A very timely 5-Part series from Slate about the role of the Supreme Court and how Progressives and Liberals should treat it:
Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Part IV:
Part V:
Yeah, they’ve been doing this in plain sight since I have been old enough to vote; probably long before that for all I know.
Do you remember in 2013 when Roberts made up some obtuse thing about “principle of equal sovereignty” in a deciding opinion on discrimination in voters’ rights? It made systematic disenfranchisement more difficult to fight through congress, just as the 2016 election was ramping up. Just one of many important things they’ve been chipping away at forever.
Conservatives know exactly what they’re doing, they’re obsessively motivated, and persistently organized towards that goal. I’m terrified and deeply unnerved about their opposition not even appearing interested in taking any kind of posture against someone actually playing to win.
It’s like the schoolyard. The kids who play nice don’t win because the bullies know to hit you and steal your lunch money when the teacher isnt looking. The teacher also believes them when they lie and buys their crocodile tears.
2 Likes
Speaking of people not taking things seriously…
"Nationally, Latino voters favor a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by 64-21 percent, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Telemundo poll last month. But self-reported interest in the election is low, according to the same survey, and the picture in some individual races looks even worse for Democrats.
On paper, some of congressional Democrats’ best opportunities to pick up seats come from heavily Hispanic districts that are currently held by Republicans, but which Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Yet those are also some of the places where recent polls are showing Democratic candidates not doing as well as anticipated."
Well Congress certainly won’t, at least until January if by some miracle Dems take back Congress. Justice department might but I’m not holding my breath.
2 Likes
IF the Dems take the House they get to impeach him and then … nothing because they can’t convict in the Senate. So nothing happens.
1 Like
Even if the Democrats do retake Congress after the midterms, I don’t think they should try to impeach Trump unless there is a smoking gun of collusion.
I’m not saying that he shouldn’t be impeached, he should, there is no doubt in my mind that Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, but from a political standpoint, I can’t see any benefit for the House impeaching Trump only for the Senate to acquit him, similarly to what happened to Bill Clinton in 1998.
Rather than impeach Trump, the Democrats in the House (and the Senate if they retake that as well) should open investigation after investigation into all his abuses of power.
"Here are some of the probes it predicts:
-
President Trump’s tax returns
-
Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution’s emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization
-
Trump’s dealings with Russia, including the president’s preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
-
The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
-
James Comey’s firing
-
Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys
-
Trump’s proposed transgender ban for the military
-
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s business dealings
-
White House staff’s personal email use
-
Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
-
Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
-
Jared Kushner’s ethics law compliance
-
Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
-
The travel ban
-
Family separation policy
-
Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
-
Election security and hacking attempts
-
White House security clearances"
Every week, there should be another headline about how Committee X found another piece of damning evidence, whether it’s about Trump’s business dealings, his violation of the Emoluments Clause, whatever. The Democrats should try to inflict as much political damage as possible to him leading up to the 2020 presidential elections.
1 Like
EDIT: Also this.
1 Like
Nationalism isn’t Nazism, it’s just dumb and can lead to Fascism if you are not careful. All the countries of the mid 20th century were extremely nationalist going into World war 2…
3 Likes
Of course in Trump’s case, “nationalism” isn’t of a more benign form like “civic nationalism” or even “economic nationalism,” but almost certainly “white nationalism.”
But “nationalism,” in and of itself, is not necessarily controversial in certain contexts. The sentiment known as “civic nationalism” is routinely expressed by politicians in both parties. There are even aspects of Trumpian nationalism that are unremarkable, such as the economic nationalism embodied in his campaign promise of an infrastructure package (which he has abandoned). What would make his claim controversial is if Trump actually meant “ racial nationalist” or “ white nationalist.”
Which, of course, is exactly what he did mean. By claiming to be breaking a taboo by using this particular N-word, Trump basically confirmed that without saying it out loud.
2 Likes
It doesn’t help that Trump still have Stephen Miller who is deputy undersecretary of creepy shit.
3 Likes
Those eyes of his are just dead.
A third was sent to CNN, and one was found at George Soros’s house yesterday.
I’m going to make some predictions now. The perpetrator is white, will be taken alive by police, and will be treated like a troubled loner with little to no mention made of his right-wing beliefs.
7 Likes
I have a question on who committed this, because I think all of your presumptions are probably correct.
What are the chances that this is a single actor, and what are the chances this is a multi-person attack?
Profile seems to be single older white male with right-wing political views. I highly doubt this is a multi-person job.
I’m curious if we’ll get a unabomber-style manifesto.
2 Likes