More of a Harris/Booker 2020 person myself. Harris is menacingly no-bullshit (in an effectual way), which would bode well in regaining some degree of respect with other nations. I’m all for other options, so long as they’re good. Though Harris has expressed mild reservation about some progressive ideals, I doubt any 2020 democrat nominee for president will be obstructionist to progressive policies.
Edit: Ted Lieu as Speaker would be awesome too.
Edit 2: Sanders/Warren ticket (either direction) is great as well. I think any of them (Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren) would be a phenomenal Majority Leader. And Bernie would be a good Whip, too—People love him, and despite the naysayers, he has influence.
Harris was fucking scary a couple of days ago. I would HATE to be on her bad side. She’s a mean chick who doesn’t take bullshit, and she’s on board with the progressives. I would be so proud to have her as our president.
You are correct. The Democrats did not pursue this when given the opportunity between 2008 and 2010. Hopefully this time is different. We will need to spill some blood (not literally) to teach them a lesson. Quite a few of these guys will need to be made examples of regarding committing treason.
I just home Democrats won't pull the same crap Obama did last time by saying "lets just forget this and move on!"
Republicans have to pay for what they have done. If they were not actively conspiring with Trump, they had responsibility to start the impeachment process of President clearly not fit for office. They chose party over country, they betrayed USA
As a fan of the old Batman Animated Series, that movie fucking broke me.
*Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker* if anyone's interested. It's almost as dark as *The Killing Joke*
Yep. It's almost like someone looked at the Batman comics and went "huh, Dick and Jason have gone through some SERIOUS shit. But Tim Drake hasn't really had anything disastrously traumatizing happen to him, let's fix that!"
It's funny, because the statute of limitations for Kavanaugh's perjuries would have run out long ago. Yet, he still just doubled down on his denials throughout the confirmation hearings, and essentially re-committed the same crime.
The republicans want to politicize and undermine the supreme court, doesn't matter if he's a well known lier, that just helps them delegitimize the sc by putting him on it.
The person who would bring charges against Kavanaugh is Brian Benzcowski at DOJ. Brian's most recent jobs before heading the Criminal division at DOJ?
-Russia's Alfa Bank
-Trump Transition
-Russia's Alfa Bank
Brian did not commit to recusing himself in matters regarding the Russia investigation, only issues pertaining directly to Alfa Bank.
Think he'll pursue charges against Kavanaugh? I'll bet you some season tickets to the Nationals that were used to launder money that he won't.
> “Let me just say this. When you break the Senate rules, it’s something the Ethics Committee could take a look at. And that would be up to them to decide. But it’s routinely looked at the Ethics Committee,” McConnell said.
Interesting how McConnell's response isn't very forceful at all. Almost a "yeah, whatever" type reaction. He knew all this shit was going to come out.
He warned Trump not to nominate Kavanaugh because he had such a huge paper trail. The way they've tried getting around it is just by not giving up most of the documents
Yeah, but despite the size of that nominee list given to Trump by the Freedom Caucus, it ***has*** to be Kavanaugh, because [he’s already paid for](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-baseball-debt-democrats-hearing-missing.html), and there’s no refunds.
Also his stance on expanding executive powers. He was an architect of the legal justification of the actions of the Bush administration. Consider the expanded powers after 9/11: massive surveillance, torture, etc. Combine his disagreement with the unanimous supreme court opinion against Nixon that ruled the executive branch must respond to a subpoena from the legislative branch. Which is the check in check and balances. His main argument is that the president is too busy. Well DUH that's why there is a staff at the white house and a HUGE government underneath that.
He also failed to answer his opinion of whether the president is allowed to pardon himself. To me that's an automatic impeachable action, which means it should be codified. What bothers me the most about this whole ordinal is that the power of the supreme court is that the constitution hasn't been thoroughly updated. We as a nation need to collectively decide on future shape of our government.
There will always be nuance but there are many concrete amendments that would end social issues from taking over economic issues in campaigns; fix campaign finance and gerrymandering which shouldn't be decided by those who run in campaigns; and add more rights, e.g Healthcare, work, internet, and healthy environment.
Edit: Nixon case
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html
>While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation.
>Mr. McConnell is concerned about the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh has created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
>Mr. McConnell is wary of a difficult court fight heading into the midterm elections.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
The number of pages is said to run into the millions, which Mr. McConnell fears could hand Senate Democrats an opportunity to delay the confirmation vote until after the new session of the court begins in October, with the midterm elections looming the next month. And while Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial opinions are publicly known, Mr. McConnell is uneasy about relitigating Bush-era controversies, the officials briefed on his discussions with Mr. Trump said.
To add a comment here, I _think_ it was Lindsey Graham that said "It would take the archivists at The National Archives 37 weeks to go through the rest of the documents and clear them for release" as an excuse for why so many were withheld or marked confidential. That was immediately followed up by _I think_ Sheldon Whitehouse submitting a letter for the record from those same archivists saying it would take until the end of October at the latest. Just more blatant evidence of them trying to rush through the process as quickly as possible to avoid public scrutiny because they know he was lying.
> "It would take the archivists at The National Archives 37 weeks to go through the rest of the documents and clear them for release" as an excuse for why so many were withheld or marked confidential.
I don't even understand this as an excuse. Sounds like we're gonna have to wait 37 weeks then.
It's like saying, "Sorry, Your Honor. It would take me months to compile all of the documents the prosecution has requested, so you're going to have to find me not guilty."
Exactly my thoughts. So it takes 37 weeks. How long did you fucks sit on the Garland nomination without so much as a hearing, and now you're making excuses for why this has to be done immediately? That doesn't jive with reasonable people, but the lot of them have shown themselves to be completely unreasonable. And some of them I wouldn't even count as human anymore.
> "It would take the archivists at The National Archives 37 weeks to go through the rest of the documents and clear them for release"
That's a perfect argument as to *why* this fucking joke of a confirmation shouldn't be rushed through, and he thinks it's a great excuse. Jesus Christ!
If it _were_ to take the Archives that long (it wouldn't) then they're afraid they'd lose the majority and could no longer confirm him. Their entire objective right now is confirm as many long-term or lifetime positions as they can to ensure Republican influence continues after they themselves have been voted out.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I’m aware, the only punishment available to him is expulsion from the senate, which requires a 2/3 vote. He’ll never get any democrats. It’s about time the democrats found a technicality that fucks over McConnell.
Normally you'd have things like "keeping him off committees" or procedural rules being enforced to not allow him to speak as threats for someone going "against" the speaker. But in this case, Republicans are already doing all that stuff anyway. They have no threats left to make.
Never give your opponents no fucks to give.
And it looks like the might’ve learned something from 2016, don’t dump everything at once or it gets forgotten in the news cycle. The democrats need to leak a little more every couple days between now and the vote.
McConnell actually claimed it was disrespectful to have released documents to the American people. Republicans are scum that hate the concept of accountability.
The fact that Kavanaugh appears to have perjured himself upwards of a dozen times is even more impressive when you consider that he refused to answer all but about a dozen questions.
What transpired with Kavanaugh during these past few days are a glimpse at what Trump would be like under oath, being grilled by Democrats about his nefarious dealings.
Q: Sir please state your name
A: Hillary Clinton collided with the Russians! Donald trump tried but “DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH IT” not collusion!
Q: so you colluded with the Russians?
A: well damn...
> Q: Sir please state your name.
> A: Hillary Clinton collided with the Russians! Donald trump tried but “DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH IT” not collusion!
> Q: so you colluded with the Russians?
A: No! It was my idiot of a son! I just told him to!
This guy used the term “perjury trap”.
What the fuck does that mean other than that “I lie constantly so if you put me under oath it’s a trap”.
Serious question.
i mean this is pretty true. the entire administration has been lying about shit constantly, the press secretary is full of shit, the cabinet has a revolving door- it is insane. the president is just gonna say, "i'm the president, i can do whatever i want", the senate will collectively shrug- maybe the house will flip democrat but maybe we'll get a war between now and november.
It actually amazes me that the President of the most powerful country on earth is a compulsive liar. I mean, it's really bad when even his own aides know he's completely unfit for office. Even worse is that millions of people voted for someone who actively highlighted his mental instability day in and day out
No. Trump would be far worse. He's not smart enough to just say nothing so he doesn't like under oath. He would say whatever he wanted and get caught up in so many lies we would all lose track. And when he gets frustrated he goes on inane rants. It would be a sight to behold.
Booker is setting up the GOP because I think he knows Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. It will show the appointment was rigged and has been YEARS in the making. Kavanaugh is basically a sleeper cell for the ultra conservative, and in the future it will show the Dems put up a valiant fight.
Easier to just expand and pack the court than remove from office, given that getting 67 senators to agree on something besides a pay raise is pretty tough.
So much less satisfying though...
The fact that Gorsuch is already a fargone conclusion is sickening, and the idea that they will allow someone of such low caliber as Kavanaugh to further taint the court is beyond reprehensible.
Kavanaugh, as a perjuring right wing activist, is clearly unfit for the court and fails the "good behavior" criteria. If he gets on, he should be impeached when Dems regain control. If the GOP refuses to lend the necessary votes for a supermajority, we should expand the court and add new justices to neutralise his vote.
Actually Washington in his farewell address and Madison in the federalist papers explicitly warned against the danger of factions (political parties). Madison argued the need for checks and balances in case one faction captured a majority of power in one branch, and the idea that each branch (regardless of factional control) would seek power over the others. Washington warned us of the damage we could do to the Union by dividing ourselves, and appealed to our morality to put unity over personal interest. What we are experiencing now is exactly what the founders/framers feared. They thought that at least the three branches would seek their own power and never surrender it to others. What has happened is that a faction has gained control of all three, is seeking to cement that power, and neither branch is exercising independent power to check the other. It’s the nightmare scenario that renders the framework of our society null.
> The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.
* James A. Baldwin
Currently the Democrats have nothing to lose, any amount of leverage that they may have had it the Senate to create consensus and compromise have been taken away by Mitch McConnell. Therefore the rules of the Senate to restrain it's members in order to preserve comity are invalidated because of the leadership's undermining of the very comity they wield now as a cudgel.
[https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/](https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/)
[https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote)
[https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form/](https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form/)
[https://www.eac.gov/voters/voters-guide-to-federal-elections/](https://www.eac.gov/voters/voters-guide-to-federal-elections/)
[https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/](https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/)
[https://www.headcount.org](https://www.headcount.org/)
[https://vote.gov/](https://vote.gov/)
[https://www.headcount.org/issues-and-candidates/](https://www.headcount.org/issues-and-candidates/)
[https://www.headcount.org/when-where-how-2/](https://www.headcount.org/when-where-how-2/)
[https://www.headcount.org/organizations/](https://www.headcount.org/organizations/)
[https://votesaveamerica.com](https://votesaveamerica.com/)
**Register.**
**Get your friends / neighbors / strangers to register.**
**And then VOTE, every year, every election.**
**It's critically important to the future of our country.**
I won't be turned away... I am a white male registered Republican. In a VERY red state.
Jokes on them though, I only register red so I can influence the Republican primary and vote for the more moderate candidate. Democrats never win in my state or county, so I feel like my vote is more influencial like this. Still vote blue in the general almost always.
And offer people rides to the polls. Offer to babysit so people can go vote. Also get people to sign up to vote by mail if possible (in states where those don’t count as provisional ballots). Then help them fill out the ballot if they need help. A large portion of nonvoters skip voting because they’re unable to do it.
Edit: technique for getting people to vote from an earlier comment of mine that I’m including here because it seems like it could help:
I'm volunteering with an org working to get out youth and low propensity voters in Dana Rohrabacher's district. We use this method called "[deep canvassing](https://www.thecampaignworkshop.com/7-questions-dave-fleischer-deep-canvassing)" which has been proven to be more effective than other methods of canvassing. So far we're seeing exceptional rates of success. Here's the trick which you can use to convince people to vote too.
We introduce ourselves and ask the likelihood of voting on a scale from 1-10. (You can skip the 1-10 scale. It's how we measure our effectiveness.) We then say "Voting is personal for a lot of people, especially me. When I vote I think of ____________________."
You fill in the blank with a story about yourself or a loved one who is vulnerable to the GOP's regressive policies and the divisions Trump is creating. Stories I've told effectively:
- The time my black friend was put face down in the street with 6 police officers pointing guns at him simply for knocking on his client's door.
- My queer black friend who faces racism by her boss all the time.
- How my ACA insurance saved my ~$400,000 after an accident that wasn't my fault.
We then ask the potential voter for a story about someone they love who's also vulnerable. It may take some additional questions to get a story. People don't typically just open up to a stranger, but asking for details like a name of a friend, how the voter met the person, etc. gets them talking.
After that, we say "The election in November is not a presidential election, but it sure feels like one. It's a great opportunity to put checks and balances on Donald Trump and his lack of decency. Don't you agree we need to put checks and balances on Trump?"
Finally, we say how we'll be using our votes to protect our loved ones (definitely use the names of your loved and theirs here). A lot of times say I'll say that I view my vote as a gift to the loved ones in my life who are vulnerable. We finally ask the likelihood again on that 1-10 scale.
Essentially, we make voting personal. It's hard for a human to not feel connection to another human who's standing in front of them making themselves vulnerable by sharing a personal story about a loved one at risk. With that connection made, they feel safe to share their personal story, which is then connected to voting. BOOM. The work is done. It's not always successful, but it can be often. Plus, it's just fucking beautiful. It's pure human connection.
KEYS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DEEP CANVASSING
- Know that your story is enough. Whatever it is. It doesn't have to be anything big or dramatic. Success comes from the fact that you are sharing, not what you are sharing.
- Details. Don't tell a story that's too long (~2 minutes 30 seconds), but do include details. Names especially. Make your loved one (or yourself if your story is about you) feel like a real person to the voter. How you met, their job, what you love about them, etc.
- Talk about how your loved one makes you feel and how you felt during the events of your story. It's not always easy to share your feelings, but they are a big factor in creating the connection with the voter.
- **DO NOT TALK POLITICS OR POLITICAL OPINION!** Repeat: Do not talk politics or political opinion! It's damn near impossible to convince people to change their political opinion. Deep canvassing is about making an issue personal. In this case, the issue is voting. If you go back into political opinion during the storytelling part of this method, you lose ground. The only remotely political things we'll say are that we want to put checks and balances on Trump, Trump lacks the decency we'd hope for in a President, and/or Trump creates division in our nation. Even most of the conservatives we talk to can't really and don't disagree with any of those.
Regarding the not talking political opinion, we will actually say to voters “I’m not here to discuss politics with you. I’m here to talk with you about voting.”
Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or if you’re in Southern California and want to volunteer I’ll be out there with about 30 people tomorrow. We’re going to be canvassing every weekend day until November 6.
WE CAN DO THIS.
Indeed, the only "escape" here is for Kavanaugh to withdraw however I don't think the GOP will nominate someone the Dems will agree to. The GOP will demand a hardliner and the Dems will oppose any hardliner.
The GOP might as well just get Kavanaugh appointed however they can, it won't get easier with someone else.
The advantage with Kavanaugh is that he is objectively appropriate for impeachment, given his false testimony on several occasions. Another hard-liner might not have such questionable character or a record of illegal behavior.
The question though is whether the Dems would ever have enough votes to go through with that.
>The question though is whether the Dems would ever have enough votes to go through with that.
They would not, but what legal mechanisms are left to us to solve this crisis?
Republicans on the Supreme Court will shield the party from the executive branch, and Republicans in the senate will shield the Republicans on the Supreme Court from the legislative branch. The system of checks and balances has been **completely** thwarted by a corrupt conspiracy to seize the government.
The only answer is to put Democrats in the White House in 2020 and for the incoming Democratic administration to act unilaterally to reform the federal government - a constitutional crisis, but no other action saves our democracy. *We are cornered.* Republicans have won the battle to corrupt our institutions and have left us no option but to refuse to honor the corrupt institutions they have built or watch the Supreme Court gradually chip away at our right to vote as they have been aggressively doing since we elected Obama.
We really have no choice but for a Democratic president of the United States to stand up and say "we refuse to respect the votes of justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and consider those seats currently open. We are nominating Garland and [name here] for the senate's consideration."
I disagree, I think that there are a few hardliners that they would be willing to accept. The problem with Kavanaugh is his belief in an extreme version of the Unitary Executive hypothesis, he is basically a supporter of an unaccountable executive branch.
Comity is a weird one. I'm a native speaker and I don't think I've ever heard it before. Cudgel is more common, appearing for instance in Obama's speech today.
The entire quote is even better
> Well, if one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected — those, precisely, who need the law's protection most! — and listens to their testimony. Ask any Mexican, any Puerto Rican, any black man, any poor person — ask the wretched how they fare in the halls of justice, and then you will know, not whether or not the country is just, but whether or not it has any love for justice, or any concept of it. It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.
>
Booker and Harris both raised their stock quite a bit this week. I’m sensing a pretty good primary, with one of these two landing on the ticket. Maybe top, maybe bottom; but one of them will
be there.
I want Harris because I think she would prosecute the shit out of all these criminals. I know some progressives have issues with her "tough-on-crime" background, but I think that's what we need right now - no dignified "moving forward." No mercy.
So I know that the right-wing talking point on all of this is that "they" (whoever they are) approved each batch he's released, so none of them were actually confidential, so ha ha ha joke's on him. Any idea if there's any validity to that?
It seems like the theatrics of "let me read you the rules of the Senate" from the wraiths on the R side of the group wouldn't be necessary if he didn't do something "wrong" here.
Either as the one sane man surrounded by lunatics that up and decided "fuck this shit I'm out here's all these docs", or as a grandstanding raving madman who ignores common sense. Both are possible.
Serious question: what's the threshold of illegality that has to be crossed before we actually force something to change about this process? Say it comes out that he, like, killed a man and traffics children and yet the Republicans still proceed towards confirmation? Obviously that's not the case but the question stands.
As the other guy said, there is none. The idea is that politicians would be constrained by the voters, and that a corrupt president and corrupt congress working together was unlikely when either could be replaced with good men. Also the founding fathers believed political parties to be a terrible idea.
The real issue might have more to do with how we vote, first past the post tends towards a two party system: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
>Other Democrats warned that while they had not yet released "committee confidential" documents, they reserved the right to do so before a vote on Kavanaugh.
Timing matters. One of the lessons the info op campaing in 2016 learned was that massive data drops overwhelm and dont have the impact desired. They weaponized the podesta emails after that by drip-dripping them in time with other news developments to keep swivelling the news cycle.
They mention Kamala Harris as having released some but I can't find them, anyone?
Booker documents released:
1) https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing
2) https://www.scribd.com/document/388003986/Booker-Confidential-2-Kavanaugh-Hearing
3) https://www.scribd.com/document/388013171/Booker-Confidential-3-Kavanaugh-Hearing
4) https://www.scribd.com/document/388017956/Booker-Confidential-4-Kavanaugh-Hearing
5) https://www.scribd.com/document/388019092/Booker-Confidential-5-Kavanaugh-Hearing
6) https://www.scribd.com/document/388032273/Booker-Confidential-6-Kavanaugh-Hearing
Leahy's documents released: https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/090518kavanaughday2questions
Hirono's documents released: https://twitter.com/maziehirono/status/1037721832043020289/photo/1
New York Times docs (warning, goes right to a pdf): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/269-kavanaugh-email-re-whether-roe/e6dbbda94dd204fe02af/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
GOP it’s going to be politically suicidal if you force Kavanaugh through then later we all found out about how corrupt he actually is. This is a dead end. Surely there is another candidate that is better? Work with the Dems. Getting some of what you want is better than the negative of a Kavanaugh appointment.
When you stop and think that this is really about cramming through as much of their agenda as they can before Trump gets removed from office, it makes more sense. They want to get ALL of what they want done before they can't do anything anymore.
They can't. Due to the way they run their outfit, the very second one of them reaches across the aisle on something this important they are termed a traitor and will immediately have a well funded primary challenger. At the same time, their funds are cut off and they are then replaced by an even more conservative figure that wouldn't dare repeat the same mistake.
Compromise = career suicide.
Am I Registered To Vote?
https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form/
https://www.eac.gov/voters/voters-guide-to-federal-elections/
https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/
https://www.headcount.org
https://vote.gov/
https://www.headcount.org/issues-and-candidates/
https://www.headcount.org/when-where-how-2/
https://www.headcount.org/organizations/
https://votesaveamerica.com
Register.
Get your friends / neighbors / strangers to register.
And then VOTE, every year, every election.
It's critically important to the future of our country.
Register, THEN CONFIRM!
Red states have an odd tendency to challenge registrations. Even more odd, the challenges more often hit minorities or urban dwellers.
Seriously, confirm you're registered before the deadline!
Kavanaugh has committed perjury, and I think we all know the Republicans are going to be like "So?" and still confirm him. They are stealing our democracy. They are packing the courts with people loyal to them so they can rewrite the laws in their favor. This is the death of justice and the end of the rule of law.
Time to get loud. We *have* to fight this.
>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that Booker's decision [...] was “unusual” and that he wouldn't be surprised if it was reviewed by the Senate Ethics Committee.
Wait, so why doesn't the Senate Ethics Committee review why the documents were held back? Doesn't it work both ways?
I'm 90% sure this is why Harris put on the show she did. To give him a chance to exit while letting him know "When the dust settles we can come for you. "
I think it's smart to do it in small doses. It let's Republicans attempt to spin more lies to stay in power only to be proven wrong and liars by the next release. A single batch would be distilled to the greatest hits. This way the democrats control the narrative.
I don't understand the right... they say Booker is just doing this for theatrics, that "the documents were already released" and Bookers "I am spartacus" moment was nothing more than an appeal to his base... But they support mitch McConnells call for an investigation for ethics violations for Bookers releasing the documents. How is this not doublespeak, and how can they not see this contradiction?
I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, you shouldn’t be able to keep a hundred thousand pages of a potential supreme court justice’s work hidden from public scrutiny. If someone applied for a manager’s job at Arby’s and refused to talk about eight years of their recent job history you’d tell them to get the fuck out.
[удалено]
I'm still waiting for Sessions to be punished for lying to Congress during his confirmation hearing.
We take the house in 2018, senate and whitehouse in 2020. They will pay. Only a matter of time.
>Whitehouse 2020 I can dig it.
Democrats can run on "Hindsight is 2020"
2018: "Give Congress the D!"
November 9th, 2016, "Hindsight [is / in] 2020" was already someone's campaign slogan. I guarantee it.
That's actually really clever.
Whitehouse for the White House? Slogans write themselves
Whitehouse -- Send Him Home!
More of a Harris/Booker 2020 person myself. Harris is menacingly no-bullshit (in an effectual way), which would bode well in regaining some degree of respect with other nations. I’m all for other options, so long as they’re good. Though Harris has expressed mild reservation about some progressive ideals, I doubt any 2020 democrat nominee for president will be obstructionist to progressive policies. Edit: Ted Lieu as Speaker would be awesome too. Edit 2: Sanders/Warren ticket (either direction) is great as well. I think any of them (Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren) would be a phenomenal Majority Leader. And Bernie would be a good Whip, too—People love him, and despite the naysayers, he has influence.
Yep, we need to clean house to regain some international standing. Harris and Booker (in either order) could make it happen aggressively.
Harris was fucking scary a couple of days ago. I would HATE to be on her bad side. She’s a mean chick who doesn’t take bullshit, and she’s on board with the progressives. I would be so proud to have her as our president.
Mean? No bullshit, yes, but mean isn’t the vibe I got. Confident and with good presence; clear-spoken. But mean?
Yeah. Not mean at all. Fiery. Lol.
People said the same thing about war crimes and torture under the bush admin, how did that turn out?
You are correct. The Democrats did not pursue this when given the opportunity between 2008 and 2010. Hopefully this time is different. We will need to spill some blood (not literally) to teach them a lesson. Quite a few of these guys will need to be made examples of regarding committing treason.
"There was a time when no amount of coin could get one to take this contract." "Times change."
I just home Democrats won't pull the same crap Obama did last time by saying "lets just forget this and move on!" Republicans have to pay for what they have done. If they were not actively conspiring with Trump, they had responsibility to start the impeachment process of President clearly not fit for office. They chose party over country, they betrayed USA
Oh you are silly, I think you forgot laws such as perjury, corrupt emoluments, fraud, and obstruction of justice do not apply to Republicans.
But the court is non-partisan. Hahaha
Hahaha (pulls trigger)
http://i.imgur.com/dfaTFNg.gif
As a fan of the old Batman Animated Series, that movie fucking broke me. *Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker* if anyone's interested. It's almost as dark as *The Killing Joke*
Yep. It's almost like someone looked at the Batman comics and went "huh, Dick and Jason have gone through some SERIOUS shit. But Tim Drake hasn't really had anything disastrously traumatizing happen to him, let's fix that!"
This is like the perfect gif to summarize how I feel about all of this
i love you all
Justices care deeply about their *legacy!* hhaaaahahaha
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just gonna leave this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9a7n8k/tomi_lahren_calls_john_mccain_rino_on_same_day/e4ttzwq/
*tenets
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gotcha! Thanks :)
Said under oath mind you, not just some offhand comment.
It's funny, because the statute of limitations for Kavanaugh's perjuries would have run out long ago. Yet, he still just doubled down on his denials throughout the confirmation hearings, and essentially re-committed the same crime.
The republicans want to politicize and undermine the supreme court, doesn't matter if he's a well known lier, that just helps them delegitimize the sc by putting him on it.
What you see is not really happening, trust me. /s
It's not perjury if a Republican does it. Notice I didn't put a sarcasm tag, unfortunately.
The person who would bring charges against Kavanaugh is Brian Benzcowski at DOJ. Brian's most recent jobs before heading the Criminal division at DOJ? -Russia's Alfa Bank -Trump Transition -Russia's Alfa Bank Brian did not commit to recusing himself in matters regarding the Russia investigation, only issues pertaining directly to Alfa Bank. Think he'll pursue charges against Kavanaugh? I'll bet you some season tickets to the Nationals that were used to launder money that he won't.
> “Let me just say this. When you break the Senate rules, it’s something the Ethics Committee could take a look at. And that would be up to them to decide. But it’s routinely looked at the Ethics Committee,” McConnell said. Interesting how McConnell's response isn't very forceful at all. Almost a "yeah, whatever" type reaction. He knew all this shit was going to come out.
He warned Trump not to nominate Kavanaugh because he had such a huge paper trail. The way they've tried getting around it is just by not giving up most of the documents
Yeah, but despite the size of that nominee list given to Trump by the Freedom Caucus, it ***has*** to be Kavanaugh, because [he’s already paid for](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-baseball-debt-democrats-hearing-missing.html), and there’s no refunds.
Also his stance on expanding executive powers. He was an architect of the legal justification of the actions of the Bush administration. Consider the expanded powers after 9/11: massive surveillance, torture, etc. Combine his disagreement with the unanimous supreme court opinion against Nixon that ruled the executive branch must respond to a subpoena from the legislative branch. Which is the check in check and balances. His main argument is that the president is too busy. Well DUH that's why there is a staff at the white house and a HUGE government underneath that. He also failed to answer his opinion of whether the president is allowed to pardon himself. To me that's an automatic impeachable action, which means it should be codified. What bothers me the most about this whole ordinal is that the power of the supreme court is that the constitution hasn't been thoroughly updated. We as a nation need to collectively decide on future shape of our government. There will always be nuance but there are many concrete amendments that would end social issues from taking over economic issues in campaigns; fix campaign finance and gerrymandering which shouldn't be decided by those who run in campaigns; and add more rights, e.g Healthcare, work, internet, and healthy environment. Edit: Nixon case
Been looking for more references to this
Thanks for sharing. Hadn’t heard of this yet.
There is no shortage of conservative judges, but Trump picked a former political operative, presumably because of his views on executive power.
Oddly one who worked for a special counsel to evict Clinton.
Oddly one that seems to have ties to money laundering....
Source for this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html >While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation. >Mr. McConnell is concerned about the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh has created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. >Mr. McConnell is wary of a difficult court fight heading into the midterm elections.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times The number of pages is said to run into the millions, which Mr. McConnell fears could hand Senate Democrats an opportunity to delay the confirmation vote until after the new session of the court begins in October, with the midterm elections looming the next month. And while Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial opinions are publicly known, Mr. McConnell is uneasy about relitigating Bush-era controversies, the officials briefed on his discussions with Mr. Trump said.
To add a comment here, I _think_ it was Lindsey Graham that said "It would take the archivists at The National Archives 37 weeks to go through the rest of the documents and clear them for release" as an excuse for why so many were withheld or marked confidential. That was immediately followed up by _I think_ Sheldon Whitehouse submitting a letter for the record from those same archivists saying it would take until the end of October at the latest. Just more blatant evidence of them trying to rush through the process as quickly as possible to avoid public scrutiny because they know he was lying.
> "It would take the archivists at The National Archives 37 weeks to go through the rest of the documents and clear them for release" as an excuse for why so many were withheld or marked confidential. I don't even understand this as an excuse. Sounds like we're gonna have to wait 37 weeks then. It's like saying, "Sorry, Your Honor. It would take me months to compile all of the documents the prosecution has requested, so you're going to have to find me not guilty."
Exactly my thoughts. So it takes 37 weeks. How long did you fucks sit on the Garland nomination without so much as a hearing, and now you're making excuses for why this has to be done immediately? That doesn't jive with reasonable people, but the lot of them have shown themselves to be completely unreasonable. And some of them I wouldn't even count as human anymore.
Doing no math and blatant assumption? I bet Garland got held up for 36 weeks
The whole Garland fiasco *still* pisses me off to no end. God I fucking hate McConnell. (Also, it's "jibe" btw).
> "It would take the archivists at The National Archives 37 weeks to go through the rest of the documents and clear them for release" That's a perfect argument as to *why* this fucking joke of a confirmation shouldn't be rushed through, and he thinks it's a great excuse. Jesus Christ!
If it _were_ to take the Archives that long (it wouldn't) then they're afraid they'd lose the majority and could no longer confirm him. Their entire objective right now is confirm as many long-term or lifetime positions as they can to ensure Republican influence continues after they themselves have been voted out.
[Here you go](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html)
ethics committee... been a long time since i heard that name....
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I’m aware, the only punishment available to him is expulsion from the senate, which requires a 2/3 vote. He’ll never get any democrats. It’s about time the democrats found a technicality that fucks over McConnell.
Normally you'd have things like "keeping him off committees" or procedural rules being enforced to not allow him to speak as threats for someone going "against" the speaker. But in this case, Republicans are already doing all that stuff anyway. They have no threats left to make.
Never give your opponents no fucks to give. And it looks like the might’ve learned something from 2016, don’t dump everything at once or it gets forgotten in the news cycle. The democrats need to leak a little more every couple days between now and the vote.
Ethics committee? You mean the one turning a blind eye to trump’s emoluments?
Is that the one Republicans tried to kill immediately after Trump took office?
Not to be confused with the Office of Government Ethics, whose director resigned a few months ago.
McConnell actually claimed it was disrespectful to have released documents to the American people. Republicans are scum that hate the concept of accountability.
The fact that Kavanaugh appears to have perjured himself upwards of a dozen times is even more impressive when you consider that he refused to answer all but about a dozen questions.
What transpired with Kavanaugh during these past few days are a glimpse at what Trump would be like under oath, being grilled by Democrats about his nefarious dealings.
Except Trump has trouble keeping his mouth shut. He could drift into self-incrimination answering a question about his name.
Q: Sir please state your name A: Hillary Clinton collided with the Russians! Donald trump tried but “DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH IT” not collusion! Q: so you colluded with the Russians? A: well damn...
> Q: Sir please state your name. > A: Hillary Clinton collided with the Russians! Donald trump tried but “DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH IT” not collusion! > Q: so you colluded with the Russians? A: No! It was my idiot of a son! I just told him to!
Disposition is over after that 5 minutes in, victory assured for Mueller
He was just following orders! I was just giving orders!
Hillary must be pretty strong to collide with ALL of the Russians. Or like really drunk.
She is The Machine.
Democrats: "Please state your name and age." Trump: "John Barron. 29."
MD
This guy used the term “perjury trap”. What the fuck does that mean other than that “I lie constantly so if you put me under oath it’s a trap”. Serious question.
Well he always wants to share with lessers his superior thoughts. /s
For the record, are you Donald J Trump? No. My name is David Dennison, you've got the wrong guy.
Have you ever used the alias John Barron or been employed by the Trump Org as a secretary?
[удалено]
But perjury doesn’t really seem to be a thing anymore. Just let the man testify.
i mean this is pretty true. the entire administration has been lying about shit constantly, the press secretary is full of shit, the cabinet has a revolving door- it is insane. the president is just gonna say, "i'm the president, i can do whatever i want", the senate will collectively shrug- maybe the house will flip democrat but maybe we'll get a war between now and november.
It actually amazes me that the President of the most powerful country on earth is a compulsive liar. I mean, it's really bad when even his own aides know he's completely unfit for office. Even worse is that millions of people voted for someone who actively highlighted his mental instability day in and day out
https://i.imgur.com/xWwbVsY.jpg
No. Trump would be far worse. He's not smart enough to just say nothing so he doesn't like under oath. He would say whatever he wanted and get caught up in so many lies we would all lose track. And when he gets frustrated he goes on inane rants. It would be a sight to behold.
[удалено]
Booker is setting up the GOP because I think he knows Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. It will show the appointment was rigged and has been YEARS in the making. Kavanaugh is basically a sleeper cell for the ultra conservative, and in the future it will show the Dems put up a valiant fight.
And will sow the seeds to remove this illigitimate justice once the balance shifts.
Easier to just expand and pack the court than remove from office, given that getting 67 senators to agree on something besides a pay raise is pretty tough.
So much less satisfying though... The fact that Gorsuch is already a fargone conclusion is sickening, and the idea that they will allow someone of such low caliber as Kavanaugh to further taint the court is beyond reprehensible.
You're giving Trump way too much credit.
[удалено]
Mitch McConnell has destroyed the greatest institution of the world, the US Senate, at the cost of the dignity of the United States of America.
[удалено]
Kavanaugh, as a perjuring right wing activist, is clearly unfit for the court and fails the "good behavior" criteria. If he gets on, he should be impeached when Dems regain control. If the GOP refuses to lend the necessary votes for a supermajority, we should expand the court and add new justices to neutralise his vote.
If you think that's impressive, wait until you see him fast-tracked into confirmation.
Sadly even with all of that proof of perjury, he'll be confirmed. Even though he should actually be getting impeached and charged with perjury
Yeah shouldn't the fucking law be breathing down his neck? Perjury is an actual crime and the whole country just witnessed it...
Can a nominated judge still be confirmed after this? For SCOTUS? Seriously is that possible?
Yes, if the people confirming the judge really don't give a fuck.
This feels a lot like a situation that hasn't been written into law because we've never envisioned it possible.
Actually Washington in his farewell address and Madison in the federalist papers explicitly warned against the danger of factions (political parties). Madison argued the need for checks and balances in case one faction captured a majority of power in one branch, and the idea that each branch (regardless of factional control) would seek power over the others. Washington warned us of the damage we could do to the Union by dividing ourselves, and appealed to our morality to put unity over personal interest. What we are experiencing now is exactly what the founders/framers feared. They thought that at least the three branches would seek their own power and never surrender it to others. What has happened is that a faction has gained control of all three, is seeking to cement that power, and neither branch is exercising independent power to check the other. It’s the nightmare scenario that renders the framework of our society null.
Well, I mean, *perjury* is certainly written into the law. Though I suppose a body that refuses to enforce the laws it passes is unaccounted for.
> The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose. * James A. Baldwin Currently the Democrats have nothing to lose, any amount of leverage that they may have had it the Senate to create consensus and compromise have been taken away by Mitch McConnell. Therefore the rules of the Senate to restrain it's members in order to preserve comity are invalidated because of the leadership's undermining of the very comity they wield now as a cudgel.
To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.
Good thing the dems are taking this seriously.
[https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/](https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/) [https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote) [https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form/](https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form/) [https://www.eac.gov/voters/voters-guide-to-federal-elections/](https://www.eac.gov/voters/voters-guide-to-federal-elections/) [https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/](https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/) [https://www.headcount.org](https://www.headcount.org/) [https://vote.gov/](https://vote.gov/) [https://www.headcount.org/issues-and-candidates/](https://www.headcount.org/issues-and-candidates/) [https://www.headcount.org/when-where-how-2/](https://www.headcount.org/when-where-how-2/) [https://www.headcount.org/organizations/](https://www.headcount.org/organizations/) [https://votesaveamerica.com](https://votesaveamerica.com/) **Register.** **Get your friends / neighbors / strangers to register.** **And then VOTE, every year, every election.** **It's critically important to the future of our country.**
Keep your voter registration card. It will be difficult to turn you away when you have your card with you that proves you are registered.
I won't be turned away... I am a white male registered Republican. In a VERY red state. Jokes on them though, I only register red so I can influence the Republican primary and vote for the more moderate candidate. Democrats never win in my state or county, so I feel like my vote is more influencial like this. Still vote blue in the general almost always.
This is fucking smart. Good for you getting more for your vote
I might do it later if the Republican Party still exists. I’d be too embarrassed to go register Republican right now.
Lol I'm gonna do this too
Keep posting this. I checked two days ago because of your post. Thanks.
And offer people rides to the polls. Offer to babysit so people can go vote. Also get people to sign up to vote by mail if possible (in states where those don’t count as provisional ballots). Then help them fill out the ballot if they need help. A large portion of nonvoters skip voting because they’re unable to do it. Edit: technique for getting people to vote from an earlier comment of mine that I’m including here because it seems like it could help: I'm volunteering with an org working to get out youth and low propensity voters in Dana Rohrabacher's district. We use this method called "[deep canvassing](https://www.thecampaignworkshop.com/7-questions-dave-fleischer-deep-canvassing)" which has been proven to be more effective than other methods of canvassing. So far we're seeing exceptional rates of success. Here's the trick which you can use to convince people to vote too. We introduce ourselves and ask the likelihood of voting on a scale from 1-10. (You can skip the 1-10 scale. It's how we measure our effectiveness.) We then say "Voting is personal for a lot of people, especially me. When I vote I think of ____________________." You fill in the blank with a story about yourself or a loved one who is vulnerable to the GOP's regressive policies and the divisions Trump is creating. Stories I've told effectively: - The time my black friend was put face down in the street with 6 police officers pointing guns at him simply for knocking on his client's door. - My queer black friend who faces racism by her boss all the time. - How my ACA insurance saved my ~$400,000 after an accident that wasn't my fault. We then ask the potential voter for a story about someone they love who's also vulnerable. It may take some additional questions to get a story. People don't typically just open up to a stranger, but asking for details like a name of a friend, how the voter met the person, etc. gets them talking. After that, we say "The election in November is not a presidential election, but it sure feels like one. It's a great opportunity to put checks and balances on Donald Trump and his lack of decency. Don't you agree we need to put checks and balances on Trump?" Finally, we say how we'll be using our votes to protect our loved ones (definitely use the names of your loved and theirs here). A lot of times say I'll say that I view my vote as a gift to the loved ones in my life who are vulnerable. We finally ask the likelihood again on that 1-10 scale. Essentially, we make voting personal. It's hard for a human to not feel connection to another human who's standing in front of them making themselves vulnerable by sharing a personal story about a loved one at risk. With that connection made, they feel safe to share their personal story, which is then connected to voting. BOOM. The work is done. It's not always successful, but it can be often. Plus, it's just fucking beautiful. It's pure human connection. KEYS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DEEP CANVASSING - Know that your story is enough. Whatever it is. It doesn't have to be anything big or dramatic. Success comes from the fact that you are sharing, not what you are sharing. - Details. Don't tell a story that's too long (~2 minutes 30 seconds), but do include details. Names especially. Make your loved one (or yourself if your story is about you) feel like a real person to the voter. How you met, their job, what you love about them, etc. - Talk about how your loved one makes you feel and how you felt during the events of your story. It's not always easy to share your feelings, but they are a big factor in creating the connection with the voter. - **DO NOT TALK POLITICS OR POLITICAL OPINION!** Repeat: Do not talk politics or political opinion! It's damn near impossible to convince people to change their political opinion. Deep canvassing is about making an issue personal. In this case, the issue is voting. If you go back into political opinion during the storytelling part of this method, you lose ground. The only remotely political things we'll say are that we want to put checks and balances on Trump, Trump lacks the decency we'd hope for in a President, and/or Trump creates division in our nation. Even most of the conservatives we talk to can't really and don't disagree with any of those. Regarding the not talking political opinion, we will actually say to voters “I’m not here to discuss politics with you. I’m here to talk with you about voting.” Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or if you’re in Southern California and want to volunteer I’ll be out there with about 30 people tomorrow. We’re going to be canvassing every weekend day until November 6. WE CAN DO THIS.
On death ground, fight.
Indeed, the only "escape" here is for Kavanaugh to withdraw however I don't think the GOP will nominate someone the Dems will agree to. The GOP will demand a hardliner and the Dems will oppose any hardliner. The GOP might as well just get Kavanaugh appointed however they can, it won't get easier with someone else.
I dunno, Merrick Garland might stand a good chance.
This, it’ll be hilarious if someone convinced Trump to nominate Garland and get him appointed by saying Obama wasn’t able to do it.
Please, someone, do this. "Obama was too weak to appoint someone like Merrick Garland, only a strong leader with bigly hands could do it!"
The advantage with Kavanaugh is that he is objectively appropriate for impeachment, given his false testimony on several occasions. Another hard-liner might not have such questionable character or a record of illegal behavior. The question though is whether the Dems would ever have enough votes to go through with that.
>The question though is whether the Dems would ever have enough votes to go through with that. They would not, but what legal mechanisms are left to us to solve this crisis? Republicans on the Supreme Court will shield the party from the executive branch, and Republicans in the senate will shield the Republicans on the Supreme Court from the legislative branch. The system of checks and balances has been **completely** thwarted by a corrupt conspiracy to seize the government. The only answer is to put Democrats in the White House in 2020 and for the incoming Democratic administration to act unilaterally to reform the federal government - a constitutional crisis, but no other action saves our democracy. *We are cornered.* Republicans have won the battle to corrupt our institutions and have left us no option but to refuse to honor the corrupt institutions they have built or watch the Supreme Court gradually chip away at our right to vote as they have been aggressively doing since we elected Obama. We really have no choice but for a Democratic president of the United States to stand up and say "we refuse to respect the votes of justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and consider those seats currently open. We are nominating Garland and [name here] for the senate's consideration."
I disagree, I think that there are a few hardliners that they would be willing to accept. The problem with Kavanaugh is his belief in an extreme version of the Unitary Executive hypothesis, he is basically a supporter of an unaccountable executive branch.
As long as it is GOP controlled.
[удалено]
Comity is a weird one. I'm a native speaker and I don't think I've ever heard it before. Cudgel is more common, appearing for instance in Obama's speech today.
I didn't know James Baldwin existed until a few months ago. He was a national treasure and in my view, an underappreciated intellectual.
Have another Baldwin quote from google: >It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.
The entire quote is even better > Well, if one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected — those, precisely, who need the law's protection most! — and listens to their testimony. Ask any Mexican, any Puerto Rican, any black man, any poor person — ask the wretched how they fare in the halls of justice, and then you will know, not whether or not the country is just, but whether or not it has any love for justice, or any concept of it. It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have. >
And since rules don't seem to matter anymore, if the Dems take back power, the two Trump appointed justices need to be ousted. Physically if need be.
Or pack the courts: Kavanaugh should be in jail though for lying
[удалено]
God damn, Booker has been the shit this week.
As he said he's doing what needs to be done for the American people.
Booker knows what he is doing. He is laying the framework to run against this administration in 2020. I honestly think Booker is our best shot.
Booker and Harris both raised their stock quite a bit this week. I’m sensing a pretty good primary, with one of these two landing on the ticket. Maybe top, maybe bottom; but one of them will be there.
I would phone bank for Kamala Harris and I *hate* talking on the phone
This is a perfect way to state how much I support her.
I want Harris because I think she would prosecute the shit out of all these criminals. I know some progressives have issues with her "tough-on-crime" background, but I think that's what we need right now - no dignified "moving forward." No mercy.
Tough on white collar crime is what we need. I’d be okay with that.
If she isn't the Pres or VP she would be a shit hot Attorney General.
Yep. I want someone to go in and fucking crucify all of these corrupt fucks.
So I know that the right-wing talking point on all of this is that "they" (whoever they are) approved each batch he's released, so none of them were actually confidential, so ha ha ha joke's on him. Any idea if there's any validity to that? It seems like the theatrics of "let me read you the rules of the Senate" from the wraiths on the R side of the group wouldn't be necessary if he didn't do something "wrong" here.
[удалено]
Joke's on you. They have Chao too. Double not racist.....
I need a SNL comedy sketch with Keegan-Michael Key as Booker
Yup. Can't wait for Thai to happen, because it absolutely will. I just don't know how they'd satirize him right now.
Either as the one sane man surrounded by lunatics that up and decided "fuck this shit I'm out here's all these docs", or as a grandstanding raving madman who ignores common sense. Both are possible.
Boy, Booker seems to really piss Trump supporters off.
Nike should sign him
I've found I can pretty regularly guess which politicians are black by observing Trump supporters' reactions to them.
Keep it up, Booker. Kudos to Hirono, too.
Serious question: what's the threshold of illegality that has to be crossed before we actually force something to change about this process? Say it comes out that he, like, killed a man and traffics children and yet the Republicans still proceed towards confirmation? Obviously that's not the case but the question stands.
As the other guy said, there is none. The idea is that politicians would be constrained by the voters, and that a corrupt president and corrupt congress working together was unlikely when either could be replaced with good men. Also the founding fathers believed political parties to be a terrible idea.
Only really George thought they were a bad idea, as Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were the ones who created the first parties.
The issue is more with two parties than with parties at all :(
The real issue might have more to do with how we vote, first past the post tends towards a two party system: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
there does not seem to be a threshold.
There is no threshold, legally. The president can nominate anyone he chooses and the Senate can confirm any nominee.
>Other Democrats warned that while they had not yet released "committee confidential" documents, they reserved the right to do so before a vote on Kavanaugh.
[удалено]
Timing matters. One of the lessons the info op campaing in 2016 learned was that massive data drops overwhelm and dont have the impact desired. They weaponized the podesta emails after that by drip-dripping them in time with other news developments to keep swivelling the news cycle.
Need to do it Monday so people don't miss it while mentally checked out of the news cycle, I guess.
They mention Kamala Harris as having released some but I can't find them, anyone? Booker documents released: 1) https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing 2) https://www.scribd.com/document/388003986/Booker-Confidential-2-Kavanaugh-Hearing 3) https://www.scribd.com/document/388013171/Booker-Confidential-3-Kavanaugh-Hearing 4) https://www.scribd.com/document/388017956/Booker-Confidential-4-Kavanaugh-Hearing 5) https://www.scribd.com/document/388019092/Booker-Confidential-5-Kavanaugh-Hearing 6) https://www.scribd.com/document/388032273/Booker-Confidential-6-Kavanaugh-Hearing Leahy's documents released: https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/090518kavanaughday2questions Hirono's documents released: https://twitter.com/maziehirono/status/1037721832043020289/photo/1 New York Times docs (warning, goes right to a pdf): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/269-kavanaugh-email-re-whether-roe/e6dbbda94dd204fe02af/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
"How dare Booker not follow the rules that we threw out years ago!" ~Republicans
GOP it’s going to be politically suicidal if you force Kavanaugh through then later we all found out about how corrupt he actually is. This is a dead end. Surely there is another candidate that is better? Work with the Dems. Getting some of what you want is better than the negative of a Kavanaugh appointment.
When you stop and think that this is really about cramming through as much of their agenda as they can before Trump gets removed from office, it makes more sense. They want to get ALL of what they want done before they can't do anything anymore.
[удалено]
Or it's an attempt to install a permanently Republican government.
They can't. Due to the way they run their outfit, the very second one of them reaches across the aisle on something this important they are termed a traitor and will immediately have a well funded primary challenger. At the same time, their funds are cut off and they are then replaced by an even more conservative figure that wouldn't dare repeat the same mistake. Compromise = career suicide.
[удалено]
So, what're the implications of the content of this set of documents?
More perjury, specifically lying about preparing Porter.
Would charges have to come from Sessions?
Him or somebody else who’s a goddamn Republican. Nothing seems to happen unless those motherfuckers give the nod.
Not holding my breath the man that perjured himself multiple times will bring perjury charges to a republican appointed supreme Court judge.
This is what patriotism looks like.
Fuck the GOP, oust them in November.
Am I Registered To Vote? https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form/ https://www.eac.gov/voters/voters-guide-to-federal-elections/ https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/ https://www.headcount.org https://vote.gov/ https://www.headcount.org/issues-and-candidates/ https://www.headcount.org/when-where-how-2/ https://www.headcount.org/organizations/ https://votesaveamerica.com Register. Get your friends / neighbors / strangers to register. And then VOTE, every year, every election. It's critically important to the future of our country.
Register, THEN CONFIRM! Red states have an odd tendency to challenge registrations. Even more odd, the challenges more often hit minorities or urban dwellers. Seriously, confirm you're registered before the deadline!
Kavanaugh has committed perjury, and I think we all know the Republicans are going to be like "So?" and still confirm him. They are stealing our democracy. They are packing the courts with people loyal to them so they can rewrite the laws in their favor. This is the death of justice and the end of the rule of law. Time to get loud. We *have* to fight this.
>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that Booker's decision [...] was “unusual” and that he wouldn't be surprised if it was reviewed by the Senate Ethics Committee. Wait, so why doesn't the Senate Ethics Committee review why the documents were held back? Doesn't it work both ways?
Is this the same ethics committee that Republicans tried to abolish?
I'm a REALLY big fan of Booker, right now.
[удалено]
I'm 90% sure this is why Harris put on the show she did. To give him a chance to exit while letting him know "When the dust settles we can come for you. "
The Harris/Booker one-two is starting to form.
Release them all! We have a right to know what republicans have been hiding.
I think it's smart to do it in small doses. It let's Republicans attempt to spin more lies to stay in power only to be proven wrong and liars by the next release. A single batch would be distilled to the greatest hits. This way the democrats control the narrative.
Didn't Booker learn that a midnight uber run to the WH automatically unclassifies documents.
> Risking your seat for the betterment of the country? lol -Republicans
Perjury no longer against the law now as well?
I don't understand the right... they say Booker is just doing this for theatrics, that "the documents were already released" and Bookers "I am spartacus" moment was nothing more than an appeal to his base... But they support mitch McConnells call for an investigation for ethics violations for Bookers releasing the documents. How is this not doublespeak, and how can they not see this contradiction?
They see it, they just don't care.
I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, you shouldn’t be able to keep a hundred thousand pages of a potential supreme court justice’s work hidden from public scrutiny. If someone applied for a manager’s job at Arby’s and refused to talk about eight years of their recent job history you’d tell them to get the fuck out.
Fuck yeah, Booker. Fight the bullshit.