Political Randomness

[stimpy]

I never said people shouldn't march or riot or stomp their feet or whatever else they think will help.
We all have a right to do so.
Being tired of the status quo and doing something about it is what got Trump the Presidency.
But to pretend like it was all peaches and cream before he did is, as you say, myopic...
It was and has been a us against them shit show for quite awhile.
And no matter what side you're on, WE are what got us here. All of us, in one way or another.
Sleep on that......

[GreenGoo]

I never said people shouldn't march or riot or stomp their feet or whatever else they think will help.
We all have a right to do so.
Being tired of the status quo and doing something about it is what got Trump the Presidency.
But to pretend like it was all peaches and cream before he did is, as you say, myopic...
It was and has been a us against them shit show for quite awhile.
And no matter what side you're on, WE are what got us here. All of us, in one way or another.
Sleep on that......

I believe that is an unreasonably cynical viewpoint. I'd look to YK for reasonable optimism. That's what I do.

[YellowKing]

Thanks for the vote of confidence GreenGoo. I wish I had as much faith in my reasonable optimism.

Seriously though, there's no arguing that Trump (and this GOP, by extension) is an entirely different beast than what came before. He changed news cycles. He's brought an unprecedented amount of naked partisanship to the office. We've never had a President be as outspokenly venomous to the opposing party, free press, and his own intelligence agencies as Trump, at least not in my lifetime. None of that is up for debate (well, people can try to debate it, but I can just point them to facts.)

While it may be comforting to say that this is just "politics as usual," it's not. It's a completely asymmetrical system right now in a way we've never seen before in modern times. And I get it. I get the defense ALL THE TIME from Trump supporters I know that "both sides do it." It's a way to diminish the glaring faults of the modern GOP through false equivalency. Keep in mind that saying that the GOP is FAR more corrupt right now than the Democrats is not the same as saying "Democrats do no wrong." That's another logical fallacy that they are quick to spring on you if you let them.

But there's a reason I (and many others) left the party. And I can assure you it's not because the GOP was acting the same way they had for the previous 25 years I've been voting.

[Z-Corn]

Michael Kalny, an elected Republican precinct committeeman, sent the nasty note to Anne Pritchett, president of the north chapter of the Johnson County Democratic Women. She took a screenshot of the message, which subsequently went viral.

“Little Ms. Pritchett – you and your comrades[‘] stealth attack on Yoder is going to blow up in your leftist faces,” Kalny wrote, referring to incumbent Rep. Kevin Yoder (R). “The REAL REPUBLICANS will remember what the scum DEMONRATS tried to do to Kavanaugh in November. Your radical socialist kick boxing lesbian Indian will be sent back packing to the reservation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

See, when we talk about the GOP being the problem, or the party of deplorables, this is the kind of shit we're talking about. Does the left have radical, angry, threatening activists? Sure. But you'd be hard pressed to find them in elected positions, sending hate mail. I'm not saying you couldn't find them, if you looked hard enough, maybe. I mean, anything is possible, although I'd caution those who go looking to understand the difference between criticism and spewing bile. This is clearly an example of the latter. This kind of hate filled diatribe is increasingly becoming the sole providence of the GOP.

I get it, this is not a senator and doesn't represent all the GOP and the GOP voters. I'm not saying it does. But a constant stream of events of similar nature over a span of time come to represent the GOP, whether they want it or not. And let's face it, Drumpf has done everything in his power to mainstream rants of this type. Good people on both sides and all that. And the GOP support him. Prez supports bigots and specifically bigotted behaviour, GOP supports the Prez. GOP becomes tainted by bigots and bigoted behaviour. See how that works? Worse, since it worked for the Prez, more and more GOP are adopting it as part of their platform, openly and proudly.

It's insane to talk about how the Dems are a problem too in the current environment. But even if you're insane and want to do it, for the love of god don't do it as a defense of or in comparison to the GOP. The GOP have problems that are unique to the GOP, and the Dems have problems that are unique to Dems. They are often unrelated, and imo, of significantly different scales. THAT'S why the frustration when hearing about how the Dems are a problem during a discussion of GOP failings.

In the end this is just a racist, bigotted, doofus who managed to get himself elected, and will probably suffer for his diatribe (god, I hope so anyway). Small potatoes. But if you think this isn't indicative of the current state of the GOP, I don't know what to tell you. It is. Both in appearance and in fact. The world believes it to be true, except they think it's indicative of Americans, because America is a democracy and the GOP are in power. Americans support and condone the behaviour of the GOP. Q.E.D.

I just wanted to highlight and say I really appreciate what an observer of US politics you are. This was well written.

I would like to sponsor you for Honorary US Citizenship. My lawyer will send you details soon.

[Blackhawk]

To date, Trump in office has done me no more harm than any of the other "qualified" people that have been elected to run our lives.

His actively undermining the basis of our system of government won't do you and yours harm? His eliminating environmental regulations at the time when it was most critical won't do you and yours harm?

I suppose it is true if you and yours only expect to live another 20 years. Anything after that and you'll be living with the costs of what Trump's done.

[Enough]

To date, Trump in office has done me no more harm than any of the other "qualified" people that have been elected to run our lives.

His actively undermining the basis of our system of government won't do you and yours harm? His eliminating environmental regulations at the time when it was most critical won't do you and yours harm?

I suppose it is true if you and yours only expect to live another 20 years. Anything after that and you'll be living with the costs of what Trump's done.

They came for the soybean farmers and I said nothing....

[gbasden]

I do not want to pile on in any way, but really? If politicians put people that aren't you or your loved ones in cages, that counts for nothing in your political calculus? The loss of health care, rising deficits, giveaways to the rich, warming of the environment - nothing?

Oh...you mean politics as usual?
I choose not to rile myself up into a frothy anger unless the whole lot of career politicians can be wiped out. Blaming everything that is happening now on Trump ignores the many, many, many years of hidden and/or ignored corruption. He just brought it to light and now everyone is acting like it's something new. It aint.
I live in Illinois. I have seen first hand how it's not our votes that count. Mike Madigan is living proof of that.

OK then. I could not possibly disagree with you more, but such is life.

[LawBeefaroni]

Rand Paul, spineless sycophant to the stars, is worried there’s gonna be an assassination. In that same whiny little diatribe he blames his neighbor attacking him on the current political divisions. No, douchebag, you were attacked because you’re a dick neighbor that no one in your area apparently likes. I’m not excusing the attack, but I hate seeing him try to tie it to democrats in any way.

What a major jackass.

Sadly, it has begun:

John David Rice-Cameron, the Stanford College Republicans president, is pressing charges against a liberal student who allegedly “hit him” and “forcefully pushed him back” during a pro-Brett Kavanaugh event Tuesday afternoon.

Oh my god:

The son of President Obama’s national-security adviser was assaulted this week — by liberals at one of America’s elite universities.

The horror!

According to Stanford Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bill Larson, Hernandez was placed under a private person arrest at Rice-Cameron’s request and issued a citation for battery in response to Rice-Cameron’s allegations that she “shoved him in the chest with her hand during a verbal disagreement.” Larson added that there was no obvious physical injury to either party involved, and that Rice-Cameron declined to be evaluated by paramedics. Moving forward, the District Attorney’s Office will review the case and decide upon any further action.

A post on SCR’s Facebook page held that the altercation was an assault, and that the organization “experienced the violent and totalitarian behavior of the unhinged Stanford left” today.

Hernandez claims she merely touched Rice-Cameron on the chest after he refused to stop video recording her without her consent. Rice-Cameron did not call police in her presence, she added.
...
“She kept getting in his face, louder and louder — she walked straight towards him and invaded his personal space and definitely put her hands on him,” he said.

Another witness, a member of SCR who also declined to be named, described the contact as a push, but not a “hard push,” given that Rice-Cameron wasn’t shoved to the ground.

Nice 911 call, snowflake. Would love the tapes. "A girl just poked me in the chest with her finger, get down here right away!"

[Holman]

I believe he may have been poked in the chest, but I don't believe the accused did it.

Mistaken identity is so common in recountings of assault. Probably the perpetrator was a harashly-worded tweet, or perhaps an irate toddler.

[Max Peck]

Cyberbullying. We must never forget who the real victim is.

ABC News' wide-ranging interview with the first lady took place in Africa, where she traveled to promote her "Be Best" campaign, which raises awareness about online bullying.

The first lady explained how her experience being bullied led in part to her "Be Best" initiative.

"I could say that I'm the most bullied person in the world," Melania Trump said.

Pressed by Llamas on that assertion, she responded, "One of them -- if you really see what people are saying about me."

[GreenGoo]

She's married to drumpf. She could absolutely be the most bullied person in the world. I'm not being facetious.

Along with articles like the one you posted google brought to my attention a UK article discussing her fashion sense and strategy vs. media coverage. I got the distinct impression that the site or at least the author's business was fashion, as opposed to a political reporter talking about fashion. It had some interesting points about her ability to draw attention to her clothing and then complain that the media was being shallow when discussing them, rather than her substantive accomplishments, of which there are very few the article noted.

The article was very forgiving about most of what she wears, including heels in the rain on the way to Hurricane Harvey (was it?) briefing. It had some cynical things to say about the reality of Melania's fashion sense in the context of the narrative Melania tries to portray.

Shrug. I've made my view on Melania clear.

Separately, I'm never particularly focused on the 1st spouse, and she is no exception, other than I think she's almost certainly the least active, least role model worthy in that position in years, but so what?

[gbasden]

Separately, I'm never particularly focused on the 1st spouse, and she is no exception,

3rd spouse, in her case.

[Alefroth]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rel ... 91da01fd12

[GreenGoo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rel ... 91da01fd12

And she joked about her friendship with former president George W. Bush, captured in a moment during the funeral for Sen. John McCain in August when Bush surreptitiously handed Obama a mint. “We are forever seatmates,” she said, explaining that protocol dictates that they always sit next to one another whenever former presidents and their spouses gather. “He is my partner in crime… I love him to death.”

(The mints, she teased, were old — they were in a White House box that the former president had apparently taken from his tenure there.)

It was a simple gesture, much circulated on social media, but Obama said the interest in it underscores the desire people have to see bipartisan civility. “They are hungry for that,” she said.

Man, I hope she's correct. This hatred is going to destroy your country. And the prez stokes it for his own gain. That makes him an objectively bad person that has nothing to do with which side of the aisle you sit on.

[YellowKing]

The sad part is that we all live bipartisanship every single day.

I work directly (as in the same room with) at least six die-hard Trump supporters. Yet magically we don't fight, we don't argue, we don't come to blows. We laugh, we joke, we get our work done. When someone needs help with an issue we have each other's backs. Sure, we don't directly talk politics - but isn't bipartisanship about being able to agree to disagree on some points, and come together on the ones you can agree on?

I'm reminded of issues at work where we had multiple ways of solving a problem, and competing methods of how to solve that problem. What did we do? We sat in a room and we hashed it out. We drew up pros and cons. We came to a consensus.

It's what all of us do every single day. Yet they can't do it. And you have idiots like Trump stoking the discord.

[Paingod]

It's what all of us do every single day. Yet they can't do it. And you have idiots like Trump stoking the discord.

It's really sad. I'd be curious if they could agree on dinner.

GOP: We need food!
Dems: Salad!
GOP: No, steak!
Dems: Salad's good, right? We're vegetarians.
GOP: We've got the knife right here, we'll butcher the cow. We're all having steak.
Trump: The Best chairs. Great chairs. Napkins, too, I assume.
Dems: I'm telling my mom. She's gonna vote you out.
Right-Wing Media: Trump wanted comfortable seating, Democrats hated it.
Left-Wing Media: The GOP refuses to work with anyone, Trump's a moron.

[LordMortis]

Man, I hope she's correct. This hatred is going to destroy your country. And the prez stokes it for his own gain. That makes him an objectively bad person that has nothing to do with which side of the aisle you sit on.

I want to believe! But I don't. Nearly every politically outspoken person I know, myself included has drawn battle lines wants the opposition neutered. I didn't used to be this way but I GOP has become a tyrannical minority. And that's not hyperbole. At this moment, the only thing left between them and the point of no return is a meaningful vote. The entity is cruel oppressive corrupt and arbitrary with their regard to law. For years, the problem was evident and I wanted them to reset. Beginning in 2008, the reset began but it crashed the system, rather than make it more stable.

I will say my hatred is limited though. McConnell, for instance, will forever boil my blood, and my hatred is probably limited to those that entertained by this fact. My hatred for them is real.

[Pyperkub]

The problem is that the GOP moved from disliking/ demonizing policies to people. Their voters have been conditioned to hate liberals instead of liberal policies.

[YellowKing]

Well said Pyperkub.

[Kraken]

The sad part is that we all live bipartisanship every single day.

I work directly (as in the same room with) at least six die-hard Trump supporters. Yet magically we don't fight, we don't argue, we don't come to blows. We laugh, we joke, we get our work done. When someone needs help with an issue we have each other's backs. Sure, we don't directly talk politics - but isn't bipartisanship about being able to agree to disagree on some points, and come together on the ones you can agree on?

I'm reminded of issues at work where we had multiple ways of solving a problem, and competing methods of how to solve that problem. What did we do? We sat in a room and we hashed it out. We drew up pros and cons. We came to a consensus.

It's what all of us do every single day. Yet they can't do it. And you have idiots like Trump stoking the discord.

This Atlantic column is nominally about how much everybody hates PC culture, but it touches on your point:

If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

[YellowKing]

It reminds me of my younger, more passionate college basketball days. The Duke/UNC rivalry may be one of the biggest in all of sports, and I used to be such an aggressive Duke fan that I'd feel physically ill if they lost a game. I hated UNC with such intensity that the very sight of one of their star players would make me boil with anger. During their games I'd curse at the television and punch pillows with rage.

Then one day I was watching a game with someone (a family friend, I think), and he was joking about the intensity of the rivalry. "That whole thing is so silly," he said. "You know those kids play street ball and go to basketball camps together during the summer." My jaw dropped as I realized how stupid I had been. The "rivalry" was an artificial construct generated by fans, the media, etc. The kids on the court were just playing basketball.

I suspect that Congressional Dems and Republicans are much like those basketball players. We don't see the off court behavior, only game time (the votes). And it fuels an increasingly bitter divide that is largely an illusion, albeit a dangerous one.

[GreenGoo]

There's a family guy episode where Peter is at Fenway Park and he says in effect "the other team are villains because geographically I'm from here". I tried to find a clip but only found one for the joke right after he says that.

It's ok to have sports rivalries. They're fun and add additional entertainment. Anything more than that is unhealthy, imo. msd tells me that in ancient times people went to gladiator battles, so it's all ok, though. Because bloodlust, or something.

Rick and Morty have an episode that involves a race war between members of the same species that have different shaped nipples.

There's no question in my mind that the hatred between Dems and Reps is a purely manufactured thing. On this I will completely agree that both sides use that to their advantage.

[Captain Caveman]

It reminds me of my younger, more passionate college basketball days. The Duke/UNC rivalry may be one of the biggest in all of sports, and I used to be such an aggressive Duke fan that I'd feel physically ill if they lost a game. I hated UNC with such intensity that the very sight of one of their star players would make me boil with anger. During their games I'd curse at the television and punch pillows with rage.

Then one day I was watching a game with someone (a family friend, I think), and he was joking about the intensity of the rivalry. "That whole thing is so silly," he said. "You know those kids play street ball and go to basketball camps together during the summer." My jaw dropped as I realized how stupid I had been. The "rivalry" was an artificial construct generated by fans, the media, etc. The kids on the court were just playing basketball.

I suspect that Congressional Dems and Republicans are much like those basketball players. We don't see the off court behavior, only game time (the votes). And it fuels an increasingly bitter divide that is largely an illusion, albeit a dangerous one.

Yeah, but Duke sucks. Like really, really sucks.

[LawBeefaroni]

I suspect that Congressional Dems and Republicans are much like those basketball players. We don't see the off court behavior, only game time (the votes).

Of course they are. They have the same circles of firends, vacation in the same places, live in the same places, wear the same clothes... Stick two "opposing" senators in any working class bar anywhere in the country and they'd huddle together over drinks like two cornered weasels. You need two parties to keep up they charade and they both know it. The greatest false dichotomy ever created.

Politics is all about conflict and nothing makes for better conflict than exactly two sides of roughly equal force.

[El Guapo]

It reminds me of my younger, more passionate college basketball days. The Duke/UNC rivalry may be one of the biggest in all of sports, and I used to be such an aggressive Duke fan that I'd feel physically ill if they lost a game. I hated UNC with such intensity that the very sight of one of their star players would make me boil with anger. During their games I'd curse at the television and punch pillows with rage.

Then one day I was watching a game with someone (a family friend, I think), and he was joking about the intensity of the rivalry. "That whole thing is so silly," he said. "You know those kids play street ball and go to basketball camps together during the summer." My jaw dropped as I realized how stupid I had been. The "rivalry" was an artificial construct generated by fans, the media, etc. The kids on the court were just playing basketball.

I suspect that Congressional Dems and Republicans are much like those basketball players. We don't see the off court behavior, only game time (the votes). And it fuels an increasingly bitter divide that is largely an illusion, albeit a dangerous one.

Yeah, but Duke sucks. Like really, really sucks.

Also the Yankees are a moral abomination.

Otherwise sports rivalries are silly.

[raydude]

I suspect that Congressional Dems and Republicans are much like those basketball players. We don't see the off court behavior, only game time (the votes).

Of course they are. They have the same circles of firends, vacation in the same places, live in the same places, wear the same clothes... Stick two "opposing" senators in any working class bar anywhere in the country and they'd huddle together over drinks like two cornered weasels. You need two parties to keep up they charade and they both know it. The greatest false dichotomy ever created.

Politics is all about conflict and nothing makes for better conflict than exactly two sides of roughly equal force.

I don't know about you but when I see something like this:

I got my voter info pamphlet today and the legislature is already trying to sneak in a voter ID amendment on the ballot. The crazy thing is not only does the amendment NOT specify what forms of ID will be acceptable, but they also provided no cost estimates to taxpayers. It's literally just an open ended blank check for them to pass whatever form of voter suppression they want.

I think one side is playing for all the marbles. And to keep them forever, if possible. And frankly, if your party could engineer it so that you could stay in power forever, why wouldn't you? (aside from morals and ethics and general sense of duty)

[Isgrimnur]

Because there’s a lot of us that don’t have a party.

[raydude]

Let me rephrase. There are two parties, A and B. The general feeling is that Congress people from A and B trade off being in power to the mutual benefit of both.

That seems very hard to me. It would seem much easier if party A were to enact a plan to just stay in power by changing the rules of the game. Said plan would not care if you didn’t belong to A or B, in fact it might incorporate it via various movements and media corporations.

What’s to stop party A from doing so?

[Kraken]

Let me rephrase. There are two parties, A and B. The general feeling is that Congress people from A and B trade off being in power to the mutual benefit of both.

That seems very hard to me. It would seem much easier if party A were to enact a plan to just stay in power by changing the rules of the game. Said plan would not care if you didn’t belong to A or B, in fact it might incorporate it via various movements and media corporations.

What’s to stop party A from doing so?

A couple of years ago I would have said the Constitution and courts, but now you'd just laugh at me.

[Holman]

Parties used to fear voter backlash. Even into the 1980s, parties expected that overreach would lead to voters punishing them in two or four years.

In the new century of tribalized partisanship, that's all out the window.

[Kraken]

I've been getting some amusement from the Detrumpify add-on for Firefox (also available for Chrome) for the past couple of days. On many websites (but not this one) it replaces "Trump" with an insult, and supposedly replaces photos of Trump with kittens (or puppies, or scary pumpkins, or "a legitimate US president." The insults are configurable as to length and crudeness. I have yet to see any kittens.

Right now Google News offers such headlines as:

"Did Fuckface von Clownstick say that..."
"The Blonde Dingleberry administration..."
"Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Inflamed Carbuncle Campaign?"
"Pro-Pond Scum Gang Seen Assaulting Anti-Fascist Protesters..."
"King Joffrey the Treasonous Praises Robert E Lee..."

You get the idea. I'm sure I'll tire of it after a few days, but it's good for some chuckles in the meantime.

[Daehawk]

I think it was Jimmy that said "Trump's hats say Make America Great Again on the outside but on the inside they say Made in China."

[Isgrimnur]

NBC

West Virginia lawmakers completed the extraordinary move of impeaching all four state Supreme Court justices Monday night for spending issues, including a suspended justice facing a 23-count federal indictment.

WaPo

On Monday morning, West Virginia’s chief justice was scheduled to go on trial before the state Senate for “lavish spending” on elaborate office renovations, among other ethics complaints. She faced removal from office by impeachment in the House.

But there will be no impeachment trial in the Senate for Margaret Workman on Monday — because her own Supreme Court of Appeals said it would be unconstitutional.

To be fair, it wasn’t the regular Supreme Court of Appeals, but a bunch of stand-ins, acting justices.

They ruled last week that despite the state constitution giving the power to impeach justices to the legislature, this particular impeachment was unconstitutional, a violation of separation of powers.

As a result, the justice who was to preside over the impeachment Monday got cold feet. He was a no-show.
...
But in its ruling released Friday, the West Virginia Supreme Court halted the impeachment proceedings against Workman on various grounds, finding that, actually, the West Virginia Supreme Court could discipline a sitting judge only for violations of judicial ethics under the Code of Judicial Conduct, as opposed to actual crimes, high or low.
...
In addition to the separation of powers piece, the court said the House had forgotten one little thing: It didn’t include “findings of fact” with the articles of impeachment.

In an apparent dig at House leadership, Acting Chief Justice James A. Matish wrote that “our forefathers . . . had the forethought” to establish specific procedures in the constitution, but “what our forefathers did not envision is the fact that subsequent leaders would not have the ability or willingness to read, understand, or to follow those guidelines.

“The problem we have today is that people do not bother to read the rules,” Matish wrote, “or if they read them, they decide the rules do not apply to them.”

[Max Peck]

'Anti-white' racism: Australia senators blame 'error' for vote

The Australian government has said that an "administrative error" prompted 23 of its senators to vote for a motion which stated "it is OK to be white".

The motion by Pauline Hanson, leader of the anti-Islam One Nation party, also condemned "anti-white racism". It was defeated 31-28 in a vote on Monday.

Critics noted that the phrase "it's OK to be white" has been associated with trolls and white supremacist groups.

PM Scott Morrison said the level of government support was "regrettable".

Responding to a backlash on Tuesday, the government said its senators had misunderstood the motion due to an internal "process failure".

A senior minister, Christian Porter, blamed an "early email" sent by his staff without his knowledge. It had told senators to support the motion.

"The associations of the language were not picked up. Had it been raised directly with me those issues would have been identified," he said in a statement.

Among those to support it were Trade Minister Simon Birmingham, Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion and Deputy National leader Bridget McKenzie.

OK. OK never changes.

[Isgrimnur]

And there's the problem with modern republican processes and party politics. Nobody bothered to read the bill, just followed the email directions from the party.

[Sepiche]

Getting lost in all the news lately is the plight this poor endangered animal that once thundered across the American plains.

Will no one consider the feelings of Republican congressmen?

Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), who is locked in a toss-up re-election race against Democrat Abigail Spanberger, met with members of an addiction support group during a recent visit to the Chesterfield County Jail. When an inmate expressed concerns about the challenges she’d face upon release, the far-right Freedom Caucus member responded that he has it even worse, as he is facing negative campaign ads.

Brat told the woman, “You think you’re having a hard time. I’ve got $5 million of negative ads against me. How do you think I’m feeling?”

“Nothing’s easy for anyone. You think I’m a congressman. Oh life’s easy, this guy’s off having steaks…” he lectured. “No one out there’s got some easy life. And you’ve got it hard, I’m not dismissing that. You’ve got some fears, real anxiety coming up with a job, and whatever. And what you’ve got to find is a support system.”

SO... BRAVE...

[Fitzy]

Getting lost in all the news lately is the plight this poor endangered animal that once thundered across the American plains.

Will no one consider the feelings of Republican congressmen?

Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), who is locked in a toss-up re-election race against Democrat Abigail Spanberger, met with members of an addiction support group during a recent visit to the Chesterfield County Jail. When an inmate expressed concerns about the challenges she’d face upon release, the far-right Freedom Caucus member responded that he has it even worse, as he is facing negative campaign ads.

Brat told the woman, “You think you’re having a hard time. I’ve got $5 million of negative ads against me. How do you think I’m feeling?”

“Nothing’s easy for anyone. You think I’m a congressman. Oh life’s easy, this guy’s off having steaks…” he lectured. “No one out there’s got some easy life. And you’ve got it hard, I’m not dismissing that. You’ve got some fears, real anxiety coming up with a job, and whatever. And what you’ve got to find is a support system.”

SO... BRAVE...

I empathize with him. Obviously his support system isn't giving him the millions he needs to win and in just a couple months he might have to look for a new job. Who's going to hire an ex-congressman? This woman is whining because?: "Wah, I'm addicted to drugs! Wah, I'm in prison. Wah, no one wants to hire ex-cons". But Jesus H. Christ. Brat won't even be able to collect unemployment! And, since he only served four years, he'll lose his pension! OMG! This woman is coming out of prison she'll get everything she needs handed to her, but no one is just going to hand a job to a former CongressAsshole. He might have to get a real job! Maybe even become a lobbyist just to make ends meet.

So yeah. I'm in full support of his comparison to being an addicted, woman, prisoner. Her prospects going forward are just so much better than his. And I shudder to even think this, what if he wins? My God. He'll get a guaranteed pension (though small), have at least two more years to gain "Friends and allies". He's just fucked. Totally fucked.

[hepcat]

Listening to NPR this morning I learned something new: Louisiana and Oregon allow non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. They're the only two states that do so.

[Paingod]

When Democrats are against the wall, do they work overtime to make sure Republicans aren't able to vote?

[Pyperkub]

I never said people shouldn't march or riot or stomp their feet or whatever else they think will help.
We all have a right to do so.
Being tired of the status quo and doing something about it is what got Trump the Presidency.
But to pretend like it was all peaches and cream before he did is, as you say, myopic...
It was and has been a us against them shit show for quite awhile.
And no matter what side you're on, WE are what got us here. All of us, in one way or another.
Sleep on that......

You may want to rethink a bit of the bolded statement. 25+ years of propaganda demonizing Hillary (and Liberals and brown people, etc. ) played no small part (and is the part which was allegedly severely impacted by foreign interference). There is an ongoing Special Counsel Investigation for a reason.