U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

Is he coming out in the media and targetting the American drug users? Seems happy to slander Mexican immigrants (many of whom will be fleeing cartel violence) as rapists and drug dealers but does he ever publically target American drug users who fund these cartels?

 

I'm not just talking about the drug addicts who steal to fund their habit, I'm talking about the middle-class people buying cocaine for a night out, and the businessmen etc, with cash to burn.

 

 

Well he is, so... .

On the whole, generalising of course, I blame the drug traffickers more than their victims. Of couse I am not suggesting Mexican immigration is a big factor.

[peter_hmfc]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

On the whole, generalising of course, I blame the drug traffickers more than their victims. Of couse I am not suggesting Mexican immigration is a big factor.

 

Well I blame the Americans who fund the cartels by buying drugs.

 

I also blame Americans for their ridiculous 2nd Amendment which allows these cartels to get arms so easily.

 

But Trump won't come out and criticise America, will he? He certainly won't do anything regarding the problem of guns.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

Well I blame the Americans who fund the cartels by buying drugs.

 

I also blame Americans for their ridiculous 2nd Amendment which allows these cartels to get arms so easily.

 

But Trump won't come out and criticise America, will he? He certainly won't do anything regarding the problem of guns.

I don't think the access to guns in the US is a big factor.

 

And the cartels have to a large extent created the demand. As britain did in china. The same tactic basically. Sell at or below cost then charge what you like to the addicted.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[peter_hmfc]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

I don't think the access to guns in the US is a big factor.

 

At least 70% of guns recovered from crimes in Mexico originated from the USA. The US is seen as a gun warehouse to cartels.

 

They get guns from the US and wage "war" across Mexico. It also makes it harder for authorities to fight them.

 

(In Canada, the number is 90% coming from the US.)

 

3 dead, 2 injured in Maryland shooting, gunwoman apprehended.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I don't think the access to guns in the US is a big factor.

 

And the cartels have to a large extent created the demand. As britain did in china. The same tactic basically. Sell at or below cost then charge what you like to the addicted.

Legalise all drugs, then. 

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

At least 70% of guns recovered from crimes in Mexico originated from the USA. The US is seen as a gun warehouse to cartels.

 

They get guns from the US and wage "war" across Mexico. It also makes it harder for authorities to fight them.

 

(In Canada, the number is 90% coming from the US.)

 

3 dead, 2 injured in Maryland shooting, gunwoman apprehended.

Maybe. US may be the easiest source but i doubt the drug cartels would have much difficulty in sourcing from elsewhere if they needed to.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Jambo-Jimbo]

48 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

In fairness to Hugh, Michele Bachmann has said some stupid things in her time, so that supposed quote seemed credible to me.

 

Indeed she has, when I checked to see if she had actually made that quote, I came across several sites listing her numerous gaffs & quotes over the years, some of them are quite bat-shit crazy, but it seems she didn't make the quote in question.

 

Trump and his acolytes scream and holler 'fake news' at anything they don't like, so the worst thing anyone of us can do, is to give them the ammunition to cry 'fake news', that is why it's important to check that something isn't 'fake' and by doing so you deny Trump and his acolytes the ammunition they so dearly crave. 

[Sharpie]

33 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

At least 70% of guns recovered from crimes in Mexico originated from the USA. The US is seen as a gun warehouse to cartels.

 

They get guns from the US and wage "war" across Mexico. It also makes it harder for authorities to fight them.

 

(In Canada, the number is 90% coming from the US.)

 

3 dead, 2 injured in Maryland shooting, gunwoman apprehended.

 

She is reported to have been arrested, also inferred she is suffering from self inflicted bullet wound. Work place incident. Definitely Trump related as are all involving guns a subject which Trump the man in charge seems to prefer to not act upon.

[peter_hmfc]

13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe. US may be the easiest source but i doubt the drug cartels would have much difficulty in sourcing from elsewhere if they needed to.

 

So just don't bother with the problem of guns in America? Sounds very similar to the "criminals will get guns anyway so what's the point in trying?" line.

A lot of these cartels in other countries get guns largely from the US as well.

 

There's no real "maybe" about it.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/report-70-firearms-seized-mexico-came-usa

 

Also, from the LA Times but now I can't see it without a VPN, "98% of crime guns in Canada originate in the U.S.".

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

So just don't bother with the problem of guns in America? Sounds very similar to the "criminals will get guns anyway so what's the point in trying?" line.

A lot of these cartels in other countries get guns largely from the US as well.

 

There's no real "maybe" about it.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/report-70-firearms-seized-mexico-came-usa

 

Also, from the LA Times but now I can't see it without a VPN, "98% of crime guns in Canada originate in the U.S.".

Where did I say that?

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

She is reported to have been arrested, also inferred she is suffering from self inflicted bullet wound. Work place incident. Definitely Trump related as are all involving guns a subject which Trump the man in charge seems to prefer to not act upon.

In contrast to all previous holders of the office?

[Francis Albert]

47 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Legalise all drugs, then. 

Wouldn't go that far but less focus on criminalising the victims of addiction and moving towards the European approach of treating it more as an illness would be good. Peterhmfc seems however to mainly blame the victims for "creating" the demand.

 

PS I hold out zero hope of the Trump administration moving in the direction of a more sensible approach. Or indeed of not making things worse.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[peter_hmfc]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Where did I say that?

 

You implied it by saying that cartels would just get their guns elsewhere, so why bother trying to resolve Americas problem.

 

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Wouldn't go that far but less focus on criminalising the victims of addiction and moving towards the European approach of treating it more as an illness would be good. Peterhmfc seems however to mainly blame the victims for "creating" the demand.

 

 

You see people who buy drugs, also known as criminals (whether it be addicts, people wanting cocaine for nights out, or businessmen with money to burn) as "victims"?

 

Okay then. Okay.

 

(The culprits are the cartels, the unseen assailants are those who fund and arm them as mentioned above, the victims are the Mexicans who get caught in the crossfire of cartel warfare and want to flee to another country such as, I don't know, the USA.)

[Watt-Zeefuik]

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In contrast to all previous holders of the office?

 

Aye because there's been no difference in gun policy between US Presidents, amirite?

 

Unrelatedly, but those who can't understand why Kavenaugh's accuser didn't come forward decades earlier may want to read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Ugly American

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

You implied it by saying that cartels would just get their guns elsewhere, so why bother trying to resolve Americas problem.

 

 

 

You see people who buy drugs, also known as criminals (whether it be addicts, people wanting cocaine for nights out, or businessmen with money to burn) as "victims"?

 

Okay then. Okay.

 

(The culprits are the cartels, the unseen assailants are those who fund and arm them as mentioned above, the victims are the Mexicans who get caught in the crossfire of cartel warfare and want to flee to another country such as, I don't know, the USA.)

First I didn't say "why bother trying to resolve America's gun problem". I said resolving America's gun problem would not have stopped the drug cartels.

Second, the cartels deliberately created mass addiction to heroin and other hard drugs  in the US and then exploited addicts by ramping up the price and profits. The addists were predominantly poor or relatively poor  people in the ghettoes and elsewhere, and whole communities were virtually destroyed or irreperably damaged as a result.. Middle class and rich people's use of cocaine and other recreational drugs  is relatively speaking a side issue.

The majority of Mexicans illegally entering the US are not fleeing drug cartels but are economic migrants.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

29 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Aye because there's been no difference in gun policy between US Presidents, amirite?

 

Unrelatedly, but those who can't understand why Kavenaugh's accuser didn't come forward decades earlier may want to read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/

 

Previous holders have had varying views. The end result has been pretty consistent.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

37 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Previous holders have had varying views. The end result has been pretty consistent.

You know, when you have no idea what you're talking about, shutting up is always an option.

[Francis Albert]

23 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

You know, when you have no idea what you're talking about, shutting up is always an option.

Educate me by reminding me of the great strides previous incumbents have made in the field of gun control.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Educate me by reminding me of the great strides previous incumbents have made in the field of gun control.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+gun+control
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bill+clinton+gun+control

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=donald+trump+nra

Edited September 20, 2018 by Ugly American

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+gun+control
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bill+clinton+gun+control

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=donald+trump+nra

 

But you're completely missing the narrow pointless point of obfuscation, whataboutery and garble-warble fibble-wibble being made by the Shed's best-known ardent EU remainer who threatened to cancel his FOH membership when Trump was elected. Or some horseshite like that.  

 

I did suggest that you not to take him seriously.  Try not taking him seriously.  It's for the best, really.

 

Honestly.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+gun+control
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bill+clinton+gun+control

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=donald+trump+nra

My question was about the effect previous incumbents' efforts had had. Thanks for the links which confirm the answer is little.

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

My question was about the effect previous incumbents' efforts had had. Thanks for the links which confirm the answer is little.

 

Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. With that title comes the responsibility and duty to protect the life and liberty of the citizens of the USA. To do so he can study the actions of previous holders of the position, but the simple fact is that it is his job, and for the simple observer it would appear that his sentiments lie more in favour of the minimal gun control advocates. The incidence of gun violence has escalated in the last few years, and the victim numbers in incidents has become totally unacceptable, strong direct action must be taken, and the responsibility is completely in the Oval Office at the White House.

 

I take you as being sincere in your often claim that you are not defending Donald Trump, but your consistent references to the actions of previous presidents and the comparison with what he has or has not done, do strike one as being comments of defence.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

My question was about the effect previous incumbents' efforts had had. Thanks for the links which confirm the answer is little.

You can lead a horse to water and all that...

 

I'm taking Uly's advice.

[Maple Leaf]

On 20/09/2018 at 05:35, Francis Albert said:

While the world focuses on the size and shape of the POTUS todger, how is that war in Korea that Trump was supposed to trigger and bring the world to an end going?

 

I hope that you're not suggesting that Trump deserves any credit for the de-escalation of a situation that he helped to escalate in the first place.

 

Fortunately for everyone, cooler heads and more mature minds than Trump's prevailed.  The leaders of both North and South Korea know that another war, even a conventional one, would be devastating for their countries and would probably cost millions of lives.  And China doesn't want another Korean War on their doorstep ... they've been there and don't want to go back.  Those three men, not Trump, got the situation under control.

 

Trump has the maturity of an 8-year old boy, and the insecurity of a teenage girl.  The fact that the Korean leaders are smiling at each other rather than shooting at each other has nothing to do with him.

[milky_26]

trump attacking the woman accusing his supreme court pick of sexual assault

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45603918

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, Ugly American said:

You can lead a horse to water and all that...

 

I'm taking Uly's advice.

 

?

[Sharpie]

16 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

trump attacking the woman accusing his supreme court pick of sexual assault

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45603918

Its a tough one, a very old case, but some of the cases against Cosby and other Hollywood people are pretty old. I do have a bit of a problem with these quite old cases, why were they not reported sooner. I suspect when young she was more frightened of parental anger and disappointment, but as the years went on and maturity and educatioin increased she did realise if it happened it was very wrong.  I can understand the revelation now, the appointment to the Supreme Court is a massive step, and the totally obvious to all is that the main reason for the Trump preference is Kavanaughs stated opinions about actions against a sitting president. The rush to get it done is all a Trump instigated move to not have anything else weaken the Republican hopes in the November election,but I still think that the woman accuser should comply and attend the Hearings. She really does not have to worry, the believers will believe the doubters will doubt, but the undecided and those who may not be motivated to vote may just find reason to do so and in that way influence the election result. If the Republicans lose that is one thing, but the main thing being that Trump will have lost an election and he will also lose the Republican party, and his presidency.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I hope that you're not suggesting that Trump deserves any credit for the de-escalation of a situation that he helped to escalate in the first place.

 

Fortunately for everyone, cooler heads and more mature minds than Trump's prevailed.  The leaders of both North and South Korea know that another war, even a conventional one, would be devastating for their countries and would probably cost millions of lives.  And China doesn't want another Korean War on their doorstep ... they've been there and don't want to go back.  Those three men, not Trump, got the situation under control.

 

Trump has the maturity of an 8-year old boy, and the insecurity of a teenage girl.  The fact that the Korean leaders are smiling at each other rather than shooting at each other has nothing to do with him.

I may be misremembering but didn't South Korea's leader at one early point in Trump's presidency thank him for some intervention.

In any event predictions that Trump would trigger Armageddon have so far not come to fruit, and the threat of a Korean war is probably less now than it has been for 70 years.

[Sharpie]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I may be misremembering but didn't South Korea's leader at one early point in Trump's presidency thank him for some intervention.

In any event predictions that Trump would trigger Armageddon have so far not come to fruit, and the threat of a Korean war is probably less now than it has been for 70 years.

 

I won't even try to give quotes but I think it is reasonbably well known that agreements with the Kim led North Korea are subject to change, and renewed threat of potential hostilities. The recent peace agreement between the two Koreas will no doubt be a prelude to removal of all U.S. forces from the region and be seen by Kim as a sign of American weakness and of his political and democtraticaly negotiated treaties.

[milky_26]

1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

Its a tough one, a very old case, but some of the cases against Cosby and other Hollywood people are pretty old. I do have a bit of a problem with these quite old cases, why were they not reported sooner. I suspect when young she was more frightened of parental anger and disappointment, but as the years went on and maturity and educatioin increased she did realise if it happened it was very wrong.  I can understand the revelation now, the appointment to the Supreme Court is a massive step, and the totally obvious to all is that the main reason for the Trump preference is Kavanaughs stated opinions about actions against a sitting president. The rush to get it done is all a Trump instigated move to not have anything else weaken the Republican hopes in the November election,but I still think that the woman accuser should comply and attend the Hearings. She really does not have to worry, the believers will believe the doubters will doubt, but the undecided and those who may not be motivated to vote may just find reason to do so and in that way influence the election result. If the Republicans lose that is one thing, but the main thing being that Trump will have lost an election and he will also lose the Republican party, and his presidency.

while i partly agree with you here you just need to look at the things ling the weinstein #metoo accusations and operation yewtree in the uk. Tese have been reported years later but at least with the yewtree one has been proved true. So even as you get older you might not report it for many reasons such as not wanting to bring it up again because of how painful it was, or even just the worry that you are not believed.

[Maple Leaf]

30 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I may be misremembering but didn't South Korea's leader at one early point in Trump's presidency thank him for some intervention.

In any event predictions that Trump would trigger Armageddon have so far not come to fruit, and the threat of a Korean war is probably less now than it has been for 70 years.

 

In Bob Woodward's recent book, he tells of a Trump aid who removed a document that would have had Trump ordering the evacuation of American military families from South Korea.  According to American Intelligence, such an order would have been a red flag to the North Koreans that an American strike was imminent.  That would have made North Korea launch a preemptive strike against the South.  That indicates, to me, that a war in Korea is as close as the next Trump moment of bad judgement ... in other words, not far away at all.

[Francis Albert]

15 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. With that title comes the responsibility and duty to protect the life and liberty of the citizens of the USA. To do so he can study the actions of previous holders of the position, but the simple fact is that it is his job, and for the simple observer it would appear that his sentiments lie more in favour of the minimal gun control advocates. The incidence of gun violence has escalated in the last few years, and the victim numbers in incidents has become totally unacceptable, strong direct action must be taken, and the responsibility is completely in the Oval Office at the White House.

 

I take you as being sincere in your often claim that you are not defending Donald Trump, but your consistent references to the actions of previous presidents and the comparison with what he has or has not done, do strike one as being comments of defence.

 

Thanks for accepting that I am sincere in saying I am not defending Trump

I am however averse to mindless groupthink which does I think feature both in this and the Brexit threads.

I believe that people should focus on is what is exceptional about Trump and comparison with previous presidents is helpful in doing this.

His failure to do anything about the insane US gun laws is not exceptional. Although some previous US presidents tried they achieved little. Since he made his position crystal clear before he was elected and the electorate knew it, I find it difficult to be outraged about his failure in this area. In any event no president , try or not, will achieve much while the US elects a Congress that will not enact serious gun control measures.

Trump's sexual philandering is not exceptional (nor is the fact that his penis or part thereof may have a passing resemblance to a mushroom).

His record in foreign affairs has so far not come close to matching the death toll of many, probably the great majority, of previous presidents.

Previous Presidents built, maintained and policed more of a wall come fence on the Mexican border than I believe Trump ever will.

His policy of separation of children from their parents is deplorable, but other Presidents have done things incomparably worse to children and their parents.

On the other hand all Presidents have lied, some prodigiously, but none on Trump's industrial scale.

Other Presidents have not been the sharpest knives in the drawer (see eg Gerald Ford) but Trump does not even belong in the same kitchen.

Other Presidents have appealed to the worst instincts of people on race but again Trump is exceptional.

Other Presidents have corrupted political and civil discourse, but none has done so in a way that threatens the integrity and very functioning of American democracy as Trump has done.

And so on and on.

I am not saying people shouldn't object to the unexceptionally bad things Trump does. But an endless dialogue that consists entirely of variants of "isn't he terrible" and "isn't he the worst" and "look what the moron has tweeted now" is for me not terribly enlightening ... and makes for a pretty boring thread.

 

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

On 20/09/2018 at 12:26, Ugly American said:

 

Aye because there's been no difference in gun policy between US Presidents, amirite?

 

Unrelatedly, but those who can't understand why Kavenaugh's accuser didn't come forward decades earlier may want to read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/

 

 

I read that article yesterday, it's an excellent piece and gives a great example of why sexual assaults remain unreported for years. It doesn't help when a twat with a twitter account tweets that Kavanaugh's accuser should have reported these alleged acts at the time.  

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

On 20/09/2018 at 11:26, Ugly American said:

 

Aye because there's been no difference in gun policy between US Presidents, amirite?

 

Unrelatedly, but those who can't understand why Kavenaugh's accuser didn't come forward decades earlier may want to read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/

 

 

Thanks for sharing that. Some read. Difficult to get through at times. 

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, milky_26 said:

while i partly agree with you here you just need to look at the things ling the weinstein #metoo accusations and operation yewtree in the uk. Tese have been reported years later but at least with the yewtree one has been proved true. So even as you get older you might not report it for many reasons such as not wanting to bring it up again because of how painful it was, or even just the worry that you are not believed.

 

1 hour ago, milky_26 said:

while i partly agree with you here you just need to look at the things ling the weinstein #metoo accusations and operation yewtree in the uk. Tese have been reported years later but at least with the yewtree one has been proved true. So even as you get older you might not report it for many reasons such as not wanting to bring it up again because of how painful it was, or even just the worry that you are not believed.

Yes I can see your grounds for disagreement on that one point and basically we are not in disagreement, having been the father of a daughter, and a policeman, I always told my daughter, especially if I had recently dealt with something where a child had not informed their parents, to never be afraid to tell me about any problem, we would deal with it first and do any correcting if needed after. It doesn't alway work. One time my wife and I came home from work and a substantial number of chocolates from a box of chocolates had gone missing. Denials by both kids were made, but daughter was later found to be the guilty party.  Do not ever lie to us was stressed strongly.  The next day we were greeted by a little girl who advised us that knowing she should not eat cookies before dinner, that she had ate a number of cookies but was being honest about it, sometimes you just cannae win.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

The New York Times is reporting that, in 2017, Rod Rosenstein proposed secretly recording Trump in an effort to invoke the 25th amendment, but that nothing ultimately came of that suggestion.  If Trump is looking for cover to have Rosenstein fired, he may see this as an opportunity.

 

Edit: Rosenstein is, not surprisingly, denying the claim.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Barack said:

When he does something exceptional, and warrants praise, he'll get it. As he did on here for Syria Missile response, & giving his mouth a rest, and listening to his Secretary of State, CoS, and National Security Advisor over North Korea.

 

 

If he continues on the path of tweeting things highlighted on here, rightly, he will receive criticism. As he will in the world's media. 

 

Until that day arrives, the "groupthink" will carry on, globally. Never mind our meagre opinions. 

 

The mid-terms are soon. A whole new world of anger is going to be coming soon...we'll tear into then too. Buckle up, FA.

I didn't mean exceptional in the sense of deserving praise. I meant, which is inevitably the case with Trump almost all the time, exceptionally bad.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Barack said:

When he does something exceptional, and warrants praise, he'll get it. As he did on here for Syria Missile response, & giving his mouth a rest, and listening to his Secretary of State, CoS, and National Security Advisor over North Korea.

 

 

If he continues on the path of tweeting things highlighted on here, rightly, he will receive criticism. As he will in the world's media. 

 

Until that day arrives, the "groupthink" will carry on, globally. Never mind our meagre opinions. 

 

The mid-terms are soon. A whole new world of anger is going to be coming soon...we'll tear into then too. Buckle up, FA.

 

It really would be worth a pivot in discussion to the midterms, or another thread if enough folk are interested. The primary season has been one of the most interesting in years -- the left is resurgent in the Democratic party and has been taking out centrist/establishment dems all year. There are three black major party nominees for governors of large states. The Republicans would have to have one of the worst years ever to actually lose the Senate because of the way the specific third of the seats are up this year shake out, but they might lose anyway. The Democrats might win a major statewide office in Texas for the first time in well over a decade.

 

The President's party usually loses seats in the midterms, so if the Democrats can't win at least a narrow majority in the House, the party is officially useless and we should tear it down and start over. There's an outside chance of a massive, transformative wave, like 1994, that ushers in a new political era.

 

And the stakes are enormous.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 minutes ago, Barack said:

Ted Cruz. To Lose.

 

Your lips to God's ears, please. It's an uphill battle in Texas but Beto O'Rourke is the business.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

As to not reporting, there's a hashtag on Twitter right now about victims (male and female) who didn't report. It's not an easy read.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/WhyIDidntReport?src=hashtag_click

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

It really would be worth a pivot in discussion to the midterms, or another thread if enough folk are interested. The primary season has been one of the most interesting in years -- the left is resurgent in the Democratic party and has been taking out centrist/establishment dems all year. There are three black major party nominees for governors of large states. The Republicans would have to have one of the worst years ever to actually lose the Senate because of the way the specific third of the seats are up this year shake out, but they might lose anyway. The Democrats might win a major statewide office in Texas for the first time in well over a decade.

 

The President's party usually loses seats in the midterms, so if the Democrats can't win at least a narrow majority in the House, the party is officially useless and we should tear it down and start over. There's an outside chance of a massive, transformative wave, like 1994, that ushers in a new political era.

 

And the stakes are enormous.

 

The man you love to hate, Bill Maher, has been suggesting this for the last 18 months.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

22 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The man you love to hate, Bill Maher, has been suggesting this for the last 18 months.

 

Well we do happen to agree on a fair amount. We have similar political affiliations, even if he's a hateful toad.

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I didn't mean exceptional in the sense of deserving praise. I meant, which is inevitably the case with Trump almost all the time, exceptionally bad.

A Unionist, Tump loving Brexiteer. That's some going, FA. Your conscience must be eating you from arsehole up. 

[ri Alban]

42 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

A Unionist, Trump loving Brexiteer. That's some going, FA. Your conscience must be eating you from arsehole up. 

 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

A Unionist, Tump loving Brexiteer. That's some going, FA. Your conscience must be eating you from arsehole up. 

Unable to read - that's some burden you carry ri.

It does explain a lot though.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Bindy Badgy]

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Unable to read - that's some burden you carry ri.

It does explain a lot though.

I can read you clear enough. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

14 hours ago, ri Alban said:

A Unionist, Tump loving Brexiteer. That's some going, FA. Your conscience must be eating you from arsehole up. 

 

He doesn't love Trump. He loves telling everyone that Trump isn't as bad as we think. He loves being the contrarian, that's all.

 

And when you go through the trouble of documenting that it actually IS that bad, he changes the subject.

[milky_26]

christine ford to testify next week in case v kavanaugh

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45615854

[Ulysses]

22 minutes ago, Barack said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/23/gop-eyes-midterm-disaster-democrats-take-12-point-lead-nbc-wsj-poll.html

 

 

A Blue Wave, you say...?

 

It's still very hard to see how the Democrats can make gains in the Senate.