But too many downticket races rely on the dog whistle tactics. Sure, that might kill the run of a candidate like Trump, but just how many local, state and federal GOP candidates rely upon such tactics to give them the edge?
Bannon's sun has already eclipsed, and will soon set. He was useful for getting elected, but too many more fights with Kushner, and it's game over. As it is, I think Bannon's only there still simply because no one can trust him on the outside. At least inside the Administration he's controllable.
Yeah, there's that whole thing about "lawyers" and the "law". I don't think it's generally seen as a requirement of being an FBI director that one start out as a beat cop or something.
I think the issue here is more to do with the timing. With the Russia investigation heating up, or rather there isn't enough other news to bury it, all of sudden Comey's thrown out. Sure, maybe it's because Trump is convinced he's a fuck up, but if that were the case, then why wait until over four months into his presidency before he decides to give Comey the boot?
What choice did they have? The GOP isn't the Democrats, there are no superdelegates to block a bad choice. I'm sure if the Republican establishment had had their way Jeb Bush would have been the nominee. Once he was nominated, there was little choice but to back him. The GOP's nomination process is pretty damned democratic, and the Democrats learned that having it too open can lead to candidates like McGovern.
The problem with such a reaction to a scandal is that it only raises the stakes. Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was pretty much the turning point in the Watergate Scandal, where public support bled away, and with it his insurance policy that Senate Republicans would jump on the grenade to protect him.
No one is that loyal. It's almost certain that Nixon would have been removed from office if he'd clung on to power long enough for the impeachment proceedings. While the Democrats controlled Congress at the time, the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate would still have required sufficient Republicans to cooperate, and it was largely the understanding that Republican Senators were not going to save Nixon's hide that drove him out.
Except the Senate has to confirm whomever his pick is, so while the Senate is wearing the same team jersey as Trump, I don't think you're going to find it is in fact Trump's biggest fan. That's the real irony here, that Congress doesn't like the man at all, and while they're going to put up with him to a point, if they get enough intelligence to draw a line between the Kremlin and the President, you're going to watch support melt away as it did for Nixon.
It does have the look of desperation. I'm not really one to give much credence to conspiracy theories, but I read yesterday of some group of Congressmen (identities unknown) who are already meeting to discuss impeachment. I'm not really sure I believe that, but Trump is running out of people to throw under the bus.
And how does firing Comey even help him? As I said above, it's not like he can't be summoned by Congress, and while I guess Trump could try to stymie further investigation, that would constitute a positively Nixonian abuse of power. As it is, Sessions has recused himself, so Trump's AG isn't really inside of this at all.
But none of this is going to make the problem go away. He can't fire Congress, and he can't stop Comey and the other directors (or ex-directors) from testifying. I guess he could start trying to interfere with their investigations, but then that would generally be considered abuse of power, and that would give Congress grounds to impeach him.
The timing seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Now that it's pretty clear that the endless attacks on Rice and Yates haven't prevented Congress from continuing to investigate the links between his campaign and Russia, it's time to start putting friendly faces in charge of the three letter agencies.
Seems a fairly astute observation. Left to his own, and to Bannon, I'm sure Trump would have killed the EPA entire.
Of course, things aren't that simple, and if the rumors are true, the delay in Trump's grand commitment to exiting the Paris agreement is because Kushner, Tillerson, and dare I even say it, no less than Rick Perry himself think the US should stay in it, with Bannon and Pruitt fighting to pull the US out. I find it fascinating that every hot button issue now has Kushner on one side, and Bannon on the other.
The idea that concrete can contain such waste is absurd, and Chernobyl demonstrates that. Concrete is not some sort of an impermeable layer. Apart from the fact that it's possible the decay of whatever is down in that tunnel will probably eat at the concrete over time, concrete is vulnerable to water damage, and more importantly to cracking. Ask anyone who has poured a concrete slab, if you don't have stable soil and fill beneath a slab, and if you don't put control joints into a slab, it will crack. That's not even talking about other potential issues like frost heave or the potential that such waste could still find its way out of its "tomb" and into the water table.
Dumping tons of concrete into the hole is not a long term solution. I wouldn't even call it a medium term solution, and doing it will likely complicate future cleanup or containment.
The biggest issues I have with nuclear, apart from safety concerns around handling spent fuel, is that it is extremely expensive way to produce energy, and it isn't in fact renewable. It is reliant, at least at the moment, on digging up radioactive minerals like pitchblende out of the ground, so in that respect you're still left finding sources of fuel, whether that be primary sources like mining it, or secondary sources like enriched uranium and plutonium originally meant for or made into nuclear weapons.
So perhaps it solves a short-term solution, seeing as CO2 emissions-wise, it's clean, but in the long term it still leaves behind a pretty damned nasty form of waste, and is still using a finite resource.
Do you think the universe gives a flying fuck about a fucking election? Either you're among the most arrogant creatures to exist, or you are well and truly a fucking moron.
Because some alt-right AC troll is such an example of financial success.
Just because you're a basement dwelling piece of shit doesn't mean the rest of the world is. I hope your parents throw you out on your ass so you have to actually get a real job.
That was Hillary's mistake. She should have lied big and lied often. In a way it almost inoculated Trump against the accusation of being a liar. Because he is a shameless fantasist, supporters feel completely free to reinterpret his every utterance in any way they please.
At the end of the day, the "elite" as it were, will get their way anyways. It's unlikely Trump's wall will ever be built, his health care plan (or rather Ryan's) is unlikely to get through the Senate, and if it does, it will be so altered as to be unrecognizable. It's going to be two, maybe four years (depending on whether the Democrats make any in-roads in 2018) of Republican lawmakers cuing up for selfies with Trump while they work behind the scenes to undermine his every initiative.
Even if what you say is true, what of it? The French voted in a way to express their desire to remain in the EU. It's that simple.
You seem, some electorates are capable of looking beyond the political leader as an individual, and at the actual ideal itself, and a majority of French voters made it clear they had absolutely no desire to turn their country over to a far right nationalist who wanted to pull France out of the EU (even if, as it became clear she was losing, Le Pen tried to fabricate a European-friendly face).
The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis. In a way, it's irrelevant whether Macron has any of your supposedly required experience for leading (I mean, he was only a former banker and economic minister, so what does he know, eh?), the fact is that he represents moderation and pro-European sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
But too many downticket races rely on the dog whistle tactics. Sure, that might kill the run of a candidate like Trump, but just how many local, state and federal GOP candidates rely upon such tactics to give them the edge?
Bannon's sun has already eclipsed, and will soon set. He was useful for getting elected, but too many more fights with Kushner, and it's game over. As it is, I think Bannon's only there still simply because no one can trust him on the outside. At least inside the Administration he's controllable.
Yeah, there's that whole thing about "lawyers" and the "law". I don't think it's generally seen as a requirement of being an FBI director that one start out as a beat cop or something.
I'm curious as to how you can say this? Since the investigation is ongoing, doesn't it seem a tad premature to declare "Nope, nothing to find here?"
Maybe this is Trump getting rid of a crappy FBI director, or maybe it's his own Saturday Night Massacre. I guess we'll find out.
Because Carter Page just fell of the face of the Earth?
Congress certainly isn't acting as if there's nothing to talk about.
I think the issue here is more to do with the timing. With the Russia investigation heating up, or rather there isn't enough other news to bury it, all of sudden Comey's thrown out. Sure, maybe it's because Trump is convinced he's a fuck up, but if that were the case, then why wait until over four months into his presidency before he decides to give Comey the boot?
What choice did they have? The GOP isn't the Democrats, there are no superdelegates to block a bad choice. I'm sure if the Republican establishment had had their way Jeb Bush would have been the nominee. Once he was nominated, there was little choice but to back him. The GOP's nomination process is pretty damned democratic, and the Democrats learned that having it too open can lead to candidates like McGovern.
He would certainly be a more conventional President, that much is certain.
How quaint. You think Comey was fired because of the Clinton Investigation.
The problem with such a reaction to a scandal is that it only raises the stakes. Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was pretty much the turning point in the Watergate Scandal, where public support bled away, and with it his insurance policy that Senate Republicans would jump on the grenade to protect him.
While the ratings are high, apparently some people want it canceled. Something about it bringing the whole network down.
No one is that loyal. It's almost certain that Nixon would have been removed from office if he'd clung on to power long enough for the impeachment proceedings. While the Democrats controlled Congress at the time, the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate would still have required sufficient Republicans to cooperate, and it was largely the understanding that Republican Senators were not going to save Nixon's hide that drove him out.
Except the Senate has to confirm whomever his pick is, so while the Senate is wearing the same team jersey as Trump, I don't think you're going to find it is in fact Trump's biggest fan. That's the real irony here, that Congress doesn't like the man at all, and while they're going to put up with him to a point, if they get enough intelligence to draw a line between the Kremlin and the President, you're going to watch support melt away as it did for Nixon.
It does have the look of desperation. I'm not really one to give much credence to conspiracy theories, but I read yesterday of some group of Congressmen (identities unknown) who are already meeting to discuss impeachment. I'm not really sure I believe that, but Trump is running out of people to throw under the bus.
And how does firing Comey even help him? As I said above, it's not like he can't be summoned by Congress, and while I guess Trump could try to stymie further investigation, that would constitute a positively Nixonian abuse of power. As it is, Sessions has recused himself, so Trump's AG isn't really inside of this at all.
But none of this is going to make the problem go away. He can't fire Congress, and he can't stop Comey and the other directors (or ex-directors) from testifying. I guess he could start trying to interfere with their investigations, but then that would generally be considered abuse of power, and that would give Congress grounds to impeach him.
The timing seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Now that it's pretty clear that the endless attacks on Rice and Yates haven't prevented Congress from continuing to investigate the links between his campaign and Russia, it's time to start putting friendly faces in charge of the three letter agencies.
Seems a fairly astute observation. Left to his own, and to Bannon, I'm sure Trump would have killed the EPA entire.
Of course, things aren't that simple, and if the rumors are true, the delay in Trump's grand commitment to exiting the Paris agreement is because Kushner, Tillerson, and dare I even say it, no less than Rick Perry himself think the US should stay in it, with Bannon and Pruitt fighting to pull the US out. I find it fascinating that every hot button issue now has Kushner on one side, and Bannon on the other.
The idea that concrete can contain such waste is absurd, and Chernobyl demonstrates that. Concrete is not some sort of an impermeable layer. Apart from the fact that it's possible the decay of whatever is down in that tunnel will probably eat at the concrete over time, concrete is vulnerable to water damage, and more importantly to cracking. Ask anyone who has poured a concrete slab, if you don't have stable soil and fill beneath a slab, and if you don't put control joints into a slab, it will crack. That's not even talking about other potential issues like frost heave or the potential that such waste could still find its way out of its "tomb" and into the water table.
Dumping tons of concrete into the hole is not a long term solution. I wouldn't even call it a medium term solution, and doing it will likely complicate future cleanup or containment.
The biggest issues I have with nuclear, apart from safety concerns around handling spent fuel, is that it is extremely expensive way to produce energy, and it isn't in fact renewable. It is reliant, at least at the moment, on digging up radioactive minerals like pitchblende out of the ground, so in that respect you're still left finding sources of fuel, whether that be primary sources like mining it, or secondary sources like enriched uranium and plutonium originally meant for or made into nuclear weapons.
So perhaps it solves a short-term solution, seeing as CO2 emissions-wise, it's clean, but in the long term it still leaves behind a pretty damned nasty form of waste, and is still using a finite resource.
Do you think the universe gives a flying fuck about a fucking election? Either you're among the most arrogant creatures to exist, or you are well and truly a fucking moron.
Because some alt-right AC troll is such an example of financial success.
Just because you're a basement dwelling piece of shit doesn't mean the rest of the world is. I hope your parents throw you out on your ass so you have to actually get a real job.
That was Hillary's mistake. She should have lied big and lied often. In a way it almost inoculated Trump against the accusation of being a liar. Because he is a shameless fantasist, supporters feel completely free to reinterpret his every utterance in any way they please.
At the end of the day, the "elite" as it were, will get their way anyways. It's unlikely Trump's wall will ever be built, his health care plan (or rather Ryan's) is unlikely to get through the Senate, and if it does, it will be so altered as to be unrecognizable. It's going to be two, maybe four years (depending on whether the Democrats make any in-roads in 2018) of Republican lawmakers cuing up for selfies with Trump while they work behind the scenes to undermine his every initiative.
There are a lot of Aspies in need of cognitive therapy.
Even if what you say is true, what of it? The French voted in a way to express their desire to remain in the EU. It's that simple.
You seem, some electorates are capable of looking beyond the political leader as an individual, and at the actual ideal itself, and a majority of French voters made it clear they had absolutely no desire to turn their country over to a far right nationalist who wanted to pull France out of the EU (even if, as it became clear she was losing, Le Pen tried to fabricate a European-friendly face).
The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis. In a way, it's irrelevant whether Macron has any of your supposedly required experience for leading (I mean, he was only a former banker and economic minister, so what does he know, eh?), the fact is that he represents moderation and pro-European sentiment.