Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 407: Lauren Boebert's Handiwork

(+) Yeah! (+)

Turns out theres another way to make Beetlejuice come besides saying his name three times

oh dear god

Jakyl25 posted...

Turns out theres another way to make Beetlejuice come besides saying his name three times

*chef's kiss*

Well lets all try to get this topic to 500 as soon as possible to erase this curse you put on all of us.

The end of that topic, LMS JFC

Jfc, jakyl. How are you so good at this?

Jakyl25 posted...

Turns out theres another way to make Beetlejuice come besides saying his name three times

amazing. I was trying to think of a way to use "At the stroke of midnight" again for a title but this op nails it

This topic title is amazing

I am so behind the curve.

I don't get it and I don't want to

Went to see a performance of Beetlejuice musical in Denver.

Was vaping while in her seat (had to be asked to stop by the pregnant woman sitting behind her)

Was taking flash photography.

Was groping and being groped by her companion.

Was kicked out of the showing by theater staff.

Initially denied wrongdoing. (I think specifically referring to the vaping, blamed on on theater fog machines or some such)

Buuuut she was caught in 4K by night vision security cameras and has issued multiple apologies now.

Pretty great tbh.

Great title and OP.

Don't fuck with theatre.

Obviously it has to do with Spider-Man.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Went to see a performance of Beetlejuice musical in Denver.

Was vaping while in her seat (had to be asked to stop by the pregnant woman sitting behind her)

Was taking flash photography.

Was groping and being groped by her companion.

Was kicked out of the showing by theater staff.

Initially denied wrongdoing. (I think specifically referring to the vaping, blamed on on theater fog machines or some such)

Buuuut she was caught in 4K by night vision security cameras and has issued multiple apologies now.

Pretty great tbh.

I like how this is worded like youre telling us about your weekend

https://twitter.com/dril/status/401706725411004416

I saw this RT'd a few times recently.

there was no fucking way on the face of this planet that i was gonna look at that timestamp and it was gonna be old

what the fuck

Modern day prophet

What a blursed man he is

I didn't expect to be reminded of Warning Crazy today

https://twitter.com/senfettermanpa/status/1704123105180893497?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

lmao

The Democrats should just tell McCarthy that they'll support his government funding bill. No reason something that in principle has the support of at least 90% of the House should fail because everyone insists that it should pass, if at all, with only Republican votes.

holy shit

Fetterman gives me hope.

So, at risk of opening up the polling discussion again, I finally got a tweet that put all the special election data together so I can post that instead of just saying it.

This is the reason why I think "dooming" is the wrong take right now: In 2023 Special Elections across the country Dems have been overperforming Biden 2020 by over 6 points across a variety of types of states (red, blue, swing) capped just now with flipping a Trump 2020 NH state district with a 12 point win and holding onto their one-seat majority in Pennsylvania with a 7.5 point overperformance against 2020.

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1704308533527712140

So despite the media narrative around Biden polls, Dems have been doing considerably better in 2023 than they did in 2020. And to my knowledge special election results going significantly in favor of a party is a better major election year predictor than over-a-year-out Presidential polls. And I don't mean that in a snarky way or even a "President Kerry, President Hillary, Reagan losing in '84" one-liner way, pretty sure the data supports that (and that in general Prez polling this far out does not have a strong correlation with results at all really.)

And because I know it'll come up if I don't put up this disclaimer, and still might anyway, but do not mistake me saying this as complacency or "consider it called." Just that "doom" is just straight up wrong from a data standpoint.

Still think anyone who runs against Trump in the general election will get a ton of votes just for not being Trump.

Thorn posted...

So, at risk of opening up the polling discussion again, I finally got a tweet that put all the special election data together so I can post that instead of just saying it.

This is the reason why I think "dooming" is the wrong take right now: In 2023 Special Elections across the country Dems have been overperforming Biden 2020 by over 6 points across a variety of types of states (red, blue, swing) capped just now with flipping a Trump 2020 NH state district with a 12 point win and holding onto their one-seat majority in Pennsylvania with a 7.5 point overperformance against 2020.

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1704308533527712140

So despite the media narrative around Biden polls, Dems have been doing considerably better in 2023 than they did in 2020. And to my knowledge special election results going significantly in favor of a party is a better major election year predictor than over-a-year-out Presidential polls. And I don't mean that in a snarky way or even a "President Kerry, President Hillary, Reagan losing in '84" one-liner way, pretty sure the data supports that (and that in general Prez polling this far out does not have a strong correlation with results at all really.)

And because I know it'll come up if I don't put up this disclaimer, and still might anyway, but do not mistake me saying this as complacency or "consider it called." Just that "doom" is just straight up wrong from a data standpoint.

I think the concern is enthusiasm. Will there be enough enthusiasm from Biden supporters

Was there much even in 2020?

Y'know, I wouldn't mind getting a handy from Boebert.

Thorn posted...

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1704308533527712140

Worth noting Tennessee's 2020-2023 numbers shown there:

+9.3% in a blue area
+13.4% in a red area
+14.2% in a blue area

All three easily beat the +6.1% national average.

All three areas also improved from 2016 to 2020 in their Presidential elections as well (where the state overall gained +2.8% between 2016 and 2020)...so between those gains and these gains, this seems encouraging as a trend.

Who was it that landed the +14.2% gain, which was also the second biggest gain in the nation this year? Tennessee Three's very own Justin Jones.

Why is this worth bringing up?

Marsha Blackburn beat Phil Bredesen for the Senate in 2018 by 10.8%...and while Blackburn will have the power of an incumbent in 2024 -- a year Donald is likely to be on the ballot this time -- she is facing fellow Tennessee Three member Gloria Johnson now.

Nothing guaranteed by any means, but Tennessee might have a real chance for a Democrat as Senator.

Gonna need one more push from Taylor Swift against Blackburn to keep turning the tide

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-voter-registration-sign-up-fans-b2415156.html

"On Tuesday (19 September), hours after the pop star, 32, called on her US fanbase to register to vote in honour of National Voter Registration Day, Vote.orgs communication director, Nick Morrow, announced that our site was averaging 13,000 users every 30 minutes."

That one more push has another year to come. Gotta beliiiiieeeeeve.....

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/senfettermanpa/status/1704123105180893497?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

lmao

Yet another reason to support enormous pennsylvania man for president 2024

(Obviously a joke but I would be very happy to be voting for someone under the age of 80)

Unless Taylor Swift is personally running against her, I think Marsha Blackburn should be safe.

New completely shocking story from propublica that you simply aren't going to believe:

Clarence Thomas helped fundraise for the koch network at least twice over the years, by attending private dinners and encouraging attendees to continue donating.

To score an invite to the summit, donors typically have to give at least $100,000 a year. Those who give in the millions receive special treatment, including dinners with Charles Koch and high-profile guests. Doling out access to powerful public officials was seen as a potent fundraising strategy, former staffers said. The dinners purpose was giving donors access and giving them a reason to come or to continue to come in the future, a former Koch network executive told ProPublica.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus

Propublica has been great with coverage on the Supreme Court this year. Major props to them.

I'm not seeing the problem here. He's allowed to donate to whomever he likes. He's allowed to promote whatever political views or causes he likes. If he was being paid by the Koch network, that's another matter but attending fundraisers? Not even 1/100 as bad as Hillary Clinton getting massive sums of money to give speeches to banks.

red_sox_777 posted...

He's allowed to promote whatever political views or causes he likes. If he was being paid by the Koch network, that's another matter but attending fundraisers?

Are you sure about that?

As a Federal employee I have restricted rights with regard to political speech/activity. Not all the time, but particularly with regard to fundraising and with regard to actions done in my official capacity or while using my job title. Once a year we have to take a refresher course on the Hatch Act as part of our annual refresher training (it's one of about a dozen of yearly reminders we have to endure). This isn't the video we use, but here's a more concise video discussing the Hatch Act:|

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCYVTYDmv0g

Pay particular attention to the bit starting around 1:50
"don't ask for or receive any campaign donations at any time"
"this is very strict and applies 24/7, even when off duty and not in a federal building"

And going onto the scenarios I can't even LIKE a post on facebook relating to a fundraising event because it displays my preference for all to see.

Now simply attending a fundraiser without calling attention to it is probably safe, but if your attendance is an important part of the fundraiser and if people are paying specifically because you're allowing those raising funds to display that they have access to you? Then i think that goes back to something that would be off-limits.

Now my job technically falls into the Executive branch, and Clarence Thomas is part of the Judicial branch, so the Hatch Act itself does not apply, but that's just another example of people being held to unfairly different standards.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Are you sure about that?

As a Federal employee I have restricted rights with regard to political speech/activity. Not all the time, but particularly with regard to fundraising and with regard to actions done in my official capacity or while using my job title. Once a year we have to take a refresher course on the Hatch Act as part of our annual refresher training (it's one of about a dozen of yearly reminders we have to endure). This isn't the video we use, but here's a more concise video discussing the Hatch Act:|

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCYVTYDmv0g

Pay particular attention to the bit starting around 1:50
"don't ask for or receive any campaign donations at any time"
"this is very strict and applies 24/7, even when off duty and not in a federal building"

And going onto the scenarios I can't even LIKE a post on facebook relating to a fundraising event because it displays my preference for all to see.

Now simply attending a fundraiser without calling attention to it is probably safe, but if your attendance is an important part of the fundraiser and if people are paying specifically because you're allowing those raising funds to display that they have access to you? Then i think that goes back to something that would be off-limits.

Now my job technically falls into the Executive branch, and Clarence Thomas is part of the Judicial branch, so the Hatch Act itself does not apply, but that's just another example of people being held to unfairly different standards.

Well, I thought the reason we're having all these issues is that the rules that apply to federal employees, or to judges, don't apply to Supreme Court justices.

My understand is the the Judicial branch has their own rules, but they don't intersect with my own life so I'm not as intimately familiar with them :shrug:

It's all still justification for there actually being a binding code of ethics for the highest court in all the land that could cover things like this and provide clarity.

I think if we're going to have stronger ethical rules for people holding the top offices in the land (president, vice president, members of Congress and Supreme Court justices), they should be paid a lot more. I don't think it's fair to ask someone as brilliant as Clarence Thomas, who's had a transformative effect on law in this country in his 30 years at SCOTUS, to live on a sub-200k salary. If you do that it will strongly disincentivize people who are not already independently wealthy from serving in these high offices.

By the same argument, I'm totally fine with Nancy Pelosi using information she gets from serving in Congress to make money in the stock market.

red_sox_777 posted...

I think if we're going to have stronger ethical rules for people holding the top offices in the land (president, vice president, members of Congress and Supreme Court justices), they should be paid a lot more. I don't think it's fair to ask someone as brilliant as Clarence Thomas, who's had a transformative effect on law in this country in his 30 years at SCOTUS, to live on a sub-200k salary. If you do that it will strongly disincentivize people who are not already independently wealthy from serving in these high offices.

I'm fine with that, as long as the punishment for breaking those ethical laws is death.

We were discussing Newsom a couple weeks ago, but he just threw the trans community under the bus by vetoing a bill the legislature passed to codify that in custody hearings judges should take into account whether a parent affirms their child's gender identity.

https://twitter.com/lara_korte/status/1705414710554984674

He tries to hide it behind "well golly i think we shouldn't single out a single issue like this when determining the best interests of a child" but California (and many other states) already have issues like this included in the standards judges are supposed to use so vetoing one meant to protect trans kids specifically is just gross.

Judges still can consider it (and he also offers that fact up as a shield, but again, he's misrepresenting the situation wrt other "single characteristics") but just complete cravenness on his part and I think it's pretty inarguable he's doing it to try and position for a 2028 presidential run.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/3/0/AABgm0AAE3bu.jpg

Beyond the obvious egregiousness of what Donald gets away with doing...I also didn't realize he was Braveheart'ing the American flag lately either.

I think that's been his avatar on Truth from nearly the beginning.

I'd be amazed at an actual criminal being a frontrunner for next year's election, but this is just the state of US Politics given said criminal is a freaking cult leader.

Klaas' insights and coverage have been consistently good

Thorn posted...

We were discussing Newsom a couple weeks ago, but he just threw the trans community under the bus by vetoing a bill the legislature passed to codify that in custody hearings judges should take into account whether a parent affirms their child's gender identity.

https://twitter.com/lara_korte/status/1705414710554984674

He tries to hide it behind "well golly i think we shouldn't single out a single issue like this when determining the best interests of a child" but California (and many other states) already have issues like this included in the standards judges are supposed to use so vetoing one meant to protect trans kids specifically is just gross.

Judges still can consider it (and he also offers that fact up as a shield, but again, he's misrepresenting the situation wrt other "single characteristics") but just complete cravenness on his part and I think it's pretty inarguable he's doing it to try and position for a 2028 presidential run.

shout-out to me in the previous topic for posting about how newsom's a bad presidential candidate just because he "kinda sucks shit", can't wait to vote against this dude in the primary

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/09/22/politics/joe-biden-michigan-trip-uaw/index.html

union joe is back baby. he's good again. awooou (wolf howl)

(maybe not good but tolerable)

anyway i think he should set a factory owner on fire as a further show of solidarity

biden is unironically the best President for Unions in the last 80 years lol