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

[facilitatorn]

I’m hoping pence is as reliant on the power of prayer as trump is on experimental drug cocktails.

Nancy could be acting President as soon as the election which would allow her to pull the nomination of Covid Amy and put Merrick Garland in front of Moscow Mitch before he joins the minority in the new Senate and finishes out his career in front of the ethics committee.

[josh]

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/recovery-tracker

presented as a fact-based piece rather than a partisan piece.

[josh]

More on the CNN post-debate poll:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/mike-pence-kamala-harris-vice-presidential-debate-poll/index.html

This suggests that Harris did the single biggest thing she needed to do: seem capable of taking over the presidency if necessary.

Harris did improve her favorability rating among those who watched, according to the poll, while for Pence, the debate was a wash. In pre-debate interviews, 56% said they had a positive view of Harris -- that rose to 63% after the debate. For Pence, his favorability stood at 41% in both pre- and post-debate interviews.

Harris' numbers went up among men (from 49% favorable before to 56% afterward) and women (from 63% favorable before to 70% post-debate), and she even boosted her favorability rating among Trump supporters (from 4% favorable pre-debate to 12% after). Pence's numbers held steady among men and women (50% of men had a favorable view in both pre- and post-debate interviews, among women it was 33% pre-debate and 32% after).

As after the first presidential debate, though, most voters who watched said Wednesday's event hasn't changed their minds about whom to support. Overall, 55% say it had no effect on how they are likely to vote, while those who did choose a side tilted narrowly toward Joe Biden.

Both vice presidential candidates are broadly seen as qualified to be president: 65% said Pence is qualified to serve as commander in chief should that become necessary, 63% said the same of Harris.

Most debate watchers said Harris did the better job defending her running mate (64% Harris to 34% Pence), that she seemed more focused on uniting the country (62% to 34%), was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you (61% to 38%) and that she expressed her views more clearly (57% to 39%). Most said Pence spent more time attacking his opponent (56%) than thought the same of Harris (36%).

[bodiddley]

By taking her nominaton down Trump has a better chance at re-election
But he wont - because Trump is all about doing the right thing
By losing - and getting Ms Barrett confirmed, Trump will have done right by party and nation.

Trump's self-sacrifice for this nation is beyond touching.

Trump has no chance of winning whatever he does with Scotus.  But he will be remembered kindly by righties if he loads up another right winger on the Court.

[bodiddley]

She was also part of a Notre Dame Right to Life group.

Bravo!!

Uh, the point is, if she is so ensconced in a position against abortion there is no way she can impartially assess any given state law that restricts abortion.  Also, means that she is opposed to the the law of the land and seeking to overturn a long-term SCT precedent.

All of this argues against her qualification to serve.

[facilitatorn]

The best approach to making lawless Mitch’s parade into an endless demonstration of republican perfidity, cowardice, and corruption,

This BRILLIANT idea was written by Bill Svelmoe, Professor of American History at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN. Please pass this on to your senators and give Bill a follow: bit.ly/30A4WBE
**********
If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.
Instead, Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.
“Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of taxpayer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?”
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property.
“Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”
Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [list them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
“Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”
Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”
“Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.
Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”
Taking this approach does a number of things:
1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.
2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.
3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.
Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/10/7/1984614/-This-Posting-on-Facebook-is-Amazing-So-I-thought-I-would-pass-it-on

You know Moscow Mitch has gotten his hands on this if and when they withdraw Psycho Typhoid Amy’s nomination.
[/list][/list]

[Hairy Lime]

By taking her nominaton down Trump has a better chance at re-election
But he wont - because Trump is all about doing the right thing

for himself.

By losing ... Trump will have done right by party and nation.

Uh, yes. I know.that.much is true.

[Hairy Lime]

The best approach to making lawless Mitch’s parade into an endless demonstration of republican perfidity, cowardice, and corruption,

This BRILLIANT idea was written by Bill Svelmoe, Professor of American History at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN. Please pass this on to your senators and give Bill a follow: bit.ly/30A4WBE
**********
If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.
Instead, Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.
“Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of taxpayer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?”
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property.
“Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”
Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [list them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
“Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”
Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”
“Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.
Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”
Taking this approach does a number of things:
1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.
2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.
3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.
Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/10/7/1984614/-This-Posting-on-Facebook-is-Amazing-So-I-thought-I-would-pass-it-on

You know Moscow Mitch has gotten his hands on this if and when they withdraw Psycho Typhoid Amy’s nomination.
[/list][/list]

No proposed SCOTUS justice, right or left, would answer a question about any specific case, especially those currently in the legal pipeline.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I also think Biden should nix the next two debates.

Agree or disagree, how will it be ok for Trump to do a TOWN HALL before the two week quarantine period is over?

I guess we have the answer on that.

And of course Trump refuses.  I think a combo of two things; he doesn't want to have his lunch handed to him again, and he knows his bluster and bullying won't play over camera vs. in-person.  If you have no clue what you are talking about, a lot harder to evade providing substance in your answer.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I also think Biden should nix the next two debates.

Agree or disagree, how will it be ok for Trump to do a TOWN HALL before the two week quarantine period is over?

I guess we have the answer on that.

And of course Trump refuses.  I think a combo of two things; he doesn't want to have his lunch handed to him again, and he knows his bluster and bullying won't play over camera vs. in-person.  If you have no clue what you are talking about, a lot harder to evade providing substance in your answer.

And how will this play politically for Trump when hundreds of millions of Americans have conducted their business and gone to school over Zoom and Teams over the last seven months, largely because of this man's incompetence and refusal to put the country over his reelection?  This guy can't do it for 90 minutes?

Pathetic.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Meanwhile the undercard tommorrow night in Salt Lake City .....
There are so many ways to make Pence look foolish that the danger for Kamala Harris
is to hit him with too many.  She should pick three or four and then hammer him all night.
As for Pence interrupting the moderator or Harris, to please his master, I would think he might
try it once but that Harris will lay into the sad sack so fast Mike will drop his mic 🎤 in fear.

Hopefully the format has been adjusted and improved, but it will still not be a debate and may get
rather boring after the first 45 minutes or so.  Worth tuning into just to see how it starts out.

Prediction: Pence doesn't answer a single question with a clear, straightforward, unambiguous reply.
After 4 years of lying to please his master, it would take an act of courage far beyond Pence's
capabilities to muster.

Hate it when I am right. 

Note:  Susan Page is a lightweight and was not up to the task.  The two minute response time with 15 second rebuttal is ridiculous and the moderator's  goal of jamming 9 topics into a tight time schedule, which Pence had no intention of following even though he agreed to the format, allows stonewalling and non-answers.   
I would rather have a handful of topics actually covered even if that means the time schedule is not strictly followed.  And I would definitely allow direct questions from the candidates to the other.

After Pence's dodge on the climate question, Harris should have said "Susan, would you repeat your question, I don't think Mr Pence understood what you asked him!"

Agree totally.  Pence's insistence that it be noted that Harris didn't answer the court packing question was almost as audacious as his accusing her of playing politics with American lives, given that he had been evading questions all night.

And the climate change one wasn't the worst.  I imagine a lot of Americans interested in the response noted that he had nothing to say when asked for specifics on how the Trump Administration would maintain coverage for people with pre-existing conditions if they get their way on the ACA.  And the man wouldn't even commit to a peaceful transition of power when asked to!

I knew that Pence was a conservative radio talkshow host before he went into politics, but last night is the first I heard that he described himself then as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf."  Pence admitting he is a habitual and casual liar?  Has probably never said anything more true in his life.

[bodiddley]

I meant to mention that with no live audience they might as well just do virtual debates.  No need for Biden and Dems to be anywhere near the infected Trumpeters.  No need for travel as well.

And now the Debate Commission has gone with a virtual debate for Debate #2 -- and immediately Trump says he won't do it.

My guess is Trump will change his mind and participate.
But this leaves two good avenues open for Biden.
Simply say okay the second debate is off (because of Trump).  Biden doesn't need it.  Or say Biden will show up on screen and answer moderator questions whether or not Trump shows up.  The 2nd outcome would be best -- national TV audience -- but risks Trump changing his mind and taking part.

I'd just have Biden cancel the 2nd debate, and it would be understood it was because of Trump.  And remain hazy on the 3rd debate and ultimately blow it off. 
Biden doesn't need it; Trump might go fully unhinged.  Nothing to gain.  And if Trump called off Debate #2; it allows Biden more easily to stuff Debate #3.

Every move Trump makes has been wrong for a year now.  It's pretty impressive to have such a long and thorough losing streak.

[Hamilton Samuels]

 DAMN!!! THEY'RE SOLD OUT!!!

https://store.joebiden.com/truth-over-flies-fly-swatter/

[bambu.]

ACB belonged to a fundamentalist Christian cult, with some affiliation to Catholicism.  She was actually a handmaid in her church, the highest rank a woman could attain in the male-dominated cult. ...

Time for Mitt's wife to go full Lysistrata on his ass.   Vote "no" on Amy Culty or look  forward to sleeping on the couch,  flogging the log.   Get other Senate wives on board.

Withdrawal of affection is domestic violence.
Wives wishing to bring politics into the the marital bedroom, and use lovin' as a weapon, should think deeply about that, as the victim might not feel like residing on the couch, preferring instead a comfortable bed in a luxury hotel...permanently.

[oilcan]

Twas a joke, son.