-
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 2019 |OT2| #PresidentPelosi
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, and in particular when it came out that Manafort gave polling data to Russia if Trump was innocent or good at pretending to be innocent he should have been tweeting something like "Manafort violated my trust and betrayed our country. Unforgivable! Did he forget he signed an NDA!? I'm bringing legal action!"
The reason that people think that Trump is guilty of conspiring with Russia and being a Russian asset is because he acts EXACTLY LIKE someone who's guilty of conspiring with Russia and being a Russian asset. There's no other explanation for it.
I trust Warren on the filibuster issue. She's shown her commitment to nuking things, even herself. I know she'd do it.
Or Ted Yoho suggesting a government default wouldn't be that bad because it worked out for his business.
But maybe it's better for the fact checkers to keep platforming her views in an attempt to fact check her. Seems to only help Trump and the far right when they do it for them.
God damn moronic but par the course from the GOP.
Which incumbents have been ousted in the open primary system. Eric Swalwell is the only one who comes to mind, but 2012 also shifted a ton of the lines so a ton of incumbents weren't running in districts where they had run before in and only represented a fraction of their new districts.
ie: Pete Stark's old district looked pretty different than the new district he lost (he also was dodged by a ton of ethics scandals that makes it different than an ideological primary)
EDIT: So even when Joe Baca lost in 2012, the same thing: yes, Ontario still anchors the district, but it shift the district way to the left by adding Pomona, and 150k new voters that he didn't represent beforehand. Also loses San Bernardino, which was Baca's home base, which is uh, sort of a big deal.
https://www.openprimaries.org/research_california
That statement came from a biased source. They did a surface look at the data and attributed something to it that the data doesn't necessarily represent, as brought up by your quick analysis.
Some of they're other points, like the competitiveness of the contests since the use of the new system, are better researched by actual researchers and scientists.
Looks like he should be targeting his own lunch money lololol m i rite guyzzz
Tootsie needs to GTFO.One of These Women Could Be Our Next President
https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a26412575/women-running-for-president-2020/
Why is she even getting included in these pieces? She has like zero support.
Huh. I wasn't aware the president had anything to do with the inner workings of the senate, and could unilaterally declare the filibuster dead. TIL.
I have a very little knowledge of the fillibuster so i'm hoping you guys can educate me on the pros and cons.
Is the filibuster protecting vitally important legislation thats already been passed? For instance, if we nuke the filibuster can republican repeal something like social security or medicare with just 50 votes?
Is the filibuster protecting vitally important legislation thats already been passed? For instance, if we nuke the filibuster can republican repeal something like social security or medicare with just 50 votes?
They could. We ultimately just have to trust that doing so will cost them in the long run vs passing progressive legislation.
Yep. I remember siding with her as a possible candidate for the Dems and now I think she is pretty bad.
Good god. I thought this was reference to the nut jobs who hate Rose from TLJ
Yeah I Gillibrand isnt Chafee bad but there are too many people right now eating her lunch
She really doesnt seem to have an issue where she can make inroads. Shes going to need people to flame out
She really doesnt seem to have an issue where she can make inroads. Shes going to need people to flame out
I've been warming up to Harris as of late, but still hate this non-committal on nuking the filibuster. We'll get nothing done if we win with a Dem President, 51-53 Senators and the House and keep the filibuster. Nothing will get done. You will not peal off 7+ Republicans for any major issue aside from possibly a more robust criminal justice reform.
The filibuster has to go. It has to go. They way to build momentum so that we don't get a repeat of 2010 is to actually pass some of those things we've been promising, and that's not gonna happen with the filibuster.
Sure, the main concern would likely be that abortion would be banned in all states once the GOP got a trifecta without the filibuster. Social Security and Medicare could be touched but would be unlikely to touch and I doubt much of the Civil Rights Act would be touched either.
I'm not worried about the GOP destroying Medicare or SS with major legislation as the pendulum would swing so forcefully against them. The concern going forward would be any major dem legislation would have a short half life and trying to remake our healthcare system in that framework would be very difficult
I don't see the point in loudly campaigning against the filibuster while in the minority. And that's not something the president would have much say in anyway.
If we're concerned about control of the Senate, eWarren should protect her seat instead of handing it to a Republican.
If we're concerned about control of the Senate, eWarren should protect her seat instead of handing it to a Republican.
Because as the minority we were supposed to be able to utilize it yet somehow were unable to
So what's the point of keeping it if it effectively didn't really do anything for us
All you can do is hope the public takes to the legislation before the GOP takes control and repealing it is too toxic for them to consider without massive protest.
It's a gamble but at least you're taking a shot. We will accomplish nothing if we keep the filibuster.
Campaigning against it really doesn't do anyone favors besides anger Connies. We just have to hope that Sanders or Harris are willing to do it when the time comes.
It's becoming what I feared it might be, thankfully I still think the mods on this site will adapt and adjust to these changing dynamics.
The fuck are you talking about? Baker can only appoint someone temporarily, literally only for a few months. Then it goes to a special election where MA would almost certainly elect a Dem.
This isn't a Showered situation here.
We're on the slippery slope above the Heart of Darkness and there's nowhere to look but down.
Ooooh, Vin Weber too.
That's a really good point.
Maybe these centrists should be asked if they believe scientist's time tables for what needs to be done, or if they believe we should just accept the ice caps are beyond saving.
How about climate change is real but Turtle controls the Senate because the U.S. is full of racists.
How does Feinstein's 4 page outline help get us closer to solving climate change than the growing momentum for AOC's popular green new deal? Is Feinstein's 4 page outline going to help defeat those republicans standing in the way??
edit: I posted it in the other thread but you can read it here if you haven't: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...0E73.2019.02.22-climate-change-resolution.pdf
More like Feinstein's proposal or the length of it is completely immaterial as long as the GOP control the Senate. His point - and mine - is that the anger is misdirected.
Tbh, as it stands Warren and Harris are the viable women in the race, and Bernie is the only viable guy in the race until Beto or Biden jump in.
Looks like it was deleted from (can see archive in twitter thread) https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...e-david-wallace-wells-the-uninhabitable-earth
I think that is another consequence of kicking the can down the road.
Keep doing it, Eco-terrorism might not just be a catchy buzz word.
I agree that the filibuster needs to go, but it seems that dem candidates are being noncommittal about it because they don't want to lay their cards on the table before they know they've won the presidency and senate. I guess there's a risk that if McConnell thinks dems are going to nuke the filibuster that he'll do it first and pass a bunch of awful shit on his way out. So for now I'm ok with anyone who doesn't plainly say they absolutely won't get rid of it. I think there's a legit strategy to the wishy washy answers in this case.
Hillary being the nominee last time kinda closed off Gillibrand's path tbh.
- Status