Please remember to add “Unconstitutionally blocking” to this statement. I still don’t get why that isn’t a bigger deal right now. The Senate is supposed to provide advice and consent regarding SCOTUS appointees. They are doing neither.
Sure. I was curious and looked it up. Turns out the guy is pretty well off, which it looks like they all are. Unsurprising since the only people who can afford to run for office are the wealthy.
My dumbass Congressman is sticking by Trump. He’s up for reelection next month but this district is as red as rural Texas. His opponent stands no chance.
I’d like to think that everyone will abandon Trump, but somehow he seems bulletproof. At least he’s going down (slowly at least).
In the meantime I sending him dildos http://www.dildosfordonald.com
[quote=“Mindysan33, post:83, topic:87087”]
Turns out the guy is pretty well off, which it looks like they all are.[/quote]
The context was that he’d just lamented that he wasn’t getting $1 from everyone in the US who’s smoked marijuana.
Yeah, even Rosanne Barr has apparently decided not to run (she was on my state’s ballot in 2012). I think her mac nut farm must not be doing as well as expected.
Really? Um, I wonder why he thinks he’s entitled to that? [quote=“d_r, post:88, topic:87087”]
even Rosanne Barr has apparently decided not to run
[/quote]
I’d probably vote for her, though a friend of mine once got into it on twitter last time she ran, over Israel/Palestine, I think.
This is what concerns me. Or, more like what’s going to happen when Trump loses in the most lop-sided ass-handing ever. How pissed off will his die-hard fans be when the obviously rigged election goes to Hillary. And they’re the ones with most guns, I suspect.
Not that I have a dog in this fight… nonUSAian, living a peaceful life next door. As much as I believe you get the government you deserve, I do worry about spillover. Not to mention the vast vast majority of good Americans that will be hurt.
In formal debating, you don’t choose what you’re debating or which side you’re defending. Your performance is judged on your debate skills, not the subject matter.
Kinda like how defense attorneys have to vigorously defend the worst scum so they get a fair trial, which ensures when you’re found guilty, it’s unquestionable. Except for appeals and such.
How lawyers handle the cognitive dissonance caused in the worst cases is beyond me.
Theresa May and Hillary Clinton also share a distinctive fondness for covert, blanket electronic surveillance, and are regarded - rightly or not - as consummate insiders. These are not generally construed to be admirable qualities by progressives… which may be why you did not choose to include them among your specifics.
Neither of these women are catastrophic choices as leaders go. However, we should not be smarmily forced into an obedient pretense of respect for them, their professional histories & policies simply because there is a freak looming on the far right.
I’ve noticed the same thing here (SE Wisconsin) for several years, now. I’ve also noted that almost none of the campaign mailing we receive has any party affiliation anywhere on it! To be fair, this is from both Republicans and Democrats. I’m leery of confirmation bias, so I’m not going to speculate about the few that actual identify affiliation, although I’ll say it’s still usually easy to tell just from what they say in the text and the “accomplishments” they brag about.
Well, keeping to the metaphor, all the straws are equally the same weight, it’s the accumulation of them that breaks the camel’s back. In this case I think a lot of Republicans finally see that it’s never going to stop, tomorrow will bring another disgusting tidbit from his mouth or his past.