Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
If you want your name on the effect, you need to contribute something unique to it.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 40,461 comments
- 1,848,807 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,575
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
What in the Biblical Plague is going on in Florida?
www.cbsnews.com
Leprosy could be endemic in Central Florida, researchers say. What to know about the disease.
Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease, is an age-old bacterial disease that affects the skin and nerves. Here's what to know about symptoms to treatment.
www.cbsnews.com
Joey D
Premium
- 47,575
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
- 24,064
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Terrible consequences for the Trump family crime syndicate, i should hope.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,575
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Unfortunately, I still don't see that happening. Does Trump belong in jail? Given the evidence we're aware of, yes he belongs in jail. I can't see him being convicted though and it's going to be really, really difficult to get an impartial jury and also shield that jury from extreme jury tampering. It will also make the US look terrible in the geopolitical sphere, which given the state of everything going on in the world would not be a good outcome. I want to believe justice will prevail, but I really doubt it will since there's so much in the way.
If you believe the CIA took out JFK, then you might think they'd do the same with Trump. Out of all the options, that would probably be the less messy, especially if they staged it as a heart attack. But you'd have to believe the conspiracy theories on JFK to think that's possible.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,628
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I don't see it happening either unfortunately, and yet this possibility doesn't stop the don of the crime family swearing vengeance against his opponents all the way up to the currently sitting actual president. Let's hope cooler heads prevail before this happens but the GOP seems to be at least publicly 100% supportive of his authoritarianism.
Hopefully Trump's international reputation will be trashed instead of your entire nation's.
Last edited:
- 30,119
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Giving Trump a pass also does exactly this.
Ford's pardon of Nixon has been brought up an awful lot by the pundit class during all of this. Ford pardoned Nixon on the weak pretext that failure to do so would be bad for the country...but it's not like it actually made things better. The simple reality is that Nixon was a Republican and so was Ford, and one of their own facing indictment for criminal acts simply wasn't going to fly, just as it doesn't now despite all their insincere bluster about law and order. They're all vermin.
...
You know, it amazes me how the Trumpers once so active in this subforum just kind of noped out (setting aside those that didn't do so freely), but then that also tracks because how pathetic must one be to support--indeed to have ever supported--the supersoft bitch?
- 30,119
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
lol. I still don't expect it. It used to be that any criticism of their bronzer daddy was met with some bitchfit or another (even as they didn't hesitate to criticize Obama, nor should they have) and then poof. Gone. For all of Biden's faults, surely something ought to have instigated a resurgence.
Edit: Mueller was a constant bee up their asses for how long it was taking and with Durham taking twice as long...not one peep. Almost (lol) like they didn't want their bronzer daddy challenged and Durham was sweet retribution.
Last edited:
- 3,817
- Hoboken, New Jersey
The situation around Dianne Feinstein's health and tenure as both a senator and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, just keeps spiraling more and more out of control.
Feinstein, the 90-year old senior senator of California, has recently been scrutinized for her long absence from the Senate, blocking the Biden administration's ability to appoint new judges, as well her and her staff's insistence that she remains in the senate despite showing veritable signs of advanced Alzheimer's and post-shingles complications. A few days ago, she ceded power of attorney to her daughter over her and her late husband's estate, and legal affairs. Though the full extent of the power Feinstein's daughter, Katherine, hold over her, this seems to be a clear indication of Feinstein's condition, that she simply isn't capable of thinking on her feet and making these types of decisions anymore.
Even as Feinstein's health decline has worsened, and growing evidence surfacing to substantiate these claims, few Democrats have called for her resignation, with most staying silent on the matter, and some, like Hillary Clinton, even encouraging Feinstein to stay in her seat. At first, I thought this was mostly to do with fending off potential progressive outsider Barbara Lee or Katie Porter being appointed by Gov. Newsom if Feinstein were to resign, as well as respecting Feinstein's personal wishes, and solidifying the facade of party unity among Democrats, this is only a part of the story. If Feinstein resigns, or dies, before her term ends, a new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will need to be appointed. But, Republicans have vowed in unison to block any new appointees to the committee until after the 2024 election, and since the committee, in the absence of Feinstein, would have a dead even D-R split, there is nothing the Democrats can do. So, it seems that many Democrats have decided that until January 2025, when Feinstein's term ends, it would be better to have an ailing and incompetent hang on to her seat than a new appointee, regardless of whether they are more moderate or progressive, so that Democrats will still have control over the committee and appoint new judges.
Obviously, it would definitely be advantageous that the Democrats maintain control over the Judiciary Committee, so that pro democracy, pro LGBT rights, pro union, etc judges can continue to be confirmed. But, as demonstrated by the Feinstein dilemma, at what cost? Is sacrificing a person with profound cognitive decline and recent widow's dignity, as well as inhibiting the largest state in the Union from truly having full representation, the price to pay? I just wonder if the Democratic party's continued attempts to keep Feinstein in her seat will eventually nullify any benefits of a Democratic controlled Judiciary Committee's for the next year and a half, if voters eventually show disdain towards the Democrats for keeping an obviously incapacitated person in her seat, a move that could signal that blind support for "the establishment" supersedes the party's desire to be responsive and representative. Because if the GOP agreed to let Dems replace her on the Judiciary Committee, there's no way in which Feinstein wouldn't be long gone already.
www.nytimes.com
Feinstein, the 90-year old senior senator of California, has recently been scrutinized for her long absence from the Senate, blocking the Biden administration's ability to appoint new judges, as well her and her staff's insistence that she remains in the senate despite showing veritable signs of advanced Alzheimer's and post-shingles complications. A few days ago, she ceded power of attorney to her daughter over her and her late husband's estate, and legal affairs. Though the full extent of the power Feinstein's daughter, Katherine, hold over her, this seems to be a clear indication of Feinstein's condition, that she simply isn't capable of thinking on her feet and making these types of decisions anymore.
Even as Feinstein's health decline has worsened, and growing evidence surfacing to substantiate these claims, few Democrats have called for her resignation, with most staying silent on the matter, and some, like Hillary Clinton, even encouraging Feinstein to stay in her seat. At first, I thought this was mostly to do with fending off potential progressive outsider Barbara Lee or Katie Porter being appointed by Gov. Newsom if Feinstein were to resign, as well as respecting Feinstein's personal wishes, and solidifying the facade of party unity among Democrats, this is only a part of the story. If Feinstein resigns, or dies, before her term ends, a new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will need to be appointed. But, Republicans have vowed in unison to block any new appointees to the committee until after the 2024 election, and since the committee, in the absence of Feinstein, would have a dead even D-R split, there is nothing the Democrats can do. So, it seems that many Democrats have decided that until January 2025, when Feinstein's term ends, it would be better to have an ailing and incompetent hang on to her seat than a new appointee, regardless of whether they are more moderate or progressive, so that Democrats will still have control over the committee and appoint new judges.
Obviously, it would definitely be advantageous that the Democrats maintain control over the Judiciary Committee, so that pro democracy, pro LGBT rights, pro union, etc judges can continue to be confirmed. But, as demonstrated by the Feinstein dilemma, at what cost? Is sacrificing a person with profound cognitive decline and recent widow's dignity, as well as inhibiting the largest state in the Union from truly having full representation, the price to pay? I just wonder if the Democratic party's continued attempts to keep Feinstein in her seat will eventually nullify any benefits of a Democratic controlled Judiciary Committee's for the next year and a half, if voters eventually show disdain towards the Democrats for keeping an obviously incapacitated person in her seat, a move that could signal that blind support for "the establishment" supersedes the party's desire to be responsive and representative. Because if the GOP agreed to let Dems replace her on the Judiciary Committee, there's no way in which Feinstein wouldn't be long gone already.
For an Ailing Feinstein, a Fight Over the Family Fortune (Published 2023)
As Dianne Feinstein, 90, struggles to function in the Senate, a dispute within her family over control of her late husband’s estate is another difficult chapter at the end of a long career.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
The problem is republicans vowing to refuse to do their jobs.The situation around Dianne Feinstein's health and tenure as both a senator and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, just keeps spiraling more and more out of control.
Feinstein, the 90-year old senior senator of California, has recently been scrutinized for her long absence from the Senate, blocking the Biden administration's ability to appoint new judges, as well her and her staff's insistence that she remains in the senate despite showing veritable signs of advanced Alzheimer's and post-shingles complications. A few days ago, she ceded power of attorney to her daughter over her and her late husband's estate, and legal affairs. Though the full extent of the power Feinstein's daughter, Katherine, hold over her, this seems to be a clear indication of Feinstein's condition, that she simply isn't capable of thinking on her feet and making these types of decisions anymore.
Even as Feinstein's health decline has worsened, and growing evidence surfacing to substantiate these claims, few Democrats have called for her resignation, with most staying silent on the matter, and some, like Hillary Clinton, even encouraging Feinstein to stay in her seat. At first, I thought this was mostly to do with fending off potential progressive outsider Barbara Lee or Katie Porter being appointed by Gov. Newsom if Feinstein were to resign, as well as respecting Feinstein's personal wishes, and solidifying the facade of party unity among Democrats, this is only a part of the story. If Feinstein resigns, or dies, before her term ends, a new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will need to be appointed. But, Republicans have vowed in unison to block any new appointees to the committee until after the 2024 election, and since the committee, in the absence of Feinstein, would have a dead even D-R split, there is nothing the Democrats can do. So, it seems that many Democrats have decided that until January 2025, when Feinstein's term ends, it would be better to have an ailing and incompetent hang on to her seat than a new appointee, regardless of whether they are more moderate or progressive, so that Democrats will still have control over the committee and appoint new judges.
Obviously, it would definitely be advantageous that the Democrats maintain control over the Judiciary Committee, so that pro democracy, pro LGBT rights, pro union, etc judges can continue to be confirmed. But, as demonstrated by the Feinstein dilemma, at what cost? Is sacrificing a person with profound cognitive decline and recent widow's dignity, as well as inhibiting the largest state in the Union from truly having full representation, the price to pay? I just wonder if the Democratic party's continued attempts to keep Feinstein in her seat will eventually nullify any benefits of a Democratic controlled Judiciary Committee's for the next year and a half, if voters eventually show disdain towards the Democrats for keeping an obviously incapacitated person in her seat, a move that could signal that blind support for "the establishment" supersedes the party's desire to be responsive and representative. Because if the GOP agreed to let Dems replace her on the Judiciary Committee, there's no way in which Feinstein wouldn't be long gone already.
For an Ailing Feinstein, a Fight Over the Family Fortune (Published 2023)
As Dianne Feinstein, 90, struggles to function in the Senate, a dispute within her family over control of her late husband’s estate is another difficult chapter at the end of a long career.
- 3,817
- Hoboken, New Jersey
- 30,119
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Is there likely to be less than a 100% chance they'd renege if it were to happen that Graham died of a rectal bleed because the lightbulb broke during insertion, or Grassley got run over by a tractor while pretending to ride it*, or Blackburn had an aneurysm trying to give a cogent definition of a woman that satisfies a bigoted viewpoint without excluding biological females?
*Honestly I was trying to come up with a funny death scenario for Grassley but the connie rat is just nine months younger than Feinstein. Miss Lindsey is the youngest of the three at 68.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,575
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I think world leaders are probably more accepting of a criminal getting away with it than getting caught. I mean, Putin and Xinnie the Pooh both regularly killed those who oppose them and are leading genocides. People like that would probably see going to jail as a sign of extreme weakness. While that's not going to have any bearing on our relations with Russia or China, it could be used as a talking point by those countries to push their influence.
I'd rather see Trump in jail if he's guilty (and I think he is guilty on all counts) but there's probably more at play. I'm sure it's also being weighed just how likely a violent uprising is among Trump's supporters if he is convicted. I know we all like to joke that they are the Gravy Seals, but even a bunch of inbreds with the IQ of a goldfish can cause a serious probably in a large enough number. Like anything, a sizeable group of people is probably doing a risk analysis of it. As bad as it sounds, I have to imagine there's a book of scenarios somewhere for this and what the protocol is.
Honestly, Trump having a heart attack is probably the best course of action. He goes away, there's no trial, and it's completely believable since he's obese and eats like garbage.
- 30,119
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Crooked world leaders may well prefer to see their crooked ilk get a free pass, but Trump isn't a world leader. In light of the capacity to enchant vermin, the bitch is basically Willard.
Trump's weakness.
Not taking appropriate action because it may draw the ire of terrorists is bad, actually.
"Who actually saw Trump get the jab?"
