Great roundup! Especially appreciate the clips from the Fox 'debate'. Just more reinforcement that DeSantis is totally out of his league when you take him out of Florida (or even his home). Thanks David!
Every time you say you have seen as much of El Caudillo Del Mar A Lardo's complete assholery as he can bring, he says "Hold my Diet Coke!"
As to the debate, shooting fish in a barrel is fun, but ultimately boring, and an intellectual contest with an unarmed opponent will also ultimately get boring. There's a rule in writing dramatic fiction (a job I have done many times), that the protagonist and the opponent must be evenly matched, which is why dealing with MAGA is so frustrating - it's like being run over by the Energizer Bunny.
Sean Hannity is the best English argument against we Irish ever.
Ok--if tRump can go after the Judge’s wife, let’s put Melania tRump under public scrutiny: A whore, a drug-sniffing immigrant who worked in the US illegally before obtaining a fraudulent visa--A grifter who married for money and for a citizenship card, and then brought her family over through chain migration. A woman whose head is so far up her butt, she wore a jacket, “I really don’t care. Do U?” when visiting a disaster site. A stripper whose husband ordered that internet sites be purged of her nude and lascivious photos--this from MAGAts who now ban books, alleging moral turpitude from cartoon characters.
So I'm a little behind in the Santos thing. I thought the reason many Democrats didn't vote to expel last time was that he hadn't been convicted in a court of law yet and they were wary of setting a precedent. What's changed? (Or was he convicted while I wasn't paying attention?)
I get that, but their justification had to do with a conviction, and the report didn't change that at all, which tells me it had nothing to do with a conviction at all.
They originally voted against expelling him because there wasn't anything solid to back them up. That would have set an undesirable precedent. I don't know of anyone saying it had to be a conviction, and I think I remember someone saying they wanted to at least wait for the ethics committee report. With all of the evidence in broad daylight, a damning ethics committee report is all they needed.
I came here to say much the same. The concern wasn't a conviction per se, but due process. The Ethics Committee findings and recommendation satisfied that concern.
Great roundup! Especially appreciate the clips from the Fox 'debate'. Just more reinforcement that DeSantis is totally out of his league when you take him out of Florida (or even his home). Thanks David!
I read Josh Marshall's piece on Henry the K, and my takeaway was: Why is it wrong to hate a mass murderer?
Every time you say you have seen as much of El Caudillo Del Mar A Lardo's complete assholery as he can bring, he says "Hold my Diet Coke!"
As to the debate, shooting fish in a barrel is fun, but ultimately boring, and an intellectual contest with an unarmed opponent will also ultimately get boring. There's a rule in writing dramatic fiction (a job I have done many times), that the protagonist and the opponent must be evenly matched, which is why dealing with MAGA is so frustrating - it's like being run over by the Energizer Bunny.
Sean Hannity is the best English argument against we Irish ever.
I have always been curious...you're not by any chance *the* TC Boyle, are you?
This just in---skeezmeister Santos expelled from the House...won't wonders cease!
Ok--if tRump can go after the Judge’s wife, let’s put Melania tRump under public scrutiny: A whore, a drug-sniffing immigrant who worked in the US illegally before obtaining a fraudulent visa--A grifter who married for money and for a citizenship card, and then brought her family over through chain migration. A woman whose head is so far up her butt, she wore a jacket, “I really don’t care. Do U?” when visiting a disaster site. A stripper whose husband ordered that internet sites be purged of her nude and lascivious photos--this from MAGAts who now ban books, alleging moral turpitude from cartoon characters.
I'm guessing that you won't be attending any Melania memorials
🤣🤣 She isn’t worth the effort of dancing on her grave . . .
So I'm a little behind in the Santos thing. I thought the reason many Democrats didn't vote to expel last time was that he hadn't been convicted in a court of law yet and they were wary of setting a precedent. What's changed? (Or was he convicted while I wasn't paying attention?)
Once the ethics committee's report came out he was toast. No need to wait for the legal conviction.
I get that, but their justification had to do with a conviction, and the report didn't change that at all, which tells me it had nothing to do with a conviction at all.
They originally voted against expelling him because there wasn't anything solid to back them up. That would have set an undesirable precedent. I don't know of anyone saying it had to be a conviction, and I think I remember someone saying they wanted to at least wait for the ethics committee report. With all of the evidence in broad daylight, a damning ethics committee report is all they needed.
I came here to say much the same. The concern wasn't a conviction per se, but due process. The Ethics Committee findings and recommendation satisfied that concern.