I thought so too. And I could see that sort of argument touching a nerve against a biracial politician who went to, say, Harvard and joined an elite historically white eating club. But against someone who went Howard a well known HBCU and joined the country’s oldest black sorority while there? That’s such a bizarre charge to level and would have no possibility of having that effect. Then again you’ve got someone making those comments who has a bizarre way of thinking.
Trump is an inept politician and really poor speaker. A better way to undermine her identity politics would have been to laud her as a typical example of a child of successful legal immigrants. Her father is a prestigious professor of economics, and her mother is a prestigious bio-medical scientist. Both are the kind of legal immigrants that Trump has said he wants. Also, her heritage, like most Americans is mixed. Her mother's heritage is Indian. Her father is from Jamaica and his heritage is Irish and Black. In fact, one of his Irish ancestors (Hamilton Brown) owned a plantation with over 1100 slaves. Trump can truthfully state that he is the only candidate whose ancestors never owned slaves.
True, but he's also the only candidate whose ancestors were draft dodgers in two separate countries, plus he & his rotten Klan member father were both draft dodgers!
That works for me. I would hope that would ring true for centrists, along with a lot of other stuff. It will be interesting to see how the progressives and media keep the 'ancestor slave owner' on the back burner, since it is core to a lot of activism since 2020. Harris may have to come out with some sort of reparations plan/position, if that story gets any traction.
He is actually really good at identifying what people want to hear and running with it. I found his words that night to be a failure—he seemed so upset about starting late he was tripping all over himself and couldn’t quite get back on rhetoric track.
I'm with Eric. I don't think Trump cared what the reaction was. He didn't go into the room looking for votes. But now he can claim that he is open minded and willing to face the enemy. As an aside, how will he describe the meeting in the future, based on his record of recreating reality? Will we hear it was a productive encounter with many attendees agreeing with him and congratulating him for his appearance? Don't forget we are accustomed to believing media reports of what actually happened at the session. How will Trump report it? You know his supporters will eat it up and claim lies by the liberal media for reporting it wrong.
As if the Black constituents anywhere would believe TFG's characterization!?!? Or non-Black constituents anywhere would believe his attack on Vice President Harris.
My family has roots in more than a few eastern European countries. I am also American. I am a male. I am Jewish. Am I forced to choose just one or am I all of them? A better question is whether or not I actually have a choice. I don't recall anyone at my birth hospital asking either me or my mother to make a choice or checking a box on a menu of options.
I was referring to something that happens as people grow up and continues into adulthood. African American is much more than a heritage that applies to some individuals. It is an identity. There are some African American's who hold a notion that to be "really black", you have to tick some boxes. It is not enough to simply have been born into the race.
Whether or not there is similar social pressure among American Jews, I have not idea.
I read the link. It doesn't change my view. She's black. She was born that way. The article only points out that different blacks handle it differently or try to use it to their advantage. Plus, the article only showcases one side of the article. The very moment she was born, much of white America was going to see her a certain way, no matter how she acted or what she accomplished. Why is the media fixated on the possibility of her possibly bring the first female black president? Because they know it's a factor to to both black and non-black people. Martin Luther King was hoping for day it wouldn't matter. I haven't seen it, despite Barack Obama. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. How do Jews handle it? We have mostly ignored it. It is what it is. Many people don't like us. They assume we run everything through our greed for money. I often wonder how this power missed me. Jews lived and survived through many centuries of European hatred, including the Inquisition. If Hitler hadn't tried to wipe us out, most of us would still be in Europe. That's the big difference between us and blacks. We simply figured out how to work around it.
I agree with you Laurence. My point is that Trump may have been trying to score points with people who do not see the world the you you and I do with regard to race. I am acknowledging a phenomenon of othering within a subculture. That does not mean I don't think it is nonsense.
Do not assume that Trump sees things and reacts as we would expect of normal people. At this point Trump is not going to change many minds. He doesn't need to shore up his vote from racists. He just needs to maintain their attention and ensure they show up on Election Day. His ego makes him say things that even his closest political advisors wish he wouldn't. Think about it. If you were the Republican candidate, would you want to excite minorities who traditionally show up in low percentages? Is he going to change their minds by insulting a black female candidate? Does he win over independents and undecided by insulting everyone in site and telling lie after lie when they are so easy to disprove? I don't see any deep dark political strategy. He just can't help himself. Plus it keeps alive and excited all those deluded followers who show up at his rallies and act like it's the Second Coming. He doesn't need to court them. Their minds were made up in 2016.
Please don’t let it be Shapiro. Most of my friends, like me, are terrified of that possibility. As Jews we know just how toxic things are right now. And Shapiro has significant baggage. And don’t tell me, as some non-Jews do, that his positions aren’t any different than the other candidates. Apart from not being Jewish, They don’t have the long ago history of statements about Palestinians and the recent history of statements on the encampments that he does. I strongly fear we We will lose the enthusiasm of most young progressives….and Michigan if he’s chosen. So I’m crossing my fingers that it’s Walz. (It appears to be down to the two of them).
I'm also "Jewish starring" my fingers. I'm proudly Jewish, but fear this would be the wrong choice at this moment in time, for all of the reasons you give, Jo A., no matter how moderate he may be, as well as being from a swing state. I think Mark Kelley is the best choice.
My understanding is that Kelly has a problem with past investments in China that aren’t a good look. But for whatever reason, he’s now out of the running….according to insider gossip. I’m no insider though so maybe that’s wrong.
Every person who has ever lived has some kind of baggage, right? I don't envy Harris her choice, but anyone has to be better than Vance (not to mention the deranged Trump in the top spot.) I guess we'll all find out later today, and whoever it is, they'll both have my support. I'm voting blue top to bottom, AND working hard to help, in my own small way, to get a Dem win in the White House, Senate, and House. Also, I misspelled Kelly---that's what happens when I comment before finishing my coffee!:-)
If Harris gets elected, she's going to need all the Dem Senators as support. I don't like risking a Dem Senator's seat in the Senate. (P.s. - I'm glad Walz was selected.)
I am irked that Bernie Sanders publicly endorsed Walz. WTF? this is not an election It is Kamala's choice. I would like to see Walz not chosen just to spite Bernie. IMO, Bernie did enough damage to tip the scales for Trump in 2016. He is at it again.
If it’s Walz, we keep the enthusiasm of the young progressives we need to vote. I agree with you about Sanders and the damage he did in 2016 but Walz has been looked on favorably by many in Congress. He’s apparently especially well liked by his fellow representatives which makes him a good choice to me. Of course anyone has baggage and Walz has his re the George Floyd protests but at least he’s not going to anger some in the party like Shapiro would.
with walz i believe there's little or no chance of harris reaching the middle. harris ran far to the left of biden in 2020, and she's going to have a hard time shedding that baggage in 2024. 2 progressives on her ticket might not shift centrists to trump - but it will cause many to vote 3rd party, or just not vote for a POTUS.
Anything is possible. But keep something in mind. Merely being a Democrat is enough for many MAGAs to label someone as liberal. Merely disagreeing with Trump is often enough to get a Republiican labeled as a RINO or a liberal in disguise. I have often been called a liberal because of my opposition to Trump, though I label myself as independent. I often use Richard J. Daley as an example. He may have been a lifelong Democrat. But he would have been personally offended to be labeled as a liberal. Culturally, he was about as conservative and old fashioned as one could get. Many of his supporters were working class people so it was politically the smart thing to court unions. But he had no trouble hobknobbing and making deals with GOP business leaders who were perfectly happy to have him on their side. As I write this, the choice has been made. Personally, I don't think it makes that much difference. He's a Democrat and running with Harris. That will provide plenty of attack fodder for Burger Boy and his minions with or without use of actual evidence.
amen. bernie, just STFU on this matter! you're as age-demented as biden, and you're not helping harris by going public w- your opinions on the Veepstakes.
It was Hilary Clinton, and her allergic aversion to campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other key swing states who tipped the scales for Trump. Bernie might have beaten him. I know a LOT of people that voted for Trump, and all of them said they would have voted for Sanders if he had been the Dem candidate. None of them voted for Clinton, and never would.
I agree that Clinton ran a poor campaign. She also had a lot of people with an extreme dislike for her. I said at the time, and still believe, that Sanders is a populist that was addressing many of the same issues as Trump. He was also making many of the same claims, particularly with regard to a rigged system in the election, economy, and government. I agree that he might have beaten Trump, but he is pretty far left.
Yeah, dyed in the wool Democrats have always been dumbfounded as to how anyone could hold Trump and Sanders in equally high esteem, but you pinpointed it here, Marc. Simply put, HRC was always as beloved by the coastal elites as she was despised by the deplorables of fly-over country. We saw what that disconnect ultimately led to.
We are also seeing how much the Democrats have learned in eight years (not much, it seems). I fear that they are making the same mistake all over again, enthusiastically throwing the full weight of their support behind an unduly vulnerable candidate who is wildly adored in the faculty lounge, but considerably less adored on the factory floor.
It’s too bad because the Democrats could be running away with the election right now (and I am aware that the media are largely reporting as if Harris IS running away with it. Memo: she’s not), but they’ve opted to live dangerously. A Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Rossdale, Mark Kelly, or Tulsi Gabbard candidacy would likely have assured a Democratic landslide in November, but alas, we must pin our hopes on a failed border czar.
i voted for walz for expected, schapiro for preferred. i would have selected kelly for preferred, but he pretty much took himself out of the race [or was told by harris or her campaign staff that he was out] on Sunday.
i just don't get what walz brings as her VP nominee - other than avoiding the antisemitism on the far right and far left that schapiro wd generate. but PA is SO important to her winning the EC.
Ah, well ... i didn't get a call from her or her team, seeking my advice.
Regarding Dexter Reed - someone commented a few weeks ago that a police informant had reported Reed had a gun in his car and was intending to shoot someone. That was the reason they stopped him. That he was pulled over by an anti gang tactical unit plays into that.
I haven’t heard any more about this. Has anyone else?
Turns out it's Walz. I think that's a smart choice I had him as my guess for the pick. I was hoping for Shapiro, in the hopes that it would give her PA, but he was too big a risk, with Israel being a controversial divisive issue on the left.
Apparently it's Walz. This thought keeps running through my head: The leak is a big con and Shapiro shows up with Harris tonight! I find the pick ... curious. GOP ads will write themselves -- showing the 2020 riots with Minneapolis burning.
Walz is vulnerable on this because he refused to call in the MN National Guard for 4 nights while Minneapolis was burning and in control of the rioters. His administration was also found to be terribly negligent in lack of oversight in the massive Feeding our Future scandal where a group of Somalis organized to submit bogus lists of children being fed and defrauded literally hundreds of millions in funds intended for children in need. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/feeding-our-future-legislative-auditor-report-minnesota-department-of-education/
So there are indeed vulnerabilities on Walz with some real meat on the bone.
I appreciate the Handy Charts as I'm a huge fan of graphics that convey complex information simply and clearly. Unfortunately, I cannot share the first chart, much as I'd like to, because there's no source included. A teacher would write in red pen over that, "Cite your sources, please!"
Comparison charts/lists/graphics I would love see created:
- Number of former administration members who wrote unflattering tell-all books about their boss from the Trump administration compared to Biden and Obama administrations;
- Number of former campaign and administration staff convicted of crimes from past three Dem and GOP presidents;
- List of republicans who have publicly said they won't vote for Trump compared to list of democrats who've publicly said they wouldn't vote for Biden or now Harris;
- Membership numbers for the groups Republicans for Harris and Democrats for Trump
I couldn't find any chart that matched the GDP comparison, but it looks right. The missing foot note is that the 2019 and 2020 GDP was massively reduced by the COVID shutdowns, while the closures were ended in 2021 and resulted in a massive rebound. Also, the numbers are not inflation adjusted. The average inflation in 2021 to now is about 4.95%, which would significantly reduce the adjusted GDP numbers for those years, while 2017-2020 was 1.95%.
What I don’t understand about the “New Justice Every Two Years” plan (besides its having no chance of coming to pass) is what happens to a President’s nominations when the Senate is of the opposite party. In the current environment you accumulate two vacancies.
I'm being a pest because I'd like to see this thing work. How would you word the amendment to provide for the confirmation of nominees who are voted down by the Senate?
The Senate would be required to vote on any nominee of the president withing 60 days of the nomination.
No vote, the nominee is automatically approved.
If the Senate votes down three nominees, then the Senate MUST approve #4 or #4 is also automatically approved.
Now a president could game the Senate by sending up three worthless appointees, just so #4, who the other party hates would be approved, but that's really unlikely!
I'm glad she didn't pull a member of Congress and didn't choose Pritzger! I think he would be a good president but we need him. Who could replace JP at some point tho?
Against my own better judgment I will play the "What was Trump's motivation for saying that?" game.
His comments about Kamala's race could have been targeted to his black constituents calling her out as not being "really black".
I thought so too. And I could see that sort of argument touching a nerve against a biracial politician who went to, say, Harvard and joined an elite historically white eating club. But against someone who went Howard a well known HBCU and joined the country’s oldest black sorority while there? That’s such a bizarre charge to level and would have no possibility of having that effect. Then again you’ve got someone making those comments who has a bizarre way of thinking.
Your comment has insightful facts. Consider that Trump speaks to reach Trump supporters.
Trump’s accusations aren’t necessarily based on facts.
Nothing he's ever spewed out of his pie hole has ever been based on facts!
Trump is an inept politician and really poor speaker. A better way to undermine her identity politics would have been to laud her as a typical example of a child of successful legal immigrants. Her father is a prestigious professor of economics, and her mother is a prestigious bio-medical scientist. Both are the kind of legal immigrants that Trump has said he wants. Also, her heritage, like most Americans is mixed. Her mother's heritage is Indian. Her father is from Jamaica and his heritage is Irish and Black. In fact, one of his Irish ancestors (Hamilton Brown) owned a plantation with over 1100 slaves. Trump can truthfully state that he is the only candidate whose ancestors never owned slaves.
True, but he's also the only candidate whose ancestors were draft dodgers in two separate countries, plus he & his rotten Klan member father were both draft dodgers!
That works for me. I would hope that would ring true for centrists, along with a lot of other stuff. It will be interesting to see how the progressives and media keep the 'ancestor slave owner' on the back burner, since it is core to a lot of activism since 2020. Harris may have to come out with some sort of reparations plan/position, if that story gets any traction.
He is actually really good at identifying what people want to hear and running with it. I found his words that night to be a failure—he seemed so upset about starting late he was tripping all over himself and couldn’t quite get back on rhetoric track.
I'm with Eric. I don't think Trump cared what the reaction was. He didn't go into the room looking for votes. But now he can claim that he is open minded and willing to face the enemy. As an aside, how will he describe the meeting in the future, based on his record of recreating reality? Will we hear it was a productive encounter with many attendees agreeing with him and congratulating him for his appearance? Don't forget we are accustomed to believing media reports of what actually happened at the session. How will Trump report it? You know his supporters will eat it up and claim lies by the liberal media for reporting it wrong.
As if the Black constituents anywhere would believe TFG's characterization!?!? Or non-Black constituents anywhere would believe his attack on Vice President Harris.
My family has roots in more than a few eastern European countries. I am also American. I am a male. I am Jewish. Am I forced to choose just one or am I all of them? A better question is whether or not I actually have a choice. I don't recall anyone at my birth hospital asking either me or my mother to make a choice or checking a box on a menu of options.
I was referring to something that happens as people grow up and continues into adulthood. African American is much more than a heritage that applies to some individuals. It is an identity. There are some African American's who hold a notion that to be "really black", you have to tick some boxes. It is not enough to simply have been born into the race.
Whether or not there is similar social pressure among American Jews, I have not idea.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/07/misconceptions-about-being-black-in-america/623509/
I read the link. It doesn't change my view. She's black. She was born that way. The article only points out that different blacks handle it differently or try to use it to their advantage. Plus, the article only showcases one side of the article. The very moment she was born, much of white America was going to see her a certain way, no matter how she acted or what she accomplished. Why is the media fixated on the possibility of her possibly bring the first female black president? Because they know it's a factor to to both black and non-black people. Martin Luther King was hoping for day it wouldn't matter. I haven't seen it, despite Barack Obama. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. How do Jews handle it? We have mostly ignored it. It is what it is. Many people don't like us. They assume we run everything through our greed for money. I often wonder how this power missed me. Jews lived and survived through many centuries of European hatred, including the Inquisition. If Hitler hadn't tried to wipe us out, most of us would still be in Europe. That's the big difference between us and blacks. We simply figured out how to work around it.
I agree with you Laurence. My point is that Trump may have been trying to score points with people who do not see the world the you you and I do with regard to race. I am acknowledging a phenomenon of othering within a subculture. That does not mean I don't think it is nonsense.
Do not assume that Trump sees things and reacts as we would expect of normal people. At this point Trump is not going to change many minds. He doesn't need to shore up his vote from racists. He just needs to maintain their attention and ensure they show up on Election Day. His ego makes him say things that even his closest political advisors wish he wouldn't. Think about it. If you were the Republican candidate, would you want to excite minorities who traditionally show up in low percentages? Is he going to change their minds by insulting a black female candidate? Does he win over independents and undecided by insulting everyone in site and telling lie after lie when they are so easy to disprove? I don't see any deep dark political strategy. He just can't help himself. Plus it keeps alive and excited all those deluded followers who show up at his rallies and act like it's the Second Coming. He doesn't need to court them. Their minds were made up in 2016.
Please don’t let it be Shapiro. Most of my friends, like me, are terrified of that possibility. As Jews we know just how toxic things are right now. And Shapiro has significant baggage. And don’t tell me, as some non-Jews do, that his positions aren’t any different than the other candidates. Apart from not being Jewish, They don’t have the long ago history of statements about Palestinians and the recent history of statements on the encampments that he does. I strongly fear we We will lose the enthusiasm of most young progressives….and Michigan if he’s chosen. So I’m crossing my fingers that it’s Walz. (It appears to be down to the two of them).
I'm also "Jewish starring" my fingers. I'm proudly Jewish, but fear this would be the wrong choice at this moment in time, for all of the reasons you give, Jo A., no matter how moderate he may be, as well as being from a swing state. I think Mark Kelley is the best choice.
My understanding is that Kelly has a problem with past investments in China that aren’t a good look. But for whatever reason, he’s now out of the running….according to insider gossip. I’m no insider though so maybe that’s wrong.
Every person who has ever lived has some kind of baggage, right? I don't envy Harris her choice, but anyone has to be better than Vance (not to mention the deranged Trump in the top spot.) I guess we'll all find out later today, and whoever it is, they'll both have my support. I'm voting blue top to bottom, AND working hard to help, in my own small way, to get a Dem win in the White House, Senate, and House. Also, I misspelled Kelly---that's what happens when I comment before finishing my coffee!:-)
I read he just worked for Shaklee in China, pushing Shaklee's vitamins.
If Harris gets elected, she's going to need all the Dem Senators as support. I don't like risking a Dem Senator's seat in the Senate. (P.s. - I'm glad Walz was selected.)
Good points.
I am irked that Bernie Sanders publicly endorsed Walz. WTF? this is not an election It is Kamala's choice. I would like to see Walz not chosen just to spite Bernie. IMO, Bernie did enough damage to tip the scales for Trump in 2016. He is at it again.
If it’s Walz, we keep the enthusiasm of the young progressives we need to vote. I agree with you about Sanders and the damage he did in 2016 but Walz has been looked on favorably by many in Congress. He’s apparently especially well liked by his fellow representatives which makes him a good choice to me. Of course anyone has baggage and Walz has his re the George Floyd protests but at least he’s not going to anger some in the party like Shapiro would.
with walz i believe there's little or no chance of harris reaching the middle. harris ran far to the left of biden in 2020, and she's going to have a hard time shedding that baggage in 2024. 2 progressives on her ticket might not shift centrists to trump - but it will cause many to vote 3rd party, or just not vote for a POTUS.
Anything is possible. But keep something in mind. Merely being a Democrat is enough for many MAGAs to label someone as liberal. Merely disagreeing with Trump is often enough to get a Republiican labeled as a RINO or a liberal in disguise. I have often been called a liberal because of my opposition to Trump, though I label myself as independent. I often use Richard J. Daley as an example. He may have been a lifelong Democrat. But he would have been personally offended to be labeled as a liberal. Culturally, he was about as conservative and old fashioned as one could get. Many of his supporters were working class people so it was politically the smart thing to court unions. But he had no trouble hobknobbing and making deals with GOP business leaders who were perfectly happy to have him on their side. As I write this, the choice has been made. Personally, I don't think it makes that much difference. He's a Democrat and running with Harris. That will provide plenty of attack fodder for Burger Boy and his minions with or without use of actual evidence.
well-stated. and perhaps in particular: 'I don't think it makes that much difference.' i don't either.
amen. bernie, just STFU on this matter! you're as age-demented as biden, and you're not helping harris by going public w- your opinions on the Veepstakes.
It was Hilary Clinton, and her allergic aversion to campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other key swing states who tipped the scales for Trump. Bernie might have beaten him. I know a LOT of people that voted for Trump, and all of them said they would have voted for Sanders if he had been the Dem candidate. None of them voted for Clinton, and never would.
I agree that Clinton ran a poor campaign. She also had a lot of people with an extreme dislike for her. I said at the time, and still believe, that Sanders is a populist that was addressing many of the same issues as Trump. He was also making many of the same claims, particularly with regard to a rigged system in the election, economy, and government. I agree that he might have beaten Trump, but he is pretty far left.
Sanders isn't a populist, he's an out & out socialist, who tops that off with being America's #1 self hating Jew!
I thought that was Norm Finklestein.
Who's that?
Yeah, dyed in the wool Democrats have always been dumbfounded as to how anyone could hold Trump and Sanders in equally high esteem, but you pinpointed it here, Marc. Simply put, HRC was always as beloved by the coastal elites as she was despised by the deplorables of fly-over country. We saw what that disconnect ultimately led to.
We are also seeing how much the Democrats have learned in eight years (not much, it seems). I fear that they are making the same mistake all over again, enthusiastically throwing the full weight of their support behind an unduly vulnerable candidate who is wildly adored in the faculty lounge, but considerably less adored on the factory floor.
It’s too bad because the Democrats could be running away with the election right now (and I am aware that the media are largely reporting as if Harris IS running away with it. Memo: she’s not), but they’ve opted to live dangerously. A Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Rossdale, Mark Kelly, or Tulsi Gabbard candidacy would likely have assured a Democratic landslide in November, but alas, we must pin our hopes on a failed border czar.
Bernie didn't have a chance of winning in 2016, in fact, he had a better chance of being elected Pope, that president!
He certainly didn’t have a chance after Debbie Wasserman Schulz used her clout to hamstring him.
Good work by her!
Just as long as you remember that President Donald Trump was a product of her handiwork.
i voted for walz for expected, schapiro for preferred. i would have selected kelly for preferred, but he pretty much took himself out of the race [or was told by harris or her campaign staff that he was out] on Sunday.
i just don't get what walz brings as her VP nominee - other than avoiding the antisemitism on the far right and far left that schapiro wd generate. but PA is SO important to her winning the EC.
Ah, well ... i didn't get a call from her or her team, seeking my advice.
Regarding Dexter Reed - someone commented a few weeks ago that a police informant had reported Reed had a gun in his car and was intending to shoot someone. That was the reason they stopped him. That he was pulled over by an anti gang tactical unit plays into that.
I haven’t heard any more about this. Has anyone else?
Its Walz!
She picked Walz!
I honestly have no care who she picks because the bench is so deep. I also don't care because the pick rarely has any impact at all.
Turns out it's Walz. I think that's a smart choice I had him as my guess for the pick. I was hoping for Shapiro, in the hopes that it would give her PA, but he was too big a risk, with Israel being a controversial divisive issue on the left.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000664114455 A good intro to Tim Walz.
Apparently it's Walz. This thought keeps running through my head: The leak is a big con and Shapiro shows up with Harris tonight! I find the pick ... curious. GOP ads will write themselves -- showing the 2020 riots with Minneapolis burning.
No doubt, but those videos were coming out regardless of VP pic.
Walz is vulnerable on this because he refused to call in the MN National Guard for 4 nights while Minneapolis was burning and in control of the rioters. His administration was also found to be terribly negligent in lack of oversight in the massive Feeding our Future scandal where a group of Somalis organized to submit bogus lists of children being fed and defrauded literally hundreds of millions in funds intended for children in need. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/feeding-our-future-legislative-auditor-report-minnesota-department-of-education/
So there are indeed vulnerabilities on Walz with some real meat on the bone.
In the fridge too long: It doesn't look like a sausage to me
I appreciate the Handy Charts as I'm a huge fan of graphics that convey complex information simply and clearly. Unfortunately, I cannot share the first chart, much as I'd like to, because there's no source included. A teacher would write in red pen over that, "Cite your sources, please!"
Comparison charts/lists/graphics I would love see created:
- Number of former administration members who wrote unflattering tell-all books about their boss from the Trump administration compared to Biden and Obama administrations;
- Number of former campaign and administration staff convicted of crimes from past three Dem and GOP presidents;
- List of republicans who have publicly said they won't vote for Trump compared to list of democrats who've publicly said they wouldn't vote for Biden or now Harris;
- Membership numbers for the groups Republicans for Harris and Democrats for Trump
The Illinois Democrats for T****, obviously operates out of the Elgin State Hospital for the Mentally Ill!
I couldn't find any chart that matched the GDP comparison, but it looks right. The missing foot note is that the 2019 and 2020 GDP was massively reduced by the COVID shutdowns, while the closures were ended in 2021 and resulted in a massive rebound. Also, the numbers are not inflation adjusted. The average inflation in 2021 to now is about 4.95%, which would significantly reduce the adjusted GDP numbers for those years, while 2017-2020 was 1.95%.
What I don’t understand about the “New Justice Every Two Years” plan (besides its having no chance of coming to pass) is what happens to a President’s nominations when the Senate is of the opposite party. In the current environment you accumulate two vacancies.
Just add in, if the Senate refuses to vote, then they are automatically approved.
And if they just keep voting "no"?
Same thing then!
I'm being a pest because I'd like to see this thing work. How would you word the amendment to provide for the confirmation of nominees who are voted down by the Senate?
The Senate would be required to vote on any nominee of the president withing 60 days of the nomination.
No vote, the nominee is automatically approved.
If the Senate votes down three nominees, then the Senate MUST approve #4 or #4 is also automatically approved.
Now a president could game the Senate by sending up three worthless appointees, just so #4, who the other party hates would be approved, but that's really unlikely!
Intriguing, but I can't see it.
I think Walz is an ok pick, but I wish it had been Beshear.
I laughed at all of the visual jokes. Really good selection of reruns.
Me too.
What does it say about PS readers that the dick joke is a strong second place?
I'm glad she didn't pull a member of Congress and didn't choose Pritzger! I think he would be a good president but we need him. Who could replace JP at some point tho?
Buttigieg. His husband was living in Illinois when they met.