In the Primary last night, Kamala Harris showed her true "prosecutor" nature. Hope many viewers were able to hear and identify that attitude. IMHO, we need neither a Prosecutor nor a Cop in the Executive Branch. Sounds like it would be too Authoritarian. Nothing like what we have now, though

HA HA some funny stuff.......

The flags on campus were lowered, this past week, in honor of the Honorable US-HOP Elijah Cummings, since he passed the other day.

Then last night I read how his widow might possibly carry on in Elijah's stead. I sure do hope that comes to pass.

She's got the most gorgeous smile, ever. And I am sure she will carry out Elijah's mission and legacy with exactitude.

Susan Collins come out come out from wherever you've been hiding...........
 

As Inquiry Widens, McConnell Sees Impeachment Trial as Inevitable. Predicts House will impeach Trump fast.


Oh my oh my what will Susan Collins do when it gets to the Senate....:deepthoughts:

Canadian Election - Results coming in
 

Am watching the results just beginning to come in on CBC news network..., and I am slightly nervous - being a senior and concerned with who wins (which will impact on potential services being cut, depending on who forms the next gov't)...

Canadian Election - Results
 

Well, it looks like a projected Liberal minority government (waves goodbye to Conservative Scheer's plans) I am relieved! :)

~~
If Elizabeth Warren becomes the Democratic Party Nominee in 2002, I certainly hope that Hillary Clinton gets out and campaigns for her as hard as Warren did for Clinton in 2016!

I'm not exactly sure why, perhaps a case of sour grapes, but I have a hard time picture this happening and that will be a shame IMHO!

This holds true for any female who might be the 2020 candidate. I hope Hillary gets out and supports them!

I doubt they'd want her help.

Nikki Haley..........
 

~~
Another in a long line who has sullied their reputation in regards to Trump!

Perhaps it's not too big a price to pay for becoming Vice President??

Are there rumblings she might still toss her hat in the ring?

IF so, lets hope someone talks her out of it.......

Article worth the read
 

File this under wtf
 

This man has honor
 

Boris & the Conservatives win in UK
 

Well, last night, I watched all the election results coming in on "Election 2019" on BBC World News on TV. Having tried to keep fairly well-informed as to world events, politically, I am not at all surprised at Boris' win, a majority win for the Conservatives with the Labour Party suffering a major devastating loss (Labour's leader Corbyn will step down).

I am not at all surprised at the outcome, because I now understand how people - worldwide - are caught in the fear of insecurity and consequent attitude of "what's in it for me", i.e. a materialistic stance, given that many who work must work incredible hours (sometimes holding down more than one job, just to keep up) with little or no chance of any kind of job security - it is, I think, a global situation that has been manufactured by rich capitalists. It appears to be a vicious circle to me.

In the UK, many blame leadership (cough!) i.e. Corbyn, for Labour Party's loss in their election. For example, he proposed a 4-day work week all the while keeping a 5-day work salary. One of the problems of this proposal which concerned many voters was how on earth would he pay for it... !!

There were other problems with Corbyn (quite a few of his party who were running for seats had been accused of anti-Antisemitism). However, during the past few months, I did see a few interviews of Corbyn and he would launch into rather idealistic/intellectual blah-blah when asked point blank questions and personally, nothing he said resonated with me; in other words, I was turned off. In the end, he seemed to appear to refuse to answer questions directly. Moreover, he seemed to be arguing and debating to those in his own party and/or to some idealistic goal he had in his head rather than speaking to and with the electorate viewing the interview. It is always so annoying and such a waste of time and energy when you listen to someone speaking at you instead of with you.

And, then, on the other hand, Boris, spoke directly to the people, in a way, giving them the impression that he understood them and could relate to their wants, desires and needs. So, even though these "wants, desires and needs" had been manufactured by rich capitalists over many decades, what he actually did was use his understanding of the consequent fears of the electorate re: their manufactured "wants, desires and needs" in order to win. Of course, there was the very familiar "nationalistic" ploy that Boris used - in the UK's case - "Get Brexit done!" (in the same way that other world leaders tend to use "nationalism" as a means to get elected) thus appearing to allay other "fears" of the electorate. What a clever so-and-so... sigh!

Corbyn's "failure" and Boris' "win" made me reflect on what is happening in the U.S., where many would have problems with Warren's proposal of medical care or even some of the other candidates running for Presidency, because the bottom line for many caught in the materialistic spider-web - whether rich, middle-class, or poor - would be "well, how on earth will she pay for it....?", and the usual and materialistic "what's in it for me?".

All of which reminds me that the bottom line for most people who are caught in a materialistic stance is similar to the "Great Material Continuum" belief - a Ferengi concept of economics and trade as espoused by Star Trek's DS9 Nog as the only means as to how to navigate through life (in an episode most appropriately entitled "Treachery, Faith and the Great River").

Insofar as I am concerned, the Ferengis seem to have taken over the world! lol :)

I'm tired of hearing politics to be honest. Just do what needs done and move on.

Get back to real life please instead of a circus show.

People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.....

The Cruelty of a Trump Christmas
 

The Cruelty of a Trump Christmas

Republicans aren’t Scrooges — they’re much worse.

By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist

https://i.postimg.cc/QCPW4j8m/merlin...uper-Jumbo.jpg
Photo credit...Pete Marovich for The New York Times

By Trump-era standards, Ebenezer Scrooge was a nice guy.

It’s common, especially around this time of year, to describe conservative politicians who cut off aid to the poor as Scrooges; I’ve done it myself. But if you think about it, this is deeply unfair to Scrooge.

For while Dickens portrays Scrooge as a miser, he’s notably lacking in malice. True, he’s heartless until he’s visited by various ghosts. But his heartlessness consists merely of unwillingness to help those in need. He’s never shown taking pleasure in others’ suffering, or spending money to make the lives of the poor worse.

These are things you can’t say about the modern American right. In fact, many conservative politicians only pretend to be Scrooges, when they’re actually much worse — not mere misers, but actively cruel. This was true long before Donald Trump moved into the White House. What’s new about the Trump era is that the cruelty is more open, not just on Trump’s part, but throughout his party.

Now, the conventional wisdom about today’s Republicans is indeed that they are Scrooge-like. That is, the story is that they want to serve the interests of the rich (which is true), and that the reason they want to slash aid to the poor is to free up money for plutocrat-friendly tax cuts.

But is that really why the right is so determined to cut programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits?

After all, the explosion of the budget deficit under Trump shows that Republican claims to care about fiscal responsibility were always humbug, that they’re perfectly willing to slash taxes on the rich without offsetting spending cuts. Furthermore, because America spends relatively little money helping the poor, even harsh cuts — like the Trump administration’s new rules on food stamps, which will hurt hundreds of thousands — will at best save only tiny amounts compared with the cost of tax cuts.

And in important cases, the right is so eager to hurt low-income Americans that it’s willing to do so even if there are no budget savings at all.

Consider the case of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, which a 2012 Supreme Court decision made optional: States could choose not to participate.

Why would any state make that choice? After all, the federal government will pay 90 percent of the cost, and experience shows that expanding Medicaid produces indirect cost savings — for example, by letting states reduce aid to hospitals for uncompensated costs.

Furthermore, the federal funds brought in by Medicaid expansion boost a state’s economy, which raises tax revenues. So expansion is, from a state fiscal point of view, neutral or even net positive. Why would any state turn it down?

Yet 14 Republican-controlled states, many among the nation’s poorest, are still refusing to expand Medicaid.

At the same time, a number of states are trying to limit access to Medicaid by imposing stringent work requirements. This may sound like a cost-saving measure, but it isn’t — trying to enforce work requirements, it turns out, costs a lot of money.

The point is that these state governments are only pretending to be penny pinchers. In reality, they’re actively trying to make peoples’ lives worse, and they’re willing to lose money to accomplish that goal. But why?

In 2018, The Atlantic published a memorable essay by Adam Serwer titled “The Cruelty Is the Point,” about the political importance of shared pleasure from other people’s suffering. Serwer was inspired to write that essay by photos of lynchings, which show groups of white men obviously enjoying the show. Indeed, in America, gratuitous cruelty has often been directed at people of color.

But as Serwer also noted, it’s not just about race. There are more people than we like to imagine who rejoice in the suffering of anyone they see as unlike themselves, especially anyone they perceive as weak.

In fact, I suspect that this mentality is part of the explanation for the seeming paradox of strong Republican support in places like eastern Kentucky where large numbers of poor whites depend on programs like food stamps: Those who aren’t receiving aid actually want to see their poorer neighbors hurt.

What Trump has brought to his party is a new willingness to be openly vicious.

I’m not saying that he’s honest about his motivations. He and his aides still go through the motions of pretending that actions like denying aid to storm-ravaged Puerto Ricans or cutting off food stamps for hundreds of thousands are about fighting corruption or enforcing fiscal responsibility.

But their attempts to justify cruelty as being somehow in the national interest are low energy, especially compared with the enthusiastic nastiness Trump exhibits at political rallies. Trump has celebrated and reportedly wants to campaign with servicemen he pardoned after our own military convicted them of or charged them with war crimes, clearly because he likes the idea of indiscriminate killing — and so do some of his supporters.

So I’m going to stop calling today’s Republicans Scrooges. We’d be in much better shape if Trump and company were merely heartless misers. What they really are is much, much worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/o...gtype=Homepage

Trump has remade the federal judiciary
 

From the Washington Post and SFGate:

1 in every 4 circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee


By Colby Itkowitz

After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.

Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.

In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.

Trump’s mark on the judiciary is already having far-reaching effects on legislation and liberal priorities. Just last week, the 5th Circuit struck down a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. One of the two appellate judges who ruled against the landmark law was a Trump appointee.

The Supreme Court — where two of the nine justices are conservatives selected by Trump — could eventually hear that case.

The 13 circuit courts are the second most powerful in the nation, serving as a last stop for appeals on lower court rulings, unless the case is taken up by the Supreme Court. So far, Trump has appointed 50 judges to circuit court benches. Comparatively, by this point in President Obama’s first term, he had confirmed 25. At the end of his eight years, he had appointed 55 circuit judges.

Trump’s appointments have flipped three circuit courts to majority GOP-appointed judges, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York. The president has also selected younger conservatives for these lifetime appointments, ensuring his impact is felt for many years.

The executor of this aggressive push is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is almost singularly focused on reshaping the federal judiciary, twice ramming through Senate rule changes to speed up confirmations over Democrats’ objections.

“Leave no vacancy behind” is his mantra, McConnell has stated publicly. With a 53-to-47 Senate majority, he has been able to fill openings at breakneck speed.

That philosophy did not seem to apply in 2016, when McConnell refused to allow Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, Obama’s choice to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia, a confirmation hearing, let alone a vote.

McConnell insisted on waiting until after the 2016 election, a gamble that paid off when Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump appointed conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for that seat.

McConnell has repeatedly described blocking Garland as one of his greatest achievements.

Before leaving town for the holidays, Senate Republicans hailed McConnell’s success.
“You didn’t think @senate­majldr would leave town without confirming more judges, did you?” the Senate Republican Communications Center tweeted Friday, with a breakdown of the number of judges confirmed since 2017. “. . . Merry Christmas, America.”

While Trump has wavered on some conservative policies during his tenure, he has reliably appointed judges in line with conservative ideology.

“I’ve always heard, actually, that when you become President, the most — single most important thing you can do is federal judges,” Trump said at a White House event in November celebrating his “federal judicial confirmation milestones.”

The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court

The three circuit courts that have flipped to Republican majorities this year have the potential to not only change policy but also benefit Trump professionally and politically.

The 2nd Circuit, with its new right-leaning majority, will decide whether to rehear a case challenging Trump’s ability to block critics on Twitter, as well as one regarding Trump’s businesses profiting while he’s in office. The 11th Circuit, which handles appeals from Georgia, Florida and Alabama, is set to take up several voting rights cases.

Trump has facetiously thanked Obama for leaving him so many judicial vacancies.

“Now, President Obama was very nice to us. He gave us 142 empty positions. That’s never happened before,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “But, as you know, that’s said to be the most important thing that a President has.”

When Fox News host Sean Hannity made a similar remark while interviewing McConnell on his show recently, the majority leader made clear that Obama didn’t leave those vacancies intentionally.

“I’ll tell you why. I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration,” McConnell said, laughing.

“I will give you full credit for that, and by the way, take a bow,” Hannity responded.
In April, McConnell limited debate on Trump nominees from 30 hours to two hours, which has allowed him to push through judges at warp speed. Before that, McConnell did away with “blue slips,” which allowed senators to contest judicial nominees from their home states.

Republicans say Democrats started this trend when then-Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) eliminated the filibuster for most nominees in 2013, a tool the minority party could use to block or delay a confirmation. When the Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, McConnell gained the power to stall Obama nominees, leaving Trump with plenty of vacancies.

The fast clip of judicial confirmations has no doubt shifted the courts rightward, said Russell Wheeler, a judicial branch expert at the Brookings Institution, calling it “a significant impact but not a revolutionary impact.”

At least not yet. Two-thirds of the 50 circuit court judge slots filled with Trump appointees were previously held by other Republican-appointed judges.

There is only one circuit court vacancy left for Trump to fill, but more could open up next year. And if Trump wins in November, there will certainly be vacancies in his second term. There’s also the potential for additional openings on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, is 86 and has had health problems. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, another Clinton pick, is also over 80.

Chris Kang, chief counsel of Demand Justice, a group that supports liberal judicial nominees, wants Democrats to recognize just how high the stakes are for 2020.

“Republicans have been using the courts to achieve policy priorities that they couldn’t achieve through the democratically elected legislative branch of government,” Kang said. “These federal judges serve for life; that’s a point we take for granted, but not a way a lot of Americans understand it. Trump’s imprint on this country will be felt for decades through his courts.”

Democrats have long been reluctant to talk about the courts in a political way, Kang said. But, with Republicans choosing judges with far-right ideologies, liberals can’t “cling to romantic notions of our courts as impartial,” he added. “That’s not the reality and not how Republicans see it.”

The issue came up at last week’s Democratic presidential debate, when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) was asked whether Trump’s appointees would make it harder for her as president to enact her agenda.
Though she didn’t answer that question directly, she said the next Democratic president will “have to immediately start putting judges on the bench to fill vacancies so that we can reverse the horrific nature of these Trump judges.”
Wheeler worries that the polarization of appointments will cause the judiciary to lose public trust, similar to what has happened with other institutions.
“We could be in for a situation if we have a rock-hard conservative majority on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court overturning a lot of decisions by a [future] Democratic president and Congress — you could be in for a situation where the courts’ legitimacy is called into question,” he said.

Ann Marimow contributed to this report.

Some States Codifying Roe----States Rights!
 

Some states are taking pre-emptive action to protect women's right to choose.
Abortion rights being guaranteed in the following states if Roe v Wade is overturned in the conservative environment

Trump has installed over 130 circuit judges. Also, with Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court tilting the court to the conservative. This is likely to affect women's right to choose in states who have opted not to codify the decision in Roe v Wade and those states already having difficulty with violence to abortion providers. Women entering clinics are being harrassed by anti-abortion protestors.

One Mid-Western clinic's physician was killed in his church after unsuccessful attempts at the clinic.

Certain states have codified the Roe decision. Assuring that women have the right to choose despite any Supreme Court decision on the issue as State's Rights supersede Federal legislation on most issues.

New York
Rhode Island
Maine
Vermont
Illinois
Nevada

Considering legislation are:
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico

It may help him get re-elected.

~
 

only the stock market would benefit ~ his shady friends ~ hopefully the American public is smart enough NOT to reelect that evil orange buzzard. The foresight of Nostradamus is proving to be true. Nostradamus Predictions for 2020 << excellent facts . How did he know ?:hamactor::hamactor::hamactor:

I should have been more clear. I wasn’t writing that going to war would get hm re-elected, though I think it may. What I was referencing was...

His reckless actions of killing Soleimani (which was preceded by another reckless action by Trump exiting the Iran deal Obama made) will help get him relected whether or not we go to war.

As usual, Trump wants to 1-up Obama. He dismantled a deal Obama made only to try and renegotiate the same deal. And it helps that one of Iran’s strong men died in the process.

I don’t think Iran will deal with him. But either way, I see this as getting him more votes.

Ha, even his base will eventually start to doubt his objects and that means beginning with their womynfolk. Feminists need to be right there providing alternatives, information, and explanations.

TG there are organizers and leaders. My hat's off to them. I could never get into running for any party leadership. Not that socially diplomatic with POS, though some leftists can do it. They deserve their choice of the bust of Marx, Goldman, or Che Guevara.

We need folks more out in the street, up in peoples' grills, fire-bombing empty recruitment stations to "Set It Off." I'll keep doing what I do best, put me in a locked (or not) and give us whatever research is needed current or past. That will be the lion's share. I will carry an M-16 and sharp boot knife just in case of alt-right marauders (or any right-wings) all to be used for quick dispatch.

Careful and accurate handling of a long range rifle does not exceed my skill set, though.

Violence
 

Are you serious????

I so hope and pray that we do not get to that point! :seeingstars:

I agree with you. The Evangelicals want a nuclear first strike on Iran and they have been wanting that for decades. They see this as a step in the right direction. This will help him

And the Evangelicals aren't the only ones wanting to hit Iran.

I think, at best, Trump will get more votes. At worst, he's solidified the votes he's already received.

I'm not sure why Americans feel they have a right to attack Iran. If they got out of the Middle East, removed their troops, nobody would be attacking them. If it's a question of protecting "interests", negotiate those fairly and with consideration of the rights of other countries and nations. Maybe we get peace that way", when the concept of "winning, winning" gives way to cooperative fairness. I don't see how we survive otherwise.

Also, can anyone really imagine the USA sitting on a boiling, angry Muslim world forever? It's absurd and stupid. Seems to me they ought to be trying to work it all out, as the small eruptions occur, because the large uncontainable eruption is sure to occur, sooner or later ( and that later eruption just might destroy my childrens' and grandchildrens' lives.

Religion, religion, religion...far as i can understand, no reason to think Christianity is in any way superior to any other religion nor is being "White' in any way superior to any other skin colour or culture but I do believe this is the combo-crossover rationale for grabbing everything. ie: if you're a Christian, we'll work out a way for you to keep your shit, otherwise.........

As I recall from my youthful days as a fundamentalist evangelical, they think they not only have a right to attack anywhere in the Middle East, they think it is prophesied in the "End Times". They believe the Middle East will end up in control of the world, and the USA will not be "sitting on a boiling, angry Muslim world"; the USA will lose. The fundamentalist Christians believe anything they can do to help this along is not only their right, it is the word of God. Their rationale is not "grabbing everything"; it's to hurry up the Rapture. And obviously, whatever any other religion/culture believes doesn't matter to these people. They deeply believe it's a foregone conclusion.

As I said, my exposure to these beliefs was in my youth, so my memory may be faulty on the exact details. Anyone who knows "what fundamentalists believe" - (heh) - is welcome to jump in and correct me.

Doesn't it say in the Christian Bible "the meek shall inherit the earth"? Wishing or encouraging for Atomic bombs to or for another country doesn't seem "meek" to me..Also,
hurrying the rapture seems counterproductive if you are busy trying to learn godliness..that can take a lifetime.......or more. Personally, if (godliness) is my goal, i'd like as much time as possible to work on it.:praying:

I shouldn't have given the impression I was referring only to "evangelicals". I was referring to American global policy ( which is "white-Christian" centric ) in general. Middle east is just the best current example.

It's the same colonialist attitude that's been going on for centuries except now it's American not French, British, Spanish, etc.