TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
#277776: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:09:23 PM

Top DNC officials are holding meetings to "stop Bernie", according to the New York Times. Slate points out that it's a stupid, self-defeating idea. Oh, and Buttigeg appears to have been present at those, but it's hard to draw conclusions from that.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#277777: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:12:04 PM

That New York Times article deserves to be thrown in the garbage can; putting shitty Democrat infighting on the front page instead of substantive analysis of bigger news is stupid to begin with, but it is disgusting that they called the 80-year-old mother of one of the operatives to get juicy quotes. Absolutely unacceptable.

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#277779: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:22:01 PM

"Democrats in Disarray" is a favorite go-to story for a segment of writers for some reason.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#277780: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:22:08 PM

[up][up][up],[up]They haven't learned the lessons of 2016.

Edited by Rationalinsanity on Apr 18th 2019 at 6:22:26 AM

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#277781: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:23:32 PM

Trump fired Comey. And then admitted that he did it because of the investigation. So, obstruction of justice. No need to proof intend, because he admitted it in public, no way to claim that someone else did it in his place, because he admitted he ordered it.

Honestly, the whole thing strikes me less as Mueller being too much of a republican and more of him being too much of someone hesitant to shake at power structures. Hence him letting high profile criminals run free and hence him not touching the president as much as he should have.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#277782: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:33:23 PM

Ding ding. People who believe in the system will screw you every time.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#277783: Apr 18th 2019 at 2:42:00 PM

[up] The point is that he doesn't believe into the system, but puts the power structures above the system. If he believed into the system he wouldn't have treated anyone in any way different. Not that this is necessarily a surprise.

singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#277784: Apr 18th 2019 at 3:16:55 PM

One thing that struck me is the idea that criminal convictions have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. I'm starting to think that Muller was aiming at an even higher standard, "beyond unreasonable doubt" if you will.

Which makes sense. Leaving aside the idea of not being able to indict a sitting president to make an indictment you have to be at least 50% certain you can get a conviction. Or in other words convince the majority of a jury made up of 12 random people.

What happens if those 12 are majority Trump supporters? "If you take a shot at the President, you best not miss." An acquittal or even a mistrial due to an unreasonable jury would be disaster for Muller, and vindication for Trump. And given that Trump has been jury tampering from day one you need a case so watertight that even the most hardened of Trump supporters will believe you.

Given that standard I don't think Muller wanted to put Trump on trial - it would have been the trial of the millennium, and given the complexity, politicisation and significance it would have been just far too much of a gamble to take.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#277785: Apr 18th 2019 at 3:20:41 PM

So what did you want him to do? Just declare that he does in fact have the authority to prosecute the President of the United States? Because that alone would immediately be challenged. He gave the results to who he was supposed to, it's our bad luck it turned out to be a Trump lackey. At this point, all we can do is wait and see what the Congress does with this information. And we might not see those results for a week given this next weekend is a holiday.

Also, it's relevant to note that Nixon didn't face charges after he resigned specifically because Ford pardoned him. The DOJ of the time was gearing up to charge the man, I believe. Which, if there's anything Trump can be charged with, makes it even more important to get a Democrat into the office, because another Republican getting in after Trump is likely to do as Ford did.

[up]I think if he did get prosecuted, it wouldn't go to a standard twelve person jury. Specifically because he's president: Presidents have been prosecuted before, but by Congress. I think that's how Clinton's series of scandals went, since Congress impeached him.

Edited by AceofSpades on Apr 18th 2019 at 5:22:24 AM

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#277786: Apr 18th 2019 at 3:33:38 PM

Which gives that "unreasonable doubt" angle more validity, really.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#277787: Apr 18th 2019 at 3:34:41 PM

For anyone feeling scared or helpless, here’s a useful guide on ways to fight against the slide toward authoritarianism.

If you’re not feeling scared or helpless yet, check it out anyway. All hands on deck.

Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#277788: Apr 18th 2019 at 4:53:56 PM

I'd add a few things to that list.

1. Focus. There are a LOT of things that need to change. Know what your priorities are and what can be sacrificed for the larger goal. Sacrifices and compromises will need to be made for you to win. It's a lot easier to not lose your soul if you know what your soul is.

2. Don't make any more enemies then necessary. You will make enemies, it's the nature of what you are doing. However, you want more people for you then against you, and the more for you the better. Sometimes this means mending fences when you don't want to. Remember, the enemy of my enemy is potentially my ally.

3. Hope. Hope is what tells us that there can be a better tomorrow. We can become better then we are. It takes work and effort, but real permanent changes can be made.

4. Avoid Hate. Hate turns victories sour and the oppressed into the oppressor. You are not wanting to trade one tyrant for another, but to get rid of tyrants entirely. If you just want to be a tyrant, you aren't better then those you are trying to overthrow. Hate is a very quick way turn you into just another tyrant.

Edited by Soban on Apr 18th 2019 at 7:54:24 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#277789: Apr 18th 2019 at 4:59:26 PM

Left leaning crazy person that I am, I felt the purpose of the Mueller Investigation was to gather as much information about the crimes related to the Russian subversion of the 2016 election.

It was always him to just present the information to higher authorities and let them choose to prosecute or not.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#277790: Apr 18th 2019 at 5:01:12 PM

BTW, I have a couple questions:

  • Besides Andrew Yang, are there other candidates with a form of UBI as part of their platform?
  • is it possible (or better yet, probable) for lawmakers in the US to mandate that corporations maintain an unautomated labor force?

Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#277791: Apr 18th 2019 at 5:40:20 PM

Any form of basic income (that is what you mean by UBI, right?) should render concerns about automation irrelevant. It doesn't matter if workers get replaced by robots if they're still getting enough money to feed and shelter themselves. Then, without the constant threat of starvation hanging over their heads, they can worry about arts and sciences and other things that stagnate during a depression.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#277792: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:16:27 PM

This strikes me as very disconnected from the electoral reality on the ground. If the folks on the ground aren't given HOPE that there will be CHANGE, they won't show up to the polls in sufficient numbers.

Pelosi's job is to hold or expand the House in 2020. She doesn't need to go out and champion the most radical ideas members of the base are discussing, she knows AOC and most of the presidential candidates have that covered. Her mission is to protect those districts we won by the skin of our teeth and win those we lost by just a few thousand votes. And that does mean courting the center.

Over here in California, the most fiercely fought over districts were a set of seven in a long held Republican stronghold in Orange County. The place Reagan said was where "Good Republicans go to die." By and large our campaigns were of course operated by enthusiastic base voters, but our strategy aggressively courted non-voters, Republican Hispanics, and white Republican women.

And for the first time in over half a century, we took the entire county.

Of those seven battleground districts only one candidate, "Elizabeth Warren protégé" Katie Porter, campaigned as a super progressive in the vein of AOC. And believe me, the Republicans loved to bring up the "Elizabeth Warren protégé" part when it looked like she had lost on election night. Which we then gleefully threw back in their faces when the mail-in ballots were finally all counted and it turned out she won.

Only half of those remaining six were outright declared winners on election night, with moderates like Katie Hill trouncing her Republican opponent. But as the week went one and the rest of the votes were counted, it was clear our reaching out to non-voters and key Republicans worked.

And there is a vast ocean between moderate Democrats and Republicans, but there is just barely enough similarity to get a certain segment of Republicans on board.

I'm just speaking for California battlegrounds, but I'm pretty sure the story is similar in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and other places we took back during the midterms.

I don't agree with Pelosi on everything, and I certainly don't agree with her discouraging primary challengers in 2020, but I totally understand her strategy of winning the center to keep control of the House.

Edited by Parable on Apr 18th 2019 at 6:41:34 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#277793: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:17:47 PM

A reminder that a big part of why we won the House in 2018 was that a bunch of "moderate" Democratic candidates flipped red districts.

Edited by M84 on Apr 18th 2019 at 11:34:47 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#277794: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:20:01 PM

I've said it before: all the progressiveness in the world doesn't mean jack if you can't get elected. Moderates (or "moderates", depending on how those quotes were meant) have their place.


Meanwhile: https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/04/18/day-819/

    Day 819: Inadequate 
1/ Attorney General William Barr repeatedly insisted that Robert Mueller "found no evidence" that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that Russian efforts to interfere "did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign." Barr also claimed Mueller's report did not find "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Further, Barr said that even if the Trump campaign had colluded with Wiki Leaks, that was not a crime. Mueller identified "numerous" Trump campaign-Russia contacts, but the report says there was "insufficient evidence" to establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump or his campaign aides and their contacts with Russians. The report outlines how Trump was elected with Russia's help and when a federal inquiry was started to investigate the effort, Trump took multiple steps to stop or undermine it. Barr said Mueller examined 10 "episodes" where Trump may have obstructed justice, but that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes did not amount to obstruction." According to Barr, Trump acted out of "noncorrupt motives" because he was frustrated by Mueller's investigation, as well as media coverage that he felt was hurting his administration. (Washington Post / New York Times / Politico / NBC News / CNN / The Guardian / Bloomberg)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html

📌 Day 700: Trump's pick for attorney general criticized Mueller's obstruction of justice investigation in an unsolicited memo he sent to the Justice Department in June . William Barr said "Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived," claiming that Trump's interactions with James Comey would not constitute obstruction of justice, because Trump was using his "complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding." If confirmed as attorney general, Barr would oversee Mueller's work. (Wall Street Journal / New York Times / CNN / The Guardian / Washington Post)

READ: Barr's prepared remarks. (New York Times)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/barr-conference-transcript.html

[BEFORE REPORT]: Mueller's report will reportedly be "lightly redacted" and is expected to reveal details about Trump's actions in office that came under scrutiny. According to an outline the Justice Department used to brief the White House with, Mueller did not come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice because he couldn't determine Trump's intent behind his actions. Separately, the Justice Department will let a "limited number" of lawmakers review Mueller's report "without certain redactions, including removing the redaction of information related to the charges set forth in the indictment in this case." (Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-plans-news-conference-to-discuss-mueller-report/2019/04/17/f5ca1cc6-6138-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html

2/ Mueller's office chose not to charge Trump with obstruction out of "fairness concerns," because "we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct." According to the report, Mueller considered Trump's written answers "inadequate," but knew a subpoena would impose "substantial delay" and they believed they had "sufficient evidence to understand relevant events and to make certain assessments without the President's testimony." Trump stated more than 30 times in his written answers that he "does not 'recall' or 'remember' or have an 'independent recollection'" of information investigators asked about. Mueller, citing numerous legal constraints in his report, declined to exonerate Trump, writing: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment." (NBC News / Washington Post / New York Times / Politico / Wall Street Journal)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-s-report-trump-sections-blacked-out-released-public-n990191

"GAME OVER," Trump tweeted immediately after Barr's press conference. Trump spent the morning tweeting about "Crooked, Dirty Cops and DNC/The Democrats" and complaining of "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT." (NBC News)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ahead-mueller-report-release-trump-blasts-greatest-political-hoax-all-n995781

📌 Day 666: Trump said he answered Robert Mueller's written questions himself "very easily," but he hasn't submitted them because "you have to always be careful when you answer questions with people that probably have bad intentions." Rudy Giuliani said there are at least two dozen questions that relate to activities and episodes from before Trump's election. Trump spent more than five hours in meeting over three days this week with his attorneys working out written answers for Mueller about alleged collusion between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election. Despite telling reporters that "the questions were very routinely answered by me," Trump's temper boiled during all three meetings. Seemingly out of nowhere, Trump targeted Mueller on Twitter yesterday, calling the special counsel team "thugs" and the investigation a "witch hunt." (Associated Press / Reuters / CNN / Washington Post / The Guardian)

https://apnews.com/a73ec89d94dc467680874435fcfef2a6

📌 Day 670: Trump submitted his written answers to Robert Mueller's questions "regarding the Russia-related topics of the inquiry," according to Trump's attorney, Jay Sekulow. Mueller has not ruled out trying to compel Trump to sit for an interview after reviewing the written answers. (Bloomberg/ CNBC / New York Times / Associated Press)

https://apnews.com/fa8c322f9179496ab2ba1665b9330592

3/ The Justice Department briefed White House lawyers about the conclusions made in Mueller's report before it was released, which aided Trump's legal team in rebutting the report's findings. Barr initially refused to answer whether the Justice Department had given the White House a preview of Mueller's findings. Later, Barr confirmed that he gave Trump's lawyers access to Mueller's report "earlier this week" – before it was to be sent to Congress and made public – and that Trump's lawyers did not ask for any redactions. (New York Times / Associated Press)

https://apnews.com/a99d0b66de82494bb29ca16ec8443643

4/ House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler accused Barr of "waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump." Nadler charged that Barr was attempting to "bake in the narrative to the benefit of the White House" and to protect Trump by holding a news conference about Mueller's report hours before it was made public. Yesterday, Nadler and other House committee chairs issued a joint statement urging Barr to cancel the news conference and "let the full report speak for itself." The House Judiciary Committee plans to review the redacted report, and then ask Mueller and his team to testify before Congress. (Washington Post / ABC News / Politico)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-slam-justice-department-mueller-report-release/story?id=62469190

    Mueller Report Key Findings (so far): 

A high-level overview of what's been learned from the Mueller report. All summaries are sourced from the live blogs linked to below or directly cited inline (or both).

Mueller's obstruction of justice investigation was influenced by a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller's report says the team was "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

Trump engaged in "multiple acts" to influence on law enforcement investigations, but that his efforts were "mostly unsuccessful" because his aides refused to carry out his orders.

Trump urged campaign aides to find Hillary Clinton's private emails. After Trump publicly asking Russia to find Clinton's emails in July 2016, Trump then privately "asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails." Michael Flynn told Mueller that Trump "made this request repeatedly," and Flynn "contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails," including Peter Smith, a longtime Republican operative, and Barbara Ledeen, who worked for Chuck Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. (Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-campaign-attempted-to-obtain-hillary-clintons-private-emails/2019/04/18/73a70466-61f1-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html

The Trump campaign "expected it would benefit" from information released by Russia, but "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." The report continues: "The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." Putin's "preference was for candidate Trump to win."

When Trump learned of Mueller's appointment as special counsel, he said: "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked." Trump then repeatedly berated then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his recusal from the Russia probe, saying Sessions had let him down. "How could you let this happen, Jeff?" Trump demanded.

After Trump fired James Comey, he attempted to have his White House counsel fire Mueller a month later. Trump twice told Donald Mc Gahn to call Rosenstein and order him to fire Mueller, saying: "Mueller has to go" for alleged "conflicts that precluded him from serving as special counsel." Mc Gahn refused, saying he did not want to repeat the "Saturday Night Massacre." Mc Gahn then called Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, and told him Trump had asked him to "do crazy shit." Trump later pressured Mc Gahn to deny that he tried to fire Mueller.

"Substantial evidence" corroborates Comey's recollection that Trump pressured him to let Flynn off easy. "I hope you can let this go," Trump allegedly told Comey. "While the president has publicly denied these details, other Administration officials who were present have confirmed Comey's account of how he ended up in a one-on-one meeting with the president," the report says. "And the president acknowledged to Priebus and Mc Gahn that he in fact spoke to Comey about Flynn in their one-on-one meeting."

Trump weighed installing Rachel Brand, then the Department of Justice's number three official, "to end the Russia investigation or fire the special counsel." Trump asked Staff Secretary Rob Porter what he thought of Brand and if she "was good, tough and 'on the team.'"

Paul Manafort told Rick Gates to "sit tight" and not plead guilty because Trump is "going to take care of us." Mueller's report says "evidence […] indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government." Gates ended up cooperating with Mueller.

Trump's personal attorney directed Cohen "stay on message and not contradict the President" regarding testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow project that continued behind January 2016. Trump's personal lawyer told Cohen that he "was protected, which he wouldn't be if he 'went rogue.'"

Mueller declined to prosecute "several" people connected to the Trump campaign who lied to the special counsel's office or to Congress about their contact with Russians and on other matters, including Trump Jr. and Sessions.

Federal prosecutors are pursuing 14 other investigations that were referred by Mueller. Two were disclosed in the redacted report: potential wire fraud and federal employment law violations involving Michael Cohen, and charges against Gregory Craig, the former White House counsel under Obama, who was accused of lying to investigators and concealing work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. The other 12 referrals were redacted because the details could harm continuing investigations.

Mueller left the door open to the possibility that after Trump leaves office, prosecutors could re-examine the evidence which could "potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes." Trump's lawyers have argued that it was impossible for Trump to illegally obstruct the Russia investigation, because he has full authority over federal law enforcement as head of the executive branch. "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law," Mueller's team wrote. (New York Times)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-obstruction.html

Live Blogs: Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-report-russia-investigation-findings/2019/04/18/b07f4310-56f9-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html
New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report.html
CNN https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/index.html
The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/apr/18/mueller-report-release-donald-trump-latest-news-live-updates-analysis-key-points
Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/mueller-report-release-latest-news
Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2019-04-18/attorney-general-barr-news-conference-on-mueller-report-s-release?srnd=politics-vp

The Mueller Report: Annotated and Live Analysis

    In other news 
House Democrats subpoenaed nine banks as part of an investigation into Trump's financial and potential money laundering tied to Russia: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Capital One, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto-Dominion Bank. Investigators on the House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee have focused their early efforts on Deutsche Bank, which has said it in engaged “in a productive dialogue” with the committees. (Wall Street Journal / Bloomberg)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-18/democrats-said-to-subpoena-nine-banks-in-probe-of-trump-finances

North Korea said continued nuclear talks would be "lousy" if Mike Pompeo remains involved, demanding that the Secretary of State be replaced by someone who is "more careful." A North Korean foreign ministry official said last week that Pompeo "spouted reckless remarks, hurting the dignity of our supreme leadership" after he agreed with the characterization of Kim Jong-un as a tyrant. That same official warned on Thursday that if Pompeo remains involved, "the talks will become entangled." (BBC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47971164

North Korea said it test-fired a new type of "tactical guided weapon." There was no evidence the test involved a nuclear detonation or an intercontinental ballistic missile. (New York Times)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/world/asia/north-korea-missile-weapons-test.html

Edited by sgamer82 on Apr 18th 2019 at 7:27:14 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#277795: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:36:22 PM

In my case I used quotes since I have the feeling that some of those candidates were fairly progressive in their own right, just not to the extent of the more outspoken progressive members of the Democratic Party.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#277796: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:38:35 PM

One of the things Obama won on was the fact that society wanted the Democratic party to go Left not Center.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#277797: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:45:48 PM

Let's not forget that Pelosi's latest "progressive" primary challenger was a racist and sexist old man — pretty much the stereotypical "Bernie Bro". Seriously, wtf were so-called progressives thinking picking someone like Jaffe of all people?!

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#277798: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:46:29 PM

[up][up][up]I agree with you. By and large you can't see a whole lot of difference in a lot of the moderate and progressive's voting records. And pretty much every Democrat spoke with one voice after today's revelations.

Edited by Parable on Apr 18th 2019 at 6:46:55 AM

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#277799: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:50:53 PM

Seth Abramson has been live tweeting line by line analysis of the Report quite literally all day, and is at currently upwards of 300 tweets (and he’s still not finished). The part about the actual report starts here, if anyone wants to see.

Edited by megaeliz on Apr 18th 2019 at 9:56:46 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#277800: Apr 18th 2019 at 6:52:24 PM

Twitter hates my phone. Any choice bits worth copying over to here?


Total posts: 417,856
Top