From Elizabeth Warren on social media:
Yes, I have serious, deep, profound concerns about Dr. Carson’s inexperience to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Yes, I adamantly disagree with many of the outrageous things that Dr.
online pharmacy fluoxetine best drugstore for you
Carson said during his presidential campaign. Yes, he is not the nominee I wanted.But “the nominee I wanted” is not the test.
Millions of American families depend on HUD programs, including tens of thousands of families in Massachusetts.
buy lexapro Canada buy lexapro online no prescription
For many of them, HUD assistance is the difference between a safe, stable home and life on the street. As someone who has spent a lot of time working on housing policy in this country, my focus is on helping these families – and the countless others who could benefit from a stronger agency.During the nomination process, I sent Dr. Carson a nine-page letter with detailed questions on a whole range of issues: Section 8 housing assistance; lead exposure in public housing; programs to prevent and end homelessness; programs to help victims of domestic violence; fighting housing discrimination; HUD’s role in preparing for and recovering from natural disasters; and, more broadly, the standards he will use for managing the department, including the steps he will take to protect the rights of LGBT Americans.
Dr. Carson’s answers weren’t perfect. But at his hearing, he committed to track and report on conflicts of interest at the agency. In his written responses to me, he made good, detailed promises, on everything from protecting anti-homelessness programs to enforcing fair housing laws. Promises that – if they’re honored – would help a lot of working families.
Can we count on Dr. Carson to keep those promises? I don’t know. People are right to be skeptical; I am. But a man who makes written promises gives us a toehold on accountability. If President Trump goes to his second choice, I don’t think we will get another HUD nominee who will even make these promises – much less follow through on them.
If Dr. Carson doesn’t follow through on his commitments, I will be the very first person he hears from – loudly and clearly and frequently. I didn’t hesitate to criticize past HUD Secretaries when they fell short, and I won’t hesitate with Dr. Carson – not for one minute.
Don't worry, guys. We extracted a totally unenforceable list of promises from this guy who serves entirely at the leisure of the President once the Senate confirms him.
The rhetoric on the left generally counts Warren as one of The Good Ones, so this line of reasoning is particularly alarming. I do understand that part of this is a hat-tip to reality – these nominees are going to be confirmed anyway, and you have to pick your battles if you truly intend to try to stop an appointee from the position of the minority in the Senate. But at some point we have to wonder what exactly it would take before the Democrats in the Senate would actually do one time what the GOP has done as a matter of routine every single time a Democratic president has made an appointment. Does the nominee have to show up at the hearing wearing an actual Nazi uniform before they can amass the backbone even to cast a symbolic, meaningless No vote? Warren is correct that voting No would accomplish little here; the GOP has a majority on the committee and in the chamber. So why is that not a reason in favor of voting No? If it doesn't matter, why sign your name onto the impending disaster in any way, shape, or form?
Ben Carson is the very definition of a warm body. He will do nothing. HUD is 99.9% civil service and any "orders" would be coming from the White House anyway. I get that. What makes less sense is the outright refusal of the Democratic Party to offer any serious resistance (or even the pretense thereof) to anything. If Donald Trump isn't "bad enough" to warrant the kind of procedural obstructionism that congressional Republicans have applied to everything Obama or Clinton ever attempted to do, who is? Trump is not popular. He lost the popular vote and a majority of the country sees him as some combination of idiot and monster. Yet the Democrats still cannot bring themselves to offer anything like opposition to him – even just play-acting token opposition. We see the same "Let's show the public how Bipartisan we are and find areas where we can work with him!" logic that has reduced the party to almost total irrelevance in contemporary politics. They don't have the House. They don't have the Senate. Or the White House. Or the states (currently 17 have Democratic govs and 18 have Democratic legislatures). Part of this is beyond their control. Part of it is not beyond their control.
Standing up and saying "Fuck this guy, we're going to try to torpedo him at every turn" is the most obvious possible play in this situation. Failing to do it will be fatal. Imagine a redux of the 2002-03 era in which every future Democratic candidate, having lacked the balls to oppose Bush in even the most obvious opportunities, is saddled with the baggage of having voted to support the impending trainwreck.
online pharmacy zovirax best drugstore for you
Voters aren't responding very well to overtures of working together. Perhaps try actually standing for something – anything – and voters might find that more appealing.
gakster29 says:
But…but…but…when they go low we go high….
Major Kong says:
"In his written responses to me, he made good, detailed promises, on everything from protecting anti-homelessness programs to enforcing fair housing laws."
Wow! After all these years I finally get to be the one to make the Neville Chamberlain reference!
Skipper says:
@Major Kong — BRAVO
OTOH, there is a 99 percent chance that the "promises" that Warren finds so comforting were written by so operative in the administration. Carson has never made sense for more than two sentences in a row.
Noblewoman says:
He was going to be confirmed with or without her vote, so his "promises" would still be in the game. Why give him the imprimatur of her apparent approval?
alighierispal says:
It is indeed distressing. Is Kirsten Gillibrand the only Democratic Senator who (both literally and figuratively) doesn't need to grow a pair?
SeaTea says:
Dude. Trump won the election. He gets to make picks. Does anyone here really think that if we somehow shot down Carson he'd nominate someone BETTER and not WORSE? Elections have consequences. We said it when Obama won. We need to walk that walk now. In the grand scheme of total assholes and craven, immoral dicks Trump has nominated, Carson is the least of anyone's worries.
Brian M says:
SeaTea:
Gee.
That must be why the republicans totally supported everything Obama did and were never obstructionist with respect to any of his appointments?
"He squeaked in so we have to just cooperate with him on every matter".
I feel so edumacated now by your political sagacity!
Major Kong says:
"In the grand scheme of total assholes and craven, immoral dicks Trump has nominated, Carson is the least of anyone's worries."
Sadly true and rather terrifying. Especially with all the dead-eyed sociopaths they have in the House and Senate.
verbal says:
On the one hand, Republicans didn't obstruct the formation of the Obama cabinet…. just everything after that.
On the other hand, Obama's cabinet was made of competent people with whom they disagreed, not people who are incompetent, evil, or both.
fledermaus says:
"Yet the Democrats still cannot bring themselves to offer anything like opposition to him – even just play-acting token opposition."
We saw this in the Bush years – token opposition then extracting "compromises" or "promises" from the GOP that are unenforceable and carry no consequences for breaking in exchange for bipartisan cover. If you want to know why the Dem brand as a whole is in the crapper, look no further than this repeated spineless behavior. Do they believe in anything at all or have any goals beyond furthering their career and featherbedding cushy jobs for their kids?
cromartie says:
I have great empathy for the total resistance of everything.
But the government still has to show the pretense of functioning. It's unfortunate that we have to be the adults in the room all the time, but necessary, sadly. No village has ever been saved by burning everything to the ground.
The 105 Obama cabinet nominations netted 14 total No votes from Republicans in Congress. Yes, they obstructed damn near everything. But not to the point of paralyzation.
That being said, let most of these idiots get confirmed, then squash everything they try to do afterward like a bug. And while you're at it, filibuster whatever Supreme Court nominee they march up there.
TAGinMO says:
@cromartie:
Your statistic, if true, is the most persuasive defense I've heard. Maybe we are misremembering the GOP Senators' conduct during confirmation hearings for Obama's cabinet nominees. But I'm curious: is that 14 "No" votes in the full Senate, or 14 "No" votes in committee? Let's be sure we're comparing apples to apples.
Also: if we take as a given that, as the minority party on a committee, Democrats can't prevent reporting the nominee to the full Senate for a vote even if they all vote "No," how would a "No" vote represent obstructing "to the point of paraly[sis]"…or even "obstruction" at all, for that matter?
fastEddie says:
It doesn't matter if they vote for them or not. Unless that can convince Republicans to vote against them ( Jeff Sessions is KKK for example, Betsy DeVos literally hates public education and has $$ conflicts ) they are going to pass anyway. At least this way, when they have issues with legislation later, it will be principled instead of just partisan. Just being partisan would give them cover to drop the filibuster.
quixote says:
Miragonz said it best on twitter: the two parties are playing a board game, but the Repubs light the house on fire. The Dems just keep sitting there trying to win the board game.
A sociopathic perv with attention deficit disorder has been installed in the White House because a Dem President was too busy worrying about being called names by the Repubs. He sat on evidence *he knew about since at least July*. Evidence. Not some bullshit cooked up by Chaffetz. But it's more important to install a perv than, perhaps, try to stop the house burning down.
Now Congress carries on the spineless tradition. Oh gee they have the votes. Oh gee we wouldn't win anyway. Oh gee we have a paper full of promises.
Personally, this does not make me hopeful anyone is going to stand up to the Dumpsterfire's garbage appointments to the Supremes. If the Dems planned on ever doing anything, you'd think they'd want to get some practice.
Timurid says:
Apparently Warren was serious about never wanting to be President.
sluggo says:
For god's sake, democratic leadership would surrender to unarmed Frenchmen.
Andrew Laurence says:
Warren is dead to me. Next time I see my Warren t-shirt, it's going in the trash. She took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Carson is a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and she couldn't even muster a no vote? Fuck her.
Major Kong says:
@sluggo
At least the food in the French POW camps would be good.
SteveInMn says:
For much of the presidential campaign we were told by Democratic officials that electing Trump would an absolute disaster for the country. Now Democratic Senators want to work with him and make the best of the situation. Voters will be justified in being skeptical the next time they are told they need to vote for a Democrat to keep a dangerous Republican out.
democommie says:
I can't get to "Spineless" democrats, just as I could never really see Neville Chamberlain as spineless. Both Chamberlain and the Democrats in the U.S. Congress from 1980 through today (for the most part) have had to deal with a hostile opposition who do not simply disagree on matters of policy and procedure but attack them for being insufficiently patriotic/GODLY.
I would not be anything like those dems that are looked upon as craven surrender monkeys by some here and the vast majority of the dysintelligenitalia (regardless of their political affiliations). I will of course never stand for election to any office because I have no self-control when it comes to dealing with assholes.
The current Democratic congressional minority are either cowed or, and this is far worse, deliberately avoiding confrontation in an attempt to stay in office.
Fuck Trumpligula and everything he stands for. Truth to power, especially when it's ugly.
Quixote:
I have ADD; that fucker, Trumpligula has NPD–YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.
Mo says:
Do we have to riot and burn down Watts again?
Or would that be a bad idea, seeing as how local police have stocked up on war surplus military rigs and half our neighbors are gun-humping Trumpalos just itching to demonstrate that Black Lives Don't Matter?
What's Plan B?
Brian M says:
Mo:
I continue to buy lottery tickets. New Zealand looks really pretty (and is not any more seismic than the "overdue for a Big One West Coast).
April says:
And don't forget Sherrod Brown…traitors, the both of them!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/womens-march-democrats-base_us_588a490ce4b061cf898d7e98?75jyvi&
Khaled says:
I think the Carson crap is stupid, but I echo what Pierce said on his blog: Any Dem who votes for Sessions should be thrown out of the party. Fuck that guy and fuck those assholes in Alabama who voted for his racist ass. The "compromise" bullshit is mildly amusing when it comes to morons like Carson, but Sessions is a fucking racist asshole who shouldn't be allowed near the USAG office.
Monkey Business says:
In a tactical way, this makes sense. You save the heavy artillery for DeVos and Sessions.
But in a strategic way, it's plum fuck stupid. You have a base that thinks they're witnessing the end of Western civilization, utterly unconvinced the Democratic party will muster even a token fight. Hundreds of thousands of people JUST flooded the streets to protest.
Compromise with the GOP has been a fool's errand for decades, and yet we're still hoping for good governance. They'll be crowing about it all the way to the gulags.
democommie says:
It is all a bit TOO close to the depiction of the capos in the "Holocaust" mini-series.
Andrew Laurence says:
@Monkey Business: No votes are not like artillery. You get an unlimited number. Warren and Brown had one job: Vote NO to every single one of these ass clowns. They failed.
Major Kong says:
@demo
I actually agree with you about Chamberlain.
By some accounts he knew they would probably have to fight Germany at some point but didn't think they had sufficiently rearmed to do it in 1938.
France maybe could have done it but their military was totally geared towards defense. Probably the textbook example of "fighting the last war".
democommie says:
@Major Kong:
I'll take a half-loaf every time, sir!
noshoes says:
RESIST RESIST RESIST
Emerson Dameron says:
For Trump and his fans, anything short of pathetic, bootlicking fealty will scan as treason. Why worry about alienating them?
MS says:
"The 105 Obama cabinet nominations netted 14 total No votes from Republicans in Congress. Yes, they obstructed damn near everything. But not to the point of paralyzation."
What? While Republicans did let some confirmations go through on voice votes, for anything contentious they had 30+ Republican No votes on every one.
Lit3Bolt says:
I sympathize with both the voters and the Senators on this.
One, the media narrative is currently the Trump WH is imploding. Dems going full obstruction on every nominee would distract from that headline and legitimize Trump.
Two, the media does not play fair to the Left and while the base may cheer if Senators symbolically protested everything, the MSM AND Fox News would rip the Dems apart for "escalation" and "re-litigating the election" and "sore losers."
Three, the President appointing his Cabinet with minimal opposition is one of the few political norms we have left. We can debate the value of destroying them, but I doubt it would end well for liberals or minorities.
Four, this rallies the base for small potatoes instead of the bigger things in the pipeline…the ACA, the SCOTUS pick, massive tax/budget cuts, military spending bills, and the biggest one of them all, Medicare/Medicaid/SS. That's when Dems need to be grandstanding atop of tanks giving speeches, not over Ben Carson's warming a seat somewhere in Washington. Media loves the dramatic but not the predictable (and futile and symbolic) "no."
BUT…
Five, this does feed into the "spineless Dem" narrative, along with "not a member of an organized party." If Trump is an existential threat, why is no Democratic Senator treating him like one other than Gillibrand? Have Democrats really forgotten how Obama's political career was jumpstarted by early opposition to Iraq War?
Six, Democrats seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from 2016 and appear to be pivoting to the right to chase Southernized Midwesterners. This will not end well IMO, but maybe smarter people than me have done the electoral math and demographic counts and concluded that they have no other choice.
Seven, you are risking demoralizing your base into apathy when you need them the most, in the streets and protesting, because that's all you've got to stop some horrible legislation. You're also at risk of hemorrhaging support for 2018 as some liberals conclude the Dems are worthless.
HOWEVER…
Eight, if you think getting rid of Elizabeth Warren helps you or your cause in any manner, I have some Trump University seminars to sell you. Half a loaf is indeed better than no bread. The Left is not organized enough, doesn't have enough money or clout, is routinely dismissed by the media, and is divided into factions. The fact that people are declaring "ELIZABETH WARREN IS DEAD TO ME NOW" in a debate over the value of a futile and symbolic gesture of political opposition and are threatening to fall into fratricidal in-fighting over it should emphasize to everyone how weak we really are and how much we need each other to oppose Trump.
tl;dr This is a marathon, not a sprint.
JDM says:
I don't think even the Nazi uniform would do it. The nominee could show up with a forehead scar put there by Aldo Raine and they'd sail through with plenty of Democrats' votes.
That needs to stop. But I don't see, or foresee, it happening.
geoff says:
Did Carson not initially decline a cabinet appointment for the reason that he had "no government experience"? Seriously, the man has no qualifications whatsoever! Why is this even a question?
NickT says:
I think Warren's position is much more realistic than the rage-leaders on here understand. Trump can get pretty much anyone he wants confirmed, no matter what the Democrats do. You might as well get what promises and concessions you can out of the relatively less repulsive nominees, even if there is no way to enforce them. Those commitments can be used to embarrass Carson and Trump later when they screw up – as they most certainly will. Someone like Sessions is never going to pretend to care about these things, so you vote a straight No against him because there's nothing you can gain by voting yes that is remotely worth the price. That's the strategic view of matters and Warren's play was the right one. Fight smart and you might just win. Or you can keep throwing another log on the fire of self-righteous impotent rage that some of you love so much – and keep losing.
As for those who talk glibly about voting against Warren or not showing up to vote because that'll show her – well, that strategy worked out so well for Susan Sarandon, didn't it?
jcdenton says:
Seconding @Lit3Bolt on this. Let's see how the Dems do when it comes to Sessions, ACA and the rest. I think that's when the real fireworks need to come out, and if they don't then you can start to plan for building your own party/bomb shelter.
geoff says:
@NickT, despite my above comment (paraphrasing) "fuck Ben Carson and the fucking horse he rode in on" I do see some sense in Warren's "let's get 'em to make some promises on paper and kick their asses when they inevitably don't come through because they're gonna be confirmed anyway" strategy.
Hell, I dunno. Senator Professor Warren doesn't need to answer to any voters except those in MA. Why not go down (and the Dems are for sure going down for at least the next two years) fighting?
Ormond Otvos says:
I've seen nonpolitical interviews with Carson where he sounded rational, intelligent and well-informed. He was a surgeon in a tricky specialty, and medical school ain't for dummies.
I'm not following the rage leaders. It's time to think ahead.
Aurora S says:
We do realize that it's been a week, right? Perhaps we should pace our rage just a tad and not lose our shit over Ben fucking Carson. Warren is handing him a chance to make good on his word; yes–it's almost certain that they'll renege, but it gives the few junkyard dogs on the side of the Dems an opportunity to shove the GOP's fucking noses in it later. The administration shows all signs that they'll spend the next four years gaslighting the hell out of the country and the Dems. They will (and they do) deny things that they have provably said and done when confronted with recorded evidence of their own lies, and then throw tantrums and say that they're the victims of persecution when called out–this is to keep us from trusting our own sense of reality. It's like Orwell said–when you control the past, you control the present. When you control the present, you control the future.
This is actually kind of a smart move on her part. Getting promises signed in writing (even if total bullshit) makes it hard to deny you've even made them later on. It's within the realm of possibility that that little slip up on Carson's part may cost him his job later for weakening Trump's monopoly on the truth.
Otis says:
So "Rage Leaders" is now the new "Bernie Bros"? Good to know.
"This is actually kind of a smart move on her part." How could it not be?
She's playing a chessboard strategy beyond the ken of mere mortals. You might call it playing in the 11th dimension.
Sweet Jesus. Who among the electorate will give one single flying fuck about her pandering excuses. She consented to the appointment of a manifestly unqualified candidate. This third-way, triangulating horseshit has made the Democrats irrelevant as an opposition party.
RosiesDad says:
When I called my Senator (Pat Toomey) to voice my opposition to Trump's nominees, there are several who are higher on my list to object to. DeVos, Pruitt, Sessions, Price are all much worse, and will be in positions to do much more damage than Carson.
Gotta pick your fights.
Also, when Trump names his SCOTUS nominee next week, unless it's Merrick Garland or someone more liberal than Garland, the Democratic caucus should follow the lead of the Republicans and just say no. Block him for the entire term of this Senate or until McConnell invokes the nuclear option.
Major Kong says:
I'm sure Carson is quite intelligent, it's just that he seems to believe crazy conspiracy theories. He's like a walking chain email sometimes.
I once worked with someone like that. Quite intelligent but I used to joke that he "thought The X-Files was a documentary".
I'd say the same about Flynn, which is much scarier since he's in a national security position.
geoff says:
@RosiesDad, in the immortal words of Nancy Reagan, "Just Say No", right? Ben Carson, whatever; Trump's Supreme Court nominee needs to be unanimously blocked as a matter of principle. I still can't believe McConnell blocked Garland's nomination for almost a year, to the extent of denying him ANY kind of hearing, much less a vote. Seems like "ZOMG The Supreme Court" was a big talking point from mainstream Dems to those of us less than enthused with the recent Presidential nominee. We'll find out if they were serious pretty soon– I think they're gonna roll over as usual.
RosiesDad says:
@geoff: ZOMG SCOTUS was my main justification for voting for Clinton. Alas, I've been told by some of her fervent supporters that she lost because I wasn't full-throated enough in my support of her candidacy.
I hope the Dems don't roll over on Trump's nominee but you may be right.
c u n d gulag says:
As of yesterday, one of my US Senators has said "HELL NO!!!" to every t-RUMP nominee and "policy" idea:
She is, Kirstin Gillibrand, and I'm calling her office today to volunteer for her 2020 Presidential run, if/when she decides to make a go of it.
My other Senator, is UpChuck Schemer, who's about as useful as mammaries on a male bovine, whose spine isn't even as tough and durable as liquid Jello!
doug says:
If you thought that Ms Warren was on your side, you are wrong….another elite in politics…It matters not their brand, you are not their customer if you are reading this……
Neither am I…
Jestbill says:
You guys are so easy to troll!
General Wainright would like a word.
MS says:
Symbolism makes votes more important, not less. If I have a vote with no practical effect either way, the only thing that vote does is symbolize "am I with these other guys, or against them?"
Democrats are choosing to be with Trump. And Cory Booker is choosing to be with Merck, rather than his constituents.
Their choice. Let's see how well it works out for them. People will probably rush to vote for a party that is Trump-lite, right?
Hint: in Canada, it is routine for opposition parties to vote against about 95% of what the governing party does, as a bloc. As their votes typically have no practical effect, all they can do is signal to the public that they are different from the governing party, so if you have a beef with the governing party, here's an alternative.
democommie says:
Parliamentary governments are a bit different. In countries where minor parties get some say, any say, in policy decisions it makes a LOT of sense to be seen by both the ruling bloc and your constituents (as well as other pols' constituents) as being opposed on policy/procedural grounds or in principle.
The minorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress not only have to fight their "esteemed colleagues*" across the Grand Canyonesqueish political divide but also a generally ambivalent if not outright hostile press PLUS a complete lack of support from any but the most partisan of their constituents.
I regret their "strategy", it's doomed to failure, ,methinks. OTOH, I certainly understand their flawed reasoning–I just wish that they did.
BTW. ELECT LOCAL OFFICIALS WHO AREN'T BATSHIT INSANE.
* Or steaming piles of feces with "GOPatriotiKKKMurKKKa!" lapel pins
democommie says:
BTW, would a picture of Derf Leader with a nicely colored legend"
"You GoMANGO!" be in keeping with his stature.
I mean he is, as the LEADER OF THE FR–, nah, fuck it, I can't even think that.
Robert Walker-Smith says:
Mentioning Chamberlain reminds me of the Oster Conspiracy.
In the days leading up to the Munich conference, General Oster and other Wehrmacht officers plotted a coup. They knew that Germany was in no position to take on Britain and France. They also believed that once Hitler was refused the Sudetenland, he would order an invasion. This would trigger an attack on Germany, which Oster and the others desperately wanted to avoid.
So the moment the invasion was announced, they would attack government buildings, arrest or kill Hitler, and plead with the British and French to call off *their* invasion. Germany would be saved!
Then word came that Hitler had gotten the Sudetenland. He had successfully bluffed the very powers that had devastated the country twenty years before. No need for a coup, after all.
mothra says:
I'm with Lit3Bolt on this one. Part of me wants Democrats to just scream no at everything, and part of me wants them to do what Warren did to Carson–get written promises from them and then endlessly harass them when they inevitably renege.
Rich S. says:
Republicans never had a reason to complain about Obama's cabinet nominees. Giethner? Larry Summers (although not in the cabinet)? The republicans were probably happy with those guys carrying water for Wall St. as they did.
Aurora S says:
It is also the nature of the Left to say, "Where did we go wrong?" and hypercritically analyze every little move and possible misstep when we don't get our way, while the Right says, "OK, how can we make this the Democrats' fault?" The Republican strategy appears to work better. So essentially, the Democrats and the Republicans both blame the Democrats for everything, and the Left keeps devouring itself while the Right steals the show. The "Liberal Weakness", as my friend calls it, is basically demonstrating self-awareness with an unwillingness to give up the role of being The Adults In The Room when politically advisable.
You've got one side that follows the rules because it's the Honorable Thing To Do, and the other side that does whatever the fuck it wants because Winning. So who wins? Of course it's going to be the underhanded motherfuckers. So we're going to punish our own for not being stubbornly pure enough to martyr themselves? We just don't know how to do anything BUT lose and we need to stop romanticising it. Fire and Blood, motherfuckers.
jcdenton says:
@Aurora S (to follow on from what you've said)
There is a really frightening inability in progressives to separate self-criticism from actual moral responsibility. At a time like this, the only moral responsibility left to us is to win. Win for the frightened, win for the downtrodden and for the abused.
The time for the metaphorical firing squads is over. If you'd like to avoid the real ones, get behind the best imperfect politicians you can find (or join the party and run for office yourself) and lend them your voice and you full-throated support. Progressives need to strike a careful balance of pushing the pols in the right direction and supporting them like they were the fucking Mother of Dragons herself, but that's less of a challenge than dying without health care, so I'm sure we can figure it out.
Less nitpicking more ass kicking.
democommie says:
Maybe we should just rename the DNC, The NCRP. Now would actually be a really
* The Nearly Central* Right-Lite Party. Considering that, at the rate the Overton Window is sliding bigly to the right, "soft on crime" will prolly morph, soonly, into allowing those condemned for offenses against POG's** to be shot by a firing squad instead of being hanged, drawn and quartered.
** Pissed Off Geriatrics
democommie says:
Finishing my previous half-thought–
Now would actually be a really good time to BEGIN to elect progressives and other humans to LOCAL offices, then county and state. The BatshitKKKrazzee mofos of the Trumpligulan Reichwing didn't take over the political process in one go. OTOH, when the dems were in power for about 40 years (for some definition of "in power") they weren't with the glaring exception of people like Joe McCarthy–my bad, he was ALSO a reptilican–out to literally kill their political opponents.
Parrotlover77 says:
Lest anyone think this is purely a function of establishment Democrats, Bernie Sanders' racing to the microphone to praise Trump for killing the already deqd-man-walking TPP and his statement that he looks forward to working with Trump on trade is exactly the same thing. So, what do we do? We can complain and wax philosophic about a liberal party that doesn't exist and would only have support of about 15% of the electorate of a good day, or we can call call CALL Warren, Sanders, et al, and tell them to grow a backbone and stop bending over backwards to show how reasonable they are.
jcdenton says:
@democommie
"Now would actually be a really good time to BEGIN to elect progressives and other humans to LOCAL offices, then county and state."
That's what the Tea Party did. Well, except for the "progressives" and "humans" part.
I wish Ed would post some constructive advice on how to start rolling back the fascist state.
democommie says:
Burning crosses on lawns was one of their "old timey" feel good stand-bys. Other than that, I got nothin'.
democommie says:
I was cleaning up around the kitchen and came across a handful of foam decorating balls. They are plain white and will take paint, glitter and other crafts items.
I was just thinking, a note to congress critters with a pair of them enclosed, decorated or unadorned, with a note. Something along the lines of:
You are one of (whatever # of dems are in the 2 houses at the moment) who is receiving these. Yes everyone in your party is getting them-Oh, except for Sen. Gillibfrand of NY–she's already got a pair.
Perhaps if your wife, daughter, sister aunt, granny or some other woman in your family went to one of the rallies or marches on 1/21/17 to protest Trumpligula's apparent descent into madness you can borrow their balls.
When you either grow a new pair or find the ones that you seem to have lost, you may pass these along to one of your colleagues or a political hopeful of like persuasion.
Yours in outrage
jcdenton says:
@democommie
What do women congress critters get? :p
As Dan Savage says (paraphrased), "we call people pussies implying that they're weak, but in fact testicles are the tender dangly bits and vaginas are the ones able to push out a baby and keep on ticking".
democommie says:
Oh, they all get the balls, but only the men will see it as an indictment/attack on their masculinity–as intended.
Tillys says:
Seriously lots of very good info.
guess factory coupons says:
Also bisher finde ich den diesjährigen Adventskalender ziemlich mies. Zum einen wegen der gesamten Präsentation. In den letzten Jahren war es immer ein cool kreiertes Bild einer comichaften, Rockigen Weihnachtsszenarie mit mehreren Türchen verteilt. Nun ist es einfach nur noch eine große Tür mit irgendwelchen Fratzen daneben. Und was den Inhalt angeht…naja da haben sich die Herrschaften von EMP aber schonmal mehr Mühe gegeben. Eine billige 0815 Stofftüte mit dem EMP Logo drauf?? Und noch dazu muss man dafür, für 50 € bei euch einkaufen??!! Sorry Leute aber das ist einfach nur Beschi**!