AndJusticeForSome
AndJusticeForSome's JournalEven the most generous reading of Agent Orange's tweet about PR 3000
demonstrates a shocking failure to understand how even rudimentary reality works.
@realDonaldTrump
3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000...
5:37 AM - 13 Sep 2018
This evokes the maddening practice within journalism where, in the moments following a disaster, the media inevitably report:
And I, inevitably, think: JFC, it it *just* happened! Get back to me on that after you've finished digging through the rubble, eh?"
But Trump (who, incidentally, relies on opinions he formed 30 years ago) never does the update thing.
"Oh? No casualties reported, you say? Must not have been that serious!"
Can a distinction be made between "voted for" and "elected by" please?
Yes, this is perhaps to be seen as a technicality, but can we use the phrase "elected by" (as in, Electoral College) as opposed to "voted for" (as in, by the American public)?
God this must be a dead horse by now, but it grates on my last nerve whenever I see any Trumpers say how Trump was "voted for" by the majority of the people.
NO, HE WASN'T, for the.last time!
In fact, Clinton was "voted for" by several millions more Americans than Trump was.
He was "elected by" the EC.
It is *not* a distinction without a difference. Correct them when they say it.
Thank you.
Wondering about Putin's intentions this election
I'm thinking that, if his goal is chaos, which way would he prefer it to go?
Honestly, I am thinking that us taking at least the House back will cause most chaos, simply because of the nature of R vs D. The Rs are more likely to take extreme measures and cause trouble if their side loses.
So, what would we do and how would we feel if Putin decided to help our side this time? We are in an impossible situation here. Either side can and will claim Russian interference, no matter what!
Putin actually doesn't have to lift a finger this time. What they did in 2016 was enough to taint future elections and our faith in them. Mission accomplished.
How do we not succumb to that thinking? Can someone talk me down please?
Regarding Kavanaugh's debt and "gambling problems"
While I have been following the Kavanaugh story, I had not paid much attention to the debt and/or alledged gambling aspect.
Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing there, and perhaps we should maintain focus on the much more important and plentiful issues about him and his pending appointment? Is this all based on the July WaPo story and those 2 excerpts of emails from 2001?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html
Given the details in that article, the baseball tickets story is somewhat plausible; and to answer some questions that I keep seeing:
1) how expensive can baseball tickets be?
2) the "between $60-200k" issue.
I *think* the correct interpretation is that, over the course of a decade, between 60-200k in credit card debt, which includes a loan that he took in 2006, were reported [in those years where the balance was greater than $60k].
So, he bought the baseball tickets over 10 years, and each season ticket ran about $9,000, and he bought some for friends. That adds up.
So, when was the debt paid (early 2017, when exactly?) and when did he become aware of his forthcoming nomination? Honestly, I can imagine if somebody knew that was coming, they would want to settle the books, nothing nefarious.
Further, if the whole thing about his "gambling" problem was derived from that one little comment about "blowing a game of dice", then we might want to step back.
That game of dice was on a private yacht that he and his buddies were on over the weekend. All this time I was thinking there was casino gambling or something involved.
Folks, there is SO much about Kavanaugh to complain about, why go there? To me it reeks of the kind of twisting the Faux crowd loves. Why go there?
Some truth accidentally leaks out of Lindsay Graham's head
Lindsay Tweeted:
Putin would strongly agree: Obama's Presidency most certainly *did* affect Putin's decision to help elect Trump.
Ask the whole Intelligence community what the 'best explanation' is for Trump's victory.
To paraphrase Lindsay: "In fact, the best explanation for Trump's victory, is [Putin's effort to undo everything accomplished by] the Obama Presidency."
ETA: To further simplify:
a) a result of Obama Presidency = enrage Putin
b) a result of an enraged Putin = Russia decides to hack our 2016 election in favor of the candidate most likely to undo Obama's accomplishments
b) the candidate most likely to undo Obama's accomplishments = Trump
Ergo: In fact, the best explanation for Trump's victory, is Russia's hacking."
Q.E.D.
Could this question be posed to Kavanaugh
in such a way that he cannot easily weasel out of it:
"Have any of your views changed since (date), and if so, which ones and how?"
Or is it too broad?
Could the NYT be using the word "Senior" in the sense of "old"?
Just for obfuscation purposes and to be literal?
Vintage (2004-2012?) DUers might understand this reference well:
Remember that period of threads where smilies (much more limited variety available back then) were used to express whole long posts?
That's what the exchange yesterday between Harris and Kavanaugh reminded me of!
It was basically facial expressions the whole time, no words really needed.
Anyone remember what I'm talking about? Ah, the good ol' days of such levity...
Here's a recent tweet from the normally-silent-on-such-matters Avenatti
With which I heartily agree:
@MichaelAvenatti
Here are some additional tools that can be utilized now by the Dems in order to prevent the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh and significant damage to the rights of those that need us most. pic.twitter.com/uabj51HyXB
8:53 AM - 6 Sep 2018
How does this (NYT) not just immediately invalidate everything
...this administration has done, since (if sufficient evidence is produced), it tells the country that the President is not, in fact, running things?
Selective adoption of his policies?
Fruit of the Poison Tree much?
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Mar 22, 2018, 08:37 AMNumber of posts: 537
