I don't buy Corona because it is cheap, watery beer. Gross. Lighter-color beer can still have a rich body and a crisp taste but I prefer darker brews or stouts.
I don't buy American beer for the very same reason.
I has half expecting Trump during his press conference to be like "What I am told, to prevent this type of virus is to make sure you put a little lemon wedge in the bottle before drinking it. I don't touch the stuff, it conflicts with my Adderall prescription. But put the little lemon wedge in and you should be fine. Or, just drink American beer. I am told we have the best beer in the world. No other nation can compete."
I don't buy American beer for the very same reason.
There are plenty of good brews here but you have to stick with mircobreweries and/or craft beers; the mass-produced stuff is unfit for human consumption.
Beer--bringing diverse humans together since 8,000 BC.
Oh, by the way...Viktor Shokin, the Ukranian prosecutor whom some claim Joe Biden had fired by pressuring Ukraine via withholding aid money, and his lawer managed to get the Ukranian Anti-Corruption Action Center to launch an investigation into Joe Biden about those allegations.
You only *thought* that Pandora's Box had been closed.
I don't buy American beer for the very same reason.
There are plenty of good brews here but you have to stick with mircobreweries and/or craft beers; the mass-produced stuff is unfit for human consumption.
Beer--bringing diverse humans together since 8,000 BC.
I'm not sure you and I have ever seen more eye to eye on a subject. I'd give you two agrees, if I could.
(Although I prefer IPAs to Stouts and Porters, but still, I like all of them pretty well).
Oh, by the way...Viktor Shokin, the Ukranian prosecutor whom some claim Joe Biden had fired by pressuring Ukraine via withholding aid money, and his lawer managed to get the Ukranian Anti-Corruption Action Center to launch an investigation into Joe Biden about those allegations.
You only *thought* that Pandora's Box had been closed.
Shocking. Just kidding it's not. Rudy Gulliiani still over there? Other Republicans? Neither Ukraine nor the Republican party can be taken seriously since they are leveraging the US government against Ukraine to deliver election meddling for Trump.
Trump was not held to account through impeachment because cowardly Republicans let him skate so he's determined to get something to show for his previous election meddling efforts. Poor Ukraine is caught in a hard place between Putin and Trump who acts in coordination with Putin on a lot of things.
And speaking of Pandora's box that isn't closed could Trump be impeached again for causing the spread of Coronavirus through his response to the disease or for politicizing the Justice department or for a hundred other reasons?
House panel launches inquiry into Trump's attorney general over possible interference
The House judiciary committee is launching a wide-ranging inquiry into the attorney general, William Barr, and the justice department, demanding briefings, documents and interviews with 15 officials as it tries to determine whether there has been improper political interference in federal law enforcement.
The committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, on Friday sent Barr a letter listing a series of matters that the committee finds “deeply troubling”, including Barr’s involvement in the case of Donald Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone.
And speaking of Pandora's box that isn't closed could Trump be impeached again for causing the spread of Coronavirus through his response to the disease or for politicizing the Justice department or for a hundred other reasons?
Neither Trump nor his policies are *causing* the disease to spread; it is a virus, so it spreads on its own regardless of the amount of action we take.
Just like last time, the House of Representatives may impeach either Trump or Attorney General Barr at any time for any reason--all they have to do is convene, hold a vote, and impeach. They could do it in one day if they really wanted to because they do not have to *prove* why they are impeaching someone. Impeachment re: corona? Very weak. Impeachment because of possible meddling into Dept. of Justice affairs? That would be the correct approach.
Impeaching now, in the few months before national conventions? I wouldn't. I recommend waiting until after November elections--if Trump loses then you don't have to waste the time or energy; if he wins then they may proceed after Inauguration and take their time...presuming they did not lose a majority in the House. If Democrats lose the House then there would be no means with which they could oppose him. Of course, if they retain the House they still won't retake the Senate so impeachment would wind up in a "not guilty" vote again. Why bother? Just to get on his nerves?
In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled it wouldn't police the standoff between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House.
"If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual 'overseers' of our elected officials. That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case," Judge Thomas Griffith wrote in the opinion.
The case has tested whether the White House could block its current and former officials from speaking to Congress.
The appeal should already be on its way to the Supreme Court.
And speaking of Pandora's box that isn't closed could Trump be impeached again for causing the spread of Coronavirus through his response to the disease or for politicizing the Justice department or for a hundred other reasons?
Neither Trump nor his policies are *causing* the disease to spread; it is a virus, so it spreads on its own regardless of the amount of action we take.
Just like last time, the House of Representatives may impeach either Trump or Attorney General Barr at any time for any reason--all they have to do is convene, hold a vote, and impeach. They could do it in one day if they really wanted to because they do not have to *prove* why they are impeaching someone. Impeachment re: corona? Very weak. Impeachment because of possible meddling into Dept. of Justice affairs? That would be the correct approach.
Impeaching now, in the few months before national conventions? I wouldn't. I recommend waiting until after November elections--if Trump loses then you don't have to waste the time or energy; if he wins then they may proceed after Inauguration and take their time...presuming they did not lose a majority in the House. If Democrats lose the House then there would be no means with which they could oppose him. Of course, if they retain the House they still won't retake the Senate so impeachment would wind up in a "not guilty" vote again. Why bother? Just to get on his nerves?
In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled it wouldn't police the standoff between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House.
"If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual 'overseers' of our elected officials. That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case," Judge Thomas Griffith wrote in the opinion.
The case has tested whether the White House could block its current and former officials from speaking to Congress.
The appeal should already be on its way to the Supreme Court.
The appeal should already be on its way to the Supreme Court? Why? The Trump appointed judges should recuse themselves from this one but intentionally won't and they can't be trusted. It's become a kangaroo court. What's the rush?
And denying McGahn has to testify is even more reason to not rush 2nd and subsequent impeachments, don't you think.
We already know the Senate is merely a rubber stamp - they won't consider any facts or evidence you don't stuff in their face and even then they'll try and ignore it. So the House will request documents, Barr will not provide them. They may or may not go to court over it. MAGA cultists will cheer the budding authoritarian state. But Democrats at least can be counted on to do the right thing even when Republicans refuse.
Trump's policies and his administration are *causing* the disease to spread. Yes, it is a virus, so it spreads on its own regardless of the amount of action we take, however his actions have literally set the stage and spread the disease.
California is monitoring 8400 people or something for Coronavirus and the CDC, which Trump has gutted in budgets and firings, has provided 200 or so testing kits. 200 kits to test over 8000 people.
Trump's HHS team literally met Coronavirus people from China without protection and then got on planes to travel back all around the country. No protection. Spreading the disease through intentional mismanagement.
Trump appointed, a politician not a health expert Mike Pence, who is today headed to Florida to do a $25,000 per plate fundraiser to contain the message and he has taken away the ability of Medical personnel and experts to speak on the issue. Mike Pence was nearly single handedly responsible for an HIV epidemic as Governor of Indiana and doesn't believe in science.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he' does not mean to be trying to spread the disease but it's hard to see how he could do a worse job.
Alot of people dismiss this as simply freaking out, but I think alot of those people may not have someone with a severely compromised immune system in their lives. If I get it, I might have a cough and sweat. If my girlfriend who has no ability to fight off much of anything after her stem cell transplant gets it, I have no idea what will happen. But since the regular flu is capable of knocking her out for weeks if not a month, I don't like the odds.
And it may not seem like much, but I would really appreciate:
1.) Having a President I can trust not to lie about it.
2.) Having a President I think gives a single shit about how it turns out beyond his own reelection chances.
3.). Having a President who can even comprehend what is taking place.
4.) Having a political party in power that hasn't entirely given itself over to anti-intellectualism, to the point where I KNOW for a fact millions of people are going to ignore how serious this is out of nothing but spite for the media and science, and that every one of them who does is going to move this thing across the country like a hot potato.
What is one of the things the White House is mulling over in response?? Tax cuts. It's basically a paraody at this point.
Edit: He's now gone full Alex Jones. He just called the entire thing a "hoax" at a rally in South Carolina. What dangerous, demented freak. It's utter lunacy for him to be saying such a thing at this juncture.
What an elaborate hoax. Indeed, so elaborate that thousands of people in China were wiling to DIE to perpetuate it. But who am I kidding?? This is the crowd who believes Sandy Hook was a false flag.
They're partisan hacks, all of them, every single Republican, since McCain died (ok except Romney a tiny bit). They're the communist party from Chernobyl - anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-reality, spinning every disaster to make itself look as good as possible while reality tells a different story.
What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.
His comments tonight are unconscionable in the face of a possible public health crisis. He's an imminent threat to everyone in this country, whether they know it or not.
Meanwhile, another case with no connections to Asia in Oregon. And the patient has been working in a school for the last week. This is why we banged the drum, this is why we kept pounding the goddamn table. He is not fit to hold office, and a moment like THIS is why. Everyone assumed he would be fine, as long as no external crisis comes into play. Talk about walking on thin ice. This whole bubble is about to pop.
His comments tonight are unconscionable in the face of a possible public health crisis. He's an imminent threat to everyone in this country, whether they know it or not.
Meanwhile, another case with no connections to Asia in Oregon. And the patient has been working in a school for the last week. This is why we banged the drum, this is why we kept pounding the goddamn table. He is not fit to hold office, and a moment like THIS is why. Everyone assumed he would be fine, as long as no external crisis comes into play. Talk about walking on thin ice. This whole bubble is about to pop.
The bubbles going to pop but they've positioned themselves to lie about it as the titantic sinks.
1) Lie
2) Attack the messenger
3) Blame somebody else
4) Do anything but face reality
5) go back to step 1
They can't handle criticism of the response, what kind of BS is that? DO A BETTER JOB is the correct response not running off and crying about it, Republicans.
The US has signed a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The intention is to pull all troops out within 14 months if the Taliban keep their end of the deal, in particular:
- seeking to reach an agreement with the Afghan government (which has not been involved in the talks to date)
- not to allow al-Qaeda, Islamic State or similar extremist groups to operate in their territory.
I'm skeptical whether the Taliban really are ready to participate in a democratic system, but we'll no doubt see in due course.
The US has signed a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The intention is to pull all troops out within 14 months if the Taliban keep their end of the deal, in particular:
- seeking to reach an agreement with the Afghan government (which has not been involved in the talks to date)
- not to allow al-Qaeda, Islamic State or similar extremist groups to operate in their territory.
I'm skeptical whether the Taliban really are ready to participate in a democratic system, but we'll no doubt see in due course.
This is great news and kudos to the Trump administration for finally being able to end it. I however think it will have the same impact as Nixon ending the Vietnam war.
It is alleged that the Afghan government is one of the most corrupt in the world and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw it fall out of democracy with the reinstatement of Taliban rule.
I also highly doubt the Taliban can actually prevent other groups from forming terrorist organizations there but as long as they are not complicit in the terrorism, Americans should stay out of their way as their current forces are already spread too thinly.
It will be interesting to see however where women’s rights will go in Afghanistan. I am disheartened that it was not part of the peace talks.
Afghan wins though IMO. There has been enough civilian loss of life that just ending this thing will allow some form of normality to emerge and grow from.
But why would they think we would hold our end of the deal at all? How many deals did make and break since Trump took office?
Because Trump doesn't care what happens to Afghanistan. There is nothing there that benefits him and no future leader will want to recommit troops to something that has raged on for so long unless they are forced to do so by an act of war.
The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor in the McGahn opinion were appointed by Bush 1 and Bush 2.
The dissent, written by Clinton-appointee Judge Judith W. Rogers, is a must-read. Go to the 58th page of to read it in full of this document.
Here's a summary:
- House attorneys had argued that the obstruction to which McGahn bore witness could constitute an impeachable offense. Rogers hit upon this multiple times in her dissent that's why refusing to make him testify is wrong. "In the context of impeachment, when the accuracy and thoroughness of the investigation may well determine whether the President remains in office, the House’s need for information is at its zenith," she wrote.
- Rogers addressed the origin of the subpoena: the Mueller investigation. In his April 2019 report, Special Counsel Robert Mueller noted that sitting presidents cannot be indicted under current Justice Department policy. "Thus, as the Special Counsel noted, impeachment would be the only available mechanism through which to address potential Presidential misconduct identified in the Report," Rogers wrote.
Obviously "The House’s power of impeachment thus serves as a critical check upon the President."
- Rogers added that Trump had made himself the first President in U.S. history to meet "the House’s attempt to perform its constitutional responsibility with sweeping categorical resistance."
She says "given the long history of Presidential cooperation with congressional investigations" Rogers said on to say that it was "unsurprising" that there is a dearth of case law in federal court on what happens in disputes between Congress and the White House when the executive branch refuses to obey subpoenas issued by lawmakers.
"The degree of Presidential interference with the constitutional responsibilities of Congress, giving rise to the instant lawsuit, is a dramatic break with past Presidential practice of acknowledging the gravity of Congress’s constitutional responsibilities, including impeachment, and responding with requested information," she added.
With that being said lets look at what the two Republican judges believe Congress should do:
They mention inherent contempt as an option, Rogers notes how difficult it would be to arrest a member of the executive branch:
- "It suffices here to note that the prospect that the House will direct its Sergeant at Arms to arrest McGahn is vanishingly slim, so long as a more peaceable judicial alternative remains available."
Republican judges suggest instead that Congress withhold funding, essentially shutting down government until the executive branch capitulates (p32-33):
"Take the Appropriations Clause. The Executive Branch cannot spend a dime without Congress’s consent, U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 9, cl. 7, and that’s a powerful incentive to follow Congress’s instruction"
The majority goes on to suggest that Congress can also refuse to confirm any Trump appointee and conduct impeachment proceedings - both of which would require the Senate's cooperation (lol they are a rubber stamp):
"The dissent likewise discounts the Senate’s appointment power, the impeachment power, and the informal power to "publicly embarrass executive branch officials." Woo hoo that'll get a lot done.
The majority opinion by Republicans lays out the following scenario:
- With this range of political tools, Congress can tailor its sanctions to the gravity of the Executive Branch’s offense.
- A congressional inquiry may begin and end with a polite request for information.
- Or a chamber of Congress may escalate by, say, issuing a formal subpoena, threatening to withhold appropriations, or passing articles of impeachment.
- By the same token, the Executive Branch’s interest in reaching a mutually agreeable compromise should grow as Congress turns up the heat. See Devins, supra, at 132 (“[T]he executive and legislative branches negotiate with each other in an atmosphere in which each branch is aware of the other’s ability to raise the stakes and the complexity of the negotiating process.”).
- This political process also offers an array of possible resolutions in interbranch disputes—a diverse set of compromises and accommodations. For instance, the Executive Branch might agree to waive executive privilege if the Legislative Branch narrows its document request. Or if the dispute concerns an official’s testimony, the Executive Branch might agree to allow an official to answer written interrogatories or to testify in private. See, e.g., Decl. of Michael M. Purpura, Deputy Counsel to the President, J.A. 717 (noting that the White House Counsel’s Office discussed these possible accommodations with the Committee).
Bottom line the Republican judge opinion appears to be that:
- Presidents can't be forced to cooperate with impeachment proceedings
- Presidents also can't be forced to comply with subpoenas through the courts.
- Aside from the long-unused inherent contempt power, these "political weapons" strike at the functioning of government and their use entails inflicting pain on people and businesses who rely on government services, government contracts, and the timely administration of justice.
- Instead, Congress can try to coerce the execituve branch into compliance and Congress must shut down the government until the White House gives in, block nominations (if the senate is game for it), or revive its inherent contempt power, if it wants to gather facts about presidential misconduct going forward.
- Now the DC Circuit has decided that the courts cannot assist a House Committee pursuing those constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. So Republicans have taken the DOJ and the judicial branch out of the impeachement process.
- The House is supposed to impeach a President only on it's own with no support from anyone and no ability to gather facts. Very cool and very legal thanks Republicans.
Republican appointed judges ruled that Congress cannot hold the Executive Branch accountable. Their ruling ignores the reality of the situation we are in. Specifically, that the entire political party in control of the Senate is actively assisting in the stonewalling/abuse of power conducted by the Executive Branch.
I have to agree at first sight the reasoning seems odd. Even if the Senate were cooperating, the bottom line seems to be the expectation that Congress can shut down the government in order to hold the Executive to account. However, this ignores:
1) The Executive might choose not to be shut down and just continue operating anyway.
2) Even if the government did shut down, the President could argue that this was Congress' fault for pursuing a vendetta against him - potentially actually gaining an electoral advantage out of the dispute.
3) A government shutdown is an extremely blunt tool that hurts many people. Suggesting that as a remedy for a very specific offense seems like strange logic.
The majority reasoning is based on the idea of separation of powers and that the courts can't intervene in a purely governmental dispute without being able to see any harm to the rights of individuals outside the government. Of course, it's not difficult to see harm to rights being caused by a government shutdown, which is their proposed alternative ...
I have sympathy with the idea that things could get messy if the courts intervene in a 'political' dispute, but I also think that may in fact be necessary precisely to protect the idea of separation of powers. After going into detail into why the courts do not have the powers to intervene in a political situation, the majority decision does actually acknowledge that they have done so in the past in a number of cases (that started with Nixon). This quote from the decision gives some insight into their thinking "the innovations of the 1970s shouldn’t displace the established practice of the 1790s". The way government operates is so different now from 200+ years ago, that relying on a historical template doesn't fill me with confidence.
The decision lays out a series of precedents supporting the idea that the judiciary should not intervene in a dispute between the legislative and executive branches. That's certainly a reasonable general principle when there's a disagreement between the branches about how best to act in relation to a third party. However, it ignores the problem where the disagreement is a fight directly between the branches. To illustrate this, consider what would happen if the Senate had voted to remove Trump - and he had refused to be removed on the grounds Congress' acts were purely political and he had done nothing wrong. This would be, in the court's terms, still purely a political dispute for which they argue they have no jurisdiction - but it would also be a direct attack on the doctrine of separation of powers in the constitution which the courts are supposed to guard.
The majority decision does not agree with the dissenting view that the courts hold a "last resort" power to resolve interbranch disputes, but as set out above, without that power, I think there is ultimately no meaning to separation of powers. It's essentially the same argument as to whether the President is above the law - if you fully accept that, then there is no way to restrain the actions of the Executive other than hoping that other members of the Cabinet will rebel against the President.
I wrote the above after reading the majority decision itself. Interestingly though, there is an additional explanation by Judge Henderson. While stating she agrees with the majority decision, she then goes on to explain over 20 pages why she doesn't fully agree with it. Much of that is attacking the idea that Presidential advisers have absolute immunity against a requirement to testify. However, she also clearly feels there is a decent argument that Congress could assert an institutional injury to its own privileges, rather than having to identify an injury to a 3rd party outside government - but she felt that any decision about such significant constitutional principles should be made by the Supreme Court.
Biden won south carolina. meh, lol. Good for him. Hooray for the guy slightly more tolerable than Bloomberg. Tiny praise for you sir, though what does South Carolina know they have Senator Lindsey Graham.
Biden won south carolina. meh, lol. Good for him. Hooray for the guy slightly more tolerable than Bloomberg. Tiny praise for you sir, though what does South Carolina know they have Senator Lindsey Graham.
It's a big deal. He's now passed Sanders in the popular vote count of all states that have had primary/caucauses. That point is only salient because it was Bernie's supporters that suggested the popular vote in Iowa (which Sanders won) was more important than SDE (which Buttigieg won).
The size of Biden's victory (25+ points) shouldnt be understated either. He's going to win a LOT of votes on Super Tuesday now. Maybe not as many as Sanders, but closer. This race is shaping up to be closer than 2016, though I doubt it'll be as close as 2008.
If Biden clears the 15% hurdle in CA, it might be anyone's game (Biden will sweep up the southern states that vote, and it's not like Biden is weak in the midwest).
I don't buy Corona because it is cheap, watery beer.
I don't because it is beer, and beer is fricking gross.
(Wait, is this the unpopular opinion thread?)
(Okay, okay, a couple of times I had Belgian lambics and they were actually decent, but they're so different that they only technically are the same thing as most beer IMO. Otherwise I'll take gin and ciders and random liqueurs, please. Croatian walnut liqueur is amazing in Coke!)
So with Mayor Pete dropping out, here is how Super Tuesday shapes up:
1.) Bernie is at an advantage, but it's slightly less sure than it was a few days ago.
2). Biden HAS to win Texas. If Bernie wins in California and Texas, there is simply no way Biden can get the amount of delegates needed to win.
3.) Biden also has to get 15% in California. If he doesn't (and there is a real chance he won't since Bernie is dominating there and Elizabeth Warren is polling in second), then he is also in big trouble. Even though Bernie lost SC, he still got nearly 20% of the vote, which means he was awarded delegates.
4.) Biden would have a MUCH bigger chance if Bloomberg dropped out, but that is clearly not happening, since it's the first night Bloomberg is even really competing for anything. I'm quite confident Bloomberg is taking zero votes away from Bernie, but quite a few from Biden.
5.) In polling, the second choice of Buttigieg supporters has been evenly split between Sanders and Biden, which makes little sense to me, but we'll see how it plays out.
In summary?? Bernie wins California and Texas the nomination is pretty much his. If Biden wins Texas, but doesn't reach viability in California, it's also not really great for him. If Biden wins Texas AND pulls 20% in California?? Then we have a real two-person race. This is where we'll see if Bernie's inroads in the Hispanic community have real coattails. If they do, they'll be the wind in his sails.
Buttigeg dropping out is suspicious. Perhaps Biden offered him the VP nod? And Buttigeg probably felt this was his best path. Biden probably felt splitting the vote would hurt him. I bet they and Democratic donors determined to stop Bernie came to an agreement.
Biden won south carolina. meh, lol. Good for him. Hooray for the guy slightly more tolerable than Bloomberg. Tiny praise for you sir, though what does South Carolina know they have Senator Lindsey Graham.
It's a big deal. He's now passed Sanders in the popular vote count of all states that have had primary/caucauses. That point is only salient because it was Bernie's supporters that suggested the popular vote in Iowa (which Sanders won) was more important than SDE (which Buttigieg won).
The size of Biden's victory (25+ points) shouldnt be understated either. He's going to win a LOT of votes on Super Tuesday now. Maybe not as many as Sanders, but closer. This race is shaping up to be closer than 2016, though I doubt it'll be as close as 2008.
If Biden clears the 15% hurdle in CA, it might be anyone's game (Biden will sweep up the southern states that vote, and it's not like Biden is weak in the midwest).
It's one state his home state, let's see what happens on Super Tuesday. I'd expect him to get creamed in CA at least but let's see.
Or he did’t do as well in NC or Nevada that he thought he was going to do and his polling numbers in Super Tuesday states wasn’t were he was expecting it to be, so instead of wasting more money, just bow out now and grow on what he’s accomplished.
I highly doubt he will be given the VP position if Biden wins. He is too similar. Expect a person like Warren (but not Warren) to get the nod instead. Some other cushioned position maybe available for him though to help build his resume for 2028.
Or he did’t do as well in NC or Nevada that he thought he was going to do and his polling numbers in Super Tuesday states wasn’t were he was expecting it to be, so instead of wasting more money, just bow out now and grow on what he’s accomplished.
I highly doubt he will be given the VP position if Biden wins. He is too similar. Expect a person like Warren (but not Warren) to get the nod instead. Some other cushioned position maybe available for him though to help build his resume for 2028.
Stacy Abrams being Biden's VP is basically an even-money bet at this point if he were to get the nod, and I can't say I disagree with it even a little. In fact, I'd be shocked if she wasn't the selection if he somehow gets the nomination. I have absolutely no idea who Sanders will turn to, though he has said for sure what it WON'T be, which is a second old man. Neither of these guys can afford not to pick a woman, in my estimation. In the case of Biden, I would honestly hope he would commit to one term and hand the baton off to whoever is chosen.
Or he did’t do as well in NC or Nevada that he thought he was going to do and his polling numbers in Super Tuesday states wasn’t were he was expecting it to be, so instead of wasting more money, just bow out now and grow on what he’s accomplished.
I highly doubt he will be given the VP position if Biden wins. He is too similar. Expect a person like Warren (but not Warren) to get the nod instead. Some other cushioned position maybe available for him though to help build his resume for 2028.
Stacy Abrams being Biden's VP is basically an even-money bet at this point if he were to get the nod, and I can't say I disagree with it even a little. In fact, I'd be shocked if she wasn't the selection if he somehow gets the nomination. I have absolutely no idea who Sanders will turn to, though he has said for sure what it WON'T be, which is a second old man. Neither of these guys can afford not to pick a woman, in my estimation. In the case of Biden, I would honestly hope he would commit to one term and hand the baton off to whoever is chosen.
Yeah. Stacy Abrams looks like the best pick by a lot. I also wouldnt be shocked to see Kamala Harris's name pop up a bit, although she might wind up as an AG if the Dems win.
Klobuchar is also now out, and is going to endorse Biden before the end of the night. SC killed off all the moderates in the race except Biden and Bloomberg.
I honestly believe we're close to an even money race now between Biden and Sanders. Which is really bad for Sanders, considering that he A - Was waaaaaaaay ahead until SC, and B - Needs to have a commanding lead at the convention if he expect to get the nomination. If he and Biden are basically tied at a contested convention, it'll be no surprise who gets the nod in the end.
Incidentally - it's starting to look like the kerfuffle between Warren and Sanders is going to be one of the biggest issues for the Sanders campaign. She isnt leaving until after Super Tuesday, and there's a bit of anecdotal evidence that her older supporters dont want to jump into the Sanders camp (Her younger supporter seem like they'll go to Bernie when she drops out).
The worst elements of his supporters probably shouldnt have tweeted snakes at her...
The worst elements of his supporters probably shouldnt have tweeted snakes at her...
Yes. However she started this with the identity politics attack on Bernie. This came out of the blue and was obviously publicized as much as she possibly could to hurt Bernie. That hot mic moment at the debates was no accident either.
That is stabbing your friend in the back over nothing.
I don't believe he said it but even if he did, prove him wrong, you don't whine about it unless you've got an agenda. Warren did great knocking down Bloomberg for being a racist put of touch Billionaire trying to follow in Trump's footsteps in those regards. She burned her bridges with Bernie.
I doubt she can get back in his good graces either. She might not want to she might think Biden is her ticket. She seemingly make the woe is me comment about Bernie to put herself in the good graces of the centrists running. She chose her bed, now she's gotta lay in it. She isn't going anywhere
Why is she still in the race when people who have done better than she has have dropped out? She's still there, with the backing of centrists and the Democratic establishment, to split the progressive vote tomorrow. Same reason Klob, and Butti dropped out - to help Hillary Clinton 2.0 and hurt Bernie again.
The worst elements of his supporters probably shouldnt have tweeted snakes at her...
Yes. However she started this with the identity politics attack on Bernie. This came out of the blue and was obviously publicized as much as she possibly could to hurt Bernie. That hot mic moment at the debates was no accident either.
That is stabbing your friend in the back over nothing.
I don't believe he said it but even if he did, prove him wrong, you don't whine about it unless you've got an agenda. Warren did great knocking down Bloomberg for being a racist put of touch Billionaire trying to follow in Trump's footsteps in those regards. She burned her bridges with Bernie.
I doubt she can get back in his good graces either. She might not want to she might think Biden is her ticket. She seemingly make the woe is me comment about Bernie to put herself in the good graces of the centrists running. She chose her bed, now she's gotta lay in it. She isn't going anywhere
Why is she still in the race when people who have done better than she has have dropped out? She's still there, with the backing of centrists and the Democratic establishment, to split the progressive vote tomorrow. Same reason Klob, and Butti dropped out - to help Hillary Clinton 2.0 and hurt Bernie again.
I guess we differ on what "nothing" is. She disagrees too, it would seem.
The rest is hot air and conjecture. Unless you have evidence to support this Warren deepstate anti bernie move, it's pretty much meaningless. What isnt meaningless is that the fallout between the two of them costed Warren a shot at the nomination. It might well be costing Bernie a shot at it too. The repercussions cut both ways.
Edit: Regardless - at the moment, He needs her more than she needs him. I say that meaning: Her chances at the nomination are effectively sunk. She's mostly done, except a hailmary attempt at a brokered convention where she winds up the least offensive candidate out of the 4 that might be left.
His chances arent sunk. If anything, he's still the front runner (if only barely) - and he needs her, and her delegates if he's going to have a reasonable chance to win (Be it by convincing her to leave the race immediately, or to pledge her delegates to him as soon as that can happen).
A Reagan appointed judge Royce Lamberth decided that Hillary Clinton must provide evidence to "Judicial Watch" (a rightwing misinformation group) about her emails.
March 3, 2020.
Activist Judges meddling in elections lol.
According to conservatives, Trump can never be questioned on the record about anything. He doesn't have to provide documents or testify under oath, none of his officials need to answer questions or provide documents, no witnesses are allowed at his impeachment trial.
But hillary's emails, that must be revealed because conservatives are reallly concerned about government transparency!
"Any further discovery should focus on whether she used a private server to evade [the Freedom of Information Act] and, as a corollary to that, what she understood about State's records management obligations," Lamberth wrote in his order.
What isnt meaningless is that the fallout between the two of them costed Warren a shot at the nomination. It might well be costing Bernie a shot at it too. The repercussions cut both ways.
She had little traction at that point anyway. This stunt, and it should be clear it was a stunt, "Uh Bernie said something months and months ago that I didn't like, ok is the hot mic on?", cost her more than it cost Bernie. She was searching for a shot in the arm and it didn't work.
The repercussions cut both ways. Well that seems to be the point. An attempt to cut both ways - for her to be cut up, and to cut Bernie down but it seems to have not helped her and tarnished Bernie a little bit over very little.
Look, we don't know what was said, months ago, was it "A woman can't win in today's political climate" or something as bad as "a woman can't be president now" could possibly be, or was she making the whole thing up. Bernie says he didn't say it. No matter what it isn't the most horrible thing I'm sure Warren has ever heard.
Either way, Bernie worked his ass off campaigning for Hillary and has supported women's rights his entire life. Either way for Warren, if this happened at all, should have seen that as a challenge and fought to prove him wrong. In the end, the nomination is not up to Bernie, it's up to voters. So a stunt crying about it accomplished nothing except hurting Warren's candidacy and smearing Bernie which seems to have been the entire point as demonstrated by the hot mic stunt "I KNOW WE'RE MICED BUT BERNIE YOU SAID A MEAN THING TO ME!". Come on. Staged.
Edit: Regardless - at the moment, He needs her more than she needs him. I say that meaning: Her chances at the nomination are effectively sunk. She's mostly done, except a hailmary attempt at a brokered convention where she winds up the least offensive candidate out of the 4 that might be left.
Yeah she's done. It's not so clear cut. He needs her? Not really. She doesn't really offer anything at this point. She screwed up. She attacked him over something that was pretty much nothing (as I explain above).
Why should he welcome her at this point? What's she going to do? Go endorse Biden? That would further damage her brand as a progressive at this point. So she's really painted herself into a corner. Most likely her only play that she's hoping for is to endorse Biden but after Biden somehow overcomes Bernie.
If that doesn't happen then she has to endorse Bernie after stabbing him in the back.
His chances arent sunk. If anything, he's still the front runner (if only barely) - and he needs her, and her delegates if he's going to have a reasonable chance to win (Be it by convincing her to leave the race immediately, or to pledge her delegates to him as soon as that can happen).
We'll see. Yes he needs delegates. It seems that the whole world is against him so he'll probably be screwed out of the nomination regardless and Warren seems to be fine with that. She made her play against him already.
It's conjecture. Meaningless? I guess you could say that if you feel that you can poo poo other people's analysis and opinions as meaningless.
Misrepresentation. That she was in some secret cabal of anti sanders establishment democrats is meaningless without proof. Not your opinion. Not your analysis. No one is going to indict her based on a conspiracy theory except the most partisan people who dont need evidence.
Once again, for the people in the back - Not. Your. Opinion. Not your analysis. That's not meaningless. Dont try to take the hit from a cheap shot I'm not making.
Yeah she's done. It's not so clear cut. He needs her? Not really. She doesn't really offer anything at this point. She screwed up. She attacked him over something that was pretty much nothing (as I explain above).
We'll see. Yes he needs delegates. It seems that the whole world is against him so he'll probably be screwed out of the nomination regardless and Warren seems to be fine with that. She made her play against him already.
You did not point out that if she quit, endorsed Sanders and campaigned for him, he'd likely win almost all delegates in California, and would run up really big numbers in the NE. He's going to win those states, but he needs to be counting on every possible delegate.
She's taking votes and delegates. Now - convention rules are such that if she drops out before the convention, I think she can offer her delegates to him on the first ballot (the one we all know he needs to win on, because if it's close... Biden's probably going to win).
Lost in all of this is: She's no friend of Biden's. Not at all, it's understood that they rather dislike each other. So I doubt she's his pawn, as you suggested above.
Comments
I don't buy American beer for the very same reason.
I has half expecting Trump during his press conference to be like "What I am told, to prevent this type of virus is to make sure you put a little lemon wedge in the bottle before drinking it. I don't touch the stuff, it conflicts with my Adderall prescription. But put the little lemon wedge in and you should be fine. Or, just drink American beer. I am told we have the best beer in the world. No other nation can compete."
There are plenty of good brews here but you have to stick with mircobreweries and/or craft beers; the mass-produced stuff is unfit for human consumption.
Beer--bringing diverse humans together since 8,000 BC.
You only *thought* that Pandora's Box had been closed.
I'm not sure you and I have ever seen more eye to eye on a subject. I'd give you two agrees, if I could.
(Although I prefer IPAs to Stouts and Porters, but still, I like all of them pretty well).
Shocking. Just kidding it's not. Rudy Gulliiani still over there? Other Republicans? Neither Ukraine nor the Republican party can be taken seriously since they are leveraging the US government against Ukraine to deliver election meddling for Trump.
Trump was not held to account through impeachment because cowardly Republicans let him skate so he's determined to get something to show for his previous election meddling efforts. Poor Ukraine is caught in a hard place between Putin and Trump who acts in coordination with Putin on a lot of things.
And speaking of Pandora's box that isn't closed could Trump be impeached again for causing the spread of Coronavirus through his response to the disease or for politicizing the Justice department or for a hundred other reasons?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/28/william-barr-justice-department-house-judiciary-committee-investigation
House panel launches inquiry into Trump's attorney general over possible interference
The House judiciary committee is launching a wide-ranging inquiry into the attorney general, William Barr, and the justice department, demanding briefings, documents and interviews with 15 officials as it tries to determine whether there has been improper political interference in federal law enforcement.
The committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, on Friday sent Barr a letter listing a series of matters that the committee finds “deeply troubling”, including Barr’s involvement in the case of Donald Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone.
Neither Trump nor his policies are *causing* the disease to spread; it is a virus, so it spreads on its own regardless of the amount of action we take.
Just like last time, the House of Representatives may impeach either Trump or Attorney General Barr at any time for any reason--all they have to do is convene, hold a vote, and impeach. They could do it in one day if they really wanted to because they do not have to *prove* why they are impeaching someone. Impeachment re: corona? Very weak. Impeachment because of possible meddling into Dept. of Justice affairs? That would be the correct approach.
Impeaching now, in the few months before national conventions? I wouldn't. I recommend waiting until after November elections--if Trump loses then you don't have to waste the time or energy; if he wins then they may proceed after Inauguration and take their time...presuming they did not lose a majority in the House. If Democrats lose the House then there would be no means with which they could oppose him. Of course, if they retain the House they still won't retake the Senate so impeachment would wind up in a "not guilty" vote again. Why bother? Just to get on his nerves?
*************
In somewhat related news, we have this.
The appeal should already be on its way to the Supreme Court.
The appeal should already be on its way to the Supreme Court? Why? The Trump appointed judges should recuse themselves from this one but intentionally won't and they can't be trusted. It's become a kangaroo court. What's the rush?
And denying McGahn has to testify is even more reason to not rush 2nd and subsequent impeachments, don't you think.
We already know the Senate is merely a rubber stamp - they won't consider any facts or evidence you don't stuff in their face and even then they'll try and ignore it. So the House will request documents, Barr will not provide them. They may or may not go to court over it. MAGA cultists will cheer the budding authoritarian state. But Democrats at least can be counted on to do the right thing even when Republicans refuse.
Trump's policies and his administration are *causing* the disease to spread. Yes, it is a virus, so it spreads on its own regardless of the amount of action we take, however his actions have literally set the stage and spread the disease.
California is monitoring 8400 people or something for Coronavirus and the CDC, which Trump has gutted in budgets and firings, has provided 200 or so testing kits. 200 kits to test over 8000 people.
Trump's HHS team literally met Coronavirus people from China without protection and then got on planes to travel back all around the country. No protection. Spreading the disease through intentional mismanagement.
Trump appointed, a politician not a health expert Mike Pence, who is today headed to Florida to do a $25,000 per plate fundraiser to contain the message and he has taken away the ability of Medical personnel and experts to speak on the issue. Mike Pence was nearly single handedly responsible for an HIV epidemic as Governor of Indiana and doesn't believe in science.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he' does not mean to be trying to spread the disease but it's hard to see how he could do a worse job.
And it may not seem like much, but I would really appreciate:
1.) Having a President I can trust not to lie about it.
2.) Having a President I think gives a single shit about how it turns out beyond his own reelection chances.
3.). Having a President who can even comprehend what is taking place.
4.) Having a political party in power that hasn't entirely given itself over to anti-intellectualism, to the point where I KNOW for a fact millions of people are going to ignore how serious this is out of nothing but spite for the media and science, and that every one of them who does is going to move this thing across the country like a hot potato.
What is one of the things the White House is mulling over in response?? Tax cuts. It's basically a paraody at this point.
Edit: He's now gone full Alex Jones. He just called the entire thing a "hoax" at a rally in South Carolina. What dangerous, demented freak. It's utter lunacy for him to be saying such a thing at this juncture.
What an elaborate hoax. Indeed, so elaborate that thousands of people in China were wiling to DIE to perpetuate it. But who am I kidding?? This is the crowd who believes Sandy Hook was a false flag.
They just aren't serious about running the country, they are only interested in themselves. It's been that way forever, sure, but it's worse now than ever. They all have that feeling of "I don't care about anything until it affects me personally" callousness that is so destructive. You can't have people in charge of ANYTHING that act like that. The purges at the DOJ, the kangaroo appointments of wildly incompetent cronies, and partisan hack judges has emboldened them to shred the constitution.
They're partisan hacks, all of them, every single Republican, since McCain died (ok except Romney a tiny bit). They're the communist party from Chernobyl - anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-reality, spinning every disaster to make itself look as good as possible while reality tells a different story.
What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.
Meanwhile, another case with no connections to Asia in Oregon. And the patient has been working in a school for the last week. This is why we banged the drum, this is why we kept pounding the goddamn table. He is not fit to hold office, and a moment like THIS is why. Everyone assumed he would be fine, as long as no external crisis comes into play. Talk about walking on thin ice. This whole bubble is about to pop.
The bubbles going to pop but they've positioned themselves to lie about it as the titantic sinks.
Republican snowflakes stormed out of a briefing as a lawmaker criticized Trump Administration response
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/28/house-coronavirus-trump-response-118121
So it's clear they will
1) Lie
2) Attack the messenger
3) Blame somebody else
4) Do anything but face reality
5) go back to step 1
They can't handle criticism of the response, what kind of BS is that? DO A BETTER JOB is the correct response not running off and crying about it, Republicans.
- seeking to reach an agreement with the Afghan government (which has not been involved in the talks to date)
- not to allow al-Qaeda, Islamic State or similar extremist groups to operate in their territory.
I'm skeptical whether the Taliban really are ready to participate in a democratic system, but we'll no doubt see in due course.
This is great news and kudos to the Trump administration for finally being able to end it. I however think it will have the same impact as Nixon ending the Vietnam war.
It is alleged that the Afghan government is one of the most corrupt in the world and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw it fall out of democracy with the reinstatement of Taliban rule.
I also highly doubt the Taliban can actually prevent other groups from forming terrorist organizations there but as long as they are not complicit in the terrorism, Americans should stay out of their way as their current forces are already spread too thinly.
It will be interesting to see however where women’s rights will go in Afghanistan. I am disheartened that it was not part of the peace talks.
Afghan wins though IMO. There has been enough civilian loss of life that just ending this thing will allow some form of normality to emerge and grow from.
Because Trump doesn't care what happens to Afghanistan. There is nothing there that benefits him and no future leader will want to recommit troops to something that has raged on for so long unless they are forced to do so by an act of war.
The dissent, written by Clinton-appointee Judge Judith W. Rogers, is a must-read. Go to the 58th page of to read it in full of this document.
Here's a summary:
- House attorneys had argued that the obstruction to which McGahn bore witness could constitute an impeachable offense. Rogers hit upon this multiple times in her dissent that's why refusing to make him testify is wrong. "In the context of impeachment, when the accuracy and thoroughness of the investigation may well determine whether the President remains in office, the House’s need for information is at its zenith," she wrote.
- Rogers addressed the origin of the subpoena: the Mueller investigation. In his April 2019 report, Special Counsel Robert Mueller noted that sitting presidents cannot be indicted under current Justice Department policy. "Thus, as the Special Counsel noted, impeachment would be the only available mechanism through which to address potential Presidential misconduct identified in the Report," Rogers wrote.
Obviously "The House’s power of impeachment thus serves as a critical check upon the President."
- Rogers added that Trump had made himself the first President in U.S. history to meet "the House’s attempt to perform its constitutional responsibility with sweeping categorical resistance."
She says "given the long history of Presidential cooperation with congressional investigations" Rogers said on to say that it was "unsurprising" that there is a dearth of case law in federal court on what happens in disputes between Congress and the White House when the executive branch refuses to obey subpoenas issued by lawmakers.
"The degree of Presidential interference with the constitutional responsibilities of Congress, giving rise to the instant lawsuit, is a dramatic break with past Presidential practice of acknowledging the gravity of Congress’s constitutional responsibilities, including impeachment, and responding with requested information," she added.
With that being said lets look at what the two Republican judges believe Congress should do:
They mention inherent contempt as an option, Rogers notes how difficult it would be to arrest a member of the executive branch:
- "It suffices here to note that the prospect that the House will direct its Sergeant at Arms to arrest McGahn is vanishingly slim, so long as a more peaceable judicial alternative remains available."
Republican judges suggest instead that Congress withhold funding, essentially shutting down government until the executive branch capitulates (p32-33):
"Take the Appropriations Clause. The Executive Branch cannot spend a dime without Congress’s consent, U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 9, cl. 7, and that’s a powerful incentive to follow Congress’s instruction"
The majority goes on to suggest that Congress can also refuse to confirm any Trump appointee and conduct impeachment proceedings - both of which would require the Senate's cooperation (lol they are a rubber stamp):
"The dissent likewise discounts the Senate’s appointment power, the impeachment power, and the informal power to "publicly embarrass executive branch officials." Woo hoo that'll get a lot done.
The majority opinion by Republicans lays out the following scenario:
- With this range of political tools, Congress can tailor its sanctions to the gravity of the Executive Branch’s offense.
- A congressional inquiry may begin and end with a polite request for information.
- Or a chamber of Congress may escalate by, say, issuing a formal subpoena, threatening to withhold appropriations, or passing articles of impeachment.
- By the same token, the Executive Branch’s interest in reaching a mutually agreeable compromise should grow as Congress turns up the heat. See Devins, supra, at 132 (“[T]he executive and legislative branches negotiate with each other in an atmosphere in which each branch is aware of the other’s ability to raise the stakes and the complexity of the negotiating process.”).
- This political process also offers an array of possible resolutions in interbranch disputes—a diverse set of compromises and accommodations. For instance, the Executive Branch might agree to waive executive privilege if the Legislative Branch narrows its document request. Or if the dispute concerns an official’s testimony, the Executive Branch might agree to allow an official to answer written interrogatories or to testify in private. See, e.g., Decl. of Michael M. Purpura, Deputy Counsel to the President, J.A. 717 (noting that the White House Counsel’s Office discussed these possible accommodations with the Committee).
Bottom line the Republican judge opinion appears to be that:
- Presidents can't be forced to cooperate with impeachment proceedings
- Presidents also can't be forced to comply with subpoenas through the courts.
- Aside from the long-unused inherent contempt power, these "political weapons" strike at the functioning of government and their use entails inflicting pain on people and businesses who rely on government services, government contracts, and the timely administration of justice.
- Instead, Congress can try to coerce the execituve branch into compliance and Congress must shut down the government until the White House gives in, block nominations (if the senate is game for it), or revive its inherent contempt power, if it wants to gather facts about presidential misconduct going forward.
- Now the DC Circuit has decided that the courts cannot assist a House Committee pursuing those constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. So Republicans have taken the DOJ and the judicial branch out of the impeachement process.
- The House is supposed to impeach a President only on it's own with no support from anyone and no ability to gather facts. Very cool and very legal thanks Republicans.
Republican appointed judges ruled that Congress cannot hold the Executive Branch accountable. Their ruling ignores the reality of the situation we are in. Specifically, that the entire political party in control of the Senate is actively assisting in the stonewalling/abuse of power conducted by the Executive Branch.
1) The Executive might choose not to be shut down and just continue operating anyway.
2) Even if the government did shut down, the President could argue that this was Congress' fault for pursuing a vendetta against him - potentially actually gaining an electoral advantage out of the dispute.
3) A government shutdown is an extremely blunt tool that hurts many people. Suggesting that as a remedy for a very specific offense seems like strange logic.
The majority reasoning is based on the idea of separation of powers and that the courts can't intervene in a purely governmental dispute without being able to see any harm to the rights of individuals outside the government. Of course, it's not difficult to see harm to rights being caused by a government shutdown, which is their proposed alternative ...
I have sympathy with the idea that things could get messy if the courts intervene in a 'political' dispute, but I also think that may in fact be necessary precisely to protect the idea of separation of powers. After going into detail into why the courts do not have the powers to intervene in a political situation, the majority decision does actually acknowledge that they have done so in the past in a number of cases (that started with Nixon). This quote from the decision gives some insight into their thinking "the innovations of the 1970s shouldn’t displace the established practice of the 1790s". The way government operates is so different now from 200+ years ago, that relying on a historical template doesn't fill me with confidence.
The decision lays out a series of precedents supporting the idea that the judiciary should not intervene in a dispute between the legislative and executive branches. That's certainly a reasonable general principle when there's a disagreement between the branches about how best to act in relation to a third party. However, it ignores the problem where the disagreement is a fight directly between the branches. To illustrate this, consider what would happen if the Senate had voted to remove Trump - and he had refused to be removed on the grounds Congress' acts were purely political and he had done nothing wrong. This would be, in the court's terms, still purely a political dispute for which they argue they have no jurisdiction - but it would also be a direct attack on the doctrine of separation of powers in the constitution which the courts are supposed to guard.
The majority decision does not agree with the dissenting view that the courts hold a "last resort" power to resolve interbranch disputes, but as set out above, without that power, I think there is ultimately no meaning to separation of powers. It's essentially the same argument as to whether the President is above the law - if you fully accept that, then there is no way to restrain the actions of the Executive other than hoping that other members of the Cabinet will rebel against the President.
I wrote the above after reading the majority decision itself. Interestingly though, there is an additional explanation by Judge Henderson. While stating she agrees with the majority decision, she then goes on to explain over 20 pages why she doesn't fully agree with it. Much of that is attacking the idea that Presidential advisers have absolute immunity against a requirement to testify. However, she also clearly feels there is a decent argument that Congress could assert an institutional injury to its own privileges, rather than having to identify an injury to a 3rd party outside government - but she felt that any decision about such significant constitutional principles should be made by the Supreme Court.
It's a big deal. He's now passed Sanders in the popular vote count of all states that have had primary/caucauses. That point is only salient because it was Bernie's supporters that suggested the popular vote in Iowa (which Sanders won) was more important than SDE (which Buttigieg won).
The size of Biden's victory (25+ points) shouldnt be understated either. He's going to win a LOT of votes on Super Tuesday now. Maybe not as many as Sanders, but closer. This race is shaping up to be closer than 2016, though I doubt it'll be as close as 2008.
If Biden clears the 15% hurdle in CA, it might be anyone's game (Biden will sweep up the southern states that vote, and it's not like Biden is weak in the midwest).
I don't because it is beer, and beer is fricking gross.
(Wait, is this the unpopular opinion thread?)
(Okay, okay, a couple of times I had Belgian lambics and they were actually decent, but they're so different that they only technically are the same thing as most beer IMO. Otherwise I'll take gin and ciders and random liqueurs, please. Croatian walnut liqueur is amazing in Coke!)
1.) Bernie is at an advantage, but it's slightly less sure than it was a few days ago.
2). Biden HAS to win Texas. If Bernie wins in California and Texas, there is simply no way Biden can get the amount of delegates needed to win.
3.) Biden also has to get 15% in California. If he doesn't (and there is a real chance he won't since Bernie is dominating there and Elizabeth Warren is polling in second), then he is also in big trouble. Even though Bernie lost SC, he still got nearly 20% of the vote, which means he was awarded delegates.
4.) Biden would have a MUCH bigger chance if Bloomberg dropped out, but that is clearly not happening, since it's the first night Bloomberg is even really competing for anything. I'm quite confident Bloomberg is taking zero votes away from Bernie, but quite a few from Biden.
5.) In polling, the second choice of Buttigieg supporters has been evenly split between Sanders and Biden, which makes little sense to me, but we'll see how it plays out.
In summary?? Bernie wins California and Texas the nomination is pretty much his. If Biden wins Texas, but doesn't reach viability in California, it's also not really great for him. If Biden wins Texas AND pulls 20% in California?? Then we have a real two-person race. This is where we'll see if Bernie's inroads in the Hispanic community have real coattails. If they do, they'll be the wind in his sails.
---
It's one state his home state, let's see what happens on Super Tuesday. I'd expect him to get creamed in CA at least but let's see.
I highly doubt he will be given the VP position if Biden wins. He is too similar. Expect a person like Warren (but not Warren) to get the nod instead. Some other cushioned position maybe available for him though to help build his resume for 2028.
Stacy Abrams being Biden's VP is basically an even-money bet at this point if he were to get the nod, and I can't say I disagree with it even a little. In fact, I'd be shocked if she wasn't the selection if he somehow gets the nomination. I have absolutely no idea who Sanders will turn to, though he has said for sure what it WON'T be, which is a second old man. Neither of these guys can afford not to pick a woman, in my estimation. In the case of Biden, I would honestly hope he would commit to one term and hand the baton off to whoever is chosen.
Yeah. Stacy Abrams looks like the best pick by a lot. I also wouldnt be shocked to see Kamala Harris's name pop up a bit, although she might wind up as an AG if the Dems win.
Klobuchar is also now out, and is going to endorse Biden before the end of the night. SC killed off all the moderates in the race except Biden and Bloomberg.
I honestly believe we're close to an even money race now between Biden and Sanders. Which is really bad for Sanders, considering that he A - Was waaaaaaaay ahead until SC, and B - Needs to have a commanding lead at the convention if he expect to get the nomination. If he and Biden are basically tied at a contested convention, it'll be no surprise who gets the nod in the end.
Incidentally - it's starting to look like the kerfuffle between Warren and Sanders is going to be one of the biggest issues for the Sanders campaign. She isnt leaving until after Super Tuesday, and there's a bit of anecdotal evidence that her older supporters dont want to jump into the Sanders camp (Her younger supporter seem like they'll go to Bernie when she drops out).
The worst elements of his supporters probably shouldnt have tweeted snakes at her...
Yes. However she started this with the identity politics attack on Bernie. This came out of the blue and was obviously publicized as much as she possibly could to hurt Bernie. That hot mic moment at the debates was no accident either.
That is stabbing your friend in the back over nothing.
I don't believe he said it but even if he did, prove him wrong, you don't whine about it unless you've got an agenda. Warren did great knocking down Bloomberg for being a racist put of touch Billionaire trying to follow in Trump's footsteps in those regards. She burned her bridges with Bernie.
I doubt she can get back in his good graces either. She might not want to she might think Biden is her ticket. She seemingly make the woe is me comment about Bernie to put herself in the good graces of the centrists running. She chose her bed, now she's gotta lay in it. She isn't going anywhere
Why is she still in the race when people who have done better than she has have dropped out? She's still there, with the backing of centrists and the Democratic establishment, to split the progressive vote tomorrow. Same reason Klob, and Butti dropped out - to help Hillary Clinton 2.0 and hurt Bernie again.
I guess we differ on what "nothing" is. She disagrees too, it would seem.
The rest is hot air and conjecture. Unless you have evidence to support this Warren deepstate anti bernie move, it's pretty much meaningless. What isnt meaningless is that the fallout between the two of them costed Warren a shot at the nomination. It might well be costing Bernie a shot at it too. The repercussions cut both ways.
Edit: Regardless - at the moment, He needs her more than she needs him. I say that meaning: Her chances at the nomination are effectively sunk. She's mostly done, except a hailmary attempt at a brokered convention where she winds up the least offensive candidate out of the 4 that might be left.
His chances arent sunk. If anything, he's still the front runner (if only barely) - and he needs her, and her delegates if he's going to have a reasonable chance to win (Be it by convincing her to leave the race immediately, or to pledge her delegates to him as soon as that can happen).
March 3, 2020.
Activist Judges meddling in elections lol.
According to conservatives, Trump can never be questioned on the record about anything. He doesn't have to provide documents or testify under oath, none of his officials need to answer questions or provide documents, no witnesses are allowed at his impeachment trial.
But hillary's emails, that must be revealed because conservatives are reallly concerned about government transparency!
"Any further discovery should focus on whether she used a private server to evade [the Freedom of Information Act] and, as a corollary to that, what she understood about State's records management obligations," Lamberth wrote in his order.
It's conjecture. Meaningless? I guess you could say that if you feel that you can poo poo other people's analysis and opinions as meaningless.
She had little traction at that point anyway. This stunt, and it should be clear it was a stunt, "Uh Bernie said something months and months ago that I didn't like, ok is the hot mic on?", cost her more than it cost Bernie. She was searching for a shot in the arm and it didn't work.
The repercussions cut both ways. Well that seems to be the point. An attempt to cut both ways - for her to be cut up, and to cut Bernie down but it seems to have not helped her and tarnished Bernie a little bit over very little.
Look, we don't know what was said, months ago, was it "A woman can't win in today's political climate" or something as bad as "a woman can't be president now" could possibly be, or was she making the whole thing up. Bernie says he didn't say it. No matter what it isn't the most horrible thing I'm sure Warren has ever heard.
Either way, Bernie worked his ass off campaigning for Hillary and has supported women's rights his entire life. Either way for Warren, if this happened at all, should have seen that as a challenge and fought to prove him wrong. In the end, the nomination is not up to Bernie, it's up to voters. So a stunt crying about it accomplished nothing except hurting Warren's candidacy and smearing Bernie which seems to have been the entire point as demonstrated by the hot mic stunt "I KNOW WE'RE MICED BUT BERNIE YOU SAID A MEAN THING TO ME!". Come on. Staged.
Yeah she's done. It's not so clear cut. He needs her? Not really. She doesn't really offer anything at this point. She screwed up. She attacked him over something that was pretty much nothing (as I explain above).
Why should he welcome her at this point? What's she going to do? Go endorse Biden? That would further damage her brand as a progressive at this point. So she's really painted herself into a corner. Most likely her only play that she's hoping for is to endorse Biden but after Biden somehow overcomes Bernie.
If that doesn't happen then she has to endorse Bernie after stabbing him in the back.
We'll see. Yes he needs delegates. It seems that the whole world is against him so he'll probably be screwed out of the nomination regardless and Warren seems to be fine with that. She made her play against him already.
Misrepresentation. That she was in some secret cabal of anti sanders establishment democrats is meaningless without proof. Not your opinion. Not your analysis. No one is going to indict her based on a conspiracy theory except the most partisan people who dont need evidence.
Once again, for the people in the back - Not. Your. Opinion. Not your analysis. That's not meaningless. Dont try to take the hit from a cheap shot I'm not making.
Completely contradicts
You did not point out that if she quit, endorsed Sanders and campaigned for him, he'd likely win almost all delegates in California, and would run up really big numbers in the NE. He's going to win those states, but he needs to be counting on every possible delegate.
She's taking votes and delegates. Now - convention rules are such that if she drops out before the convention, I think she can offer her delegates to him on the first ballot (the one we all know he needs to win on, because if it's close... Biden's probably going to win).
Lost in all of this is: She's no friend of Biden's. Not at all, it's understood that they rather dislike each other. So I doubt she's his pawn, as you suggested above.