Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

I haven't seen much overlap between the Trump/Bernie crowd but a lot of Trumpers like Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.

If she's still in the race in March, I might cross over and vote for Tulsi in the D primary.

[iam416]

I might have possibly if this had been initiated with something remotely resembling good faith.

As a follow on, it might have possibly moved the needle if, e.g., Obama didn't literally argue that he was going to do a bunch of shit by EO because Congress wouldn't pass his legislation. That is to say, we've had separation of powers issues for awhile, now. PDJT's separation of powers issue can certainly be viewed as less egregious than acknowledging that Congress won't do your bidding, so fuck them, I'll do it myself.

The "whataboutism" when it comes to separation of powers is through the roof because both sides abuse it to serve their interests.

[Whitley]

I haven't seen much overlap between the Trump/Bernie crowd but a lot of Trumpers like Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.

If she's still in the race in March, I might cross over and vote for Tulsi in the D primary.

There is overlap to a degree, because both Bernie and President Deals are trade guys that make the case US has been absolutely screwed in deals. Hell, in leaked recordings you hear Trump say the same thing that the one person he didn't want HRC to name as VP was Bernie. Both Bernie and President Deals (back in 2016) argued how corrupt the system is that only he (Trump) or us (Bernie) could fix it.

If the Yang and Tulsi supporters don't leave the primaries when they bow out then they will probably melt over to Bernie.

[Dr. Strangelove]

As a follow on, it might have possibly moved the needle if, e.g., Obama didn't literally argue that he was going to do a bunch of shit by EO because Congress wouldn't pass his legislation. That is to say, we've had separation of powers issues for awhile, now. PDJT's separation of powers issue can certainly be viewed as less egregious than acknowledging that Congress won't do your bidding, so fuck them, I'll do it myself.

The "whataboutism" when it comes to separation of powers is through the roof because both sides abuse it to serve their interests.

From 2010. As always, it takes two to tango.

*********************

John BoehnerMitch McConnell

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

On the Imperial Presidency: Massive expansion because of WWII. Mild retreat after Watergate, but that didn't last long. Then another big surge in the wake of 9/11.

[iam416]

From 2010. As always, it takes two to tango.

Well, I mean -- isn't that what I said? Congress wouldn't pass shit Obama wanted so he opted to operate outside of the typical separation of powers. I mean, you may think he had a good excuse. But, let me put it to you this way -- if PDJT actually had a good reason to hold up aid to Ukraine, that doesn't change anything -- not for me. In the context of separation of powers, shit is or isn't. When you start looking to motivation you're at sea because the same act could be ok/not ok depending on whether your heart is pure as gold.

I mean, I could say make the same argument about PDJT building the wall. Congress refuses to fund it. So, PDJT is going with national emergency shit. It takes two to tango! It's all milk and honey when you agree with the dude busting norms. And when you don't, welp....

On the Imperial Presidency: Massive expansion because of WWII. Mild retreat after Watergate, but that didn't last long. Then another big surge in the wake of 9/11.

It really hasn't stopped since 9/11. And it's not going to.

[Dr. Strangelove]

...Trump couldn't even get wall funding in a Congress controlled by his own party...lol...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well I suppose no one cares because it's "not impeachable" now, but Bolton's claiming that he was instructed in MAY 2019 (right after Biden entered the race "coincidentally") to work with Rudy to pressure Zelensky. Also that Pat Cippilone was in the room when this happened.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Murkowkski statement takes a shot at Warren's dumb attempt to drag John Roberts into everything (Schiff tried to tamp that down by disagreeing with her). But Murkowski also said it was clear the Senate would not conduct a fair trial and therefore there was no longer any point in having witnesses.

Rob Portman's statement criticizes Dems but does also criticize Trump, saying to ask a foreign govt to investigate a political opponent and the delay in aid were both wrong.

[iam416]

[Dr. Strangelove]

John Kelly is suddenly very talkative.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/01/trumps-former-chief-of-staff-says-senate-impeachment-trial-without-witnesses-is-a-job-only-half-done.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rubio put out a confusing statement that seemed to say that what Trump did qualified as an impeachable offense but sometimes it's best for the country to not remove him anyways??

[Dr. Strangelove]

The economy is rolling right along but be aware that things are not great in the oil/gas industry. Natural gas prices have been plummeting thanks to the mild winter and overproduction and are the lowest they've been since 2016 in the depth of the shale bust. Other than a few spikes related to Iran, oil prices have been depressed and are approaching $500. $50 is about where I've always been told is when exploratory companies become more inclined to lay down rigs rather than run them.

Chevron reported a $6 Billion loss last quarter mostly blaming natural gas holdings in Appalachia that are no longer making money.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/chev...lls-short.html

Exxon missed it's 4th quarter forecast and both it and Shell lost a bunch of money. Exxon stock is now at its lowest price in nearly 10 years.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/...ts-on-revenues

It's got the Saudis spooked enough to call for an emergency OPEC meeting but Russia is resisting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-minister-says

[lineygoblue]

Rubio put out a confusing statement that seemed to say that what Trump did qualified as an impeachable offense but sometimes it's best for the country to not remove him anyways??

Sounds exactly like what some D's said right after Clinton was acquitted.

[froot loops]

Its always about the Clintons with you Trumpboys. It never fucking ends.

[lineygoblue]

Actually, you're right.

To me:

What Clinton did = what Trump did. Either both "rose" (I love that term, especially in Bill's impeachment) to the level of removal, or neither of them did.

You can't legitimately split the two.

And Hillary's attacks on Bill's victims played a major role in my decision not to vote for her. Especially when she claims to be a champion of women's rights.

So, yeah. It doesn't end, as long as she places herself in the public eye, she's fair game.