Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    6712
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. 4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    Centrists, please listen. The left is the only thing keeping you degenerate people from turning Beto into America's Macron.

    The guy who was elected president by beating a fascist populist?

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Lobo said:

    Many of you will be disappointed by the lack of teeth in Mueller's report.  Most of you will are over-inflating every little detail that gets leaked out about the report and its subsequent filings.  Nearly everyone is clinging to Trump's usual hyperbolic reactions as some sort of gospel-like insight into what the near future holds.  

    But the crickets chirping from his usual circles of GOP supportive leadership has been eerie.  It's as if he's calling them up to circle the wagons of support, yelling about witch hunts and how they owe trump big time, and all that.  And the various Republican big-wigs are simply looking at the phone like, "Uncle Leo?" (click)...

    I think I understand what Lobo is saying, even if I don't agree with the first half of it.

    Here's the bottom line--and it's a bottom line you can see from Hatch's remarks: we've got a coalition that will continue to win in the Senate so long as there's a decent economy, and we're not going to fuck with it.

    But here's the postscript: what happens when we don't have a decent economy?  And you only need to look at the bond market and the latest jobs report to see cause for concern.  

    Trump has a 40% approval rating with an outstanding economy.  What is his approval rating with a poor economy?  That question is even more pointed after the 2016 realignment, when the Republican base is now made up of voters who are more sensitive to economic downturns.  It's not to say that in the post-2016 alignment Youngstown is going to go Democratic.  But it is to wonder whether those people who were so enthusiastic about voting for Trump in 2016 will be so eager to vote for him (or any Republican) in 2020 after being unemployed for 24 months.  And if those people aren't enthusiastic about voting, is there any way for the Republicans to offset the suburban middle classes who are eager to vote against the Republicans?

    2 hours ago, horn4life said:

    This period of time will be looked back historically as one of the most dangerous for our democracy.  The deep corruption of the President will be an obvious topic, but the scariest part will be the embrace and protection given by his supporting party.  Even our founding fathers failed to anticipate that wrinkle. As they honestly believed that patriotism would always win out and that is why the system of checks and balances would conceivably work. To be honest nearly everyone, myself included thought that some congressional oversight with a combination of a few adults in the room might temper Trump.  Instead Trump's party decided to justify anything if they could get a Supreme Justice or two.  

    I guess the only thing certain beyond the historical significance of this time is that you can be nearly certain that in about 30 years if the GOP regains control of Texas. That the Texas State School Board will try to remove the section about the collusion of the GOP House and Senate in protecting Trump...

    I think the next period of time is even more dangerous.  The Democrats are going to regain power in 2020.  And when they do, they're going to come with a justified sense of grievance and vengeance.  

    The biggest task facing the next president is going to be the restoration of our norms, traditions, and institutions.  But if he saw his primary task to be ensuring that Republicans never again hold power, I would certainly understand that position.  But that position, as attractive and justified as it may be, would be very bad for our democratic form of government.

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    What is particularly nasty about this? You mean to say the author is being mean-spirited or ugly in a break of journalism standards?

    Doubling down on being an Indian was politically stupid and it makes her look like a jack ass. People are and will respond in kind, whether or not other people want to acknowledge they will or think they ought not to

    "Nasty" in the sense that it is a very negative article.

  4. 7 hours ago, Whitman said:

    As someone mentioned earlier, most people tend to like the ones that they started/grew up with.  My favorite movie is "The Spy Who Loved Me", and my favorite opening song is Sheena Easton's "For Your Eyes Only".  Hottest Bond Girl for me has to be Ursula Andress.

    The hottest bond girl is Barbara Bach.

    I don't know how that would even be a question.

  5. 56 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    He may not be the best candidate and is up there in years, but if Trump isn’t in jail, seeking assylum at some embassy, or dead from a massive heart attack and is running for president again, then the dem nominee needs to be Biden. 

    Trump can’t win without Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and the dems nominating Biden ensures that Trump can’t win those states, and therefore trump cannot win the presidency again. A nomination of Warren or Kamela puts those states in jeopardy and that simply cannot be allowed to happen. I think Bernie wins those states as well but don’t think he’s gonna be the nominee, and am not sure about Beto yet but its a possibility. 

    If Trump isn’t running then I don’t really give a shit, nominate someone not named Hillary and I’ll be happy. 

    The Republicans can't win if Texas goes for the Democrat, irrespective of what happens in Michigan or Pennsylvania.

    In other news, The New York Times has a real nasty story about Elizabeth Warren and the trouble she's having with progressives over her stupid DNA test.  

  6. 23 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    Yes it was a joke, but so many people? It would only take Trump and Pence getting removed.  And why would Congress refuse to follow the constitution?

    Presidential succession is not in the Constitution.  It's set forth in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.  But the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional, because the Constitution only allows "Officers" to fall within the line of succession.  And everywhere else the Constitution talks about "Officers," it's talking about people who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate (i.e., members of the Executive Branch).  And that would be consistent with separation of powers.

    So yeah--it would be a clusterfuck.  Pelosi would probably be sworn in, and Pompeo would have to file a quo warrento suit, which would have to be quickly decided by the Supreme Court.

    • Like 2
  7. 1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

    How so?

    Beto is really the only candidate who can clear the field.  His fundraising prowess--especially if joined with the Obama machine--would deprive Warren and Harris of needed funds.  And his grassroots organizational support would make him a very formidable candidate in Iowa.

    If Obama throws his weight behind Beto--behind the scenes, of course--it would be nearly impossible for any other challenger to put together enough of a coalition to overcome Beto's advantages.

    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Voldemort86 said:

    After seeing all of this shit....

     

     

    how the fuck can any normal, sane, rational person vote GOP ever again?

    all they do is shit on the will of the people.

    Are you aware of her emails?

×
×
  • Create New...