Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[kiidcarter8]

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

Yep.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture:





 

A shot at the press.  Nice.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room.

The BEST people



- Thanks, Needs

[NeedsAdjustments]

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

Yep.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture:





 

A shot at the press.  Nice.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room.

The BEST people



- Thanks, Needs

LOL.  Yeah, kiidcarter8.  If you pull out the three sentences in a full length op-ed that don't seem so bad, you can claim vindication.  The rest of it skewers your "President."

And not surprisingly, you miss the larger point.  The "bright spots" are entirely partisan in nature; unpopular tax cuts, an unpopular Supreme Court nominee, and deregulation of businesses that are already proven (by the Administrations own numbers) to be a danger to public health.

To maintain those partisan measures, the writer feels it worthwhile to put the entire Republic in danger by maintaining a veneer of respectability around an unhinged, idiotic,probably senile, corrupt "President" who is a danger to worldwide democracy and who he/she admits is a problem fit for a 25th amendment resolution.

That doesn't vindicate you kiidcarter8.  The opposite.  Its a party-over-country tradeoff myself and others have been concerned about from the very beginning. 

[Yankguy1]

Kid was only able to pull out 280 characters from that column.  So it's logical that he didn't understand the whole thing.

[bankshot1]

The NYTimes oped piece is stunning and all but confirms the Woodward book.

And it is massively troubling.

The check on the executive should be Congress, not a cabal within the White House.

But the Congressional Republicans have abdicated their responsibilites for two gowns and a bankrupting tax cut.

This is dangerous and fucked up.

[LarryBnDC]

The GOP should insist on photo ID to make sure this kind of voter fraud never happens... oh, wait.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/a-republican-congressman-helped-a-rival-collect-signatures-to-get-on-the-ballot-some-of-those-signatures-were-fake/2018/09/04/3e1c439c-b049-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html

[LarryBnDC]

The NYTimes oped piece is stunning and all but confirms the Woodward book.

And it is massively troubling.

The check on the executive should be Congress, not a cabal within the White House.

But the Congressional Republicans have abdicated their responsibilites for two gowns and a bankrupting tax cut.

This is dangerous and fucked up.

It’s a back door puff piece for the benefit of the donor class. NYT should have charged ad rates.

[barton]

The NYTimes oped piece is stunning and all but confirms the Woodward book.

And it is massively troubling.

The check on the executive should be Congress, not a cabal within the White House.

But the Congressional Republicans have abdicated their responsibilites for two gowns and a bankrupting tax cut.

This is dangerous and fucked up.

It’s a back door puff piece for the benefit of the donor class. NYT should have charged ad rates.

Yep.   Assuring the plutocrats that they've got the toddler on a leash... doesn't make you Mark Felt II.   Or put you in a parking garage with cool backlighting.

[barton]

No doubt he is nuts but in the epic words of BJ it may be a lunatic you are looking for.

In the words of a lunatic,  it was a BJ he was looking for. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Ezra Klein makes an excellent point here: Trump has made clear the basis for his making appointments, so no one in the public can be sure that they have been chosen to serve them, and not for a pledge to protect the "President:"

In a normal presidency, that would be true. But in this presidency, an attorney general the president can have faith in is an attorney general the public cannot have faith in. After all, Trump has bluntly stated that he admires the previous attorney general for protecting a corrupt presidency, and he has raged against his own attorney general for doing too little to protect him from investigation.

These are mistakes, presumably, that Trump will not repeat with his next appointment. Which means that there is no one he could appoint to the job whom the public could trust; we’d never know the assurances made behind closed doors to win the role, and so we’d never be able to have faith in the Justice Department itself.

And it’s not just Sessions. This week, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We can’t know precisely why Trump chose Kavanaugh for the role, but we do know that Kavanaugh, unusually among judges, has advocated “exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”

This raises an obvious question: What, if anything, did Trump demand from Kavanaugh to win one of the most coveted positions in American government? Did Kavanaugh assure Trump, directly or indirectly, that he would take a dim view toward troublesome investigations into the White House’s conduct? Did he reiterate that he thinks it is too distracting for a president to face criminal prosecution while in office, and his decisions would reflect that? Does Trump, at the least, think he did?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/5/17819008/donald-trump-impeachment-sessions-kavanaugh-woodward

Impeach or no, this is not an environment during which a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made.

Maybe the GOP can compromise.
Kavanaugh, if confirmed, can serve until Hillary is elected President.

[kiidcarter8]

But the Congressional Republicans have abdicated their responsibilites for two gowns and a bankrupting tax cut.

ooooooooo

I like that gown part

but who is bankrupt?

[bankshot1]

If the insiders "early on" thought about the 25th amendment, but wanted to avoid a constitutional cris, I wonder what the fuck they really think two years  into their handling of Trump.

I suspect its, "at least we got the two gowns and the tax cuts before the constitutional crisis and its about time to get the fuck out of crazytown" 

[kiidcarter8]

Well............ they always have to think of their JOBS as well....

What will they do instead for the next 6 years?

[bankshot1]

But the Congressional Republicans have abdicated their responsibilites for two gowns and a bankrupting tax cut.

ooooooooo

I like that gown part

but who is bankrupt?

All the gowns cost you was the theft of a democratic process, McConnell's hi-jacking of a long-standing process and tradition that wasn't perfect but was more or less fair and understood.

Now our political infrastructure teeters as it traverses a narrow ledge and will be sorely tested in the future from not free-falling into partisan tit for tat madness.

But you got the gowns and the tax cuts.

[kiidcarter8]

ahhhh.....you will pay us back down the line


You were in favor of everything Hil had planned, I trust...?

(and what she HAD done)


heh

[Yankguy1]

Well............ they always have to think of their JOBS as well....

What will they do instead for the next 6 years?

Who's they?