Status
Not open for further replies.

ValiantChaos

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,112
I think should Democrats take the Senate, DC statehood should be a top priority the moment they get in the door. If I were PR, I'd make 2020 a year where the statehood question is brought up again, with the caveat that should it pass, the Democratic nominee (and subsequent President) would use that as a point for PR statehood. That's 4 new seats, which changes the calculus quite a bit (especially considering DC is almost a guaranteed +2 Dem) . That said, say both get statehood. What are the procedures that allow them to get Senators? Special elections in 2022? The governors appoint senators for a before that?

All of it would be drawn up in a state constitution
 

Doc Holliday

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,842
Honestly if you told me which one you want out right now McConnell or Trump, I would say McConnell without hesitation. Glad the fucker is 77 years old.
 
Mar 5, 2019
565
Man, it really is depressing to look into that "Will Trump Win Re-Election" and see how many people are assured he will.

I know he has a better chance than I'd like but its like everyone forgot 2018 elections happened.

Can someone explain or theorize how Obama won 2012 despite 2010 and his low first term approval ratings? Was Mitt just a terrible candidate (and not just a terrible person)? I voted in 2012 but that may be the first year I started looking at politics in depth.
 

Deleted member 3542

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,889
Vic out here doing the Lord's work. I look forward to the next Rogan thread in OT.



Man, it really is depressing to look into that "Will Trump Win Re-Election" and see how many people are assured he will.

I get it though. There's a system in place and people in power that make one think, especially after the Barr letter, that nothing can be done. I take a thread like that as knee-jerk reaction to the collusion stuff and GOP/Trump jumping on it even though we haven't actually read the report as they control the narrative - that thread is kind of proof that they are doing just that.

But seriously, we're coming off a good 2018. The motivation across the board was there and that was only mid-terms.
 

thefro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,996

Doof

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,434
Kentucky
Vic out here doing the Lord's work. I look forward to the next Rogan thread in OT.





I get it though. There's a system in place and people in power that make one think, especially after the Barr letter, that nothing can be done. I take a thread like that as knee-jerk reaction to the collusion stuff and GOP/Trump jumping on it even though we haven't actually read the report as they control the narrative - that thread is kind of proof that they are doing just that.

But seriously, we're coming off a good 2018. The motivation across the board was there and that was only mid-terms.


Vic is an absolute treasure. His Twitter is pretty good all around.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
Can someone explain or theorize how Obama won 2012 despite 2010 and his low first term approval ratings? Was Mitt just a terrible candidate (and not just a terrible person)? I voted in 2012 but that may be the first year I started looking at politics in depth.
You can't read too hard into midterms because generally they swing against the party in power. Second, turnout in midterm years is lower than presidential election years. Higher turnout favors the more liberal candidate.
 

ValiantChaos

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,112
http://dcstatehoodyeswecan.org/j/in...atehood&catid=57:statehood-process&Itemid=120

What's been proposed is that the federal government creates a state out of the part of DC outside of the White House/Congress/mall, etc. So DC would still exist but it'd literally just be the core federal buildings.



Unlike PR I assume they have to create a legislature and house it or build one somewhere? Will they have to incorporate towns and cities etc? Unfamiliar with DC living.
 

shadow_shogun

Fallen Guardian
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,785

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,931
God while I absolutely shudder at the possibility that this goes through I can't help but be giddy that he is really trying to go all in on this while creating a conflict with the rest of the party going into the election year. Plus it will constantly be brought up as the dem primary heats up so it will stay in the news

If it gets killed due to Republican efforts, 2020 will be uglier for the GOP.
McCarthy can see this, Trump can't.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
I don't think Trump wants to win re-election. He just wants to eliminate everything Obama accomplished to get back at him
 

aspiegamer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,485
ZzzzzzZzzzZzz...
http://dcstatehoodyeswecan.org/j/in...atehood&catid=57:statehood-process&Itemid=120

What's been proposed is that the federal government creates a state out of the part of DC outside of the White House/Congress/mall, etc. So DC would still exist but it'd literally just be the core federal buildings.

Yeah, this is factually inaccurate. It's 10 miles squared (100sq mi), not 10 square miles. The original plot for DC included land on the Virginia side of the river that was a 10x10 zone. It was meant to be a failsafe to keep the urban and commercial hubs where they already were and not create some megacity over time.
 

ned_ballad

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
48,344
Rochester, New York
Someone has to explain to the Orange clown that Repubs only like to "talk" about destroying ACA. Let's not actually do it that's crazy talk then we'd have 1 less boogeyman!
Republicans were 1 vote away from destroying the ACA and fully believed they were going to do it. They absolutely want to destroy it at any chance they can.

They just, rightfully, see that this avenue is a disastrous way to do it, versus there original plan of defunded and slowly killing it.
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
Yeah, this is factually inaccurate. It's 10 miles squared (100sq mi), not 10 square miles. The original plot for DC included land on the Virginia side of the river that was a 10x10 zone. It was meant to be a failsafe to keep the urban and commercial hubs where they already were and not create some megacity over time.
🤦🏽‍♂️
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,500
Phoenix
I don't think Trump wants to win re-election. He just wants to eliminate everything Obama accomplished to get back at him
I actually think he's worried he might not win again and he'd miss out on the one thing that has mattered to him more than anything. So he's going to push to kill it, because he wants killing it as his legacy and the absolute biggest "fuck you" to the Black President.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Someone has to explain to the Orange clown that Repubs only like to "talk" about destroying ACA. Let's not actually do it that's crazy talk then we'd have 1 less boogeyman!
Well that and none of them really oppose the ACA ideologically, they just hate that Obama gets all the credit for it. If McCain had won the presidency in 08 and proposed the exact same bill it would have gotten 80 votes in the Senate.

I am not on facebook, never have been and never will be, but I am kind of shocked as to why this stuff was allowed on there to begin with. I mean if I owned a social media site, I would think bullet point #1 on the to do list would be keep Nazis off it.
The white tech libertarians have an annoying (and frankly, dangerous) belief that if we just give a platform to hate groups and let them air out their beliefs, normal people will obviously be so repelled by it they'll see how crazy it is and no one will listen to them!

And if they end up winning supporters, it's liberals' fault for not coming up with a compelling enough counterargument, but also we can't point out that they're bigoted in any way, because that would really be just as bad.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
I actually think he's worried he might not win again and he'd miss out on the one thing that has mattered to him more than anything. So he's going to push to kill it, because he wants killing it as his legacy and the absolute biggest "fuck you" to the Black President.
I can see him not running again if he's able to end Obamacare. He will say he's accomplished everything he wanted to do.
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,838
I think he actually wants to win re-election because of the "can't be indicted for my crimes" powers he's currently enjoying.

He wants to destroy the ACA because he's a racist bent on undoing every last thing Obama did. Political repercussions will never outweigh the racism for him.
 

GrapeApes

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,501
I don't think Trump wants to win re-election. He just wants to eliminate everything Obama accomplished to get back at him
He would take a hit if he stopped being President. Legally and financially, it's advantageous for him to stay President. Who's going to want to stay in his hotel expect right wing clowns if he doesn't have any power? Maybe the Saudi's will in order to return the favor.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
I am not on facebook, never have been and never will be, but I am kind of shocked as to why this stuff was allowed on there to begin with. I mean if I owned a social media site, I would think bullet point #1 on the to do list would be keep Nazis off it.

No no, bullet point number one on any to-do list is always to create value for shareholders or potential future shareholders, you see.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
I think he actually wants to win re-election because of the "can't be indicted for my crimes" powers he's currently enjoying.

He wants to destroy the ACA because he's a racist bent on undoing every last thing Obama did. Political repercussions will never outweigh the racism for him.
He can still be indicted by the state of NY on state charges and the belief is SDNY could also indict him, although I don't think Barr would let that happen.
He would take a hit if he stopped being President. Legally and financially, it's advantageous for him to stay President. Who's going to want to stay in his hotel expect right wing clowns if he doesn't have any power? Maybe the Saudi's will in order to return the favor.

I'd imagine he would leave and immediately build his hotel in Russia and start his far right tv news network he was planning to if he lost in 2016
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,500
Phoenix
Yeah I think that people that crave power, like Trump, don't tend to want to give it up. I really think he wants to win again. That's not considering any legal trouble he is likely avoiding by being president.
 

thefro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,996



It's Buzzfeed so we should expect a clickbait headline but that seems written to make people mad

Buzzfeed said:
"I just want to make sure we don't overrate ourselves in terms of our ability to be pure in this regard," Buttigieg, the Democratic mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said Wednesday during an interview with BuzzFeed News' AM to DM.

"If you're turned off, as I am, by the political behavior of Chick-fil-A or their executives — if that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, so to speak, and you decide not to shop there, I'd certainly get it and I'd support that. But the reality is, we, I think, sometimes slip into a sort of virtue signaling in some cases where we're not really being consistent. I mean, what about all the other places we get our chicken from?"

Buttigieg's comments came a day after he offered himself as a peacemaker between the gay community and the fast-food chain while on The Breakfast Club, a syndicated radio show.

"I do not approve of their politics," Buttigieg told listeners, "but I kind of approve of their chicken."
 

effingvic

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,560
The Fight Over Treating Neo-Nazi Terrorists Differently From Muslim Ones

For years, the federal government has avoided calling domestic terrorists what they are. Federal law doesn't treat domestic terrorism as a stand-alone crime. And federal prosecutors are trained to avoid labeling people as terrorists unless they're facing terrorism-related charges.

But a new law broadly criminalizing domestic terrorism would be a stretch politically. President Donald Trump claims white supremacy isn't a big problem. And even those who recognize the threat from far-right extremists are split over whether a domestic terrorism law would help address it. Some civil liberties advocates warn that a domestic terrorism law modeled after the statutes that apply to international terrorism would violate First Amendment protections and could be used to go after groups like Black Lives Matter, antifascist organizations, or environmental organizations.

Law enforcement officials have floated the idea of a new law that would make it easier to prosecute domestic actors as terrorists for years. But the idea has gained traction recently in response to several high-profile attacks from white supremacists who were not prosecuted as terrorists.

Former DOJ official Mary McCord and former State Department official Jason Blazakis mapped out one proposal for this new law in February. They suggested making it a federal crime to commit acts of violence with any of the intentions laid out in the definition of domestic terrorism: intimidating civilians, influencing government policy, or influencing government conduct.

The U.S. has a long history of using law enforcement to suppress political movements, and modern-day fears that the federal government might use a domestic terrorism law to crack down on political speech aren't unwarranted. In 2017, the government charged more than 200 people arrested at Trump's inauguration with felonies, arguing they were part of a rioting conspiracy. After striking out at two trials, the government dropped charges against all remaining defendants.

It's understandable that people want the weighty terrorism label that has long been reserved primarily for Muslim actors to be applied more broadly, Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in an interview. "But we shouldn't be using tools that law enforcement has long used to suppress and oppress minorities to address the scourge of white supremacy," she argued.

Lots of interesting stuff in this article.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
One could theorize that Barr convinced Mueller to end his investigation by spinning them out to places where it would be easier for Barr to control and harder for the media to keep track of, but I'm not in a place where I think Mueller would acquiesce to such a transparent ploy yet.
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,838
He can still be indicted by the state of NY on state charges and the belief is SDNY could also indict him, although I don't think Barr would let that happen.
I don't see any state throwing criminal indictments at a sitting President, regardless of who it is. Maybe NY would if he actually did murder someone on 5th Avenue, though.

Besides, isn't it still an open question on if states can even do this?
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
I don't see any state throwing criminal indictments at a sitting President, regardless of who it is. Maybe NY would if he actually did murder someone on 5th Avenue, though.

Besides, isn't it still an open question on if states can even do this?
Pretty sure states can if they choose to.



Republicans leaking that Dems are trying to get Trump financial info
 
Status
Not open for further replies.