Mersky
Mersky's Journal
Murkowski effectively voted against confirming kavanaugh
By voting present for the final vote. She also voted against advancing kavanaugh to the senate floor for confirmation. It was the best decision for her state’s interest as Alaska has unique challenges, and should be commended for her independence in thought and principles from her party whipped into line with the tRump cult.
I don’t see much benefit in flattening her record on this, as yet again, voting for what’s best for her state that is geographically close to Russia is a set of decisions unlike that of her, um, southern colleagues. She doesn’t have the luxury of the political insurance that comes from a sweetheart deal for a russian aluminum plant or cushy federal construction contracts like Moscow Mitch ensconced within the boundaries of the lower 48, etc.
I say her party should think pretty hard about her arguments and position, and I hope others follow her lead for doing what’s best for their constituents and the entire Country.
LIVE NOW: Schumer holds news conference after release of House report on impeachment articles
Source: Washington Post
Schumer holds news conference after release of House report on impeachment articles
December 16, 2019 | 12:55 PM EDT
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) holds a news conference after pressing to subpoena several senior Trump administration officials including White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton who did not testify in the House’s impeachment probe as witnesses for the president's expected trial next month in the Senate.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/schumer-holds-news-conference-after-calling-for-more-witnesses-in-senate-trial/2019/12/16/56e5ee95-4b1e-488f-b92d-1dd153bbc891_live.html
Neat idea. Is this possible?
Am not a constitutional lawyer, so there’s that, but I like the idea. Whether it’s their testimony or some other blocked witnesses/materials.
Younger constituents deserve issues that drive a better outlook on life
Green jobs: give them something to look to, and to work hard for - something real. This as opposed to being asked to keeping running on a coal/fossil fuel hamster wheel of waste, like my Gen X peers and I were expected to do. Yes, we had the dot com and computing revolution, but pulling away from cruel, arcane ideologies has not been easy or well timed (lemme point a finger at zuckerberg & fb) for the skill sets the younger folks have in abundance. They have good, technical and digital intuition, and their hard work is valuable for its time and life-saving potential.
Legalization of marijuana: The war on drugs hasn’t legislated away human nature, rather has only strengthened cartels and their black market profits. We need to get real about how dopamine pathways work and other human biochemical reward systems, because even drunken drivers draining ‘The Swamp’ fiddle with them. Stop disrupting people’s lives by demonizing them with false calls for morality, and needless trips to court/jail for a substance that isn’t as harmful as alcohol.
The irony of those old egg-cracking PSAs from the 80s comes to mind for all the worthless help they did other than make me hungry. Would have been better if they’d had some random dude hose a pile of cotton candy, while saying, “Stay off drugs, kids, if you don’t want to hose your ability to feel joy without dragging eight tons of cotton candy thru life. Just leave your dopamine pathways alone!”
(Editing to add - fuck a bunch of karl rove and his ilk. This is just common sense stuff.)
Cool, is a helpful rundown. Thanks for posting it. nt
Swalwell: My Dad believed no one is above the law
He related an impactful personal experience of the effects of abuse of power.
As we watch the Articles of Impeachment markup session tonight
Be heartened, as I ran out of pocket-sized copies of The Constitution at a seniors gathering. I didn't have to talk politics, I talked civic responsibility.
"We can disagree politically, but let's disagree about politics, Constitutionally."
I will bring more than three next week, as clearly, I could have handed out dozens.
Why didn't they call witnesses?
From Judge Ostrager’s ruling mentioned in the article:
The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses, he added.
What happened to the witnesses? Why didn’t they testify?
I can hardly believe the state’s AG would bring a case without investor witnesses. And this was ruling was with prejudice? Can’t bring the same case again?!
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayCurrent location: Texas
Member since: Fri Oct 19, 2018, 12:32 AM
Number of posts: 4,980
