JoeWeber

All he had to do was turn his head and say, "Take care of it." He did, and now he has a nice new make-up room.

This conversation highlights our weaknesses. Obviously any person who does not officially belong in a meeting should be there. No one serious would suggest, much less argue, that their extremely clever housemaid should attend but very clever people will apparently put light gray lines where black ones belong when it's a female spouse. Such arguments are never prevailing arguments, at best we'll be humored and at worst snickered at secretly.

I dunno, some of the best advice I've been given has been along the lines of don't be such an asshole.

Does her personal badge have embedded codes that will require a system wide fix? I'd suggest the reason she had her passport and 3 grand cash for a dinner out is because she's a complete chowder head like everyone else Trump hired to void the 25th amendment.

And base jumping and extreme scuba diving and so on. No mention of underground mining, holding a Master Blaster Certificate, or counting coup on a Black Rhino and a Komodo Dragon, so that's good. The odd thing is that while I am always ready to consider doing anything I really prefer, or even need, some time to think about it because I often start off scared.

Done and best of luck.

Probably. Haven’t you heard the idea that AOC is a viable option? We aren’t fast learners hence our ‘tard designation.

He's certainly correct. Our senior leaders are no less moribund and selfishly power mad than the Republican types. Biden was a selfish ass as were Ginsburg and others. Go further and include Harris. Surely she knew it was a steep uphill battle and the downsides must have been more obvious to her than the average voter. Any white male would have performed better and the most strident believers in candidate equality should have been willing to hold their noses and step that far back in time to beat Trump. It's not as if we didn't gleefully accept the performance art of choosing a mid-west white guy for the bottom of the ticket thus underlining our essential hypocrisy---again. We are weak, in context, because we are always willing to see the good elsewhere whereas the Republicans are always willing to see liberals as their enemies even when their facts don't line up. We are all too ready to see the error of our ways for no other reason than to impress ourselves with our rationality whereas our counterparts are ever able to escape the penalties of such maladies.

I didn’t lose, my country which includes you lost and yes I’m pissed. And no “the blame” isn’t being laid at your feet, just your fair share. That you cannot see that your vote in this election hurt and didn’t help I don’t believe. Hence my tendency to believe that your conservative bent made voting for a Black, female, liberal, with a ready giggle impossible regardless of the alternative. You alone would not have been a problem it’s that there were millions of like thinkers that have us met here today.

You can drop any bones you like including all of mine but I will still consider this a point worth making. Kieth’s vote is only a part of what I see as a problem, the remainder revolves around the idea that we are just suffering a passing condition and not experiencing a national disaster. I, and people like me, voted to not have what we feel any casual observer could see coming. Now we are exercised against it and want others to see the truth. So as long as anyone wants to tell me that a non vote in the last election was as good as a vote against Trump I will argue the obvious and as long as they want to tell me that the pendulum will swing back and all will be fine again I will patiently point out what they cannot see.

That's nice. The reality is that your essential conservative bent made a vote for Harris simply impossible in an election when a vote for Chase was not a vote against Trump and a vote against Trump, when we knew exactly what he was, should have been the minimum. So you were willing to accept Trump to avoid voting for Harris. You can try pretzel twisting this but you got what you didn't vote for and that's the bottom line.

So what is your point? I am the problem because I didn't inspire 13.2 million non-voters to vote D? So enlighten me, who was this best person you voted for or is it either a super duper secret or just too embarrassing to state in public?

Apology accepted and apparently you don't know, right. The idea is that you show up not to vote for your party but to vote for your country. That you did not do; what you did do was put your head in the sand. This I take exception to: "This too will pass and our system is still one of the best." In other words, it's all no biggie, take a chill pill, and just ride this out waiting for better times. Yesterday Lisa Murkowski basically told her constituents things were weird and she was scared. Well fuck that noise. Why not announce you are caucusing with the D's and get loud with your colleagues in both houses to do the same recognizing that is probably our only short term hope if not a good plan for reelection? You know, be brave and set an example for others to follow. You could do the same: start by admitting that voting third party and not Harris was a partial vote for Trump, change your voter registration, call every last one of your R representatives and tell them you are pissed and they should be, too. And go big telling all of your Special Forces buddies that current conservative values are not what you served to protect and encourage them to take the same new, liberal activist path. Why? Well because right now there is no reason to think this will simply pass and we'll soon, or even someday, be back to sanity and fair treatment for every person living in America and the respect and admiration of the world. Nor is there any reason to believe Trump will suddenly stop tanking what was a great economy and the envy of the world or quit hiring sycophantic nincompoops like Pete Hegseth to run departments of state. That alone, I would have thought, might have inspired you to say enough's enough.

One question I have is could SCOTUS, in a lucid moment, include in a present decision language that confines Trumps immunity? If so, Barrett and Roberts together have the power to make some amends and just might it sometimes seems.

Probably. Have you noticed your tendency to often find a normalized explanation for what is across the board a very abnormal situation? "Over the past 100 years....., Yes, he was voted in by a majority, and yes; you kind of reap what you sow......I hope those other countries will remember us for our strengths and forgive us for our weaknesses....., This too will pass and our system is still one of the best." You don't only "kind of" reap what you sow, you actually do reap it and he was voted in by a majority for one single reason: too many voters didn't vote for Harris. Furthermore, our system is rather obviously not one of the best, as if that is an important metric and having Fox News idiots as cabinet secretaries isn't appalling on every possible level. But hey, we can always hope "...those other countries will remember us for our strengths and forgive us for our weaknesses." Thanks, but no thanks.

That's right, Jerry, and whether anyone wants another reminder or not the only way that can happen is if a non-GOP type who has a chance to be elected gets your vote.

It's nice to have a positive attitude and stay hopeful but what many are starting to realize is less than any help. You state this: "There is still a rule of law and the judicial system needs to realize their job is to protect the Constitution." but the sad truth is that our problem now is owing to the fact that the rule of law in America is highly politicized all the way up to the Supreme Court where John Roberts and his fellow conservatives decided Trump could be trusted with absolute immunity. That is the polar opposite of the rule of law and no one with clear eyes thought for a single second Trump would use it otherwise than he has already. Looking at things in these first 100 days you are well ahead of yourself to suggest there is still a rule of law in America. Edited to add: https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/historic-preservation/explore-historic-buildings/find-a-building/gus-j-solomon-us-courthouse-portland-or Please take note of property for sale #3. Maybe I need to be more open minded but selling Federal Courthouses seems counter to the idea of furthering the rule of law.

Sorry. I simply believe it wasn’t a good election to give up a meaningful vote

Yes, but we differ there: for me she was simply the unfortunate nut necessary choice.

That makes no sense to me. The reality is that in our elections it’s a wasted vote.

A lot of military people think they can be apolitical while being religious, as if the lines aren’t blurred. Just ask the MFFR foundation.

Allow me to rephrase: Fair enough. But as things have played out would you prefer now that Harris was our President instead of Trump?

Fair enough. But as things have played out would you prefer now that Harris was our President?

Sure you do: they thought the leopards would eat other faces and only the libtards ox's would be gored. I, for one, just love these I didn't think for a second it would happen to me stories: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/4/12/2315407/-MAGA-propaganda-is-a-hell-of-a-drug?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_2&pm_medium=web

I can only guess at your frustration but I have no doubt about it. Just how he is so cavalier about destroying the careers of accomplished military leaders, not to mention installing a Fox News talking head as DoD secretary, must be enough to do the job much less all else. These are not interesting times: these are very fucked up times.