) Point is, while it was dumb to claim herself a minority on her college application, it's trivial compared to all the baggage literally any republican candidate brings just by being a member of that fascist party. I'm not in a position to say exactly what the cutoff range for native ancestry should be, that's up to the tribes, and she's in no position to say she's a citizen of any such tribe, also up to them. At least she got that out of the way early.
And yes, Trump WILL mock her for it, repeatedly, regardless of the fact that he himself swore to donate money if she took the test, HE asked for it. And so what? Literally any other candidate, Trump will do the same thing. ABF, learn this one lesson. Don't shy away from a candidate just because Trump can make fun of them for something. That is always going to happen. Pick the candidate that best represents the values you want the nation to be led with. Promote them. The only true way to know if a candidate has a chance, after all, is to TRY, not just give up before it even starts, and frankly she's still the best candidate on offer right now. When a large amount of the party simply declares "no one will vote for them", it becomes self fulfilling. Don't do that. Stop doing that.
On policy she's one of the best, sure, but how good of a speaker is she? How well will her responses to Trump's constant stream of "Pocahontas" insults be? And anyway, while Trump will certainly use mocking nicknames and such for whichever Dem runs, she's one he's already attacking; it's probably easier to land attacks when the issue is already in voters' minds. And it's not only Trump, she's been getting criticism from our side for the native-heritage thing too, and her responses continue to not exactly resolve the issue. "I have a tiny bit of native heritage way back" is, as you say, many people in this country (though surely fewer here in New England than in Oklahoma), and most then don't claim native ancestry as she kind of has.
Voting just for values is fine though, and she is good on the issues, yes. I'm not sure who'd be best on that, it is still early in the cycle. We have a lot of good candidates, and she is a good candidate.
Quote:In other news, the OPM just gave advice to federal workers: Take maintenance jobs to pay your rent. How tone deaf. As though most of them even have the skills needed for such a job. Do most people really not see things like car repair, electrical work, and IT as actual skillsets that take years to learn and decades to master, often involving years at school to specifically train for those skills?
What's the problem? Can't they just ask their fathers for a few million dollars to get past the bad times, like Trump did?
Seriously though this shutdown is pretty high stakes, and I don't know how it will end. The Dems show no signs of caving so far, thankfully, but with Trump being so adamant that he gets his wall (since he must know this is one of his last chances to get it built) despite congress refusing to give him the money for it, will Republicans in Congress eventually abandon him and open government again? So far McConnell refuses to do that, as he clearly thinks that it helps him politically to continue to obey Trump, but they have to be getting closer to a breaking point the longer this drags on, and the more people get hurt by it...
There's a problem in your logic, you're using it. Do you think Warren's native ancestry talk is really going to make her any MORE a target than literally any other canidate the Dems could pick? You're trying to pick the "least likely to have an issue with the right", but screw that. Trump's followers are so enamored with him that all he need do is slap the word "crazy" or "baby eating" on someone and they'll believe it. Do you think for a moment the people making fun of Warren by calling her Pocahontas care even the slightest bit about natives? They don't, but because Trump said it, NOW they care. And it will be that way no matter what.
Well, in any case, check out this old public service video from the US archives. It's pretty good.
A month. Trump has now kept his stupid, selfish shutdown going for a MONTH because he really wants his wall. What a stupid, destructive temper tantrum...
Dark Jaguar Wrote:There's a problem in your logic, you're using it. Do you think Warren's native ancestry talk is really going to make her any MORE a target than literally any other canidate the Dems could pick? You're trying to pick the "least likely to have an issue with the right", but screw that. Trump's followers are so enamored with him that all he need do is slap the word "crazy" or "baby eating" on someone and they'll believe it. Do you think for a moment the people making fun of Warren by calling her Pocahontas care even the slightest bit about natives? They don't, but because Trump said it, NOW they care. And it will be that way no matter what.
I agree Warren would be a great President, and sure, Trump will certainly go after whoever it is the Democrats choose... but she is an easier target in some ways because the attacks began years ago. If we ignore that though, which is fair because yes anyone we pick will be savagely attacked, even just on our side the Warren Native American thing has caused her some difficulty, from tribal reactions to that video of hers about her ancestry, etc... I wouldn't call it disqualifying, but it is a negative mark against her.
Quote: Well, in any case, check out this old public service video from the US archives. It's pretty good.
Yeah, that's a very good PSA. I have seen it before, since it's very unfortunately topical these days, but it's quite good. It's really unfortunate that it did become relevant again...
Woah, the shutdown is over! All it took is Nancy Pelosi cancelling the state of the union (until after the shutdown) and then one day of news about major delays at New York's LaGuardia airport, and presto, Trump completely caved and surrendered, shutdown over with a total victory, so far at least, for our side. It's pretty awesome, particularly with how that happened on the same day that Trump ally Roger Stone got indicted for his criminal acts during the campaign, and just as or more importantly for his lies trying to cover up said acts.
Now, sure, it's only a three-week funding bill, so in just a few weeks Trump will have to decide about whether he'll agree to sign a probably also wall-free funding bill and rely on trying to win a long court battle about whether he can declare a national emergency to fund the wall (I hope not!), or shut it down again. I don't see much support from the Republican Party for another shutdown, though, and apparently McConnell pressured Trump to end this since Senate Republicans may have been mostly voting with Trump but they were not happy about it, but if Trump ignores them and decides on a second shutdown, there will be one because today's Republican Party has zero independence, they don't act like a political party anymore but instead like a bunch of Trump cronies. Maybe seeing this defeat will get some of them to abandon him, but not many I imagine...
But on the other hand, with how badly this shutdown went for the nation and particularly for the Republican Party, since everyone knows that the shutdown happened because Trump wants his wall, another shutdown would not go any better for them, so I hope they see reason and abandon him if he chooses that very foolish course of action. Maybe he really will just give up and start a court battle over it though, we'll see...
But what we do know now is, Nancy Pelosi just won a major victory over Trump and it's pretty awesome.
(30th January 2019, 10:15 PM)A Black Falcon Wrote: [ -> ]Even if Trump does shut the government down again, though, there's no way it'd end any better for him than this time did.
I'm a lot more concerned about all the harm the shutdown does than whether or not it works out for Trump in some way. The idea is to avoid them in the first place.
I really hope Howard Shultz doesn't run, all he's doing is attacking Democrats and helping Donald Trump get re-elected...
Quote: I'm a lot more concerned about all the harm the shutdown does than whether or not it works out for Trump in some way. The idea is to avoid them in the first place.
Certainly, but would it be better to give Trump money for his wall, than have a shutdown? I think probably not.
I did not watch the State of the Union last week. Trump doesn't deserve the views, and he doesn't tell the truth anyway... and his speaking style is intolerable to watch, on top of that. It was good to see the Democrats stand up to his 'stop investigating me' line, though!
On that note, the House's investigation of Trump is finally underway. Finally, some actual oversight over this administration by people definitely able to release a report! It's been so long... and Trump is noticing, he's apparently not happy about it. Good.
His universal name recognition, to the point of being a literal cartoon villain, is part of how he became President, sadly enough... you'd think that people would care about the whole "villain" thing, but I guess they were too blinded by watching The Apprentice to think about how he actually is?
But yeah, anyone who tries to con Oscar the Grouch is bad, bad people.
(25th February 2019, 11:29 PM)A Black Falcon Wrote: [ -> ]His universal name recognition, to the point of being a literal cartoon villain, is part of how he became President, sadly enough... you'd think that people would care about the whole "villain" thing, but I guess they were too blinded by watching The Apprentice to think about how he actually is?
But yeah, anyone who tries to con Oscar the Grouch is bad, bad people.
Even on the Apprentice he looked like a garbage person.
The Senate voted 59-41 on the bill saying that Trump cannot declare a national emergency over the wall. That means that the Dems got 12 Republicans to vote for it, but unfortunately you need 67 to overturn the veto Trump has promised to make and overturning the veto is very unlikely, so this will probably proceed. That the bill passed both houses of Congress with at least a few Republicans voting for it both times is good, but that a vast majority of the Republican Party continue to act as Trump's loyal servants is quite obviously awful. Still, 12 of them voting for this is good, and better than many people were expecting.
Veto done, because that's the sort of thing Trump would do. Well, so be it. I hope they attempt to override the veto even if they don't have the votes to do it. It's worth trying just to make a statement.
So Robert Mueller is apparently done investigating Trump, and AG Barr is going to decide what to release... hopefully sometime later today, but we'll see. I'm expecting a very heavily redacted report that gives little hint of the actual contents (good for Trump or bad), but we'll have to see... though all along I've had more hope for state prosecution and anything from the House (particularly now that the Dems control it!) or Senate than from Mueller, since they have fewer constraints. No matter what the Mueller report says we know Trump is in trouble with NY state law... and maybe we'll actually get a pretty bad-for-Trump Mueller report! We'll see hopefully soon.
According to the republicans, the report completely exonerates him. That's literally all I'm hearing on any of the news sources, because they control the narrative. I would believe it, if the republicans hadn't been lying constantly for the past two years.
But hey, this is good news right? If the report completely exonerates him, there should be no issues at all releasing it to the public. They would have no reason at all to hide anything in it.
Yeah, the report summary is moderately good news for Trump, but from what little it admits, they're wildly exaggerating when they claim 'complete exoneration' and such. This NY Times op-ed summarizes some of the problems with Barr's report well: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opini...eport.html Mueller apparently decided that he didn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion, but that there was evidence going both ways on obstruction of justice. Barr then decided that that meant that Trump was innocent of obstruction as well, even though that is definitely not what it sounds like Mueller was saying. And the Mueller investigation was very narrowly focused, too much so to cover all of Trump's numerous crimes.
Unfortunately the media, as you say, seem to be quite willing to believe Barr's probably very overly friendly portrayal of the report. I hope that a lot more of it gets out soon so we get a fuller picture, though Barr probably isn't just totally making up what he says in that report; he must know a good amount of the real report will be released, after all. The question is how complete the report was, what is actually included in the final report, and such. For instance, was anything related to the President himself left out because of the Justice Department's "the president cannot be charged" interpretation of the law? That is a very plausible scenario unfortunately. It does seem pretty clear that Mueller missed his chance to really take down Trump, but he probably never wanted to do that to begin with, so that's understandable if that is what the report says. (I never was a believer in the whole 'Mueller will save America from Trump' narrative some people wanted to convince themselves...)
What this really means is that future investigations will be much more partisan than Mueller's were, but no matter what Mueller found the Republican Party was almost certainly not going to support impeachment, so that was going that direction anyway.
Also, given this mixed-result report, it's probably good that it was released now and not in the middle of the next Presidential campaign, that'd be much better for Trump then... unless of course more details leak from it that are very damaging to him, which is possible of course.
I watched it. It's a good summary of a lot of the situation, yeah. I hope that the Mueller report is released and he gives all of those things and more their proper attention, with enough details to damage Trump even if no criminal charges resulted. We'll see though.
On another note, Joe Biden is definitely not having a good PR cycle right now, and it was inevitable -- the pictures of Biden getting too close to women during photo-ops go back a long time, and it was definitely going to eventually be a problem for him, particularly in this party; obviously Republicans don't care, but Democrats do.
Now, from what we've seen I don't see any accusations of Biden doing overtly sexual things, "just" inappropriately close touching of hair and such, but it's definitely creepy and not okay. The big question is though, if that is all it is and there isn't anything worse on him out there (and if there is, I hope it comes out, though I certainly hope there isn't) is it bad enough that he shouldn't run for President, or can he still run despite this? Younger people seem to mostly be saying he shouldn't, and older people that he should, so there's a definite age gap here. I definitely don't think he will be my first choice for the primary, but as much as I like Biden he probably wouldn't have been anyway; this isn't a new issue after all, and there are all kinds of policy reasons to have issues with Biden -- he's been very centrist during his career. He's also pretty old. I think he'd be a very good President, but we have a lot of candidates who would be good. Biden is polling best right now, though -- for instance, in a new Michigan poll, of the Dems polled, only Biden finished ahead of Trump. Those numbers will change as people get more familiar with the other Democrats for sure, though, so I'm not sure how much weight to give it...
On the age note, I really, really hope our nominee isn't Bernie instead...
What, because he's one of our most centrist candidates? That is probably true, yes. He's to Obama or Hillary's right, and on issues definitely wouldn't be my top choice either. I like Biden, but on issues he's not the best...
As for this controversy though, even if the creepiness is just unconscious paternalist (sexist) behavior, as I think it most likely is, it's still not great, and he should do a better job of apologizing; I get that he doesn't really want to say sorry for things he doesn't think he did wrong, but at this point he probably should.
(6th April 2019, 12:30 AM)A Black Falcon Wrote: [ -> ]What, because he's one of our most centrist candidates? That is probably true, yes. He's to Obama or Hillary's right, and on issues definitely wouldn't be my top choice either. I like Biden, but on issues he's not the best...
As for this controversy though, even if the creepiness is just unconscious paternalist (sexist) behavior, as I think it most likely is, it's still not great, and he should do a better job of apologizing; I get that he doesn't really want to say sorry for things he doesn't think he did wrong, but at this point he probably should.
He should GO AWAY. How could you possibly like him? He talks weird, his positions are useless, and he's a creep. There's literally nothing to like about him, and also. he won't win if he becomes the democratic candidate. He won't. His centrism won't win over a single republican (because no matter how far to the right a centrist candidate tries to go, there's a republican candidate further right than that, and the republicans will pick that one EVERY SINGLE TIME, and it will turn off a LOT Of democrats.)
Good god ABF, has the party learned NOTHING? This is how you lose elections! The very fact that you can even say "I like him but on everything that counts he's terrible" is utterly depressing. Why even go on....
![[Image: B5-lDJWCUAAwfya?format=jpg&name=360x360]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya?format=jpg&name=360x360)