Wow. MAGA is going down HARD.
Another Republican, Congressman Mike Gallagher announced he will resign from Congress on April 19th, screwing his party over and leaving them with a mere one-seat majority without the ability to fill his empty seat until the general election in November.
This on the day Ken Buck left in disgust and outrage over the horrific state of the MAGA party.
Also on the day of another MAGA call to replace the MAGA speaker of the house, throwing the entire house in complete disarray with childish infighting paralyzing the majority because some of them are outraged the majority leader actually led and got a minimal short term spending bill passed…the absolute bare minimum he could do as speaker.
There’s a actual good chance Jeffries could be nominated and voted in as speaker despite being in the minority. 😂

Who’s next? The next one out gets a free hat!

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
In under 1 minute they blame Jan 6 on Pelosi. You’ve got to try a new lie, dummy. This long ago debunked nonsense only flies with delusional cultists, it turns real Americans away from the “not my fault” party because we all know better. We’ve known better for years and years.
Disgraced Tucker!?! That’s your “news” source now? 🤦‍♂️ 😂 You’ll just believe any stupidity as long as there’s no evidence to back it up, won’t you?

As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard, neither did McConnel. Pelosi was not a chair or administrator of any committee supervising the Capitol Police at the time of the insurrection. Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard. Trump overrode the request and no help came.

*lies
*debunked

Maybe if Republicans had cared to investigate they might know some facts, but nope, you wanted no investigation, no facts made public, definitely no trials. The republicans on the committee have debunked these, and a thousand other nonsense claims, and the maggots just ignore them.
Now Trump is lying again by claiming the entirety of the Jan 6 investigation has been erased, with no evidence or testimony available, nothing at all….another 100% lie, his lawyers are actually refusing to accept it because they don’t want to have to keep it in a SCIF away from Trump, who they know will immediately post snippets from it on social media despite court orders against it, likely getting him put in jail for contempt and adding more espionage charges.

Now the crimes you just deny are coming home to fuck your world, and I’m so here for every single second with a huge bag of kettle corn laughing my ass hole shut!

Where’s the rest of the footage that proves there was no violence at all and that all the brutal preplanned violence was perpetrated by BLM and the FBI to trick poor nonviolent innocent Trumpists into trying to lynch the vp and murder police? Where is it, Bob? Why’s disgraced Tucker hiding it and allowing hundreds of MAGgot convictions he could prevent?

Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to approve Federal level justices. McConnell just exploited what the former Majority Leader did.

When under pressure from Republicans and Trump in the first two years of Trump's term to do away with the filibuster and allow the all-Republican government to do what the all Democratic one is hoping to do now, McConnell wisely chose not to.

Whether you care for McConnell or not, or if you care for the minority party or not, doing away with the filibuster to allow the party currently in charge to ram legislation through is only going to set precedent for the same thing to happen when the situation changes.

Democrats may think that forcing through HR1 will mean that the Republicans will never control the government again, but that is not going to happen. Americans are fickle and turn on the government in power at the drop of a hat. Case in point, Trump should have never won a term as President in a normal world. People hated Hillary so much that he did.

Turning the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives relying simply on a majority vote for everything would create situations where either side will ram through sweeping changes (or erase those of the previous side) every 4 years or so. What will we do in 2024 if somehow Trump or his lackeys get elected and he has access to a fully Republican senate, congress, and scotus, with no filibuster unlike 2016-2018?

Dreaming my son.

what about this..
Senate Majority Leader, Mike Shirkey caught on camera telling the truth about Jan 6th.

It was ALL staged, Mitch McConnell wanted it to be “a mess” so he could secure a Trump impeachment conviction for Pelosi and Schumer.

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/politics/2021/02/13/breaking-michigan-senate-majority-caught-on-secret-recording-saying-capitol-hill-riot-wa
s-a-hoax-pre-planned-and-mcconnell-involved/

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

Some info about why....

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, was intentionally snubbed by a pallbearer, Bobby Rankin, at the late congressman Elijah Cummings' memorial service at the Capitol on Thursday. The pallbearer walked down the line of attendees and shook hands with the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, before walking past McConnell to hug the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
Mr Rankin explained that his brother, who died exactly one year before the memorial service, like numerous servicemen contracted multiple cancers directly linked to drinking (well documented) contaminated water while he was stationed at camp Lejeune, and was denied his military benefits thanks in large part to McConnell personally blocking legislation Cummings had produced with bipartisan support that would have given those poisoned by the military's negligence during their military service the benefits they earned and were promised, and he could not shake hands with a "person" (and I use that term loosely) who would throw injured servicemen into a ditch after stealing their benefits.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Politico has a long piece on Boehner. It includes this little gem:

On Sunday, July 17, it appeared they had a deal. Boehner and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor—whom the speaker had reluctantly brought into the negotiations, knowing the majority leader’s distrust of Obama could poison the talks—worked out some final details that morning at the White House. When the president returned from church, Boehner says, he invited them both into the Oval Office and shook their hands. Some fine-tuning remained, but in Boehner’s mind the so-called grand bargain was done. The framework included reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending; and $800 billion in new revenue. “I was one happy son of a bitch,” Boehner tells me.

The next 48 hours changed everything. On Tuesday morning, the so-called Gang of Six—three senators from each party who had been discussing their own sweeping fiscal agreement—announced a briefing for their colleagues at the Capitol. They unveiled a separate framework, totally unaware of what Obama and Boehner had agreed to. This deal included significantly more revenue. Chambliss, by then a senator, was one of the GOP Gang members and had no idea—because Boehner had been negotiating with the president in private—that their announcement would kill the speaker’s deal with the White House. Obama saw that Republican senators were endorsing a deal that included far more revenue, and knew there was no way he could sell the grand bargain to his liberal base. When he came back with a counteroffer, seeking a higher revenue number, it validated Cantor’s warnings about not trusting the president. And by that point Boehner’s members had heard enough about the grand bargain to know they didn’t like it—with the $800 billion revenue figure, much less something higher.

So the deal fell apart, and the two sides peddled their competing versions of events: Boehner’s team said the White House moved the goal posts, while Obama’s allies said the speaker couldn’t sell his own members on the deal.

So the Grand Bargain was pretty much a done deal between Obama and Boehner.

Think about it: Bubba's plan to cut Social Security was foiled by Lewinsky, and Barry's plan to cut Social Security was foiled by the "Gang of Six". True Champions of the Plebs, both of them.

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

Written by Republican House Majority Leader, Aaron Sorkin.

Wow, he really got to you. You've been writing that response all night!

Re: that poll. The names of the house majority leader? Yes, Limbaugh raves about Pelosi daily, so his followers know her name well. Boner? Who could forget!

Now ask them about death-panels. What about government funded abortions by way of planned parenthood? What about Obama's birth certificate? Shall I go on?

Your network of choice perpetrates more bullshit than the others combined.

You're just butt-hurt that JS calls them out on it daily, and makes Chris Wallace look like the ridiculous retarded son of an actual journalist.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
blahblahblah

Sigh.... So many comments. I personally like the ones taking the so called moral high ground. Your no better then the ones who are celebrating his death. These trite attempts to look and sound superior to those yelling in the streets come off as smug, self righteous and fake. It is with out any doubt that I am guilty of this also. There also no better indicator of this then the fake MLK quote above. So many latched on to it as flag showing their moral high ground that when pointed out as a fake. It showed many to be the hypocritically moral bankrupt sheep that they were.
The questions raised with his death will be asked for years to come long after we are gone. The only true answer is the one you give yourself. These are my opinions no one else's.

1. Was his death necessary? I can not completely answer that. It is my hope the Seal Team that went in were trying to capture him but in the course of the fight they had to kill him. If so than yes it was necessary to keep team members from being killed. The down side to that is they will make him a martyr and become a focal point for more violence but the possible up side is in doing so the terrorist groups will rush to have their response to be as quickly as possible and expose them selves. Allowing governments to find and capture these cells or destroy them.

2. Was it Justice or Revenge? Again my opinion is it's both. I have heard that you can not use justice as revenge or that if there is a hint of revenge than its not justice. I respect that line of thinking even though I believe it to be wrong. No matter how much we want to think other wise the human race will almost always revert to the eye for an eye system of law if everything else falls apart. It is only after the rebuild do we try to "Improve" the law. We are a violent short sighted race but that is what works for us.

3. Was he still a major leader in Al Qaeda? I think so. For years we thought he was hiding in a cave somewhere and as such his communications with other members and groups would be slow and ineffective. No we found him in a large house and compound. Well equipped with security and high walls, computers and other electronics and luxuries. This is not someone cut off from their group. This is someone well financed and in control.

4. Should we be celebrating his death? This is a moral conundrum. Are we truly celebrating his death or are we celebrating still being alive? This is a man who has and had planned the death of thousands. Mostly for just believing or thinking differently than he did. We never truly knew where he was going to target next but when it happened people died. Some would say we should never celebrate the death of a human. I would ask why not? I would love to live in a place where there was no evil. A place where war and violent death did not happen. Its a nice dream. But it is not reality. If there is a heaven and hell I doubt there is a Demon or Satan that can match the cruelty, hatred or violence that one human can enact on another and no Angle or God that could enact the kindness and caring and love of one human to another. If you can not celebrate his death. Then Celebrate that he can no longer plan to kill you. Someone may take his place but for now there is one less doing so.

5. He has been dead for years.. For those that think or believe that. Please take this the right way. I'm going to to group you with the Birther and Truther idiots. While ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not and while I will honor your right to believe and say whatever you want. Do not act surprise when afterwords I give you a crayon and tell you to go play in the corner.

These are my opinions. No one else's. I reserve the right to change them as time goes by and i ether get wiser or dumber or more info on the subjects or even brain damage if I'm not already. (You never know)

Not much of an Olbermann fan these days, but he nailed this one.

Here's an article at The American Prospect, Why Democrats Are Deserting Obama. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Dorothy: You’re a very bad man for pretending to be a wizard. Wizard: No, I’m a good man, just a very bad wizard.

Barack Obama, you might say, is a very good man who is just not turning out to be a very effective president. And he makes a serious misjudgment if he thinks that it is just the liberal base of the party that is disillusioned both with the deal that he cut and with his leadership skills. Centrists like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are every bit as dismayed at the agreement Obama made -- a deal that increases the deficit by some $900 billion in a fashion that is both inequitable (too much to the top) and not very efficient as economic stimulus.

It was nothing short of astonishing to see Obama, at his surprise press conference Tuesday, with harsher words for members of his own party than for Republicans. It is the Republicans, after all, who have been blocking his efforts, wall-to-wall, while the liberal Democrats who have been his staunchest if often exasperated supporters.

I still believe Barack Obama is probably a decent man, and I agree with the majority of his political opinions. However, I agree much less with his political actions. He might be the smartest wonk to occupy the Oval Office in decades, but he has no political savvy. On the big issues he almost always blinks first. He never calls the Republicans' bluffs. Let's be frank: he's been at the helm for 2 years now, and his leadership has been weak. And just in the last 24 hours he has caved AGAIN, this time on the Israeli settlement issue. So if he's still wondering why so many Democrats are pissed off at him right now, it's because we have every right to be pissed off. EVERY right.

*quality

>> ^NordlichReiter:

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I didn't say that, but there's a matter of degrees. Republican corruption usually involves outright devastation to people's lives for profit (let's "privatize" social security, let's start a war to get oil rights, let's pretend the environment is indestructible), whereas Democratic corruption usually presents itself as siding with Republicans on whatever horrific scheme they're looking to implement, plus they get involved in some of the "traditional" corruption -- funneling public money into private hands in return for campaign contributions -- though they seem to do this to much smaller degrees than Republicans do.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party.
I did add the qualifier "In my lifetime" for a reason. That said, the Federal Reserve Act was a good thing. Only crazy people are against the idea of having a central bank at this point. I may want more firm oversight to ensure it's not being mismanaged, but that's wholly different from declaring the very idea evil.

Plus, while I'm not going to try to defend Woodrow Wilson against nonspecific charges, I should point out that it's not as if his name evokes the same effect as Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, or even Herbert Hoover in people.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

...and Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So Clinton's failing was that he didn't fight the Republicans like the left of his party wanted him to. Still fits my description.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees?

You mean the rights denied them by a 5-4 decision (5 Conservative vs. 4 Liberals) of the Roberts Supreme Court?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

The Afghanistan war was started by Bush, as were the violations of Pakistani sovereignty (though it seems unlikely that we are really operating without Pakistan's approval). Again, the worst you can say here is that Democrat Obama has been insufficiently anti-Republican in his stance, something I would agree with as a general criticism of Obama. He isn't as left as I wish he was.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.


Ahh, so I am to let your eminently answerable questions stand as if I had no answer for them? Talk about limiting freedom of choice...

What's limiting your choice isn't what the two parties are doing, it's your view that there's nothing you can do to a) change how the Democratic or Republican parties do things, or b) form your own party around a platform that would appeal to an untapped coalition of voters.

@Shepppard

Well he's already admitted to being naked in the presence of an underage person. So he's guilty of at least corruption of a minor which according to a quick google search shows it can range from activities such as discussions involving sex, showing them pornography or explicit images, teaching them destructive behavior, etc. So remaining in a hot tub, nude with someone underage I think would fall into the realm of corruption of a minor.

And since in recent years, the laws for child pornography have moved to include cartoons depicting underage characters, sexting related pictures/text, and various other new and confusing ways to interpret and punish people for them. I would say again that simply being nude in front of a minor, or being in the presence of a minor who is nude unless you're a medical doctor or police official conducting a search...you'd be guilty of a crime that may not be exactly child pornography but it would be more severe than corruption of a minor.

So......I think he admitted to at least corruption of a minor and possibly something more severe that would be more inline with punishments for child pornography charges. Is there a statute of limitations on these things? No idea, but I suspect not since they potentially have long standing psychological ramifications on the minor whether they were willing or not. If there was any sort of sexual contact, statutory rape would be in play and it doesn't even consider "willingness" of the minor to be convicted of it.


Let's assume that he knew this girl was underage because it would be silly of him to make a prepared speech admitting guilt and not stressing that at the time he had no idea of her age. Since that simple point would make him a lot less culpable, especially if she were in a situation where someone underage shouldn't have been able to gain access to. But he didn't, and it was a prepared speech...so he put thought into it to spin it in a light most flattering to himself.


Who was in the tub first?

Does it matter if he stayed and didn't attempt to cover up or leave?

Were they talking before getting into the tub?

Subject matter of this talk would only make his case worse, and wouldn't change it if it were innocent.

Did they both agree to in at the same time?

Really it doesn't matter, he wouldn't be confessing to it if it were innocent...and he wouldn't have paid her if it were innocent.

Were they alone, or at some party?

If alone, it's he said she said. But any normal guy in this situation would have a dim view taken on him being nude in front of a 15 year old girl who was also nude...party or alone. If in a party situation, probably more criminal charges to dole out.

Had they been alone, how'd he get her there in the first place?

Still doesn't change the wrongness of his acts, or what he has already admitted to. It would only potentially weaken his case in my opinion, I can't think of anything where this would make his case stronger given what he already admitted to.

If they were at a party, who let a 15 year old girl in?

This goes to the assumption that he would have claimed he didn't know her age when he admitted to the crime, because otherwise he's implying he knew at the time of the act. If he hadn't known, he would have put it into his speech since it was prepared before hand.....silly to do otherwise. And he wouldn't have paid blackmail money if he was tricked into the initial act that kicked it all off.

If they were at a party, what were her intentions upon showing up?

It doesn't really matter in the case of a minor, maybe her intentions were to get laid by the oldest guy at the party. If she succeeded it'd still be statutory rape since willingness does not let them off the hook. It might help his case, but it wouldn't alleviate his guilt much if her were a normal joe.

Did they start off naked in the tub?

I think that it's been hidden for 30 years, had one payment already paid.....and now him coming forward....I'd say they were naked long enough for this not to matter. If it were innocent, the hush money never would have been paid. Since if he had 150k to give away freely, he could have crushed her in court.



I think if he had done anything that was morally responsible that night, he would have included it in his prepared speech. I say he knew her age. It wasn't an innocent non-sexual situation, otherwise the hush money wouldn't have been paid. The only reason he made the speech was to get out in front of it and try to spin it more positively for himself before she got the media coverage to burn him.

Anyway I looked up an article from the girl involved in the thing, and she says a few things that confirm my suspicions..but I didn't read it until this point and not going to go back and restate what I've written. I think the lack of him not addressing certain things is his way of avoiding the damning parts, because if it were good for his case.......he would have said it.


Either way, after his speech they got ahold of her. Here's a link:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700016074/Cheryl-Maher-says-Kevin-Garn-lied-about-hot-tub-contact.html

A few choice comments:

Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn is lying about having no physical contact with her when they went hot-tubbing in the nude when she was 15 years old.

She also says they had a long-term relationship at that time and contends that he had affairs with others.

"Then there was a day when he took me to Salt Lake, and he stopped and got alcohol, and we ended up at this hot-tub place on State Street. I was scared. I said, 'I don't have a suit.' He said, 'You don't need one,' " Maher wrote.