It's becoming tit for tat and that's regrettable. But also, Republicans brought this upon themselves. No tears from me to watch their BS come back to F them.
Guess who said it? Soon-to-be ************* (X-XX) staked out a new position on congressional investigations in an interview with Fox News on Monday. Congress critter XXxXX thinks that Democrats should drop their subpoena power when it comes to President Donald Trump. “It looks like what [Democrats will] focus on is just more investigations. I think American is too great of a nation to have such a small agenda,” XXXXXXXXX said. “I think there are other problems out there that we really should be focused upon. And my belief is, let’s see where we can work together — let’s move America forward.” “We have investigated this for a long period of time,” he added. “Both sides have come up with nothing in the process. I think we should put the American people first.” Soon-to-be House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) staked out a new position on congressional investigations in an interview with Fox News on Monday. Unlike his years leading the charge on Benghazi, McCarthy now thinks that Democrats should drop their subpoena power when it comes to President Donald Trump. “It looks like what [Democrats will] focus on is just more investigations. I think American is too great of a nation to have such a small agenda,” McCarthy said. “I think there are other problems out there that we really should be focused upon. And my belief is, let’s see where we can work together — let’s move America forward.” “We have investigated this for a long period of time,” he added. “Both sides have come up with nothing in the process. I think we should put the American people first.” Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...674/kevin-mccarthy-house-trump-investigations Kevin McCarthy, who famously said the Benghazi investigations were effective for making Hillary's poll numbers drop. What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.
It's always a question whether the Republican pols who talk nonsense believe their spiel, or are just saying it for effect. Personally, I think it's some of both. But it's hard to know, unless you know one of them well enough to have a conversation over some beers. But for the record, Mr. McCarthy, you will convince no Democrat, nor even a genuine independent (as opposed to the faux Republican variety). Your cows have come home to roost.
New Jersey Dems are backing down. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/nyregion/redistricting-nj-democrats-republicans.html
So #bothsidesdon'tdoit That is good for democrats, too bad most "independents" will not give them credit.
Maybe they got a call from prominent national Dems (Cory for instance) that they are going to screw up the narrative of at least trying to play by the rules
Mitch McTurtle will let democracy die in his watch, as he rather get his way than impeach/override the Orange Menace.
I think we all know who else was elected by a minority, then declared a national emergency, based on an alleged threat to the country's safety.
Below that article there was an encouraging quote from Roger Stone, "I will not bear false witness against the president, I "intend" to tell the truth." How does that translate?
I think it's pretty plausible overall, but maybe should distinguish more between the effects of social media in weak democracies and countries in ethnic conflict, vs. its effects in democracies that are more stable. In the former I'd say it's overall pretty clearly a corrosive force, in the latter, things are more ambiguous. For example, in the USA online social media has made major contributions to the rise of Trump, promulgation of conspiracy theories and fake news, Russian meddling, and other bad stuff. But I think it was also very influential - maybe even more so - in the counter-mobilization against Trump and in the unusually high midterm election turnout. And, looking past the current moment , it's possible that social media as a means for organization could fill in some of the vacuum left by the decline of labor unions, and thus reduce the disproportionate impact of big money on politics. So, in a country where democratic institutions are on reasonably firm ground, social media communication can worsen some political afflictions, but it may also build up democracy's immune system against others.
Look at this f#cking guy The North Carolina elections board ordered a new vote in a U.S House district because of evidence that the results in November were tainted by fraud. The ruling came on the fourth day of the board’s hearing to investigate allegations of absentee voter fraud orchestrated by a political operative on GOP candidate Mark Harris’s payroll during last year’s midterm election. Harris held a 905-vote lead over Democrat Dan McCready in the unofficial tally that a previous election board declined to certify. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ection-in-n-c-house-district?srnd=politics-vp
This is a sign of a healthy democracy. Yeah, he and Dowless conspired to cheat. But the institutions that guard against that investigated, and even the GOPers voted to redo the election. A healthy democracy isn't a democracy where everyone is an angel. A healthy democracy is one where bad actors get checked.
Unhealthy is doing this shit and then claiming the real threat is people voting twice so states have to enact voter ID laws and other baloney that discriminated agains POC. You & I will never be affected by these shenanigans. A list of voting rights suits by The Brennan Center https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/state-voting-rights-litigation-november-2018
It's a positive sign in a very sick patient. GA governor election was very questionable, same as FL Senator and Governor. WI has been the standard for vote suppression and even after losing their legislatures are curtailing the powers of the new governor. UT is also circumventing their voters' will regarding the Medicare expansion. Also Trump just downsized the force in charge of protecting the elections from cyber attacks, numerous states are purchasing dubious voting machines and Ivanka got a patent from Ghyna for one of those. Yeah, today's fever is 103.9, not 104.
2 Atlantic articles on political Prejudice. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...w-york-tops-scale-political-tolerance/582106/ the source of the story above. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-vary-their-degree-partisan-prejudice/583072/ The sample size seems to be very small if I understand how they did this correctly.
To paraphrase the great, late 20th Century philosopher Forrest Gump, Racist is what racist does. Or, if you prefer, Godless secular humainsts who promote the homosexual agenda is what Godless secular humainsts who promote the homosexual agenda does. I have a friend who is recently divorced and is dipping his toe in the online dating pool. You wouldn't believe how many women say they won't date Trump supporters. Well, maybe you would. This is Massachusetts, so...
Yeah. The responses of 2,000 people broken down into segments and then applied to county composition strikes me as not a particularly robust approach. 2,000 is typically a good sample...not so much when you push it down to county levels where there is a lot of variation though. I think they whiffed by not including religion as a variable as well. The biggest problem I have with the study was that they noted that these prejudices were not as strong c2014 on the Dem side. Well, I wonder what in the hell might have happened to drive people to increase their prejudice against GOPers in the last 4 years. Edit: it would also appear that something is mucking up this analysis across state lines. Maybe they're applying state level variables somewhere rather than variables by county? To have such stark contrasts right across state lines of similar countries, and to have such consistency in certain states between disparate countries is really, really strange for something like this where there isn't a regulatory influence.
I don't find that surprising at all. Personally, I don't (and won't ever) even talk to them. I had a friend and a step brother who dabbled in Republicanism...heck, maybe they still do. I wouldn't know. They're dead to me. If white nationalism isn't a deal breaker for someone, I absolutely don't want them in my life.