Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 227: Cancel the Politics Topic: 250 B8ers will Die

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ive said from the start, you do impeachment proceedings to get the fucking dude under oath, where he literally cant help but lie and commit an undeniable crime.

Even if blatant perjury isnt enough for the Senate to grow a spine, the American people will see it, and while it wont convert true believers, it will make him publicly indefensible.

Why would Trump testify?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Also I guess PSA did a poll of Dems and actually asked some version of the question I wanted to see about impeachment:

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1143560399322640384?s=21

I would really like to see the general electorate who oppose impeachment asked if they would actually be more likely to support Trump/less likely to support the Dem if Congress moves forward with impeachment. I heavily suspect the answer is overwhelmingly no, and this poll is suggestive of that conclusion (though its only Dems and about primary support).

Impeaching Trump would all but guarantee that Democrats will not be able to put together any kind of cohesive message on substantive policy issues.
---

They can make both messages, and its not like media is likely to focus much on covering policy anyway

Its not a choice of policy discussion vs impeachment. The coverage is going to be 90% Trump (and whatever the but her emails of 2020 ends up being) either way, so the Dems should have that discussion on their terms rather than Trumps.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

They can make both messages, and its not like media is likely to focus much on covering policy anyway

Its not a choice of policy discussion vs impeachment. The coverage is going to be 90% Trump (and whatever the but her emails of 2020 ends up being) either way, so the Dems should have that discussion on their terms rather than Trumps.

If the discussion is going to be 90% Trump, the Democrats have already lost. This was their mistake in 2016 and if they want to win, they have got to start learning.
---

The media is the entity making that decision, not the Democrats. It doesnt matter how coherent and compelling a policy vision they present; its not going to outcompete Trump for attention. When policy did break through, it was in response to a terrible Trump policy (kids in cages, trying to kill the ACA, etc).
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The media is the entity making that decision, not the Democrats. It doesnt matter how coherent and compelling a policy vision they present; its not going to outcompete Trump for attention. When policy did break through, it was in response to a terrible Trump policy (kids in cages, trying to kill the ACA, etc).

It's up to Democrats to make their appeal to the American media. Blaming the media will get them nowhere. Republicans complained about unfair media coverage for decades but it got them nowhere until Trump decided to do something about it and started using Twitter as his primary means of communication with the public.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Impeaching Trump would all but guarantee that Democrats will not be able to put together any kind of cohesive message on substantive policy issues.

False, they can point to their bills already passed in the House that Mitch is holding hostage in the Senate.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Impeaching Trump would all but guarantee that Democrats will not be able to put together any kind of cohesive message on substantive policy issues.

False, they can point to their bills already passed in the House that Mitch is holding hostage in the Senate.

Those bills are dead on arrival and they're not going to get public attention no matter what. But if there is an impeachment trial, Mitch will have one more excuse for not getting around to them. "The Senate is too busy holding a trial for the president to consider these bills."
---

well, hillary did win the popular vote
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

well, hillary did win the popular vote

If the polarization of American society has increased since 2016, it's possible that the Democratic nominee can win the popular vote by an even higher margin this time and still lose. Maybe as high as a 4% margin in the popular vote.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Those bills are dead on arrival and they're not going to get public attention no matter what. But if there is an impeachment trial, Mitch will have one more excuse for not getting around to them. "The Senate is too busy holding a trial for the president to consider these bills."

Like Mitch McConnell ever needs an excuse for anything.

"A democrat is the President, so we don't have to vote on their Supreme Court nomination."

"I'm Mitch McConnell, so we won't vote on any bills put forth period."

"I'm MItch McConnell, I won't vote to help 9/11 first responders because I really don't give a fuck about anyone but myself."

"I'm MItch McConnell and my wife represents a conflict of interest. Remember vote for me!"
---

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

The media is the entity making that decision, not the Democrats. It doesnt matter how coherent and compelling a policy vision they present; its not going to outcompete Trump for attention. When policy did break through, it was in response to a terrible Trump policy (kids in cages, trying to kill the ACA, etc).

It's up to Democrats to make their appeal to the American public. Blaming the media will get them nowhere. Republicans complained about unfair media coverage for decades but it got them nowhere until Trump decided to do something about it and started using Twitter as his primary means of communication with the public.

I'm saying they can't. They're fucked if their goal is to shift the conversation to policy; nobody can compete with Trump for attention. That being the case, impeachment does not have the downside of pulling focus from policy; the attention was never going to be there in the first place.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If the polarization of American society has increased since 2016, it's possible that the Democratic nominee can win the popular vote by an even higher margin this time and still lose. Maybe as high as a 4% margin in the popular vote.

my point was that according to you, hillary sucked at making her appeal to the american public and trump was good at it. if that's the case, why didn't trump easily win the popular vote?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Those bills are dead on arrival and they're not going to get public attention no matter what.

So the goalposts have now shifted from "the Democrats won't talk about their policies" to "Democrats talking about their policies doesn't matter because Senate Republicans don't like them."

Okay.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If the polarization of American society has increased since 2016, it's possible that the Democratic nominee can win the popular vote by an even higher margin this time and still lose. Maybe as high as a 4% margin in the popular vote.

my point was that according to you, hillary sucked at making her appeal to the american public and trump was good at it. if that's the case, why didn't trump easily win the popular vote?

Part of Trump's superiority in making his appeal to the people was knowing which people in which areas to target. Hillary was great at appealing to people in California, and it produced lots of wasted votes for her.

If we are going to accept the current geographical dynamics going forward (which I would advise the Democrats to try to change, not to just accept), then Republicans will have a natural advantage. I think the breakeven point in the EC nowadays is something like D+4, in the House it is about D+5 or 6, and in the Senate even higher once the remaining blue dogs retire or are voted out.

Given that advantage, Democrats have to be better at appealing to the people to get the same results as Republicans.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Those bills are dead on arrival and they're not going to get public attention no matter what.

So the goalposts have now shifted from "the Democrats won't talk about their policies" to "Democrats talking about their policies doesn't matter because Senate Republicans don't like them."

Okay.

No, I'm saying the Democrats need to talk about their policies in a way that gets the public's attention. Passing bills in the House and hoping Mitch will do anything other than what he's done for years won't cut it.
---

That's my point. They already have a laundry list of stuff they've been trying to do, that they were elected into the House to do, that Republicans oppose and the Senate won't vote on. How is that not a good narrative for them?
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

That's my point. They already have a laundry list of stuff they've been trying to do, that they were elected into the House to do, that Republicans oppose and the Senate won't vote on. How is that not a good narrative for them?

It is, but that won't be the narrative if we spend 90% of the campaign talking about Trump as LOTM suggests is certain to happen.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

That's my point. They already have a laundry list of stuff they've been trying to do, that they were elected into the House to do, that Republicans oppose and the Senate won't vote on. How is that not a good narrative for them?

Because dishonest trolls claim it's not.

Also, parenthetically, it's possible that Senate Republicans like bills they vote down or refuse to consider. Remember, Mitch McConnell has filibustered his own bill when it looked like Democrats would vote for it.
---

New polling out still seems to back what I said the other day

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1143538459287666689

Second choice of Biden voters is Bernie, second choice of Bernie voters is Warren, second choice of Warren voters is Buttigieg and Harris. Assuming this holds true after the debate (not a solid assumption!) Bernie's hope relies on Biden dropping.

Nrrr posted...

New polling out still seems to back what I said the other day

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1143538459287666689

Second choice of Biden voters is Bernie, second choice of Bernie voters is Warren, second choice of Warren voters is Buttigieg and Harris. Assuming this holds true after the debate (not a solid assumption!) Bernie's hope relies on Biden dropping.

Second choice of Biden voters being Bernie makes sense because I see A LOT of Biden support that's just "I think he has the best shot". When that's off the table, their real choice is Bernie.

Bernie voters 2nd is Warren, which makes perfect sense.

Warren voters 2nd choice being Kamala or Buttigieg aligns perfectly with my theory that a lot of Dems feel personally slighted by Bernie, and erroneously blame him for Hillary's loss.
---

more sense: Biden is #1 on name recognition

people who are currently on the most recognized candidate (Biden) will even more likely pick their #2 as the #2 most recognizable candidate (Bernie)
---

Could also be that Biden and Bernie are polling best against Trump. I'm sure someone has polled Biden voters on their reasoning but I haven't seen it recently off the top of my head.

probably a factor on some level absolutely, but basically the underlying principle is that nobody should ever read into simple voter choice statistics as well-reasoned by any sense of the imagination
---

Newest fuckery in the census case:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/census-case-john-roberts-bush-v-gore-tragedy.html

tldr is that DoJ is asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether or not the inclusion of the citizenship question was racially motivated without that argument having actually been argued before the court yet, which is completely ridiculous.
---

Saw that post and thought, "Guessing they're shook that the 4th Circuit sent it back to trial to re-open the question with the new evidence from that hard drive."

read the article and "yep"

Isn't Alito thought to be writing the decision too? So ****ed.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Warren voters 2nd choice being Kamala or Buttigieg aligns perfectly with my theory that a lot of Dems feel personally slighted by Bernie, and erroneously blame him for Hillary's loss.

I'd say it's a combination of factors.

-Treatment of female staffers during the past campaign. Sexual Harassment, and women being paid less. Maybe not Sanders fault, but definitely would've expected better from him.
-Age. The difference between Warren and Sanders isn't too big, but Sanders is definitely closer to 80 than to Warren.
-Some people probably do blame his supporters for Hillary's loss.
-A lot of people don't feel he plays nicely with Democrats. He caucuses with them, but refuses to identify as one (until he decides to run for President)

Sanders is probably my second or third choice behind Warren. Harris would probably be a solid second if her record as a prosecutor better matched her current rhetoric. But I think people have some concerns about Bernie other than "He cost Hillary the election", though for some, it's clearly an issue.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Newest fuckery in the census case:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/census-case-john-roberts-bush-v-gore-tragedy.html

tldr is that DoJ is asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether or not the inclusion of the citizenship question was racially motivated without that argument having actually been argued before the court yet, which is completely ridiculous.

This article is sensationalist garbage. They found new, loosely related, factual evidence that probably won't make a difference, after the trial court and appellate court both ruled on it and the Supreme Court heard the case. The Supreme Court is days or hours away from releasing its decision on the legal questions presented and they argue that suddenly everything has to stop so they can go back to the trial court and delay things so the new forms can't get printed on time? And if the Supreme Court doesn't give them what they want they must be "the epitome of lawlessness?" Garbage article, regardless of what the ruling ends up being.
---

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Newest fuckery in the census case:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/census-case-john-roberts-bush-v-gore-tragedy.html

tldr is that DoJ is asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether or not the inclusion of the citizenship question was racially motivated without that argument having actually been argued before the court yet, which is completely ridiculous.

This article is sensationalist garbage. They found new, loosely related, factual evidence that probably won't make a difference, after the trial court and appellate court both ruled on it and the Supreme Court heard the case. The Supreme Court is days or hours away from releasing its decision on the legal questions presented and they argue that suddenly everything has to stop so they can go back to the trial court and delay things so the new forms can't get printed on time? And if the Supreme Court doesn't give them what they want they must be "the epitome of lawlessness?" Garbage article, regardless of what the ruling ends up being.

didn't even read the article did you? because you're factually wrong on most everything you just said

(Normally I wouldn't bother responding, but for the benefit of people not following the situation that closely given that a ruling on this will come down this week...)

There are two separate cases in play here.

There's the case before SCOTUS right now that will be ruled on this week. That case is around whether the addition of the citizenship question on the census was done in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. SCOTUS previously blocked Ross's deposition on this matter but the trial court still found it was in violation and the question should be removed.

The question before SCOTUS in this case is whether the Administrative Procedure Act is violated.

There's a second case in the Fourth Circuit right now also about the citizenship question. There's a whole backstory on how the plaintiffs got access to the hard drives of a Republican redistricting operative, but tl;dr they did and it contains new evidence. The Fourth Circuit therefore ordered today that in light of this, it was sending the case back to trial court to determine if the new evidence is good enough proof that the government violated Equal Protection. The Fourth Circuit case has never reached SCOTUS and has not been argued there.

Following that, DOJ wrote today to SCOTUS asking them to decide the Equal Protection question in their ruling this week. However that question is the subject of the Fourth Circuit case which again has not reached SCOTUS.

DOJ is arguing that because the Fourth Circuit is dealing with this question they want to have SCOTUS deal with it now because assuming the Fourth Circuit returns with the conclusion that Equal Protection has been violated there's no time they have to print the census questionnaires ASAP and they can't wait to have that case work its way up to SCOTUS. However, the Fourth Circuit has concluded they have time and it could wait until October.

tl;dr: There are two different census cases going on. The one SCOTUS has right now is about the Administrative Procedure Act. The second has not worked its way up to SCOTUS and deals with Equal Protection. Despite the fact that the second case is still working its way up the system, DOJ is asking SCOTUS to just rule on it too even though it never actually got to SCOTUS and the question of Equal Protection was never argued before it.
---

Xp please don't accuse me of not reading things when you have no idea what you are talking about.

I did read the article, and other ones. Can't copy/paste url on phone but please go to the front page of Scotusblog for a much more fair and not misleading article.

The party opposing the government brought the new facts in the other case to the Supreme Court's attention. The government responded. If SCOTUS decides this case on legal reasoning that applies to the other one, obviously the other case gets resolved. If the other case has different facts such that the same legal reasoning is not applicable it wouldn't get resolved!

There is no way SCOTUS is going to decide a case not before it with different facts. To suggest they would do that based on partisanship is sensationalist garbage.
---

Like seriously, the Supreme Court is going to overturn 800 years of precedent about what appellate courts do (they don't decide what the facts are and certainly they don't decide the facts without hearing evidence) because they are biased? They're not going to do that and no one has asked them to. Except in the mind of the author of this article. And people who are misled by him apparently.
---

still could go either way, but the Queens DA race is looking like we could be looking at another AOC type situaton.

https://www.cabanforqueens.com/issues/

Tiffany Caban is currently in the lead with 92% reporting, and this is her platform.

red sox 777 posted...

but please go to the front page of Scotusblog for a much more fair and not misleading article.

SCOTUSBlog is where I'm actually doing my own heavy lifting on this. I do think Slate is being hyperbolic in its article, but I also don't think you're right.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-commerce-v-new-york/

There are 3 Issues before the court. None of them ask the question of whether the equal protection clause was violated. True, this is because originally - before the new evidence came to light - that the district court had ruled in the governments favor.

I will fully admit I did not listen to oral arguments so if this question was argued anyway I'll admit I was totally wrong and apologize, but... why would it if it's not an issue before the court? (FWIW, a search of "equal" gets no results in the oral argument transcripts, let alone "equal protection")

DOJ is arguing they need to start printing by the end of the month so they need SCOTUS to answer now (and that if they don't SCOTUS will just have to deal with them seeking emergency relief anyway.) Now whether this is true or not we can argue. However, the Fourth Circuit seems to believe they have until October in reality and therefore there should be time to conduct fact-finding and examine the new evidence. Indeed, in the limited remand request, the then-plantiffs cite the government's own witness stating such.

I get the devil's advocate argument is that they're stalling to run the clock, but it seems to be the evidence seems to be on the side of there existing enough time to look into this first and then rule since the district court and Fourth Circuit are taking this seriously. The likelier situation here in my view is DOJ wants to head that off because they fear the results such a fact-finding could unearth.
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

but please go to the front page of Scotusblog for a much more fair and not misleading article.

SCOTUSBlog is where I'm actually doing my own heavy lifting on this. I do think Slate is being hyperbolic in its article, but I also don't think you're right.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-commerce-v-new-york/

There are 3 Issues before the court. None of them ask the question of whether the equal protection clause was violated. True, this is because originally - before the new evidence came to light - that the district court had ruled in the governments favor.

I will fully admit I did not listen to oral arguments so if this question was argued anyway I'll admit I was totally wrong and apologize, but... why would it if it's not an issue before the court?

DOJ is arguing they need to start printing by the end of the month so they need SCOTUS to answer now (and that if they don't SCOTUS will just have to deal with them seeking emergency relief anyway.) Now whether this is true or not we can argue. However, the Fourth Circuit seems to believe they have until October in reality and therefore there should be time to conduct fact-finding and examine the new evidence. Indeed, in the limited remand request, the then-plantiffs cite the government's own witness stating such.

I get the devil's advocate argument is that they're stalling to run the clock, but it seems to be the evidence seems to be on the side of there existing enough time to look into this first and then rule since the district court and Fourth Circuit are taking this seriously. The likelier situation here in my view is DOJ wants to head that off because they fear the results such a fact-finding could unearth.

If it's not before the court it's not before the court.

Suppose SCOTUS rules in favor of the government tomorrow. The 4th Circuit case then goes to trial and evidence is shown that the census question is based on racial discrimination. Can the district court/4th circuit issue an injunction blocking the new question? Yes! They are not barred by precedent precisely because SCOTUS did not rule on that issue in the earlier case.

Now, it's possible that SCOTUS decides the case before it based on reasoning that makes the factual dispute in the other case irrelevant - suppose, for instance, they said it doesn't matter what the actual intent is, it only matters what a reasonable government might do - then the other case would be decided, but properly so. Because the evidence that has yet to be heard wouldn't make a difference even if that case had gone first.

The chances of the nightmare scenario the Slate article posits - where SCOTUS decides issues of fact in cases not before it without considering evidence - has approximately a 0% chance of happening.
---

I think I agree with you to this extent - the Slate article is incorrect/sensationalist in portraying the issue as a SCOTUS issue.

The ridiculous behavior - in my view - is on the part of DOJ's request that SCOTUS just yolo it and rule on equal protection. That's the egregious act and worthy of discussion as another in a long list of this administration's actions IMO.

Slate's article frames it as though SCOTUS is the villain but that isn't true - at least with respect to the scenario here - unless of course that nightmare scenario does take place. It's DOJ they should be pointing the finger at here for asking SCOTUS to do that.
---

I haven't read DOJ's pleadings. Normally I would assume that the solicitor general of the United States would not argue something so stupid, but I suppose this is the Trump administration we are talking about so it's not impossible. I would have expected more LOLing from Scotusblog if that was indeed the government's position though.
---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/104091/20190625161322614_DEPT OF COMMERCE ET AL 18-966 LETTER.pdf

"To avoid that needless prospect, and as the government explained in its opposition to NYIC's motion to remand (at 16-17), this court should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the Secretary's decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection."

The "needless prospect" from that refers to a hypothetical injunction from the district court while they conduct up to 45 days of discovery which they argue would lead to them filing for emergency relief.
---

xp1337 posted...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/104091/20190625161322614_DEPT OF COMMERCE ET AL 18-966 LETTER.pdf

"To avoid that needless prospect, and as the government explained in its opposition to NYIC's motion to remand (at 16-17), this court should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the Secretary's decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection."

The standard for this kind of review is to assume all of the facts are as favorable as possible to the party opposing the request. Effectively they are asking for a ruling that even if all the allegations about the Hofeller stuff is true, the decision would still be the same. The Supreme Court can't look at the evidence in the other case and decide what's credible and what's not so they have to assume the worst possible facts for the party seeking this kind of determination.
---

Nrrr posted...

still could go either way, but the Queens DA race is looking like we could be looking at another AOC type situaton.

https://www.cabanforqueens.com/issues/

Tiffany Caban is currently in the lead with 92% reporting, and this is her platform.

shes got this! truly incredible if she sticks to her platform. hope this kind of change sweeps beyond queens!

Nrrr posted...

still could go either way, but the Queens DA race is looking like we could be looking at another AOC type situaton.

https://www.cabanforqueens.com/issues/

Tiffany Caban is currently in the lead with 92% reporting, and this is her platform.

Most of that is good, but I really hope her "seek shorter sentences" point doesn't apply to stuff like rape/murder.
---

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/104091/20190625161322614_DEPT OF COMMERCE ET AL 18-966 LETTER.pdf

"To avoid that needless prospect, and as the government explained in its opposition to NYIC's motion to remand (at 16-17), this court should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the Secretary's decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection."

The standard for this kind of review is to assume all of the facts are as favorable as possible to the party opposing the request. Effectively they are asking for a ruling that even if all the allegations about the Hofeller stuff is true, the decision would still be the same. The Supreme Court can't look at the evidence in the other case and decide what's credible and what's not so they have to assume the worst possible facts for the party seeking this kind of determination.

That's an "and" though, as in "plz address equal protection and also say that evidence wouldn't matter in regards to it regardless of what it might say". They're still requesting SCOTUS to address equal protection, are they not?

Certainly the equal protection argument is larger than just those files. Yes, the government won in district court on that which is why it isn't an issue here, but it seems to me like DOJ is straight-up asking SCOTUS to affirm that district court ruling on equal protection when, AFAIK, it was never argued before SCOTUS. Am I mistaken?
---

Oh, and I guess while I've been reading SCOTUS pdfs and letters and stuff (which I find oddly enjoyable) House Judiciary and House Intelligence issued a subpoena for Mueller and he's agreed to testify in open session on July 17.

also sanders is now on twitch. he should call for the nationalization of all pokedexes (pokedexi?)
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/104091/20190625161322614_DEPT OF COMMERCE ET AL 18-966 LETTER.pdf

"To avoid that needless prospect, and as the government explained in its opposition to NYIC's motion to remand (at 16-17), this court should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the Secretary's decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection."

The standard for this kind of review is to assume all of the facts are as favorable as possible to the party opposing the request. Effectively they are asking for a ruling that even if all the allegations about the Hofeller stuff is true, the decision would still be the same. The Supreme Court can't look at the evidence in the other case and decide what's credible and what's not so they have to assume the worst possible facts for the party seeking this kind of determination.

That's an "and" though, as in "plz address equal protection and also say that evidence wouldn't matter in regards to it regardless of what it might say". They're still requesting SCOTUS to address equal protection, are they not?

Certainly the equal protection argument is larger than just those files. Yes, the government won in district court on that which is why it isn't an issue here, but it seems to me like DOJ is straight-up asking SCOTUS to affirm that district court ruling on equal protection when, AFAIK, it was never argued before SCOTUS. Am I mistaken?

If it's purely a legal question as opposed to a factual one SCOTUS can consider it whether or not it was argued by the parties. That's how Justice Roberts saved Obamacare, with a legal theory not argued by the parties.

But the Supreme Court is not going to announce that all of a sudden racial discrimination is okay. They might possibly hold that what a partisan operative's goals are irrelevant.
---

pokedices
---

*Shrug*

Well, I do want to apologize for being a bit heated when this started and saying you didn't read the article. My take on this situation is that while Slate framed it badly, the story they were covering is still of merit - despite making the wrong party imo the "bad guy", and I felt you were just dismissing the entire thing out of hand because of it.

ftr: I expect SCOTUS to rule in the government's favor on the issues of the case and have for a loooooong time. RBG basically threw up a signal flare that it would be a 5-4 in the government's favor in a speech a while back too.
---

That's appreciated. Agreed about what the likely outcome is.
---

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/25/18715627/bernie-sanders-email-list-warn-immigrants-ice-raids-2020

This is very cool.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/25/18715627/bernie-sanders-email-list-warn-immigrants-ice-raids-2020

This is very cool.

hell yeah dude

also, AOC killing it as usual
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1143747090167844865

Not liking that one. Queens should not get more voting power than any state.

Alternative proposal: We start counting all mammals and birds in determining representation. Protected species count 5x, and endangered species count 20x. Bald eagles and elephants count 100x, and donkeys don't count.
---