HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » IndianaDave » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »

IndianaDave

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Oct 15, 2016, 06:06 PM
Number of posts: 518

Journal Archives

Personal Privilege! Please Read!

I was writing several paragraphs of a well-reasoned and substance-based post regarding Secretary of State Tillerson, the Russian invasion of Crimea, Exxon's relationship to Russia's Gazprom, the unjustified movement to eliminate the sanctions against Russia, and referring to Putin as a pissant, and as I neared the end of the post, it literally disappeared from the screen. Somebody, somewhere did NOT want that post to see the light of day. I'm not a nut case, and I have posted before. This was WEIRD.

The Glass Half Full . . .

I can't take credit for this. I read it someplace several years ago, but - in an interesting way - it seems to summarize a lot of what I have seen in political philosophy, and is also funny - at least to me.

Some say the glass is half full.

Some say the glass is half empty.

Republicans say "The glass is MINE."

Could you help me please?

Ever since we moved to the https format, I have had difficulty accessing graphics on my phone (which is what I generally use to log on to the DU site). I haven't changed any of my settings, so I'm not sure what my problem is. I miss seeing the daily toons, for instance, and other graphics. Can you help me? - Thanks in advance - Dave Franklin

I suggest we celebrate April 7th as Merrick Garland Day from now on!

OK, we can't make it an official holiday, but we can agree to post the idea to social media, to contact like-minded friends and family members to have a get-together or go out to eat, or just hang out and have a few beers or a couple glasses of wine, or a soft drink and snacks, and tell the story of President Obama and Merrick Garland and the jerks who ignored the Constitution. And end the story with "and that's how Republican Senators got to be known as (and you fill in whatever insulting term makes you happy." And let's toast Judge Garland in perpetuity.

Anyone confused about why they're going after Susan Rice?

It seems to me that it's almost automatic. She's an intelligent, Black woman who held high office in the previous administration and did an excellent job. For some White people - especially those who support the current administration - this is an affront to everything they believe, and, consequently, she makes the perfect scapegoat for their inability to explain away Trump's idiotic position that President Obama surveilled him and his cronies in Trump Tower.

As a Caucasian myself, I find their unfounded accusations to be disgusting and pitiful.

What do you think?

Dear Republican Judiciary Committee members - THERE IS NO BIDEN RULE!

I painfully watched a propaganda photo op, where Chuck Grassley - accompanied by other Republicans, and some of Gorsuch's law clerks - claimed that Democratic Senators were playing politics in their rejection of SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Grassley indicated that the nomination of Gorsuch - after the bizarre dismissal of Merrick Garland, last year - was simply an application of the "Biden Rule," which Chuckey characterized as a standard under which Supreme Court nominees should not even be considered during an election year.

The central problems with this argument are --

(1) In 1992, then Senator Joe Biden, expressed an opinion that, during the last three months of the election year, IF an opening on the Supreme Court occurred, it would be inadvisable to confirm President Bush's nominee until after the election. Biden did NOT state that the nomination should be ignored, but that confirmation should be postponed until after the election. That's a WHOLE lot different than what the Republicans did to President Obama's nominee!

(2) When Biden expressed his opinion, no vacancy existed on the Supreme Court.

(3) There was no actual nominee to be considered.

(4) Biden's statement was an OPINION, and the Senate did NOT formally consider it or adopt it as a rule. It never became a RULE.

In other words, the Republicans are once again bullshiting to get what they want. In fact, if they hadn't screwed over Judge Garland and President Obama, there wouldn't even be an opening to fill! In view of these indisputable facts, NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF NEIL GORSUCH.

How Ironic Is It That the Same People Who Are Adamantly Opposed to Releasing Trump's Tax Returns

have voted to give everyone access to everyone else's Internet browsing histories? It appears that personal privacy exists only for the one person who seems to have a lot to hide, and whose financial history affects all of us. Every day, living in our democracy gets crazier and crazier. Damn!

One Theory as to Why FBI's Comey Publicly Revealed Investigation on Clinton, but Not Trump

[ 1 ] James Comey and other investigators were seeing the same political polls that all of us were seeing

They probably believed that support for Hillary was strong enough to sustain some battering, and may have had strong indications from the beginning that she would be vindicated well before the election. It appears that Comey decided to make public the investigation into Hillary's emails because he knew that it wouldn't actually go anywhere. But that's not the end of the story. WHY would he bring it up at all?

[ 2 ] It seems logical that - because the investigation into Trump and his campaign was in progress - they wanted to give the Trump camp a false sense of security.

By misdirecting everyone's attention to their investigation into Hillary Clinton, Trump and his cronies felt confident that they could continue whatever shenanigans they were up to (which I don't pretend to know, although I think we will eventually find out about). This theory is based on an old saying: Give him enough rope to hang himself. By creating this false sense of confidence among the Trump camp, the investigators could continue to monitor them into the election and beyond. And it looks like they did exactly that. And we are now just beginning to see the results of those investigations.

_______________

After wondering for months why the hell Comey would appear to be so partisan, and so clearly ignored the reports of some tenuous connections between Trump and his campaign with the Russians, it hit me that, perhaps, there were very sound reasons for Corey's behavior.

I repeat, I think that Comey decided - based on fairly consistent polls, and an apparent advantage in the Electoral College - that Hillary Clinton would be able to withstand some temporary, negative publicity, and would emerge the winner. Conversely, had he made the Trump investigation public, they would not have been able to gather enough solid evidence to bring charges against the Trump team.

At this point, there are real questions about the legitimacy and even the permanence of Trump's entire administration. Anything can happen now. And it certainly seems that something big is about to happen.

Please Note -- This is a THEORY. I have no inside track, no source of information that you don't have. But I'm starting to believe that my frustration with Comey may have been misplaced. I would be very interested in your insights and reactions. - Dave

Since the GOP Health Law creates such Momentous Changes, why not put it to a national referendum?

This law will affect about six percent of the U.S. economy, why not take the time to explore all of its ramifications, and - during the 2018 Congressional Election - put it on the ballot? All of us can decide whether to keep the Affordable Care Act or to change to the Republicans' "American Health Care Act?" Then, there will be no confusion about our chosen form of health care. Now, why do I believe that the Republicans have no interest in knowing what we think?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »