HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » IndianaDave » Journal
Page: 1

IndianaDave

Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

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?

If Republicans are so sure that their Health Care plan will be better, why don't they just

leave the ACA (Obamacare) intact and allow those who like it to keep it, while letting those who want to move to the GOP's "American Health Care Act" - with its inferior voucher program and health savings plans (for those who can afford them) - to do so? That would allow for REAL competition, which the Republicans insist that they want. Then, let's see what happens. May the best plan win!
Go to Page: 1