Don't worry. It'll be impossible to cob-ble together enough votes for it anyway.
Quit stalk-ing the thread and you won't have to corn-cern yourself with it.
It's Khrushchev visiting Iowa.I know this is a Soviet Leader making an ass of himself but what are the details?
"Bu, but I buit a gawdy golden tower :'("
Even in Soviet Russia, Iowa primaries come first.
I think the absolute most Democrats can achieve is getting the process pushed past election day (which I'm not in favor of anyway; I don't want anything that might goose Republican turnout). I also agree with Pigeon's take that Manchin and some others might give the Republicans bipartisan cover to just get the confirmation over with.So Maddow went 25 minutes straight tonight with her opening. Wasn't in the mood for it until about 10 minutes in, she began with Luther Strange, after all.
But the summation was if all Senate Democrats can agree to "not be doormats" for the nomination process, and get one Republican to "flip". Yep, it's basically what we already know, but under the "Hey, Doug Jones was elected in Alabama, so it can happen" scenario. Didn't mince words about it being about protecting Roe v. Wade though.
Senator Chris Murphy was on afterwards, and basically admitted they can't do it on their own, they need all the public pressure of the Democratic voters who voted to keep the supreme court favorable to Roe v. Wade, and also the Democratic voters who didn't.
Got a link?So Maddow went 25 minutes straight tonight with her opening. Wasn't in the mood for it until about 10 minutes in, she began with Luther Strange, after all.
But the summation was if all Senate Democrats can agree to "not be doormats" for the nomination process, and get one Republican to "flip". Yep, it's basically what we already know, but under the "Hey, Doug Jones was elected in Alabama, so it can happen" scenario. Didn't mince words about it being about protecting Roe v. Wade though.
Senator Chris Murphy was on afterwards, and basically admitted they can't do it on their own, they need all the public pressure of the Democratic voters who voted to keep the supreme court favorable to Roe v. Wade, and also the Democratic voters who didn't.
I know this is a Soviet Leader making an ass of himself but what are the details?
This is the correct take. We have to just accept it, internalize it, and use it to engergize voters.I think the absolute most Democrats can achieve is getting the process pushed past election day (which I'm not in favor of anyway; I don't want anything that might goose Republican turnout). I also agree with Pigeon's take that Manchin and some others might give the Republicans bipartisan cover to just get the confirmation over with.
Not a single Republican will flip. A president's SC pick hasn't been voted down on the floor since Robert Bork. If Trump nominated someone heinously unqualified, they might pressure him to pick someone else, but they're not flipping on the floor. Someone's getting confirmed.
Stop hacking me.
I know this is a Soviet Leader making an ass of himself but what are the details?
Since the 1940s, Khrushchev had advocated the cultivation of corn (maize) in the Soviet Union.[157] He established a corn institute in Ukraine and ordered thousands of acres to be planted with corn in the Virgin Lands.[158] In February 1955, Khrushchev gave a speech in which he advocated an Iowa-style corn belt in the Soviet Union, and a Soviet delegation visited the U.S. state that summer. While their intent was to visit only small farms, the delegation chief was approached by farmer and corn salesman Roswell Garst, who persuaded him to insist on visiting Garst's large farm.[158] The Iowan visited the Soviet Union in September, where he became great friends with Khrushchev, and Garst sold the USSR 5,000 short tons (4,500 t) of seed corn.[159] Garst warned the Soviets to grow the corn in the southern part of the country, and to ensure there were sufficient stocks of fertilizer, insecticides, and herbicides.[160] This, however, was not done, as Khrushchev sought to plant corn even in Siberia, and without the necessary chemicals. While Khrushchev warned against those who "would have us plant the whole planet with corn", he displayed a great passion for corn, so much so that when he visited a Latvian kolkhoz, he stated that some in his audience were probably wondering, "Will Khrushchev say something about corn or won't he?"[160] He did, rebuking the farmers for not planting more corn.[160] The corn experiment was not a great success, and he later wrote that overenthusiastic officials, wanting to please him, had overplanted without laying the proper groundwork, and "as a result corn was discredited as a silage crop—and so was I".[160]
Just as he promoted the Virgin Lands Program as a solution to the grain problem, so Nikita Khrushchev touted the expansion of corn cultivation as a solution to the livestock problem. "There will be no communism if our country has as much metal and cement as you like but meat and grain are in short supply," he remarked in early 1954. To increase the supply of meat, Khrushchev sought at every opportunity to popularize corn as a fodder crop. Seed corn was imported from the United States, a corn research institute was established in Ukraine, the Ministry of Agriculture issued a new scientific journal entitled Corn, a Corn Pavilion was opened at the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, and sown acreage of corn rose from 4.3 million hectares in 1954 to 18 million hectares in 1955. Thanks to favorably hot weather during two successive years' growing seasons, corn harvests were abundant. It appeared that "Mr. Corn" ("Kukuruzshchik") had achieved another agricultural "miracle."
But rather than concentrating on more efficient methods of cultivating, fertilizing, and mechanically harvesting corn, Soviet agricultural authorities continued to expand corn acreage to areas lacking in appropriate climatic conditions and sufficient labor supplies. By 1960 total acreage had increased to 28 million hectares and reached 37 million by 1962. The latter year, cool and rainy in the spring and early summer throughout European Russia, proved disastrous for corn. Some 70 to 80 per cent of the acreage planted died. Even in southern regions, where grain corn harvests rose from four million tons in 1953 to 14 million in 1964, yields remained low and labor inputs averaged three times higher than inputs for wheat. What made matters worse was that all the while, hay production had declined throughout the country, from 64 million tons in 1953 to 47 million in 1965. Collective farmers' suspicions of corn as an "alien" crop were vindicated, but not before a great deal of damage had been done to Soviet agriculture and Khrushchev's reputation as a wise leader.
People aren't going to like this, but yea, this is where we are right now.This is the correct take. We have to just accept it, internalize it, any use it to engergize voters.
I hate it, but it's our reality.
I don't know why, but this put a smile on my face.While Khrushchev warned against those who "would have us plant the whole planet with corn", he displayed a great passion for corn, so much so that when he visited a Latvian kolkhoz, he stated that some in his audience were probably wondering, "Will Khrushchev say something about corn or won't he?"[160] He did, rebuking the farmers for not planting more corn.[160] [160]
Because I hate myself, I went and looked at the heavily brigaded r/politics thread on Kennedy retiring and holy shit Trump supporters really do live for nothing but 'liberal tears', don't they? It almost makes me want everything to crash and burn so that these smug fuckers will finally hurt a little.
I want nothing more, but we can't hurt them.Because I hate myself, I went and looked at the heavily brigaded r/politics thread on Kennedy retiring and holy shit Trump supporters really do live for nothing but 'liberal tears', don't they? It almost makes me want everything to crash and burn so that these smug fuckers will finally hurt a little.
I mean, we could pretty easily hurt them badly by ending certain subsidies and writing laws specifically to help larger population centersI want nothing more, but we can't hurt them.
Poor whites identify with rich whites, and rich whites could literally not give a shit about anything but racism and money.
The only way we hurt them is from the top down. Removed their power from the Congress, and you'll suddenly see them very interested in 'social justice'.
Therein lies the rub.I mean, we could pretty easily hurt them badly by ending certain subsidies and writing laws specifically to help larger population centers
If we really wanted to.
The man loved a huge, thick, rigid stalk of corn.Khrushchev was a biologist/horticulturist by trade.
Let the man geek out for a second and leave him alone. >:(
I want nothing more, but we can't hurt them.
Poor whites identify with rich whites, and rich whites could literally not give a shit about anything but racism and money.
The only way we hurt them is from the top down. Remove their power from the Congress, and you'll suddenly see them very interested in 'social justice'.
I wonder how many cycles of: GOP starts war, wrecks economy and gives massive tax breaks to billionaires, Dems win and slowly fix shit, GOP starts war, wrecks economy and gives massive tax breaks to billionaires rinse repeat; that we'll have before racist morons figure it out.
Khrushchev was really obsessed with introducing corn to the USSR. He's laughing merrily while observing a fine specimen on a trip to the US.
Hmm, Corn does taste really good when it's grilled-The man loved a huge, thick, rigid stalk of corn.
Who doesn't?
Huh, I was wondering why Bernie seems to poll so lowly for a guy who was a popular run-up not two years ago and - I'm told - one of the most popular political figures in the country today. But Warren and Bernie cannibalizing each's other base makes sense.We've seen multiple polls now where Warren seems to greatly hurt Bernie's numbers.
yeah no shitDoes the irony of Fox crying about injecting race in to an election really need to be pointed out?
Edit: Not attacking you Freeze, just more of a general thought. Republicans are beyond pathetic at this point.
NeverI wonder how many cycles of: GOP starts war, wrecks economy and gives massive tax breaks to billionaires, Dems win and slowly fix shit, GOP starts war, wrecks economy and gives massive tax breaks to billionaires rinse repeat; that we'll have before racist morons figure it out.
Does the irony of Fox crying about injecting race in to an election really need to be pointed out?
Edit: Not attacking you Freeze, just more of a general thought. Republicans are beyond pathetic at this point.
At least her vote didn't "count." Much like how my husband's Bernie vote in the general (write-in) didn't count because we're in MA. I still give him shit for it, but he maintains he didn't matter because we were in MA (which is true... but I still give him shit for it). He says he would have voted for Hillary if we weren't in one of the bluest states in the nation, FWIW.I think it's more for the POS anti-science chick from RI I know who voted for Stein cuz Trump would be bad but Killary would be worse. She'd start WW3, yknow.
*hic* glory glory hallelujah *hic*
This reminds me of Idiocracy and how they tried to grow plants with Brawndo instead of water.
Seems to me looking at polling that GOP voters are already quite enthusiastic (Pew), as likely to be certain to vote as Dems (Gallup), and have turned out in strong numbers in in major elections this cycle. It's just that vs. 10/14 Dems are far more enthusiastic than they were...
My pt being is IDK how much more you energize the GOP base. I mean SC stuff doesn't hurt, but look at VA where @patrickruffini found turnout among modeled GOPers was as high as 2013. It was just Dems were way more up compared to that baseline.
Are you basically saying Republicans are always enthusiastic, but there's simply fewer of them, so election results depend on Democratic turnout?
This seat may be lost, but I think the important lesson is the "new rules" bit -- it's not about what was normal before Trump, it's not about paying back republicans or trump by using their rules, it's about dems reevaluating the current state of play and inventing new rules they play by for this and future SCOTUS seats, but also every other fight.I agree, but how do you do it? If no one from the GOP flips then it's a done deal.
Harry Enten assuaging my fears about this opening goosing GOP turnout:
One of the replies, far from being a dumpster fire, states it more succinctly:
To change the rules you need to change the board.This seat may be lost, but I think the important lesson is the "new rules" bit -- it's not about what was normal before Trump, it's not about paying back republicans or trump by using their rules, it's about dems reevaluating the current state of play and inventing new rules they play by for this SCOTUS seat, future SCOTUS seats, and every other fight.
I would not be surprised if he was just outright lying. At best, he's taking it completely out of context. Not worth trying to find it imo.Does anyone know the actual context of the "about race" quote?
Preet is talking about norms and standards -- the playbook.
Harry Enten assuaging my fears about this opening goosing GOP turnout:
One of the replies, far from being a dumpster fire, states it more succinctly: