Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

On 6/12/2019 at 5:49 AM, Bus Driver said:

He admitted Russia interfered.

Do you believe that elections in which foreign interests interfere are legitimate?

 

Is that your narrative? Really? You are that shallow? .001 % of Facebook ads is the "Russian interference "  What other countries interfered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 8:27 AM, Dog said:

Of the things I can't possibly know the likelihood of a deity seems no less probable than mud turning itself into the mind of Einstein.

 

3 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I read your comment about the probabilities of a deity relative to the biological process of elements of mud developing into Einstein's brain as a disbelief of biology. Added a dash of unfathomability in your apparent support for our Dear Leader. Poured gently over the sharp rocks of Peterson's crap and came up with..

 

 

3 hours ago, Dog said:

Short version...You made it up.

Let me help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bhyde said:

 

 

Let me help.

Where's the part where I "admitted to believing in something more than pure biology"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Short version...You made it up.

You and I and especially you could use up a page of bandwidth arguing so I will stipulate that you have yer doubts about e-vooo-lushun. Good enuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Where's the part where I "admitted to believing in something more than pure biology"?

I think it's right here:

On 6/14/2019 at 8:27 AM, Dog said:

Of the things I can't possibly know the likelihood of a deity seems no less probable than mud turning itself into the mind of Einstein.

But you're right, there could be some confusion. You should probably clarify your position. Do you believe in the God of Abraham? Asking for a friend.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bhyde said:

I think it's right here:

But you're right, there could be some confusion. You should probably clarify your position. Do you believe in the God of Abraham? Asking for a friend.

 

I'm agnostic. That should be clear from the quote you cited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm agnostic. That should be clear from the quote you cited.

If I was not confident that it wasn't clear, I would have said so. I didn't say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm agnostic. That should be clear from the quote you cited.

That made more sense 100 years ago than now: 

Image result for ostrich with head in sand cartoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

That made more sense 100 years ago than now: 

Image result for ostrich with head in sand cartoon

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Our President is a first class idiot -

Reuters:

Excerpt -

“Ms. Hicks made clear that she understood the president to be serious when he said that he would accept foreign interference in our elections,” Nadler said in a statement for a hearing on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

“She also made clear that even she knew that such foreign assistance should be rejected and reported to the FBI,” he said. 

The committee later heard from an expert witness who said Trump’s remarks about accepting foreign assistance, made in an ABC News interview, could violate the presidential oath of office and provide evidence for any future impeachment inquiry.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-hicks-idUSKCN1TL1SY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

 

Our President is a first class idiot -

 

You say that like it's a surprise. He's the best idiot, many people are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manafort aide FBI linked to Russian intelligence worked with Craig on Ukraine report

A man the FBI alleges has ties to Russian intelligence helped a U.S. legal team headed by former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig as it prepared a review of the prosecution of former Ukrainian President Yulia Tymoshenko, according to an FBI report released Monday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/24/manafort-ukraine-fbi-aide-russia-1380267

Turnabout is fair play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller to spill beans on Trump crime family and Bill Barr in open session before congress July 17th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Mueller to spill beans on Trump crime family and Bill Barr in open session before congress July 17th

No collusion, conspiracy and obstruction heaps,  unfortunately we are reluctant to lay charges against a sitting president.

If you choose to impeach the lowly motherfucker then I’m your man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This testimony will have to be ignored with great fervor and passion, to pretend it never happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open session they say. Should be fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should do a poll to predict the distraction. 

(Same for the democRATS debates. No way he lets anyone else have the limelight.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CNBC -

Robert Mueller will publicly testify before two House committees next month about his probe into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced the July 17 testimony on Tuesday night. They said they issued subpoenas to bring Mueller, the special counsel who oversaw the Justice Department's investigation, before the House. 

"Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia's attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign's acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates' obstruction of the investigation into that attack," the two lawmakers said in a joint statement. "We look forward to hearing his testimony, as do all Americans."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Dog is looking forward to it. He probably won't watch. But he'll still won't support Rump. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect war with Iran to begin on July 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Open session they say. Should be fun to watch.

hrc.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

We should do a poll to predict the distraction. 

(Same for the democRATS debates. No way he lets anyone else have the limelight.)

Iran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Expect war with Iran to begin on July 16.

Beat me to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:
11 hours ago, Nice! said:

Expect war with Iran to begin on July 16.

Beat me to it

nah, not popular enough with the base.  now that ig report .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Funny how all the @Dog s in the GOP who hadn't bothered to read the report are now rushing to read it to cross examine Mueller.

Good!  Maybe there will be some minds warped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Funny how all the @Dog s in the GOP who hadn't bothered to read the report are now rushing to read it to cross examine Mueller.

I don't see that happening at all.  The people watching the testimony will mostly be the people who have read the report. People like Dog who have no interest in the actual report about an investigation into a foreign power interfering in our election(s) will not be tuning in to listen to testimony about it. The last thing they want is actual knowledge about the report, because it removes plausible deniability. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It MIGHT get some republicans to actually read it, so they can question Mueller on the contents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mike G said:

It MIGHT get some republicans to actually read it, so they can question Mueller on the contents.

I'd be tickled if the hearings were actually focused on increased understanding with the goal of curtailing nefarious activity in the future.   I suspect that that won't be the focus of either party's line of questioning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd be tickled if the hearings were actually focused on increased understanding with the goal of curtailing nefarious activity in the future. 

Mitch McConnell has said nothing of that nature will pass the Senate, whats the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Mitch McConnell has said nothing of that nature will pass the Senate, whats the point?

The point is that there are a lot of people in the country who are looking for objective, pragmatic behavior from our politicians, and an event like this is an opportunity for that kind of behavior and solution-oriented attitude to be displayed.  That's what I'm looking for in decisions about who to support in the next elections, and I know I'm not the only one. Right now, I'm pretty much in an anti-incumbent mood, though I'd reconsider individuals who demonstrate what I expect from those elected to office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The point is that there are a lot of people in the country who are looking for objective, pragmatic behavior from our politicians, and an event like this is an opportunity for that kind of behavior and solution-oriented attitude to be displayed.  That's what I'm looking for in decisions about who to support in the next elections, and I know I'm not the only one. Right now, I'm pretty much in an anti-incumbent mood, though I'd reconsider individuals who demonstrate what I expect from those elected to office. 

So.... Who you gonna throw out, and who you gonna keep....... In your voting capacity? (If elections were held today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

So.... Who you gonna throw out, and who you gonna keep....... In your voting capacity?

Right now?  I'm inclined towards anyone running as a challenger. I haven't made any firm decisions - and won't 'til I hear what each individual shares for plans and priorities. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The point is that there are a lot of people in the country who are looking for objective, pragmatic behavior from our politicians, and an event like this is an opportunity for that kind of behavior and solution-oriented attitude to be displayed.  That's what I'm looking for in decisions about who to support in the next elections, and I know I'm not the only one. Right now, I'm pretty much in an anti-incumbent mood, though I'd reconsider individuals who demonstrate what I expect from those elected to office. 

Forgiveness, water under the bridge, and all that? That's mighty white of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda wanna know what it's going  to take to get the fat fuck out. We need a decider! (But not that one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I kinda wanna know what it's going  to take to get the fat fuck out. We need a decider! (But not that one.)

time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Forgiveness, water under the bridge, and all that? That's mighty white of you.

WTF is your problem, and why do you feel it necessary to project your personal issues on others? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Right now?  I'm inclined towards anyone running as a challenger. I haven't made any firm decisions - and won't 'til I hear what each individual shares for plans and priorities. 

 

Would you vote for Trump in 2020 or has he been disqualified in your mind? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sean said:

Would you vote for Trump in 2020 or has he been disqualified in your mind? 

I didn't vote for him in the last election.  I think that many folks here conflate my disagreement with the nature of some of the comments  with support for positions that I dont. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I didn't vote for him in the last election.  I think that many folks here conflate my disagreement with the nature of some of the comments  with support for positions that I dont. 

What a good German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I didn't vote for him in the last election.  I think that many folks here conflate my disagreement with the nature of some of the comments  with support for positions that I dont. 

That doesn't answer the question..... Dog.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It certainly does, unless you want to join the projector squad.  

No, it doesn't. Will you vote for Trump in 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No, it doesn't. Will you vote for Trump in 2020?

Come on mr left. We KNOW Hillary would have been worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Come on mr left. We KNOW Hillary would have been worse.

We also "Know" that AGITC is going to vote for Trump, but he won't admit it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

We also "Know" that AGITC is going to vote for Trump, but he won't admit it here.

He may have a Libertarian to vote for, and can then claim for 4 more years to not having voted for Trump, but the Dems are worse. It’s kinda funny, he’s a bit Dog-lite, but end of the day, he has he same views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Paulie Whoopsies. He must be Trump Towers most indicted former resident. Guy just can’t catch a break. Taking the Russian big bucks just doesn’t seem worth it some times. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2019-06-26/ex-trump-aide-manafort-to-be-arraigned-in-new-york-on-thursday-court-spokesman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He may have a Libertarian to vote for, and can then claim for 4 more years to not having voted for Trump, but the Dems are worse. It’s kinda funny, he’s a bit Dog-lite, but end of the day, he has he same views.

And the same evasive non-answers to certain questions.

I dunno..... AGITC has been a fairly decent respondent on this forum until the last 6 months or so..... I'll give him a break because I don't wan't to see him break down and become a Happy Jack, Big Fella, or Coors Lite.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It certainly does, unless you want to join the projector squad.  

I phrased the question poorly - it was really two questions. I’m more interested to know if Trump has been disqualified in your view. Are there any circumstances under which you would pull the lever for Trump? Not voting is also an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

And the same evasive non-answers to certain questions.

I dunno..... AGITC has been a fairly decent respondent on this forum until the last 6 months or so..... I'll give him a break because I don't wan't to see him break down and become a Happy Jack, Big Fella, or Coors Lite.....

He still is. He served our country and read the Mueller report. He’s our countryman who disagrees with many of us much of the time and agrees with many of us much of the time. 

I see someone wrestling with the path the gop is taking the country down and really wrestling with the notion that the democrats can kick us back onto a proud path. I wrestle with exactly those same demons so perhaps I am projecting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He may have a Libertarian to vote for, and can then claim for 4 more years to not having voted for Trump, but the Dems are worse. It’s kinda funny, he’s a bit Dog-lite, but end of the day, he has he same views.

Are those views the prejudices you like to project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

He still is. He served our country and read the Mueller report. He’s our countryman who disagrees with many of us much of the time and agrees with many of us much of the time. 

I see someone wrestling with the path the gop is taking the country down and really wrestling with the notion that the democrats can kick us back onto a proud path. I wrestle with exactly those same demons so perhaps I am projecting. 

I tend to agree with you, in general, but it seems that much like Trump, the more AGITC is tested, the more he lashes out...... I see that he's just posted so, I'll stop now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

I phrased the question poorly - it was really two questions. I’m more interested to know if Trump has been disqualified in your view. Are there any circumstances under which you would pull the lever for Trump? Not voting is also an option.

Fair enough Sean, I didnt vote for Trump in 2016, though I admit hoping for much better than he's given us.  I'd hoped he would grow into the position, and he's disappointed me at every opportunity.  I cant see me changing my mind to support him with this additional bad water under the bridge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you obtuse? I didnt vote for him in 2016, why would you think that'd change now? 

No, I'm not obtuse. I'm observant.

 I have no idea who you voted for in 2016, but your comments tend to indicate that you favor Trump in 2020.

 On that note, I'm off to the land of nod. Nytol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I tend to agree with you, in general, but it seems that much like Trump, the more AGITC is tested, the more he lashes out...... I see that he's just posted so, I'll stop now.

 

If "testing" equates to being subjected to baseless, BS allegations of bad intent? I'll accept your comment.  Try it a while, I think you'd find your patience wearing thin as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No, I'm not obtuse. I'm observant.

 I have no idea who you voted for in 2016, but your comments tend to indicate that you favor Trump in 2020.

 On that note, I'm off to the land of nod. Nytol!

Then you aren't paying attention, I've said many times who I voted for - Mickey Mouse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fair enough Sean, I didnt vote for Trump in 2016, though I admit hoping for much better than he's given us.  I'd hoped he would grow into the position, and he's disappointed me at every opportunity.  I cant see me changing my mind to support him with this additional bad water under the bridge. 

 

For me, given what we now know about the man, I would lose all respect for anyone who votes for him in 2020.

Hillary, as bad a candidate as she was, it turns out she wasn’t worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched today's Trump on Iran newsclip. Thinly-veiled threats of nuking 'em: "no boots on the ground.....wouldn't take long at all..."

I was struck by his hair. The top combover-back bit is poofed out and curled at the sides, a bit like candyfloss. The bastard must be using industrial epoxy to keep that shit in place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

He still is. He served our country and read the Mueller report. He’s our countryman who disagrees with many of us much of the time and agrees with many of us much of the time. 

I see someone wrestling with the path the gop is taking the country down and really wrestling with the notion that the democrats can kick us back onto a proud path. I wrestle with exactly those same demons so perhaps I am projecting. 

Thanks for that Counselor - I'd like to add a little to your observation:  I'd like *anyone* to get us back on to a proud path - and rather than "wrestling w/the notion that the Ds can do it" - I'd suggest that I'm at a place where I'm listening, and not hearing much from anyone that makes me feel like their prescribed approach will get us there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd like *anyone* to get us back on to a proud path 

That'd take some major denial...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for that Counselor - I'd like to add a little to your observation:  I'd like *anyone* to get us back on to a proud path - and rather than "wrestling w/the notion that the Ds can do it" - I'd suggest that I'm at a place where I'm listening, and not hearing much from anyone that makes me feel like their prescribed approach will get us there. 

I think it is way too early for knowing who can get us on a proud path, but for me it, for starters,  it would mean comprehensive immigration reform to spur legal immigration and an end to policies designed to hurt people as deterrence, just for the sake of making shitty people feel like they are better than someone. 

It would mean ensuring equal rights for everyone and protecting voting rights with draconian penalties. That’s where I’d have deterrence. Release kids from prison who got busted for small marijuana crimes and make room for gerrymanderers who dilute votes, scumbags who bump people off the voting rolls, people who do caging lists, who do fake phone calls to keep people from voting, and then I would replace Columbus Day holiday with voting day and make it a national holiday. Any country caught interfering in our elections gets all of their assets seized and forfeiture proceedings started. 

That would leave some more prison space, which could be filled by the CEO of any company making a contribution to a political campaign, once we outlaw any donations (gee, we didn’t hear much about Those last night did we) from anyone not registered to vote in a candidate’s chosen district. 

Then some general stuff. Seek to be the highest common denominator instead of the lowest. This would include but by no means be limited to having a president who doesn’t insult one of our allies Every Fucking Time he is packing up to go visit that ally. You can set your watch by this dickhead doing that now. 

We should push our neo Nazis and other white supremacists back under their rocks and let them return to talking tough on Stormfront  

I think we should return to being an example of what other countries should aspire to be, not the opposite. 

We should exhibit a modicum of fucking decency instead of exalting in indecency at the expense of the lives of those less fortunate. 

For starters. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

??????

Perhaps I'm being too hard on America's recent past?

Ah, I see Sol's weighed in with some stuff that'll probably never happen also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol, 

I agree completely, particularly your correct use of ensure vs insure...so wrong.  I've been watching the news and Texas is pushing Florida for #1 in the stupid parade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Perhaps I'm being too hard on America's recent past?

Ah, I see Sol's weighed in with some stuff that'll probably never happen also.

I simply don't understand what you mean by your denial comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I simply don't understand what you mean by your denial comment. 

There will be no "proud path" for America.

Go ahead and deny it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C Corps have been berry berry good to me (and are likely to be even more better) but they have no place in the body politic.

Treat guns like cars.

Voting and voting rights should be federalized.

Get rid of the Electoral College.

Small states should get relegated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I simply don't understand what you mean by your denial comment. 

A rainbow should have been attached.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, justsomeguy! said:

There will be no "proud path" for America.

Go ahead and deny it.

Those on the right have a hard time realizing their desire for a proud path is undermined by what they believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

There will be no "proud path" for America.

Go ahead and deny it.

I think you're wrong, and think I have a bit more faith in the average person than you do - but, that's why we discuss things, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

C Corps have been berry berry good to me (and are likely to be even more better) but they have no place in the body politic.

Treat guns like cars.

Voting and voting rights should be federalized.

Get rid of the Electoral College.

Small states should get relegated.

The last two indicate that you really aren't interested in fairness, or in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but, hey, that's how you roll.  I'll oppose that - and one of us might end up happy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The last two indicate that you really aren't interested in fairness, or in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but, hey, that's how you roll.  I'll oppose that - and one of us might end up happy.  

In case you missed it the Supreme Court via those wonderful Conservative jurists that you thought were necessary said today the Constitution isn't interested in that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

In case you missed it the Supreme Court via those wonderful Conservative jurists that you thought were necessary said today the Constitution isn't interested in that either.

So - now you're opposed to the constitutional relegation of authority to the states?   Not a big surprise, really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - now you're opposed to the constitutional relegation of authority to the states?   Not a big surprise, really. 

Honest question - the Supremes say it doesn't belong in Federal court.  Does that mean it goes back to the state courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - now you're opposed to the constitutional relegation of authority to the states?   Not a big surprise, really. 

Supreme Court just allowed gerrymandering. Break out the bananas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast forward Reagan to present day, and let him talk about a shining city on the hill.  The Proud Boys would slaughter him for being a snowflake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - now you're opposed to the constitutional relegation of authority to the states?   Not a big surprise, really. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

your party line take is hack horseshit, just like the banana republic bullshit the Roberts court ruled. Read the dissent - you might find it more representative of what you just argued to O in this thread. Whatever happens you'll be screaming when Democrats use this to fuck over republicans harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Honest question - the Supremes say it doesn't belong in Federal court.  Does that mean it goes back to the state courts?

In all sincerity - I think that they punted.  I think that voting districts shouldn't be established politically, that a standard formula should be applied to avoid any partisan influence.   That said, after reading the opinions, I do understand why they decided that this is a matter for the states, and I think that the states *should* take it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In all sincerity - I think that they punted

They did not punt. Prior cases they punted. This one they said it's not their problem and the states can do whatever the fuck they feel like. California wants to change their constitution so a simple state majority vote assigns all representatives to one party? That's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you're wrong, and think I have a bit more faith in the average person than you do - but, that's why we discuss things, isn't it? 

That's the spirit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In all sincerity - I think that they punted.  I think that voting districts shouldn't be established politically, that a standard formula should be applied to avoid any partisan influence.   That said, after reading the opinions, I do understand why they decided that this is a matter for the states, and I think that the states *should* take it up.  

So, is it just for the voting booth, or can the state courts straighten it out?

Seriously, if we allow hyperpartisan gerrymandering, how can we expect the electorate will ever have a real voice in how votes are counted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, is it just for the voting booth, or can the state courts straighten it out?

Seriously, if we allow hyperpartisan gerrymandering, how can we expect the electorate will ever have a real voice in how votes are counted?

C'mon Bus - what about my comment indicates that I approve of gerrymandering?  I think that the state courts SHOULD straighten it out, and that this decision establishes that they have that authority, and with it, that responsibility.   The downside of this decision is that I doubt is that the majority party in any state in which the districts aren't drawn fairly is going to feel compelled to take up the issue absent fear of voter reprisal.  So - pragmatically, I think that the voters need to push it if we expect any action to be taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't see that happening at all.  The people watching the testimony will mostly be the people who have read the report. People like Dog who have no interest in the actual report about an investigation into a foreign power interfering in our election(s) will not be tuning in to listen to testimony about it. The last thing they want is actual knowledge about the report, because it removes plausible deniability challenges the emotional personal identity that they have developed around supporting Trump.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nice! said:

FIFY

I think Trump is a symptom.  Like any good con man, he reads people well and figures out what they want.  Working people in this country haven't seen a meaningful raise for going on 40 years, while everything is getting more expensive. People are pissed off and looking for someone to blame.  Trump points at people who look, worship, fuck, educate differently and gives them a boogeyman other than the people who have owned the government and reaped all the benefits of economic growth over those 40 years. The illness is resentment borne of the realization that fewer and fewer people have a chance to do as well as their parents did.  Trump is just a symptom of that, who found a willing host for his parasitic methods. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites