-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
They did it.
There will be no pushback though right? Because America no longer has laws?
Although, this will only be a self inflicted wound to red states, yet another one.
But what good will more house members do if 50 or so senate seats are permanent red?
Weird thing to do in an election year. It seems like something that has no political upside for the GOP but yet isn't a policy win either, because it won't go into effect until like 2022, if it isn't unilaterally undone by a dem president anyway.
Seriously feel like this is an underrated get. Glad the election nerds here know what's up.
The witnesses stuff is going to destroy Collins, Ernst, McSalty, Tillis and Gardner, all of whom are underwater as it is. Perdue is probably safe, but Kobach and Collins could very well cost KS and the GA special for the GOP. Looking forward to it.
All part of the plan though, right? Just keep the majority of the WWC desperate and scrambling for money and lay the blame on job stealing mexicans, social service hogging blacks, and corrupt socialist democrats.
I keep telling you folks, they're just the latest iteration of the Confederacy in $2k suits
Logically, nothing, but if congress turned into a permanent impasse theoretically that might affect a movement for change.
Warnock is easily the best recruit for this moment. The church ties (at MLK's church of all places!) quells a lot of the usual suburban fearmongering attacks that the GOP does. He also seems legitimately well read on socioeconomic issues.
This might work out better than Stacey. The only thing he's missing is name rec.
The NYT quick candidate quiz said I'm a Yang, Klobuchar, Buttigieg.
Questions lack any nuance though
Questions lack any nuance though
I doubt this article will get much traction with everything going on, but it lays out how the Trump admin seems to be using the Departments of Transportation (BUILD grants to states) and Agriculture (trade war bailout payments to farmers) to inordinately benefit Republican candidates and constituents for political gain. Written by Senator Tina Smith (D-MN, formerly Lieutenant Governor, appointed to Franken's seat after his resignation, won special election in 2018).
I won't quote the whole thing here, but yet again, like everything else in this administration, we see how partisan loyalty is what matters. The rest of us aren't treated fairly. Why do farmers in red southern states receive far higher per-acre bailout payments than those in the rest of the country? Why does Kentucky get a $10M grant for an "excursion pier," while Minnesota doesn't get any of those $900M in BUILD grants last year?
I won't quote the whole thing here, but yet again, like everything else in this administration, we see how partisan loyalty is what matters. The rest of us aren't treated fairly. Why do farmers in red southern states receive far higher per-acre bailout payments than those in the rest of the country? Why does Kentucky get a $10M grant for an "excursion pier," while Minnesota doesn't get any of those $900M in BUILD grants last year?
Last edited:
Yea that NYT quiz has some weird questions and phrasing.
still,got the same top 3 asfrom the WAPO one
still,got the same top 3 asfrom the WAPO one
This shouldn't be surprising since the whole administration is ran like a protection racket for the presidents personal interests and those who show deference.
Pop off, Sis. Ya'll make those people who need insurance for costly medications suffer more.
The US is in need of a major reset. Like... Seriously. Blowing the whole thing up and start from scratch.
I'm intimately familiar with the rail crossings here. I used to commute from Fargo to MSUM and it was a huge pain in the ass.
Honestly my biggest concern at this point is the validity of the 2020 election. The GOP have hinged all their bets on Trump winning 2020, and have thus completely shut-down any improvements in election security.
We as a country rely on the faith in our elections, but that is a double-edged sword, as it prevents us from realistically discussing when our elections have become compromised.
People often dismiss this as fear-mongering and claim it's impossible to rig a nationwide election, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing targeting among the most important districts/states in the country. As we saw from 2016, all it takes is less than 100k votes to sway the election one way or another. You don't need to rig ever voting machine in the country to sway an election...you only need to rig specific voting machines in specific districts. You don't need to purge voters from across the country, you only need do it in the most important states.
We are too scared to discuss these issues, as it can (understandably) lead to less faith in our electoral process....but that's also the very reason it's so possible. It's a blind spot that we cannot shine a light because to do so would risk revealing our biggest fear has already come true.
Trump and the GOP know this. They want the public to believe they have faith in the election....that the POTUS should be decided "by the people." But they don't give a shit about the people electing the POTUS. They only care about maintaining the power that gives them immunity from the blatant corruption occurring....and they will do anything to maintain that power. Dershowitz' argument just furthers that line of reasoning. It's OK for the POTUS to criminally interfere or participate in interference in our election because he believes it's in the best interest of the country.
If Trump wins in 2020, I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that it wasn't because of blatant corruption in our electoral process.
We as a country rely on the faith in our elections, but that is a double-edged sword, as it prevents us from realistically discussing when our elections have become compromised.
People often dismiss this as fear-mongering and claim it's impossible to rig a nationwide election, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing targeting among the most important districts/states in the country. As we saw from 2016, all it takes is less than 100k votes to sway the election one way or another. You don't need to rig ever voting machine in the country to sway an election...you only need to rig specific voting machines in specific districts. You don't need to purge voters from across the country, you only need do it in the most important states.
We are too scared to discuss these issues, as it can (understandably) lead to less faith in our electoral process....but that's also the very reason it's so possible. It's a blind spot that we cannot shine a light because to do so would risk revealing our biggest fear has already come true.
Trump and the GOP know this. They want the public to believe they have faith in the election....that the POTUS should be decided "by the people." But they don't give a shit about the people electing the POTUS. They only care about maintaining the power that gives them immunity from the blatant corruption occurring....and they will do anything to maintain that power. Dershowitz' argument just furthers that line of reasoning. It's OK for the POTUS to criminally interfere or participate in interference in our election because he believes it's in the best interest of the country.
If Trump wins in 2020, I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that it wasn't because of blatant corruption in our electoral process.
Giving the Dems a stronger hand in the House is nothing but a win, so don't discount that. Under the current alignment, a Democratic majority in the House is weak and unlikely to persist over multiple elections. Having a stronger chance at controlling at least one chamber at all times should not be discounted in its importance.
Along the same lines, don't be a prisoner to the moment. Today things are really bad for us in the Senate, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It wasn't that long ago that the Senate was our bulwark against the radicals in the House.
That said, both Chambers need a lot of work, and with the Senate's elevated status it needs the most. Dissolving it will NEVER pass, so it isn't even worth discussing.
The problem we face right now is both institutional weaknesses, and the rise of fascism/totalitarian sympathies. There need to be greater checks and balances put into our institutions that will be easier to implement than dissolving the Senate. Things like inoculating the Justice Department from political influence, strengthening our Inspector Generals, actually codifying norms into law, the list goes on and on.
The fascism/totalitarian thing is going to be harder to fix. And until it is, the people who subscribe to it will be a clear and present danger to democratic ideals. No matter how strong our institutions, these people by definition will do everything they can to tear them apart.
The point is, if you are serious about reforming our system of government, there are a lot of better things to start with than dissolving the Senate. It may be the sexy, flashy option, but it is unworkable and doesn't start to address many of the deficiencies that we've seen throughout the government in the last three years.
Name rec can be built, too. No one knew who Abrams was at the beginning of the 2018 cycle. Same with O'Rourke.
I think just being able to introduce himself as Ebeneezer's senior pastor instantly gives him credibility. Folks might not know who he is, but they'll appreciate his significance.
Well put. It's much easier to convince blue staters to simply #MoveToBoise
That quiz is terrible. Like the "Do you want the person to make history" Yes or NO. Where's the "I just want to win" option? Seriously.
Or Private insurance or Govt only. No public option? Or Private still exists?
Anyway:
Contrast that with my Wapo one.
Or Private insurance or Govt only. No public option? Or Private still exists?
Anyway:
Contrast that with my Wapo one.
It's good for governonrs and local GOP who can get out from under the "we're not bringing in the X millions we could" and now can say they are bringing them in AND having local control over how it's spent.
TIL that locking kids in cages is less extreme than giving everyone healthcare
I don't know how to answer this, but also, where do you want me to start?
I don't think it gets said enough that the current farm bailouts of $28BN (and more to come this year?) massively exceed the final costs of the autos bailout after the Great Recession which was about $11BN, and are of course a part of the >$1TN deficits now. Republicans hated that autos bailout.
ie, the Culture WAAAAUUUGHHH will intensify right behind it. When you're hateful, fantasy-prone, nihilistic, resentful it's the only band-aid.
I mean why can't I just go and shoot someone in the street/halls of congress as president as long as I believe it's in the national interest? It's the new "I feared for my life" defense that cops use after emptying rounds into unarmed people.
Try an encyclopedia collection with multiple volumes, and also only part 1.
Dick Cheney is younger than Bernie Sanders by a year
Blows my mind
Chiming in just to say that Warnock is a fantastic recruit. Will be a good contrast to Collins/Loffler
Seeing talk on twitter, let's say the Senate dodges witnesses. Will Bolton finally give in and testify in front of the House?
- Status