So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
All of that could be said about Obama, too. Hope and Change.
Except for one thing.. Obama wasn't being savaged in the press and hounded by 90% unfavorable coverage by the major news outlets. Quite the opposite, he was handled with kit gloves and given every benefit of the doubt imaginable while they turned a blind eye to some obvious ideological issues in his past. Not that they mattered, but they just never came up. Trump is getting an anal exam where every jot and tittle of his past is put under the microscope while a pile of talking heads try to "connect the dots" to some scandal which, here to fore, has proven to be based on scant facts and the suppositions of his political opponents.
All that, and his job approval numbers are respectable.... Eventually the voters will tire (if they haven't already) of this and if nothing comes out of the Special Council's investigation pretty soon that hits close to Trump, it's going the way of the Valarie Plame issue under Bush and nobody will care.. I think his approval rating will climb as the media runs out of reality room for ever important "bomb shells" that are really important this time...
Have you heard of a safe. If you are operating in cash what is the bank for?
Usually, a bank (or some company subject to the reporting laws) is involved in a real estate transaction in some way. Unless the real estate being purchased has no leans (unlikely) you are going to trigger a report when the bank gets paid and the lean released. If the title is free and clear, the seller will be required to report the sale on their taxes, even if no capital gains are involved. Also, if the property value exceeds just under $170K the realtor will be getting paid in excess of the reporting limits too. It's going to be pretty hard to avoid tripping a report being made, not impossible, but hard.
If the Kingpin is trying to avoid financial scrutiny then paying in cash isn't enough. You may pay the owner in cash, but somebody will have to make a bank deposit eventually. Any Banking transaction in excess of $10K is reported, cash or otherwise in the USA.
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
You won't, this will just keep honest people honest. Criminals will still do what they want.
Next step will be to convert all the paper currency into new script, requiring all cash to be exchanged (and identities recorded) for new (with daily limits) or deposited into a bank account (again with limits of new script withdrawal). That's what they did in India to curb this "off book" cash transaction thing.
Of all the people made "uncomfortable" by this joke I'd be chief among them and I'm advocating that we leave it alone. Where I may find reason to be offended, this does not give me the right to demand it be removed. Why? Because something I say or do may offend you and I expect to be afforded the same tolerance. Being offended doesn't actually hurt you, especially if the offending thing is in the comments...
Some people consider this a joke? I think I can see the real problem here - it's not even funny.
I'm solidly pro-life and I see the humor in it even though it's making fun of laws I would support. I'm not saying it's funny, but I see how some would find it amusing so it has merit and should stay for historical reasons.
I also don't consider personal offense valid criteria for censorship of any kind. Being offended to demand censoring something has become a cottage industry of late. Such foolishness needs to stop.
I'm saying there is little difference between Trump's approval rating and Obama's for the same period while others are trying to say Trump is substantially below historical presidents, that people just don't like what he's doing. This is a misrepresentation at best and at most a lie. If Obama was typical, Trump is typical too. Trump enjoys about the same level of support as he did on his first day in office.
Now that Rasmussen has him pegged at 50% or so approval and THAT is higher than Obama's rating for most of his two terms is NOT what I'm basing this claim on. Rasmussen is OBVIOUSLY an outlier with the rest of the polling industry about 5% below them. However, to their credit, they where the ONLY organization claiming Trump had a reasonable chance of winning the presidency in the days leading up to the election while the rest where saying he'd already lost. They were the closest to actual results. This doesn't mean they are right now, only that I'd not be too quick to just dismiss them as an outlier.
No, I'm calling this politics as usual, in a era where the usual politics has been falling out of favor.
I'm calling this a circus side show act, with all the same implications. It may be entertaining, but it only serves to wrangle the rubes out of their money and time but produces no helpful result for those who watch and everybody on the stage knows it's all an act, an illusion, and/or a gimmick.
I'm also saying that the democrats are obviously in trouble if they think that this little side show on NN will have any discernible effect on the vote counts in November. You may find it important, but I will almost guarantee that the only people who care about this are already voting democratic anyway, which makes this a general waste of time... Something that makes congress look bad and strengthens the "anti-establishment" sentiments and increases the appeal of candidates with "Trump like" campaigns. Things like this cut both ways, the question is if it will be a net gain or loss for democrats. I think there is a significant risk this turns out to be a loss with the middle where elections are won and lost.
Power to the democrats though, if this is how they want to play the game, so be it.
BTW, I look forward to the budget fight coming up before the election. I think THAT's going to be where November is won or lost.
Look at the data.. I use RCP's combined number as an actual because it's an average of all the polls and gives us 43.2% approval.
The WE article is pointing out that in ONE specific poll Trump is ABOVE Obama for the same date.
I'm objecting to the "Compared to other Presidents he's way down there" comment, saying that it's not so. He compares favorably to Obama's numbers, exceeding them in some polls.
I don't fault the democrats for doing this, power to them... I'm just pointing out that if this is an important part of what they got, we are in for a unusual midterm election because the democrats are going to get creamed.
This is WAY to soon. Way to unimportant and they will lose the vote. IF democrats see this as a plus, that means they see issues shoring up their base and motivating them to vote in the midterms because it's only their base that cares about NN at this point.
As for your comment about Nazis: the reason why the term Nazi keeps coming up is because there are Nazis who have been holding political rallies recently and have been getting a lot of attention. It's not coincidence or hyperbole, that is something which is actually happening.
Really? And one party has been actively SUPPORTING such activity as is regularly alleged? I don't think so.
The number of people claiming to be Nazis in this country represent maybe a couple thousand. They have zero political power with their votes and as such NOBODY cares about them or supports their ideology both because it is offensive as well as contrary to the vast majority of people's principles, even on the right.
Why are we discussing these idiots or showing up at their rallies? It's not the right that keeps bringing them up or comparing their political opponents to them or their name sake, no that's the left. You do understand that these idiots crave attention and that the LEFT is giving it to them not the right. I think this is by design myself, it's just a dangerous political game played by the left.
In this case the question is who do you choose to believe? Who do you find the most credible? Who has the most information?
IF the US intelligence services are saying Iran is lying and the IAEA is saying they are in compliance (while we know full well the IAEA hasn't inspected places we know about)... Who ya going to pick? You going to believe the guys who you KNOW don't have all the necessary information or the guys you suspect may not have the necessary information?
The US intelligence services have access to everything the IAEA has, PLUS likely additional sources of information. Unless you are alleging malice on their part (which you simply cannot prove), you've got to see why I pick the US intelligence services over the IAEA as they are better informed. Could they be wrong? Sure. However, it only makes sense to go with the opinion of those with the most information.
Well.. I cannot disagree totally with that. However, Trump is pretty much the opposite of politically correct who has actually upended a bunch of apple carts on both sides of the isle... In this way, he's pretty unique, even if his appeal and rhetoric is from history.
He clearly ran anti-establishment on BOTH sides of the isle and has governed this way too. So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
This isn't an appeal to reason. This is a politically driven action designed to elicit political results, not an appeal to reason designed to actually get something done. This move is about political division, not a debate on the merits of an idea.
Politics has long ago left the realm of reasonable debate, or haven't you noticed? Listen to the rhetoric being used sometime. Ever wonder why the term "Nazi" and such keeps coming up on one side? It's not that the other side are actually "Nazis", but that it has (or at least used to have) an emotional effect on the hearers. Politics has become, in large part, a game focused on making the other side look bad, not a profession where differing views are aired, discussed and understood with solutions crafted with understanding, but where "success" is measured by ramming though YOUR ideas over any and all objections.
Yea, like escalation wasn't happening already before Trump pulled the plug. What on earth do you think is going on there and how do you think Iran is involved? The events happening now in the middle east where put in motion a LONG time ago, before Trump could have done anything to mess this up. I see the current mess as a direct result of the last administration's relaxing of sanctions on Iran, releasing the boat load of cash for Iran to spend on their terroristic intent. You want to hold Trump responsible for this?
Just in case you didn't realize it, Iran is in the middle of ISIS and is mucking around in Syria and has been for decades. The last administration went full "Neville Chamberlain" in the region for almost two full terms, pretty much let the Syrian civil war happen, released sanctions on Iran w/o preconditions, drew "red lines" which folks crossed w/o a reaction and withdrew our forces to the side lines. The situation we have there now is the direct result of that, not from Trump withdrawing from any agreements only two days ago.
On one hand you decry foreign policy by popular vote, but on the other you want more control...
Unfortunately, you don't get either of your wishes. Candidates for president run on (at least in part) how they will deal with the rest of the world. It's so important that we had one whole debate on the subject last time. On your second point, you want more control? And how do you propose you get that? By the only poll that matters, the vote count.
You may not agree with Trump, and that's fine, but he's not out there just randomly rolling dice. He's actually following the principles he articulated during the campaign for the most part and a lot of folks like what he's doing. So if you want to engage in an honest debate about the pros and cons of the principles behind what he's doing, have at it. However, if you insist on mischaracterizing what he's doing as random and haphazard you are not being honest about it.
It's nothing more than politics as usual.. Is basically what you are saying..
Um, just in case you haven't noticed, the guy in the Whitehouse right now doesn't play "politics as usual". In fact, that's pretty much what he campaigned with and won and how he's governing and yet still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating ( https://www.realclearpolitics.... ) Also note that Bernie Sanders was running as an outsider (though not as convincingly) on the left and made a good showing.
I'd be careful with this "politics as usual" play. I suspect it isn't as effective as it once was.
Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.
I guess we will have to see won't we. IF we see a group of Republicans peal off and vote for this, then you are likely right, they are worried. If we don't, if they vote party line as I expect, then your hope to use this as a wedge issue is going to fall flat because Republicans obviously are not worried.
Dumping Net Neutrality was all on the Trump Administration, Republican congress-critters were thoroughly insulated. This vote puts them on record.
And if it passes and Trump doesn't sign, it will clear them again... But it won't pass the Senate. There is zero need to knuckle under for this in the senate, democrats are in deep trouble in the Senate, facing a number of incumbent races in states where Trump's win was well past double digits and few possible pickups in places where things are close... Democrats have little hope of gaining seats in the Senate, and will likely drop a few.
This bill won't pass the Senate, and if it does Trump won't sign. This is a wedge issue vote, for show. And I'm saying that as a wedge issue it's pretty ineffective.
IF this is all they got, the midterms are going to be disappointing to them.
Oh Yea... It took you nearly a year and a half of nearly weekly claims of "We got him now!" to finally find this? And you think this won't end up like the last 50 things that where going to surely bring him down that didn't pan out? Cute..
I'd like to point to point out a couple of facts that don't make sense if you are right.
First, you are alleging a crime which *WOULD* be squarely in Muller's wheelhouse. So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor? How's that? Muler just lets this guy skate but he's charging Russians who are not even in his jurisdiction? Not looking good for this narrative..
Second, where they not initially claiming that Trump's lawyer's payment to Daniel's was a campaign donation, but Rudy pretty much scuttled that when it became apparent that Trump was paying his lawyer a lot of money (some $35K a month) to do such things for him and THAT'S where the $130K came from? Oh, darn that messed up that idea..
Are you seeing the pattern yet?
Keep living the dream, you might get him before January 20, 2025, but this latest story and Stormy Daniels isn't going to do it...
We are in the silly season for the midterm elections and the Senate is in full clown car mode...
Step right up folks, Watch wile we VOTE on some pointless bill! Yea, it will be a great side show before we all dive into the clown car and head to the center ring for the mud and cream pie throwing contest between the elephants and donkeys in November, just be sure to buy your ticket!
Seriously, this is nothing more than a show vote, designed to elicit campaign donations and collect stuff to use in all the ad buys in the late summer. Politics as usual, get nothing done by not trying very hard, complain about your opponent (or their party) obstructing on some quasi issue to get elected.. No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating.
Slashdot Mirror
So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
All of that could be said about Obama, too. Hope and Change.
Except for one thing.. Obama wasn't being savaged in the press and hounded by 90% unfavorable coverage by the major news outlets. Quite the opposite, he was handled with kit gloves and given every benefit of the doubt imaginable while they turned a blind eye to some obvious ideological issues in his past. Not that they mattered, but they just never came up. Trump is getting an anal exam where every jot and tittle of his past is put under the microscope while a pile of talking heads try to "connect the dots" to some scandal which, here to fore, has proven to be based on scant facts and the suppositions of his political opponents.
All that, and his job approval numbers are respectable.... Eventually the voters will tire (if they haven't already) of this and if nothing comes out of the Special Council's investigation pretty soon that hits close to Trump, it's going the way of the Valarie Plame issue under Bush and nobody will care.. I think his approval rating will climb as the media runs out of reality room for ever important "bomb shells" that are really important this time...
What next? Free speech?
No need to take free speech... They don't have that now.. https://www.lifehacker.com.au/...
Have you heard of a safe. If you are operating in cash what is the bank for?
Usually, a bank (or some company subject to the reporting laws) is involved in a real estate transaction in some way. Unless the real estate being purchased has no leans (unlikely) you are going to trigger a report when the bank gets paid and the lean released. If the title is free and clear, the seller will be required to report the sale on their taxes, even if no capital gains are involved. Also, if the property value exceeds just under $170K the realtor will be getting paid in excess of the reporting limits too. It's going to be pretty hard to avoid tripping a report being made, not impossible, but hard.
If the Kingpin is trying to avoid financial scrutiny then paying in cash isn't enough. You may pay the owner in cash, but somebody will have to make a bank deposit eventually. Any Banking transaction in excess of $10K is reported, cash or otherwise in the USA.
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
You won't, this will just keep honest people honest. Criminals will still do what they want.
Next step will be to convert all the paper currency into new script, requiring all cash to be exchanged (and identities recorded) for new (with daily limits) or deposited into a bank account (again with limits of new script withdrawal). That's what they did in India to curb this "off book" cash transaction thing.
I'd bet it's already happening.
Of all the people made "uncomfortable" by this joke I'd be chief among them and I'm advocating that we leave it alone. Where I may find reason to be offended, this does not give me the right to demand it be removed. Why? Because something I say or do may offend you and I expect to be afforded the same tolerance. Being offended doesn't actually hurt you, especially if the offending thing is in the comments...
Some people consider this a joke? I think I can see the real problem here - it's not even funny.
I'm solidly pro-life and I see the humor in it even though it's making fun of laws I would support. I'm not saying it's funny, but I see how some would find it amusing so it has merit and should stay for historical reasons.
I also don't consider personal offense valid criteria for censorship of any kind. Being offended to demand censoring something has become a cottage industry of late. Such foolishness needs to stop.
You are missing the point on purpose I think.
I'm saying there is little difference between Trump's approval rating and Obama's for the same period while others are trying to say Trump is substantially below historical presidents, that people just don't like what he's doing. This is a misrepresentation at best and at most a lie. If Obama was typical, Trump is typical too. Trump enjoys about the same level of support as he did on his first day in office.
Now that Rasmussen has him pegged at 50% or so approval and THAT is higher than Obama's rating for most of his two terms is NOT what I'm basing this claim on. Rasmussen is OBVIOUSLY an outlier with the rest of the polling industry about 5% below them. However, to their credit, they where the ONLY organization claiming Trump had a reasonable chance of winning the presidency in the days leading up to the election while the rest where saying he'd already lost. They were the closest to actual results. This doesn't mean they are right now, only that I'd not be too quick to just dismiss them as an outlier.
No, I'm calling this politics as usual, in a era where the usual politics has been falling out of favor.
I'm calling this a circus side show act, with all the same implications. It may be entertaining, but it only serves to wrangle the rubes out of their money and time but produces no helpful result for those who watch and everybody on the stage knows it's all an act, an illusion, and/or a gimmick.
I'm also saying that the democrats are obviously in trouble if they think that this little side show on NN will have any discernible effect on the vote counts in November. You may find it important, but I will almost guarantee that the only people who care about this are already voting democratic anyway, which makes this a general waste of time... Something that makes congress look bad and strengthens the "anti-establishment" sentiments and increases the appeal of candidates with "Trump like" campaigns. Things like this cut both ways, the question is if it will be a net gain or loss for democrats. I think there is a significant risk this turns out to be a loss with the middle where elections are won and lost.
Power to the democrats though, if this is how they want to play the game, so be it.
BTW, I look forward to the budget fight coming up before the election. I think THAT's going to be where November is won or lost.
Look at the data.. I use RCP's combined number as an actual because it's an average of all the polls and gives us 43.2% approval.
The WE article is pointing out that in ONE specific poll Trump is ABOVE Obama for the same date.
I'm objecting to the "Compared to other Presidents he's way down there" comment, saying that it's not so. He compares favorably to Obama's numbers, exceeding them in some polls.
I don't fault the democrats for doing this, power to them... I'm just pointing out that if this is an important part of what they got, we are in for a unusual midterm election because the democrats are going to get creamed.
This is WAY to soon. Way to unimportant and they will lose the vote. IF democrats see this as a plus, that means they see issues shoring up their base and motivating them to vote in the midterms because it's only their base that cares about NN at this point.
As for your comment about Nazis: the reason why the term Nazi keeps coming up is because there are Nazis who have been holding political rallies recently and have been getting a lot of attention. It's not coincidence or hyperbole, that is something which is actually happening.
Really? And one party has been actively SUPPORTING such activity as is regularly alleged? I don't think so.
The number of people claiming to be Nazis in this country represent maybe a couple thousand. They have zero political power with their votes and as such NOBODY cares about them or supports their ideology both because it is offensive as well as contrary to the vast majority of people's principles, even on the right.
Why are we discussing these idiots or showing up at their rallies? It's not the right that keeps bringing them up or comparing their political opponents to them or their name sake, no that's the left. You do understand that these idiots crave attention and that the LEFT is giving it to them not the right. I think this is by design myself, it's just a dangerous political game played by the left.
In this case the question is who do you choose to believe? Who do you find the most credible? Who has the most information?
IF the US intelligence services are saying Iran is lying and the IAEA is saying they are in compliance (while we know full well the IAEA hasn't inspected places we know about)... Who ya going to pick? You going to believe the guys who you KNOW don't have all the necessary information or the guys you suspect may not have the necessary information?
The US intelligence services have access to everything the IAEA has, PLUS likely additional sources of information. Unless you are alleging malice on their part (which you simply cannot prove), you've got to see why I pick the US intelligence services over the IAEA as they are better informed. Could they be wrong? Sure. However, it only makes sense to go with the opinion of those with the most information.
Really? He's above Obama for this point in his term, if but barely. Plus, he's been trending up since April started.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.realclearpolitics....
I think you are a bit misinformed.
Well.. I cannot disagree totally with that. However, Trump is pretty much the opposite of politically correct who has actually upended a bunch of apple carts on both sides of the isle... In this way, he's pretty unique, even if his appeal and rhetoric is from history.
He clearly ran anti-establishment on BOTH sides of the isle and has governed this way too. So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
This isn't an appeal to reason. This is a politically driven action designed to elicit political results, not an appeal to reason designed to actually get something done. This move is about political division, not a debate on the merits of an idea.
Politics has long ago left the realm of reasonable debate, or haven't you noticed? Listen to the rhetoric being used sometime. Ever wonder why the term "Nazi" and such keeps coming up on one side? It's not that the other side are actually "Nazis", but that it has (or at least used to have) an emotional effect on the hearers. Politics has become, in large part, a game focused on making the other side look bad, not a profession where differing views are aired, discussed and understood with solutions crafted with understanding, but where "success" is measured by ramming though YOUR ideas over any and all objections.
Yea, like escalation wasn't happening already before Trump pulled the plug. What on earth do you think is going on there and how do you think Iran is involved? The events happening now in the middle east where put in motion a LONG time ago, before Trump could have done anything to mess this up. I see the current mess as a direct result of the last administration's relaxing of sanctions on Iran, releasing the boat load of cash for Iran to spend on their terroristic intent. You want to hold Trump responsible for this?
Just in case you didn't realize it, Iran is in the middle of ISIS and is mucking around in Syria and has been for decades. The last administration went full "Neville Chamberlain" in the region for almost two full terms, pretty much let the Syrian civil war happen, released sanctions on Iran w/o preconditions, drew "red lines" which folks crossed w/o a reaction and withdrew our forces to the side lines. The situation we have there now is the direct result of that, not from Trump withdrawing from any agreements only two days ago.
On one hand you decry foreign policy by popular vote, but on the other you want more control...
Unfortunately, you don't get either of your wishes. Candidates for president run on (at least in part) how they will deal with the rest of the world. It's so important that we had one whole debate on the subject last time. On your second point, you want more control? And how do you propose you get that? By the only poll that matters, the vote count.
You may not agree with Trump, and that's fine, but he's not out there just randomly rolling dice. He's actually following the principles he articulated during the campaign for the most part and a lot of folks like what he's doing. So if you want to engage in an honest debate about the pros and cons of the principles behind what he's doing, have at it. However, if you insist on mischaracterizing what he's doing as random and haphazard you are not being honest about it.
It's nothing more than politics as usual.. Is basically what you are saying..
Um, just in case you haven't noticed, the guy in the Whitehouse right now doesn't play "politics as usual". In fact, that's pretty much what he campaigned with and won and how he's governing and yet still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating ( https://www.realclearpolitics.... ) Also note that Bernie Sanders was running as an outsider (though not as convincingly) on the left and made a good showing.
I'd be careful with this "politics as usual" play. I suspect it isn't as effective as it once was.
Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.
I guess we will have to see won't we. IF we see a group of Republicans peal off and vote for this, then you are likely right, they are worried. If we don't, if they vote party line as I expect, then your hope to use this as a wedge issue is going to fall flat because Republicans obviously are not worried.
Dumping Net Neutrality was all on the Trump Administration, Republican congress-critters were thoroughly insulated. This vote puts them on record.
And if it passes and Trump doesn't sign, it will clear them again... But it won't pass the Senate. There is zero need to knuckle under for this in the senate, democrats are in deep trouble in the Senate, facing a number of incumbent races in states where Trump's win was well past double digits and few possible pickups in places where things are close... Democrats have little hope of gaining seats in the Senate, and will likely drop a few.
This bill won't pass the Senate, and if it does Trump won't sign. This is a wedge issue vote, for show. And I'm saying that as a wedge issue it's pretty ineffective.
IF this is all they got, the midterms are going to be disappointing to them.
Oh Yea... It took you nearly a year and a half of nearly weekly claims of "We got him now!" to finally find this? And you think this won't end up like the last 50 things that where going to surely bring him down that didn't pan out? Cute..
I'd like to point to point out a couple of facts that don't make sense if you are right.
First, you are alleging a crime which *WOULD* be squarely in Muller's wheelhouse. So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor? How's that? Muler just lets this guy skate but he's charging Russians who are not even in his jurisdiction? Not looking good for this narrative..
Second, where they not initially claiming that Trump's lawyer's payment to Daniel's was a campaign donation, but Rudy pretty much scuttled that when it became apparent that Trump was paying his lawyer a lot of money (some $35K a month) to do such things for him and THAT'S where the $130K came from? Oh, darn that messed up that idea..
Are you seeing the pattern yet?
Keep living the dream, you might get him before January 20, 2025, but this latest story and Stormy Daniels isn't going to do it...
We are in the silly season for the midterm elections and the Senate is in full clown car mode...
Step right up folks, Watch wile we VOTE on some pointless bill! Yea, it will be a great side show before we all dive into the clown car and head to the center ring for the mud and cream pie throwing contest between the elephants and donkeys in November, just be sure to buy your ticket!
Seriously, this is nothing more than a show vote, designed to elicit campaign donations and collect stuff to use in all the ad buys in the late summer. Politics as usual, get nothing done by not trying very hard, complain about your opponent (or their party) obstructing on some quasi issue to get elected.. No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating.