A federal District Court judge has dismissed the
@realDonaldTrump
's lawsuit seeking to block NV's expanded mail voting law (AB4) over lack of standing
CHurch! @1215pm.
Mahan was great in his day but lost his way (mind) after about 11-12 years on the federal bench. he hires solid law clerks though.
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2020 6:34 pm
McConnell's immediate vow to push though a Trump appointee to replace Justice Ginsburg is disgusting, especially in light of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland. What, in God's name, has happened to our country? What has happened to basic decency?
Is there any reason to believe that this would play out differently if the Democrats held the Senate and the Presidency than the Republicans? Obama did not wait around to throw Marrick Garland's name out after Scalia was planted into the ground. Republicans pushed to wait pending the election, true. And Democrats pushed to get Garland appointed as fast as possible before the same. The positions are just reversed now because it is in each side's interest to advance the contrary.
@ 1:04 p.m. You are 100% correct. There are 2 steps here.
Step 1 is nominating an appointee. Obama did that and Trump will do that.
Step 2 is the Senate. The difference being that unlike Obama, Trump was given a Republican majority in the Senate (twice).
People "against" Trump's appointment are basing their opposition on the outcome, not the legitimacy of the process itself. In fact, if Dems controlled the Senate while Trump was in office we'd only have 6 SC Justices right now.
It's really funny how both sides have sprinted to the opposite point of view on this issue. We can go dig up lots of quotes from dems in 2016 that make them look like hypocrites now too. It's clear that knee jerk partisans have no principled defense for their view except that it's the view that will work out best for their respective political parties. It's really sad. But in fairness, I have an opinion about who should pick RBG's successor, and that opinion colors how I hope this thing shakes out.
Lol. Expanding the Court shouldn't be priority number 1 for President Biden and the majority Democratic Senate and House. Time to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. If coronavirus has taught us anything, it's that work can and should get done remotely. Repeal the cap of 435 Representatives, set the proportion of Representatives to 1:200,000 citizens, and watch democracy flow in America again. No need to have all the Representatives in DC, since they can make speeches and vote remotely. And, with the 4x increase in numbers in the House comes a comparable increase in the number of Presidential Electors in the Electoral College.
Can someone provide me with a fair justification for the difference between 2016 and 2020 re Supreme Court nominations that isn't ends justified? McConnell says that the difference is that in 2016 the 2014 elections provided some sort of mandate opposing the appointment. Perhaps but this sort of augury seems to be ends justified. The argument at the time, that a lifetime appointment close to an election should be deferred to determine a mandate seems fair, even though I think McConnells view stretched it. If the answer is, because they can, then at least that answer throws away the pretense.
Yes, the democrats have changed their position from last time, but that is because the republicans were successful last time. I look at it like judicial estoppel. If you are successful in the first position, you should be estopped from changing your position later to meet the needs of the day. If the democrats had been able to install Garland in 2016, then I think it would be fair for Trump to replace Ginsburg. But for the republicans to assert that no supreme court justice should be appointed during an election year, and be successful in that argument, and now take an opposite position, is truly hypocritical, and shows their complete lack of integrity.
Politics are an entirely different game from the practice of law. Different rules, different venues, and different moves to play in the pursuit of typically different outcomes. This happens to be an intersection of politics and legal practice, and I think that makes it more tempting to apply the framework and understanding that one would use when analyzing a case or issue of procedure. But judicial estoppel absolutely has no quarter in politics.
The justification would be that the president was at the very end of his second (final) term, and the president's party didn't control the senate. So, the argument goes, the people had spoken by putting the opposition party in charge of the body that has the power to vote (or not vote) on a nominee. In doing so, one might argue, the people had sent a message to the senate that it should wait until the lame duck presidency was over.
I think this is bs. I think the right thing to do in 2016 is the same thing that's the right thing to do now — to hold confirmation hearings and vote for the judge. In 2016, I thought they should have voted on Garland, and I think the same today (even though my only case before Garland was a terrible reversal of a district court decision that really went against my client, and I think was wrong). 4 years later, I think they should vote on whoever Trump picks, even though I have no particular love for anyone on Trump's short list.
The year was 1987. Reagan was on the home stretch of his final year in office. Justice Lewis Powell had retired. Reagan nominated Bork, who was rejected by a Democratic-controlled Senate. On November 11, 1987, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy. On February 3, 1988, the Senate voted to confirm Kennedy, including an affirmative vote by then-freshman Mitch McConnell.
It seems it's only a rule to withhold a vote on an opposition party President's nominee when the opposition party President is a Democrat.
This idea of a mandate of the people based on the composition of the Senate is so contrived. Only 1/3 of the senate is up for election in each 2 year cycle. So saying the people in 2018 elected a republican majority in the Senate to address this situation if it were to come up is flat-out wrong. This is politics plain and simple.
The GOP doesn't have a good answer as to why this is different than the Merrick Garland situation. But they don't need a good answer. They control the Senate and can do as they please. The repercussions, if any, come at the ballot box and in underground abortion clinics.
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2020 7:02 pm
Can someone over the age of 60 answer this question – is the world going to hell in a handbag or has it always been like this? I can't tell if things seem difficult and insane because i'm getting older (40) so i'm more aware of issues – or if things are really crazy. Like- the democrats are pushing for socialism, right? How is that acceptable? AOC literally says that. I have dem friends that say that I'm crazy for thinking the dems are pushing for socialism, but I hear it from the mouths of the leaders. And AOC may be a congresswoman but she's got major power – right? I'm just really confused. The republicans have a leader that no one likes, I get that. But – the democrats seem to be off the rails.
Is the country going to hell in a handbasket? Perhaps.
Are Democrats pushing "socialism"? No. Conservative media, particularly prime-time Fox, labels virtually every Democrat as a "socialist". Even Joe Biden, who, whether you like him or not, is barely left of center. Fox loves to use AOC as the face of the Democratic Party because it's good for ratings, but she is not representative of the typical Democrat.
I am a former Republican, FWIW. But I'm definitely not a Democrat. Still, I'll be voting for Biden. I would have voted for just about any other normal Republican over Biden.
Socialism is a pretty broad label that can be interpreted to mean, represent, or be different things. If universal basic healthcare means socialism to you, then I would imagine that many on the not-so-far left are in favor that type of socialism.
@12:34 – have you seen the influence AOC has on the party? Why are you so confident that Biden will not drop dead and Harris will take over and go to town on our democracy? I have starting getting a lot of my news direct from social media and the dems don't hide their progressive platform. It's concerning -whether you like Trump or not. If Biden was going to actually be the leader I might be less concerned but it seems clear this is the Harris-Biden platform. I think the debates may flesh some of this out but even if Biden rejects a lot of the progressive platform, it is Harris and the "others" that give me great concern. AOC and Bernie literally want to change our country into a socialist country. That doesn't concern you? It concerns me. Maybe it shouldn't. It's so hard to know – but when I hear the stuff coming out of some of these peoples mouths, it's scary crap
@12:39 – socialism is not broad. Socialism means socialism. Community owned and regulated everything. That includes health care and that is what progressives are advocating for- it is no secret. It is their platform. It is not a "fox news" talking point. It is the truth. Go to the source.
Since that's your definition, then you can rest assured that no politician at the national level, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (who actually is a socialist), is a socialist. They are not advocating for the complete and total abrogation of personal property rights, that's just a Sean Hannity talking point. They are not suggesting regulating everything, that's just Mark Levin fearmongering. They are not proposing draconian regulation against conservative talk radio, that's just Napalitono playing to fears of the audience of Fox and Friends. Trump has trained his minions to call everyone they don't like either a socialist or part of the Deep State, and whether it's even remotely true was zero bearing on their willingness to say it.
Biden is a moderate. Has been for decades. Trump is an authoritarian. Has been for decades.
Jesus Christ with the AOC. Does David Duke speak for all Republicans? No?? And so it is with her. Harris, if she does ascend, will want the same thing all politicans want which is to stay relevant. Adopting fringe party positions does not accomplish that.
Oh No! Socialism!!! What ever will we do? Maybe someone should call the cops? Or the fire department? Maybe get the military on this? Arrest these rabblerousers and put them in the jail. Where did they learn this nonsense?
Public school? We should get our big trump flags and have a parade and drive on roads.
What the faux news consumers don't want to acknowledge is that what they call socialism is really mostly just healthcare for all. What a travesty to the American way. Don't they know if you get sick here, you either get a viral gofundme or you die. It's the 'merican way! Or we could just tax corporations and the 1%ers and have healthcare like a civilized country.
And the GOP in its present form is dead. They all sold out like the spineless cowards that they are and they deserve to be voted out. The GOP should start over from the ground up. I'm a VERY liberal person, but I appreciate a rational debate and counterpoint. Right now our only options are Biden or the lunatics in the trump cult. That's not a 2-party system…it's insanity.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Get back to work!
@1:03 – David Duke was a racist KKK Democrat. He renounced racism and became a republican. He never held national office. Unlike David Duke – there are many, many progressive democrats who are a hair trigger away from socialism – including many senators, not just Bernie. So – while you can maintain your smug rebuke of republicans as being alarmist when it comes to socialism, your head is a bit buried in the sand if you don't believe the democrats are the party of "transformation" – and that transformation is in the form of socialism.
I'm also 40, and I get the impression that every generation has announced that the world / country is going to hell in a handbasket, since the beginning of time (or at least since the beginning of handbaskets).
In my opinion, the Dems are indeed getting weirder. But the Democrats' problem is not "socialism." It is excessive sympathy for illegal conduct. Take illegal immigration, for example. It is illegal for a reason, but the Dems seem to be trying to redefine this particular crime as normal, and even laudatory, behavior.
Based on the videos I saw, what the cops did to George Floyd was criminal. But that does not mean that every time a cop kills a black man, the black man was innocent and the cop is a criminal. Yet that is sure how the Dems are acting now.
As for healthcare for all, I think it is stupid that our country does not have a healthcare for all system. "But taxes!" you cry. Have you ever had to pay your own premiums out of pocket? Your employer has paid them, even if you haven't. If we really wanted to do it, I bet we could make a pretty decent healthcare for all system where whatever increase in taxes you pay is actually less than what you and/or your employer are paying for premiums now.
I used to be a Republican, but quit them years ago when they starting going on that pregnancy cannot result from "legitimate rape" and other nonsense (which doesn't even hold a candle to the nonsense they are doing now). But I can't be a Democrat either, because they are crazy in a different way, see above.
Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, despite his embrace of the label. He's a left social democrat at most. Still, Republicans' insistence on calling anything to the right of Pat Buchannan "socialism" for the last 30 years has rendered the term harmless to a generation of voters. Keep it up and you'll get real socialism, not the Sanders/AOC diet socialism being pushed now.
Sixty year old here – Don't have time for a long answer. Agree that the constant inundation of "news" makes it seem like things are bad. Country has always been divided. Seems like the President likes to divide more than unite. The level of vitriol seems unduly high in certain media outlets. What I find distressing is the level of hypocrisy. Maybe its always been high, but if any of us pulled the crap we are seeing right now, our parents, teachers, mentors, bosses, spouses would call us out and we would lose a lot, if not all of their trust. Seems like politicians, or at least the party leaders, don't have any principles and don't care that they are seen as hypocrites. This cuts both ways ('Publicans and Dems). I am disgusted, but at my age I don't give a rats behind anymore. I am now an acid test voter: If you are the incumbent and I perceive you to be a hypocrite you don't get my vote.
September 21, 2020 at 2:39 PM – Good list; you can add numerous programs at the Commerce, Energy, and Transportation Departments and almost the entire budget of the Agriculture Department, which is largely supported by GOP rural state senators.
The reality is we are not a country that follows capitalism. People whine and cry about all systems and policies, unless it directly helps them or their agenda. We have become a selfish nation with a population that has no true accountability. People use extreme examples to prop up their side.
@1:34 thanks for your witty comment. Check out the lincoln project and rvat. I'm not the only person saying the GOP is dead. Republicans are saying the GOP is dead too. It's no longer a counter to the dems. It's a cult.
An over 60 person here and I have been spending time watching documentaries about politics and the sixties…my memories are a little off. There seems to have been just as much dissension and going to hell in a handbag (stealing that) and "it has never been this bad" back then. I think we get deluged by it now because there are so many forms of media informing us instead of the nightly news and Look magazine. So I have cut back on my news consumption. It helps.
A federal District Court judge has dismissed the
@realDonaldTrump
's lawsuit seeking to block NV's expanded mail voting law (AB4) over lack of standing
https://twitter.com/RileySnyder/status/1308078639766929418
Full order
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.144953/gov.uscourts.nvd.144953.47.0.pdf
Judge Mahan's order is very well written.
Usually are. We need more Mahans on the bench, but I'm not sure if they make 'em like him anymore.
Dealings with five judges in federal court, two retired. The only one I like who I dealt with was Navarro. Applied the law to the facts.
CHurch! @1215pm.
Mahan was great in his day but lost his way (mind) after about 11-12 years on the federal bench. he hires solid law clerks though.
McConnell's immediate vow to push though a Trump appointee to replace Justice Ginsburg is disgusting, especially in light of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland. What, in God's name, has happened to our country? What has happened to basic decency?
There are no more morals or ethics in American Politics…
Is there any reason to believe that this would play out differently if the Democrats held the Senate and the Presidency than the Republicans? Obama did not wait around to throw Marrick Garland's name out after Scalia was planted into the ground. Republicans pushed to wait pending the election, true. And Democrats pushed to get Garland appointed as fast as possible before the same. The positions are just reversed now because it is in each side's interest to advance the contrary.
Did anyone expect anything different? Honestly?
@ 1:04 p.m. You are 100% correct. There are 2 steps here.
Step 1 is nominating an appointee. Obama did that and Trump will do that.
Step 2 is the Senate. The difference being that unlike Obama, Trump was given a Republican majority in the Senate (twice).
People "against" Trump's appointment are basing their opposition on the outcome, not the legitimacy of the process itself. In fact, if Dems controlled the Senate while Trump was in office we'd only have 6 SC Justices right now.
It's going to rule when we have 13 for the 2021-2022 term
It's really funny how both sides have sprinted to the opposite point of view on this issue. We can go dig up lots of quotes from dems in 2016 that make them look like hypocrites now too. It's clear that knee jerk partisans have no principled defense for their view except that it's the view that will work out best for their respective political parties. It's really sad. But in fairness, I have an opinion about who should pick RBG's successor, and that opinion colors how I hope this thing shakes out.
Lol. Expanding the Court shouldn't be priority number 1 for President Biden and the majority Democratic Senate and House. Time to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. If coronavirus has taught us anything, it's that work can and should get done remotely. Repeal the cap of 435 Representatives, set the proportion of Representatives to 1:200,000 citizens, and watch democracy flow in America again. No need to have all the Representatives in DC, since they can make speeches and vote remotely. And, with the 4x increase in numbers in the House comes a comparable increase in the number of Presidential Electors in the Electoral College.
Can someone provide me with a fair justification for the difference between 2016 and 2020 re Supreme Court nominations that isn't ends justified? McConnell says that the difference is that in 2016 the 2014 elections provided some sort of mandate opposing the appointment. Perhaps but this sort of augury seems to be ends justified. The argument at the time, that a lifetime appointment close to an election should be deferred to determine a mandate seems fair, even though I think McConnells view stretched it. If the answer is, because they can, then at least that answer throws away the pretense.
Yes, the democrats have changed their position from last time, but that is because the republicans were successful last time. I look at it like judicial estoppel. If you are successful in the first position, you should be estopped from changing your position later to meet the needs of the day. If the democrats had been able to install Garland in 2016, then I think it would be fair for Trump to replace Ginsburg. But for the republicans to assert that no supreme court justice should be appointed during an election year, and be successful in that argument, and now take an opposite position, is truly hypocritical, and shows their complete lack of integrity.
Politics are an entirely different game from the practice of law. Different rules, different venues, and different moves to play in the pursuit of typically different outcomes. This happens to be an intersection of politics and legal practice, and I think that makes it more tempting to apply the framework and understanding that one would use when analyzing a case or issue of procedure. But judicial estoppel absolutely has no quarter in politics.
The justification would be that the president was at the very end of his second (final) term, and the president's party didn't control the senate. So, the argument goes, the people had spoken by putting the opposition party in charge of the body that has the power to vote (or not vote) on a nominee. In doing so, one might argue, the people had sent a message to the senate that it should wait until the lame duck presidency was over.
I think this is bs. I think the right thing to do in 2016 is the same thing that's the right thing to do now — to hold confirmation hearings and vote for the judge. In 2016, I thought they should have voted on Garland, and I think the same today (even though my only case before Garland was a terrible reversal of a district court decision that really went against my client, and I think was wrong). 4 years later, I think they should vote on whoever Trump picks, even though I have no particular love for anyone on Trump's short list.
The year was 1987. Reagan was on the home stretch of his final year in office. Justice Lewis Powell had retired. Reagan nominated Bork, who was rejected by a Democratic-controlled Senate. On November 11, 1987, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy. On February 3, 1988, the Senate voted to confirm Kennedy, including an affirmative vote by then-freshman Mitch McConnell.
It seems it's only a rule to withhold a vote on an opposition party President's nominee when the opposition party President is a Democrat.
This idea of a mandate of the people based on the composition of the Senate is so contrived. Only 1/3 of the senate is up for election in each 2 year cycle. So saying the people in 2018 elected a republican majority in the Senate to address this situation if it were to come up is flat-out wrong. This is politics plain and simple.
The GOP doesn't have a good answer as to why this is different than the Merrick Garland situation. But they don't need a good answer. They control the Senate and can do as they please. The repercussions, if any, come at the ballot box and in underground abortion clinics.
Can someone over the age of 60 answer this question – is the world going to hell in a handbag or has it always been like this? I can't tell if things seem difficult and insane because i'm getting older (40) so i'm more aware of issues – or if things are really crazy. Like- the democrats are pushing for socialism, right? How is that acceptable? AOC literally says that. I have dem friends that say that I'm crazy for thinking the dems are pushing for socialism, but I hear it from the mouths of the leaders. And AOC may be a congresswoman but she's got major power – right? I'm just really confused. The republicans have a leader that no one likes, I get that. But – the democrats seem to be off the rails.
I mean "hand-basket" not handbag. I guess if the world were going to hell in a handbag, it would depend on the style, shape, color….
Is the country going to hell in a handbasket? Perhaps.
Are Democrats pushing "socialism"? No. Conservative media, particularly prime-time Fox, labels virtually every Democrat as a "socialist". Even Joe Biden, who, whether you like him or not, is barely left of center. Fox loves to use AOC as the face of the Democratic Party because it's good for ratings, but she is not representative of the typical Democrat.
I am a former Republican, FWIW. But I'm definitely not a Democrat. Still, I'll be voting for Biden. I would have voted for just about any other normal Republican over Biden.
Socialism is a pretty broad label that can be interpreted to mean, represent, or be different things. If universal basic healthcare means socialism to you, then I would imagine that many on the not-so-far left are in favor that type of socialism.
@12:34 – have you seen the influence AOC has on the party? Why are you so confident that Biden will not drop dead and Harris will take over and go to town on our democracy? I have starting getting a lot of my news direct from social media and the dems don't hide their progressive platform. It's concerning -whether you like Trump or not. If Biden was going to actually be the leader I might be less concerned but it seems clear this is the Harris-Biden platform. I think the debates may flesh some of this out but even if Biden rejects a lot of the progressive platform, it is Harris and the "others" that give me great concern. AOC and Bernie literally want to change our country into a socialist country. That doesn't concern you? It concerns me. Maybe it shouldn't. It's so hard to know – but when I hear the stuff coming out of some of these peoples mouths, it's scary crap
@12:39 – socialism is not broad. Socialism means socialism. Community owned and regulated everything. That includes health care and that is what progressives are advocating for- it is no secret. It is their platform. It is not a "fox news" talking point. It is the truth. Go to the source.
12:47,
Since that's your definition, then you can rest assured that no politician at the national level, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (who actually is a socialist), is a socialist. They are not advocating for the complete and total abrogation of personal property rights, that's just a Sean Hannity talking point. They are not suggesting regulating everything, that's just Mark Levin fearmongering. They are not proposing draconian regulation against conservative talk radio, that's just Napalitono playing to fears of the audience of Fox and Friends. Trump has trained his minions to call everyone they don't like either a socialist or part of the Deep State, and whether it's even remotely true was zero bearing on their willingness to say it.
Biden is a moderate. Has been for decades. Trump is an authoritarian. Has been for decades.
Jesus Christ with the AOC. Does David Duke speak for all Republicans? No?? And so it is with her. Harris, if she does ascend, will want the same thing all politicans want which is to stay relevant. Adopting fringe party positions does not accomplish that.
Oh No! Socialism!!! What ever will we do? Maybe someone should call the cops? Or the fire department? Maybe get the military on this? Arrest these rabblerousers and put them in the jail. Where did they learn this nonsense?
Public school? We should get our big trump flags and have a parade and drive on roads.
What the faux news consumers don't want to acknowledge is that what they call socialism is really mostly just healthcare for all. What a travesty to the American way. Don't they know if you get sick here, you either get a viral gofundme or you die. It's the 'merican way! Or we could just tax corporations and the 1%ers and have healthcare like a civilized country.
And the GOP in its present form is dead. They all sold out like the spineless cowards that they are and they deserve to be voted out. The GOP should start over from the ground up. I'm a VERY liberal person, but I appreciate a rational debate and counterpoint. Right now our only options are Biden or the lunatics in the trump cult. That's not a 2-party system…it's insanity.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Get back to work!
@1:03 – David Duke was a racist KKK Democrat. He renounced racism and became a republican. He never held national office. Unlike David Duke – there are many, many progressive democrats who are a hair trigger away from socialism – including many senators, not just Bernie. So – while you can maintain your smug rebuke of republicans as being alarmist when it comes to socialism, your head is a bit buried in the sand if you don't believe the democrats are the party of "transformation" – and that transformation is in the form of socialism.
@1:06. A very liberal person saying the GOP is dead? how original.
I'm also 40, and I get the impression that every generation has announced that the world / country is going to hell in a handbasket, since the beginning of time (or at least since the beginning of handbaskets).
In my opinion, the Dems are indeed getting weirder. But the Democrats' problem is not "socialism." It is excessive sympathy for illegal conduct. Take illegal immigration, for example. It is illegal for a reason, but the Dems seem to be trying to redefine this particular crime as normal, and even laudatory, behavior.
Based on the videos I saw, what the cops did to George Floyd was criminal. But that does not mean that every time a cop kills a black man, the black man was innocent and the cop is a criminal. Yet that is sure how the Dems are acting now.
As for healthcare for all, I think it is stupid that our country does not have a healthcare for all system. "But taxes!" you cry. Have you ever had to pay your own premiums out of pocket? Your employer has paid them, even if you haven't. If we really wanted to do it, I bet we could make a pretty decent healthcare for all system where whatever increase in taxes you pay is actually less than what you and/or your employer are paying for premiums now.
I used to be a Republican, but quit them years ago when they starting going on that pregnancy cannot result from "legitimate rape" and other nonsense (which doesn't even hold a candle to the nonsense they are doing now). But I can't be a Democrat either, because they are crazy in a different way, see above.
Are the following socialist?
Public schools
Public hospitals
Military
Public assistance
Social security
PPP loans
Medicare
Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, despite his embrace of the label. He's a left social democrat at most. Still, Republicans' insistence on calling anything to the right of Pat Buchannan "socialism" for the last 30 years has rendered the term harmless to a generation of voters. Keep it up and you'll get real socialism, not the Sanders/AOC diet socialism being pushed now.
Nice try, Bernie's a straight up commie.
Sixty year old here – Don't have time for a long answer. Agree that the constant inundation of "news" makes it seem like things are bad. Country has always been divided. Seems like the President likes to divide more than unite. The level of vitriol seems unduly high in certain media outlets. What I find distressing is the level of hypocrisy. Maybe its always been high, but if any of us pulled the crap we are seeing right now, our parents, teachers, mentors, bosses, spouses would call us out and we would lose a lot, if not all of their trust. Seems like politicians, or at least the party leaders, don't have any principles and don't care that they are seen as hypocrites. This cuts both ways ('Publicans and Dems). I am disgusted, but at my age I don't give a rats behind anymore. I am now an acid test voter: If you are the incumbent and I perceive you to be a hypocrite you don't get my vote.
September 21, 2020 at 2:39 PM – Good list; you can add numerous programs at the Commerce, Energy, and Transportation Departments and almost the entire budget of the Agriculture Department, which is largely supported by GOP rural state senators.
The reality is we are not a country that follows capitalism. People whine and cry about all systems and policies, unless it directly helps them or their agenda. We have become a selfish nation with a population that has no true accountability. People use extreme examples to prop up their side.
@1:34 thanks for your witty comment. Check out the lincoln project and rvat. I'm not the only person saying the GOP is dead. Republicans are saying the GOP is dead too. It's no longer a counter to the dems. It's a cult.
RBG's voting my mail this year.
She hasn't filled out her ballot yet though.
An over 60 person here and I have been spending time watching documentaries about politics and the sixties…my memories are a little off. There seems to have been just as much dissension and going to hell in a handbag (stealing that) and "it has never been this bad" back then. I think we get deluged by it now because there are so many forms of media informing us instead of the nightly news and Look magazine. So I have cut back on my news consumption. It helps.