|
Post by hop2 on Sept 29, 2020 16:41:50 GMT
Because the right doesn’t have a message to run on they are going with this. Well it works since that’s all the Faux news sycophants babble about.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 18:18:45 GMT
The tedium of Trump:
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 29, 2020 18:33:17 GMT
I think that’s awesome, artgirl1. I would love to see Kamala Harris deliver all of those questions!
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Sept 29, 2020 22:00:31 GMT
This is an outstanding analysis of what should be the Dems approach at the Debate. It is lengthy, and I copied it from facebook. The author, Bill Svelmoe, is the History Department chair at St Mary's, Notre Dame. A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice. - As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise. By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will. So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her. - Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is. If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3. So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one. Here's a few more suggestions. - Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character. - Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?! - If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause? Then turn to the Hatch Act. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [/ul][/quote]We all need to email this to our senators and all Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
|
|
Gennifer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,988
Jun 26, 2014 8:22:26 GMT
|
Post by Gennifer on Sept 29, 2020 23:14:40 GMT
cases in Utah, up 107% from two weeks ago?? that's crazy!! what changed? Are the new cases related to kids going back to college, or school? sporting events?? Most of the cases (~40%) are from one county: Utah County. It is about 20% of the population, but has two universities, BYU and UVU. There have been no mask mandates in this county, but Provo’s city council voted to enact one a couple of weeks ago. The mayor vetoed it, but the council passed it anyway. But, again, that is just one city in the county. A week or so ago, the governor moved the two largest cities in the county (Provo and Orem) back to orange. Within a day or so, the county finally enacted a mask mandate. But, people here are very anti-mask in general. Even in my county, which has had a mask mandate for months, I only see about 50% of the people wearing one in the grocery store. As an example, when the governor moved Provo and Orem back to orange, he made a special allowance that sporting events could proceed, but without spectators. Immediately, Provo High School announced that they would be playing their game that Friday, which happened to be homecoming, at another school so that fans could attend. 🤦🏼♀️ After a public outcry, the other school district announced it wouldn’t happen. There have also been a ton of parties being thrown by a promoter company called Young/Dumb. They are targeting the college communities of BYU and UVU. People just don’t care here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 15:19:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:28:58 GMT
Where are our little Trump trolls questioning Biden't mental acuity?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 13:10:52 GMT
The best quote tweet I've seen in months (at least).
(My kids love Brad after we binge watched the West Wing - at least they could see what a functional President could look like since they don't remember Obama much as they were too young to pay attention).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 16:01:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Oct 1, 2020 16:04:41 GMT
OMG! Slime, republicans are just slime. I shouldn't be surprise but somehow they always slink lower.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 16:08:48 GMT
Is it just me that thinks instead of looking like The First Lady of the United States she looks like some model selling shaving cream?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 16:10:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 1, 2020 16:42:14 GMT
potato, po-tah-toe, amIright?!? honestly, I hope Oxford University decides to bitch about this and make them correct themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 19:02:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 19:25:06 GMT
|
|
Belle
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,309
Jun 28, 2014 4:39:12 GMT
|
Post by Belle on Oct 1, 2020 19:39:38 GMT
This is an outstanding analysis of what should be the Dems approach at the Debate. It is lengthy, and I copied it from facebook. The author, Bill Svelmoe, is the History Department chair at St Mary's, Notre Dame. A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice. - As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise. By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will. So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her. - Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is. If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3. So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one. Here's a few more suggestions. - Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character. - Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?! - If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause? Then turn to the Hatch Act. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [/ul][/quote]Thank you for sharing this. I find it very reassuring and am hopeful the democrats follow some of his recommendations.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 3:31:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 4:09:08 GMT
"The retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster became the latest of President Trump’s former aides on Thursday to declare that the president was aiding Russia’s disinformation campaign by failing to acknowledge how President Vladimir V. Putin was trying to manipulate American voters. “He is aiding and abetting Putin’s efforts by not being direct about this,” Mr. McMaster, a former national security adviser who is now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said in an interview on MSNBC. “This sustained campaign of disruption, disinformation and denial is aided by any leader who doesn’t acknowledge it.” Compared with some other former national security aides, Mr. McMaster has been mostly reluctant to criticize the president, with whom he split in early 2018 after a year in the post. He has declined to sign letters written by other Republicans and former military officers rebuking Mr. Trump, and his new book, “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World,” is about his vision of American strategy — avoiding the kind of tell-all that his successor, John R. Bolton, published this summer. In previous interviews to promote his book, Mr. McMaster has avoided direct censure of Mr. Trump, steering the conversation to what he terms the struggle the United States faces with two “revisionist” powers, Russia and China. The opening of his book acknowledges that an insider account “might be lucrative” but would not be “useful or satisfactory for most readers.” But in speaking with Hallie Jackson of MSNBC on Thursday, he went further than he has at any point in the past in criticizing Mr. Trump for failing to call out Russian action — even as his administration has indicted intelligence officers involved in the 2016 breach of the Democratic National Committee, and imposed sanctions on Russian hackers." www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/us/politics/mcmaster-trump-russia-election.html
|
|
smginaz Suzy
Pearl Clutcher
Je suis desole.
Posts: 2,606
Jun 26, 2014 17:27:30 GMT
|
Post by smginaz Suzy on Oct 2, 2020 4:11:22 GMT
+ McMaster says Trump is aiding and abetting Putin + Guilfoyle sexual harasser
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 4:24:05 GMT
how odd that she snarkily commented there should be journalistic curiosity about the ballot situation....while he's in the middle of asking journalistic questions about the ballot situation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 4:36:10 GMT
Sing it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 4:39:26 GMT
Mother of Chripes, this was an America to believe in. Not the shit show we elected in 2016
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 4:50:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 4:56:48 GMT
Did the media finally figure out that all the money in the world isn't worth it if the country goes up in flames?!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Oct 2, 2020 12:50:28 GMT
Mother of Chripes, this was an America to believe in. Not the shit show we elected in 2016 How far we have fallen fast
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 2, 2020 15:04:05 GMT
You missed the part where in spite of Hicks positive, he went to Bedminster golf club for an intimate rally, while having similar symptoms to Covid!!!
|
|
|
Post by MissBianca on Oct 2, 2020 15:10:45 GMT
How did a news reporter find out? I’m very curious. I’m hoping it’s some employee somewhere that has a conscience Knowing that the WH was not going to release the info.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 16:31:00 GMT
I wonder if you have an “R” after your name means you have the virus?
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Oct 2, 2020 17:32:51 GMT
You reap what you sow...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 4:01:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 17:47:12 GMT
How to spread the virus in 10 easy lessons. Watch the video with all the hugging
|
|