megaplayboy

It would be nice if the fact that the hearings were broadcast on 6+ channels meant a larger than average share of the public was actually tuned in.

So, the public hearings are about to start. The Republicans want to call a bunch of witnesses who have nothing to do with the actual inquiry but instead seem directed at reupping the Hunter Biden "scandal". Schiff responded by saying that any witnesses must be able to address the following 3 questions:

Mayor Pete talks quite a bit about his faith, on the campaign trail. He presents an alternative to the evangelical/fundamentalist "version" of Christianity.

I think Congress has been effectively paralyzed from accomplishing major change, since about 1994. It feels like there was a sea change in the attitude of the parties, Republicans in particular, regarding the principle of "bipartisan cooperation and compromise". Specifically, Republicans decided that, when they were in the majority, it was politically expedient for them to just stonewall all Democratic legislative proposals (typically by abusing the filibuster) rather than try to seek consensus and compromise to solve societal problems. They could then campaign both on the Democrats "scary" proposals and also on their inability to get things done. It's a supremely amoral, cynical strategy, but it has definitely been effective for them, at least in 2010 and 2014. The only possible counters to this would either be to decisively defeat them at the polls in spite of this strategy, or alternatively to abolish the filibuster and just pass whatever it's possible to pass. The latter strategy seems more viable, imo.

The minute the removal vote happens, pretty sure Team Pence is gonna be all about getting a hold of that nuclear "football", first things first. Second, I seriously doubt anyone in the military or secret service is going to back his play if he doesn't wanna go.

House votes to proceed with formal public impeachment inquiry. We may get articles of impeachment sent to the Senate by Thanksgiving, or it may happen in December. Which would put the Senate trial in January, which could be problematic for the half dozen or so US Senators currently running for president.

The problem with this is that it presents a false dichotomy. Of course people can engage in real social activism to enact positive change, AND call out problematic statements and behavior of public figures and people in positions of authority.

Correct. Evidence in favor: 1) Frequent appearances on Fox News, on which she generally bashes Democrats or the Democratic party; 2) Favorable mention of Gabbard on Fox News, particularly in contrast to leading Democratic candidates; 3) Promotion of Gabbard by alt-right types online; 4) Heavy promotion of Gabbard and favorable coverage of her on English-language Russian media like RT/Russia Today. Being the "favorite Democratic candidate of Fox News(and Russian state tv)" is not a great strategy for winning the Democratic nomination for president, but if you're planning a 3rd party spoiler candidacy to undermine the Dem nominee, it's a pretty solid plan. Gabbard fits the profile for a 3rd party spoiler candidate, one who damages the Democratic nominee in two ways; first, by attacking the Dem nominee from the ostensible left(sometimes from the center, as "too extreme"); second, by siphoning away a few votes in key battleground states.

eah @leahtriss Going as Former Gifted Child for Halloween and the whole costume is just gonna be people asking “What are you supposed to be?” And me saying “I was supposed to be a lot of things.” 6:10 PM · Oct 26, 2019

I assume Amazon's lawyers are carefully scrutinizing the language of the decision. Given Trump's antipathy and that he reportedly asked Mattis to "screw them" out of the contract, I'd imagine they're chomping at the bit to sue over this.

The general criticism of the VAT is that it's regressive in effect, that is, it tends to have a disproportionate impact on the poor and lower middle class, since they have less discretionary income, savings and investments, and therefore almost all of their income winds up getting taxed since it's all spent.

I'd be willing to let millionaires, billionaires and large corporations off the hook for paying ANY taxes...provided they were willing to sign a waiver of their rights to contribute to political campaigns or PACs/political nonprofits, make public statements thereto, or hire lobbyists to push for specific legislation. Seems like a fair trade to me.

News program the other day reported that the Trump administration has had an 80% turnover rate for key positions (Cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries, key WH staff, etc.). All in less than three years. To say that's unprecedented would be an unprecedented understatement. It is indicative of a, well, something that rhymes with "hit show".

Trump is sending troops to Saudi Arabia at the exact same time some are praising him for "ending forever wars and getting our troops out of the ME". I think that might be ascribing too much coherence to his approach to policy generally.