Atticus
Atticus's JournalDespite the hype to the contrary, please do not consider the outcome of the Iowa caucuses as
"determinative" of anything except the Iowa caucuses, no matter who prevails. I don't even think it is a reliable indicator of who Iowa prefers.
There are several people bunched at the top of most polls. Unless one of them absolutely blows the rest of them away, we won't know much more tomorrow evening than we know right now. I know it is trite, but the race for the nomination IS a marathon, not a sprint.
I'll just leave this here. If one is hoping to be selected as the presidential candidate of
a major political party and hope to have not just the nominal support of the party faithful, but their enthusiastic support, and one person---or two or three---closely associated with your campaign goes off half-cocked and disparages people admired by those party faithful, it behooves said hopeful to PERSONALLY disavow the disparaging remark and admonish the offender.
Dateline: Washington. D.C.----The General Services Administration announced today that,
in order comply with His Excellency's recent executive order, it will, for the next 30 days, be accepting design proposals for a jewelled crown and scepter to be, henceforth, referred to as "The Monarchial Indicia". The weight of the crown should not exceed four pounds and the scepter should include a niche suitable for the containment of an I-phone.
Cost will not be a consideration as the savings realized by the elimination of Medicare, Social Security and the last remnants of "Obama Care" have produced a temporary surplus.
His Excellency will, of course, be inspecting all drawings or models presented, so elaborate explanations, instructions and measurements are unnecessary. He picks only the best of everything and the Monarchial Indicia will be the very best crown and scepter in the history of the world.
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
About stated "preferences"---mine says "undecided". It says that because I did not
choose to make a decision months ago. At that stage, there were a few in the race that I knew I did NOT prefer, but there were several who I thought would be good candidates.
Now, the field has narrowed. Some who dropped out were predictable; some were not at all. I have narrowed my "possibles" down to three. One is my "preferred" candidate and the other two are about tied. I think any of them would make a great POTUS, but there are others who are fine candidates. We have an "abundance of riches" IMHO.
But, I have no idea why anyone else would care or be influenced by MY preference and even when I have actually chosen the candidate I will vote for in the Illinois primary, I have no intent to make that known here. I make up MY mind using MY standards, experience and concerns. I give it a lot of thought and genuinely try to select a candidate who 1.) is, in my opinion, a good person, 2.) shares many if not all of my values, and 3.) CAN WIN.
I encourage everyone to do the same AND----"Vote Blue No Matter Who!"
( mods: Since this does not name or deal with a particular candidate, I assume it belongs in this forum)
A reminder as some are re-reading "1984":
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
Conversely, "alternate" truths constitute complicity.
Ever notice how the goal posts the Republicans use have swivel casters on the bottom?
If we play their game, we should realize by now that even if we absolutely positively say or do what they said was necessary to earn their approval and support, they will roll the goal posts back --- or sideways --- and sneer at our good faith effort.
Until we are in a position to dictate the terms, attempts to "work with" those now in power are a waste of time and resources.
Heads down, shoulders to the wheel, eyes on the prize. REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
What we just witnessed in a nutshell: per their Constitutional duty, the Democratic House
impeached Donald Trump but, DESPITE their Constitutional duty to try the impeachment, the Republican Senate refused to do so.
Back to " business as usual? I don't think so.
This is for the Trump trolls and lurkers. If you have not already, we know that some of you will
soon be logging on to the type of website you RWNJ's frequent to crow about "the sweet taste of liberal tears" following your cult leader's "acquittal". But, that would be "fake news".
Want to know why? Listen----
That slight "grinding" noise that you hear? That's not sobbing; it's the sound of millions of us gritting our teeth and muttering "THIS will not stand!"
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
FACTS are not "partisan".
If you rob a bank and get caught, the footage from the bank's surveillance cameras clearly identifying you is no less accurate just because the cameras were installed by someone who belongs to another political party.
If some of the eyewitnesses actually know and detest you, that can be considered in assessing the truth of their testimony but, when corroborated by others plus the video, is certainly admissible testimony at your trial.
Republicans who whine about the "partisan" nature of Trump's impeachment are, in my view, in the same category as those who complain that showing video of them saying what they said is "unfair". Both are saying that facts aren't facts or, at least, that there are "alternative facts" that are "just as good".
Does anyone know how many people the 47 Senate Democrats and independents represent
as compared to the 53 Republicans?
Can anyone suggest a site where this info might be found?
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 15,124