|
Has anyone brought up the incredible dissonance between establishment Democrats' stated belief in process and procedure, and their acknowledgement that (Republican) Presidents are above the law because Republicans make no bones about willing to break the process for partisan advantage.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
"best gun to kill black people". Reality is beyond parody.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MatQBoes/status/1121060265309679616 The rage of black men manifests into otherworldly strength, you might need full metal jacket!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Two centuries ago, his bizarrely racist search could've landed him a Puckle gunquote:Puckle demonstrated two configurations of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets. The square bullets were considered to be more damaging. They would, according to the patent, "convince the Turks of the benefits of Christian civilization".
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/stat...agenumber%3D579
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Should be a law that disbands a state legislative body for passing bills that have been shown to be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Should be a law that disbands a state legislative body for passing bills that have been shown to be unconstitutional. lol, there would be complete and total anarchy across the u.s. with zero functioning state governments
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:lol, there would be complete and total anarchy across the u.s. with zero functioning state governments are you implying that's a problem? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
Kith posted:"best gun to kill black people". He probably thought there was something like the pork bullets for Muslims. Kobayashi posted:She's rich, surrounded by rich people, and is only capable of conceptualizing politics as the rich do, which is as an idle indulgence, devoid of any real meaning, consequences, or pressing urgency. Unlike the people calling for impeachment to prove a point about law and order while disregarding whether or not it will help Trump get reelected. Because that would surely be great for the poor and minorities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Kith posted:are you implying that's a problem? Depends how you look at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Pelosi knows it's essentially impossible Senate Republicans would vote to convict Trump under any circumstances, no matter what crimes he was proven to have committed. This fact has been obvious since 2017. Certainly obstruction of justice, quid pro quo corruption, financial fraud, money laundering, campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and hiding being in debt or compromised to foreign interests aren't enough to get more than maybe Romney, Collins and Murkowski to vote to convict, and make a few other Republicans waiver a bit but ultimately vote to acquit. Even assuming Trump committed all those crimes, we likely won't get sufficient proof for more than a few of them before the 2020 election. Pelosi knows all this, since it's painfully obvious, and is looking after the best interests of the Democratic party, and I think ultimately the country in this instance. She won't pursue impeachment until at least a slight majority of the country supports it. It's sitting at around 36% at the moment. It needs another 14% at minimum. Personally I predict support will fall after the process begins (not saying the process will begin) for a variety of reasons, including the power of the rightwing media, Trump's brainwashing power, and misplaced de facto sympathy by politically unaware voters. Remember Richard Nixon still had a 25% approval rating on the day of his resignation. And ethical consistency, standards of conduct have only fallen since then on the right. It doesn't do the country any good if the Democrats fall on the impeachment sword prematurely. The Democrats can't do any good if they aren't in power and they already need wave elections just to maintain the narrowest possible house majority (218 seats) Eregos fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
People are still acting surprised that people "approve" of the job Charlie Baker is doing. He hasn't burned down the commonwealth and the legislature has supermajorities that can override him at any time. He's not a Romney type who is using the position to pivot to the presidency or something else. He's not dismantling the state's executive either. The actual administration under him doesn't feel much different at all than the Patrick administration. In any other state Charlie Baker would be a blue dog democrat at worst. That said, I would vote for an actual progressive D over him in a heartbeat (and I did vote D in the last election). Governor elections also don't coincide with presidential elections, which probably hurt turnout and the choices of who decides to run. The reality is that aside from the various problems we have (housing crisis, the T, half the state being ignored most of the time), things are going pretty well in the commonwealth's economy. If Charlie Baker retires or moves on, I don't see Karyn Polito having a real shot at the corner office. Massachusetts doesn't have term limits for the Governor's office and I can't recall one that's been elected to a third term in a very long time (aside from Dukakis who served one term, lost, and then served two more terms later). They either retire after second terms or leave for other positions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1121501775931031552
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:He probably thought there was something like the pork bullets for Muslims. Mayo bullets? Bland food bullets?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/26/fiery-crash-on-denver-interstate-driver-to-face-homicide-charges/ This happened far away from where I live and is maybe a bit too local, but it really jumped out at me (based on the imperfect information) as an example of how punitive and retributive our justice system is. Something bad happened. Someone must suffer to make it right? quote:Countryman said there’s no evidence of drugs or alcohol in the crash. I don't know. Maybe there's more to it. It just seems a little premature to be talking about homicide charges for an accident. Reminds me of something I heard on the radio recently about an immigrant who got into a car wreck in Kentucky(?) and was charged with murder and ultimately acquitted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Someone needs to put grandpa in a home Could you actually imagine him in a home though. God, that poor staff
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Eregos posted:Pelosi knows it's essentially impossible Senate Republicans would vote to convict Trump under any circumstances, no matter what crimes he was proven to have committed. This fact has been obvious since 2017. Certainly obstruction of justice, quid pro quo corruption, financial fraud, money laundering, campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and hiding being in debt or compromised to foreign interests aren't enough to get more than maybe Romney, Collins and Murkowski to vote to convict, and make a few other Republicans waiver a bit but ultimately vote to acquit. Even assuming Trump committed all those crimes, we likely won't get sufficient proof for more than a few of them before the 2020 election. Pelosi knows all this, since it's painfully obvious, and is looking after the best interests of the Democratic party, and I think ultimately the country in this instance. She won't pursue impeachment until at least a slight majority of the country supports it. It's sitting at around 36% at the moment. It needs another 14% at minimum. Personally I predict support will fall after the process begins (not saying the process will begin) for a variety of reasons, including the power of the rightwing media, Trump's brainwashing power, and misplaced de facto sympathy by politically unaware voters. Remember Richard Nixon still had a 25% approval rating on the day of his resignation. And ethical consistency, standards of conduct have only fallen since then on the right. I think that you are wrong. Pelosi isn't going to come out for impeachment until the popular support reaches the point where the GOP starts to fragment, The purpose of the investigations is to create the political theater to let the majority of the public know what's going on. As far as approval for Impeachment goes, Most people are not political junkies like those of us who post to this thread. I assure you that there is a significant portion of the electorate who just think that this is the usual Democrats and Republicans tossing insults at each other and that it's business as usual when the reality is that it's anything but. Support for impeachment at this point is low among the general public because all they know at this point is that the Democrats are saying "Trump's a crook" and the Republicans are saying "No he's not" and since the Media is still "is this a crime"ing everything they really don't grasp just what's going on. Having public hearings however will affect that, when you start having testimony from Trump's own staff saying "yeah President Trump instructed me to break the law" on video on and everywhere they look it'll sink in far more than just seeing a headline of a quoted section of text. That's why Trump and the Republicans are fighting the process so vigorously. There wasn't popular support to impeach Nixon at the start of the hearings either, but as more and more of his crimes were entered into the congressional record and illuminated on national TV that perception started to shift, Admittedly it's going to be harder this time than then, their are more Republicans in the Senate and the Republicans in the Senate are worse than the Republicans back then, however the general population is better (Chuds not withstanding) and the more this is in their face the more they will become concerned and interested in the matter. If the pubic reaches consensus that Trump committed crimes from watching the hearings and the GOP vote to acquit they aren't going to suddenly go 'oh nm then guess he's innocent" they're going to see the naked partisanship and lawlessness of the GOP for what it is and frankly if after seeing that on full display doesn't cause people to come out in numbers never seen before against the GOP we're doomed anyway. oops left my conclusion out. Pelosi, love or hate her. she's not stupid and she's really good at this whole politicking thing. She'll drag this out through the hearings and fact finding stuff until either public sentiment moves in favor of impeachment to the point that it becomes a political winner or election time comes and well everyone will be able to see quite clearly what malfeasance the GOP has been up to. It's really a win win situation. Skex fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
My only objection to Pelosi is she's waving impeachment right off the bat. Sure, investigate before filing the articles, that's a realistic response to have. But when you come out at the start saying "we won't impeach", all you're doing is unilaterally disarming in the face of people who won't do the same thing and makes it obvious you're only worried about realpolitik over blatant violation of the law. If she had said things like "this warrants further investigation before declaring impeachment" or even just left discussing it off the table I'd grant Pelosi was being cautious but reasonable, but when you rule out the idea at the start it's stupid politics, and says you don't care about a pretty fundamental problem with our government. You can be cunning and careful at politics and not commit right away, but if you basically declare you don't give a drat about some things you're just being a coward at best. Say what you will about the left wing part of the party, I don't have any doubts they believe in SOMETHING anyway even if it's not a carefully focus grouped triangulated opinion. Sometimes the best way to get people to agree to your position is actually leading them there rather than sitting there hoping they maybe eventually come to your perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:My only objection to Pelosi is she's waving impeachment right off the bat. Sure, investigate before filing the articles, that's a realistic response to have. But when you come out at the start saying "we won't impeach", all you're doing is unilaterally disarming in the face of people who won't do the same thing and makes it obvious you're only worried about realpolitik over blatant violation of the law. If she had said things like "this warrants further investigation before declaring impeachment" or even just left discussing it off the table I'd grant Pelosi was being cautious but reasonable, but when you rule out the idea at the start it's stupid politics, and says you don't care about a pretty fundamental problem with our government. You can be cunning and careful at politics and not commit right away, but if you basically declare you don't give a drat about some things you're just being a coward at best. Say what you will about the left wing part of the party, I don't have any doubts they believe in SOMETHING anyway even if it's not a carefully focus grouped triangulated opinion. Sometimes the best way to get people to agree to your position is actually leading them there rather than sitting there hoping they maybe eventually come to your perspective. She never said that. Her initial position was that she was against impeachment unless more information came out, then the Mueller report dropped and was much more damning that most probably expected it to be. Sure there was a bit of a lag as people digested the report but as it becomes more clear that Barr is a partisan hack who was full of poo poo regarding the contents of the report she's evolved her position to "we'll follow the evidence and if it leads to impeachment that's where we're going" Pelosi is a progressive she always has been, she's just learned that you gotta play the game which means that sometimes you have to do lovely things in order to remain in play to leverage your power when it can be the most effective. She also cut her teeth in a time when the electorate was significantly further to the right in general and she's old and the patterns of thinking she developed over the years aren't going to be as flexible and there is also an element of buying her own bullshit as well as the entitlement of "I deserve a little reward for my service" to her thinking and she has to be able to maintain civil relations with the right wing of the party. This is the basic political reality, if they passed articles of impeachment today, the Republicans in the Senate would acquit and that would be the end of efforts to hold Trump accountable and it would give him a victory (even if we all know that it's hollow) and give him breathing room of no longer having to fight against the investigation. Hell even if by some miracle the Senate actually did vote to remove him from office that would mean that we have two years of President Pence who would be just as evil as Trump but probably better at keeping the quiet part quiet. Far better if this poo poo is drug out and is used to dog Trump and his enablers as close the election as possible. Trump is a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party and the left, because he drops the mask, he lays bare the corruption and evil that is the GOP so I'm all for using him to cause them maximum damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:My only objection to Pelosi is she's waving impeachment right off the bat. Sure, investigate before filing the articles, that's a realistic response to have. But when you come out at the start saying "we won't impeach", all you're doing is unilaterally disarming in the face of people who won't do the same thing and makes it obvious you're only worried about realpolitik over blatant violation of the law. If she had said things like "this warrants further investigation before declaring impeachment" or even just left discussing it off the table I'd grant Pelosi was being cautious but reasonable, but when you rule out the idea at the start it's stupid politics, and says you don't care about a pretty fundamental problem with our government. You can be cunning and careful at politics and not commit right away, but if you basically declare you don't give a drat about some things you're just being a coward at best. Say what you will about the left wing part of the party, I don't have any doubts they believe in SOMETHING anyway even if it's not a carefully focus grouped triangulated opinion. Sometimes the best way to get people to agree to your position is actually leading them there rather than sitting there hoping they maybe eventually come to your perspective. quote:Asked about impeachment during a Tuesday interview for the Time 100 Summit in New York, Pelosi said that “if the . . . fact-finding takes us there, we have no choice. But we’re not there yet.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
I keep saying it: she has to be either the last one to say the word, or not do it at all. The entire caucus pretty much has to be there, and they are probably not yet fully pointed in the right direction, out of cowardice or decorum or ignorance or a sense of being extremely careful. Pelosi won't make this decision. Call your Congressperson and make them do it. Impeach the President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Optimism about public opinion turning against Trump once impeachment has been filed is incredibly risky and dangerous. The polls have to show at least half the country supporting it beforehand and even then it could still backfire politically. It seems Skex and I agree that Pelosi will stick to hearings and investigating until more evidence is found and support grows. This is a fairly safe strategy. Historians have long hotly debated, with good reason, whether Nixon might have been able to survive Watergate if not for the whitehouse taping system. The simple absence of that kind of open-and-shut proof of intent alone might well have been enough to keep him in office even in the 1970's, when more decent Republicans were in office. America is now living through the scenario historians feared. There probably isn't that level of absolute proof of felony criminal intent by Trump. There's likely plenty of evidence, but realistically it will take longer than the 2020 election to get most of it. Especially with the Whitehouse doing everything possible to stonewall and obstruct. There's a major and growing chance Donald Trump gets criminally charged after leaving the whitehouse. But it won't have much political relevance by then. It's also incorrect to say Pelosi has waved away impeachment, it's possible she's narrowed her options too strongly with her language choices and could be accused of inconsistency, but she's also left a lot of room to pursue it if conditions are right. Eregos fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
As for the question is America screwed politically, the answer is a definite yes. It's time to move past thinking in terms of making one last stand in favor of 1st world democratic ideals in the United States. That moment was in 2016 (for me, 2014 was even more demonstrative in many ways) and has now passed. Due to numerous overwhelming trends, the US is clearly destined to be another corrupt, dysfunctional non-1st world democracy for at least the next several decades, most of the rest of my lifetime and of those reading this thread (I would love to use the term '2nd world democracy' if it were more popularized). The vast majority of the decline of American democracy preceded Trump, who is ultimately far more a product of it than a cause, though he is a cause. It is absolutely positively past time to stop thinking of America as some kind of exception, a nation that can't suffer democratic backsliding. The US has been deep in the midst of it for years. An analogy - America is no more politically screwed than Brazil. Brazil's position is worse largely because their institutions are weaker. Corruption in Brazilian politics is also more endemic. What this means is that like the opposition in other weakening, troubled democracies like Brazil, Hungary, Poland and Turkey, Americans who wish to save their democracy must adopt a smarter, longer term, more strategic mindset. Having gone more in depth in international politics than most I can say setbacks for opposition are the norm, and they are more effective when they take a step back and plan ahead for how to deal with future power grabs, breaches of norms and law. When they bet everything on trying to make one last stand because the regime winning one particular battle is unimaginable, the result generally exacerbates the coming catastrophe. I'm convinced impeachment at this stage is like that desperate bet, and Skex's thinking "frankly if after seeing that on full display doesn't cause people to come out in numbers never seen before against the GOP we're doomed anyway" only reinforces that perception. The truth is that as the decline of American democracy continues, the stakes will only increase, as has happened in numerous other democracies. Unless one is planning to leave the United States (a reasonable if troubling long-term proposal, living in declining democracies tends to be a poor choice over the long term), then the democracy being 'doomed' doesn't mean much in the sense America will still exist, be ruled, and have elections the question is how much further damage will the Democrats be in a position to prevent. (I've heard a few Republicans in recent years refer to democracy as just vote counting and elections, hopefully everyone here understands how catastrophically wrong that is.) The reason the Democrats should respect some norms of decency even though the Republicans will not is because their coalitions are not mirror images of each other. It is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, but if Democrats fight with both, they will lose moderate voters. Because the Republican base is radicalized they largely don't face that constraint. (They did in 2018, losing well educated suburbs. But the Democrats overreaching is one thing that would swing them back). The Democrats can support some Machiavellian measures that are defensible reforms, like restoring the talking filibuster, abolishing the electoral college, and probably changing the rules to allow statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico on a simple majority. But they can't stack the Supreme Court. Interestingly Puerto Rico might actually send two Republican senators to congress, but if it did they would likely be more moderate than Collins. They also might be independents, or Republicans who caucus with the Democrats. Puerto Rico's relative moderation would do nothing to cushion the freakout on Breitbart and Fox News if the Democrats did this though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Eregos posted:The reason the Democrats should respect some norms of decency even though the Republicans will not is because their coalitions are not mirror images of each other. It is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, but if Democrats fight with both, they will lose moderate voters. Because the Republican base is radicalized they largely don't face that constraint. (They did in 2018, losing well educated suburbs. But the Democrats overreaching is one thing that would swing them back). The Democrats can support some Machiavellian measures that are defensible reforms, like restoring the talking filibuster, abolishing the electoral college, and probably changing the rules to allow statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico on a simple majority. But they can't stack the Supreme Court. If Democrats don't force Republicans to face consequences for their actions, then nobody will. That involves winning elections, but it also means they need to push back against Republican death-cult policy and law-breaking. If they don't, Democratic voters will ask why they should ever bother voting, and Republicans will continue to stack the deck in their favor. It's possible that American voters are dumb enough to believe that literally all politics are just "Dems on one side, GOP on the other, I am smart man in the middle," but that doesn't represent the effect on American democracy and our way of life. Either America is worth fighting for, or it's not. That said, we know Democrats will "respect norms of decency" because they always do. They aren't going to pack the courts or declare Fox News a terrorist cell or anything we'd like to see. Demanding that they uphold the rule of law should be the least they could possibly do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 11:10
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo about the Mueller report. Impeach Trump for withdrawing from the Paris accords or the crisis at the border or serving McDonald’s at a whites house dinner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
It looks like a man who drove his car into a crowd of people in California last week did so because he thought the victims were Muslim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
From the link, what the judge actually said is that he would consider release if the defense could come up with conditions acceptable to the court. I'm wondering if this is a Bail Reform Act thing. The government didn't charge him with terrorism, threats, conspiracy, or any other violent crimes, they stitched him up on illegal silencers, drug possession, and guns & drugs, because they were clear-cut charges that were slam dunks to prove. IIRC, the BRA says the judge has to default to the presumption of bail unless the government can show that the accused is unlikely to appear or a threat to the community regardless of any conditions that could be imposed by the judge. Now, the "wrote down his fantasies of assassinating politicians" thing seems to weigh pretty heavily on the latter criteria, but his lawyer can make the not-unreasonable arguments that if he was a violent criminal the government would/should have changed him with that, and that not being allowed to access any guns combined with electronic monitoring will keep him from being a threat. Still doesn't mean he's going to get bail though.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Apr 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Oliver North Ousted as NRA Leader Get hosed! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
big fan of North's career being just various flavors of 'joined organization, did crime, fired'. He's the original Manafort, he can't stop doin crimes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Oliver North walking into the NRA headquarters: Crimes crimes crimes! Everyone else: *silence* North: Crimes??????
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Crimes. https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1122249185435234305
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Fantastic post sequence. Though to be clear: 1. Oliver North's been with NRA for a long time, he was on the board for a couple decades. Only the president thing was recent. 2. The crimes appear to be all over the dang organization, not North specifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
yea it looks like the actual chain of events was North found out about all these crimes and then...tried to blackmail his own board to keep them quiet? Which is also a crime yes but it's the most North thing ever where he literally couldn't comprehend a bunch of people doing shady poo poo and NOT trying to get a slice of that pie, even when he's the literal president of the group?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Poor Ollie, didn't sell enough of the wrong type of weapons to the wrong type of people for the NRA's liking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
It’s not the INTERnational rifle association bud
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:If Democrats don't force Republicans to face consequences for their actions, then nobody will. That involves winning elections, but it also means they need to push back against Republican death-cult policy and law-breaking. If they don't, Democratic voters will ask why they should ever bother voting, and Republicans will continue to stack the deck in their favor. I addressed a lot of why impeachment is a mistake in the middle paragraph "An analogy - America is no more politically screwed than Brazil.". It's depressing seeing America's opposition fall into the same trap as the opposition in so many other declining democracies with authoritarian leaders. Standing up for what is right or the rule of law is misplaced nobility when it fails and backfires, leaving the opposition in a weakened position to stand against further democratic backsliding. Another reason I'm so confident support for impeachment will stay the same or fall after it begins is because most Democratic voters in 2018 made clear they cared more about policy issues that affected their lives than holding Trump & the Republicans accountable. Accountability was a major reason for Democratic support, which is unusual in American politics, but still much less important than policy. This has given the Democrats political support for a dual track approach of pursuing policy and accountability, but impeachment so dominates the public sphere it will drown out the policy side entirely, disappointing many Democratic voters. Impeachment also encourages only the most partisan interpretation of misdeeds by the current administration. This too invites a public backlash. It gives Republicans an opening to seem like reasonable statesmen by suggesting less condemnable motives and explanations for misdeeds by administration officials than impeachable felony criminal conduct. Democrats absolutely need to push back against the Republicans. They already are. They will continue to. Might there be some non-impeachment elements of decorum the Democrats still observe that they shouldn't? There probably are, I don't follow legislative details closely enough to have any examples. All the examples I learned in the Obama years don't apply at the moment because the Democrats lost the Senate and aren't in a position to pass legislation into law. Even if I mistakenly believed support for impeachment would drastically increase once hearings were underway and people saw the evidence, I still wouldn't want to start it now both because it distracts from policy people care more about and the case will be stronger after the Democrats investigate to gather more evidence. Pelosi realizes it's better to investigate to gain more public support, there's no advantage and it makes no sense to start now, since the Republicans in the senate won't convict and there's no possibility of actually removing Trump. It just makes no sense to burn political capital Democrats badly need to preserve, especially when it won't achieve the desired outcome and Trump & orbit are also under multiple simultaneous FBI criminal investigations. I really can't envision a plausible scenario where waiting and investigating would be a more advisable strategy in American politics. I also assume the Fox News part is tongue-in-cheek? I'm all for fighting for American democracy, but in smart and productive ways that still hold true to values. Eregos fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Face consequences? Like a political prison of sorts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kfor/status/1120901663626342400?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
They're trying hard to do the same thing in SC but coastal counties are pushing back hard. Most of them have banned them already. It's loving gross to see such blatant corruption (example #123401384093410934 but still), because like there is no remote principled defensible position to defend plastic bags. It's literally a "we are lobbied to do this and will do this" without any vague philosophy behind it. God we are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 01:53
|
|
