That latest business, if it is the latest since I haven't looked at the news today, seems to be nothing more than posturing.
When the negotiations get serious, the posturing ends. Then, instead of one side making sensational headlines, you get responses to the media that sound like "fruitful", and "progress", and "frank discussions". What Durbin did was to posture for effect. He needs something because he is probably feeling a bit on the weaker side of the table.
Indeed, he should be. In actuality, the Democrats have little to work with.
There's a saying that may apply here: if you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table. Durbin is pounding the table. He is in a position of weakness. He has nothing on his side except emotionalism. So, he gets emotional. He pounds the table.
The Dems will probably try to stretch this out as long as they can. In the Vietnam Era, the North Vietnamese didn't agree to get down to business until they agreed upon the size and shape of the table. This went on for quite some time.
If the Dems feel that they are on the weaker side, they may wait until the elections when they may feel a lot stronger.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Friday, January 12, 2018
Now you can't say "Dixie"
Dolly Parton is taking the name off something or other she has. She doesn't want the trouble these people will make for her.
I don't know if that is the best response to this nuttiness.
I don't know if that is the best response to this nuttiness.
Don Surber: Proof they are s***hole countries
Don Surber: Proof they are s***hole countries: Citing two people who were not at the meeting, the Washington Post reported that President Trump decried immigration from s***hole countries...
comment:
I didn't know that nearly half of all people in India poop out in the open! Shocking!
But of course, Trump is wrong to say that. ( Which he may not have even said it! )
This is just desperation on the part of Dems, who cannot be seen in an honest good faith attempt to solve the immigration issue, so they blow it up.
They blew it up just by saying this term. If they really didn't want to blow it up, they don't say it.
comment:
I didn't know that nearly half of all people in India poop out in the open! Shocking!
But of course, Trump is wrong to say that. ( Which he may not have even said it! )
This is just desperation on the part of Dems, who cannot be seen in an honest good faith attempt to solve the immigration issue, so they blow it up.
They blew it up just by saying this term. If they really didn't want to blow it up, they don't say it.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
The anatomy of a coup attempt
Updated,
Originally posted 1.10.18
updated 1.11.18:
Being from Texas, you would be taught Texas history because it is a requirement ( or used to be). Thus, from the history books you would learn that the Texans of those days rebelled against great odds, and overthrew the despots who were trying to oppress them.
Is that possible today?
I'm thinking "no", because these people have no fear of the people. If they were sure that they would be hanging from lampposts, they would not be doing this kind of crap.
There is no accountability today because the people today are not like the people of years past. The Texans of years past would not put up with this. Southerners did not put up with it. But people today? Very passive. The globalists can do what they please because they feel pretty safe. It is rational of them to think so.
Many of those Texans of the revolutionary days wanted to execute the dictator of Mexico, who they had captured. Two can play the game they are talking about today, if people ever gave that a thought. But it isn't likely. People would just grin and bear it.
the original post follows:
Good investigative reporting over at the Conservative Tree House.
It has everything except for the bloodshed. There was this one guy named Seth Rich....
However, if you believe the polls out, Oprah beats Trump in a landslide.
As one comedian ( Russian! ) once put it--- "what a country!" /sarc
Originally posted 1.10.18
updated 1.11.18:
Being from Texas, you would be taught Texas history because it is a requirement ( or used to be). Thus, from the history books you would learn that the Texans of those days rebelled against great odds, and overthrew the despots who were trying to oppress them.
Is that possible today?
I'm thinking "no", because these people have no fear of the people. If they were sure that they would be hanging from lampposts, they would not be doing this kind of crap.
There is no accountability today because the people today are not like the people of years past. The Texans of years past would not put up with this. Southerners did not put up with it. But people today? Very passive. The globalists can do what they please because they feel pretty safe. It is rational of them to think so.
Many of those Texans of the revolutionary days wanted to execute the dictator of Mexico, who they had captured. Two can play the game they are talking about today, if people ever gave that a thought. But it isn't likely. People would just grin and bear it.
the original post follows:
Good investigative reporting over at the Conservative Tree House.
It has everything except for the bloodshed. There was this one guy named Seth Rich....
However, if you believe the polls out, Oprah beats Trump in a landslide.
As one comedian ( Russian! ) once put it--- "what a country!" /sarc
Feel kinda restricted
Updated,
Originally posted 1.9.18
Updated 1.11.18:
After a lot of thought, I decided to stay on course for now. Nothing really has changed except for one thing: this is only to be continued with the idea that it is only to be a place to stay if I need to go somewhere, and don't have nowhere else to go. For me, that is always in the back of my mind.
I know it is not a good choice, if it should come to that. What I am doing now is to prepare in case I have to use it. That is so that if I have to go out there, or feel that I have to go out there, then I can go and it would have a chance to work. This means that the experiments in off-the-grid living are to continue for the time being.
Even this much is likely to draw some "why don't you's" from the relatives. Well, we'll cross that bridge when and if we get to it.
The original post follows:
This financial situation I am in limits what I can do. Also, if I want to save bucks, I have to do things myself. Trouble is, my skill level is not that good. Finally, my health is dicey.
Anyway, the idea popped in my head to borrow money and just go do what I want. The fact of the matter is that I still have good credit. Getting the money to put a cabin on the property is not a deal breaker. But the amount of debt that would be incurred makes me wonder how it would all be paid back.
The idea was to build a cabin and sell off half of the property with the cabin on it. If there was sufficient profit, it could pay off some bills, and I could keep the other half of the 40 acres, leaving me 20.
The trouble with this idea is the risk. The obvious risk is what if there are no buyers? Or if there was a buyer, what if there was no profit?
That puts me back in the straightjacket. Can't do anything.
Not to mention that I don't really like to do Uber. Yeah, I realized that today. Every time I go into town to work, I come back before I accomplish much. Just don't like what I am doing for bucks. It is okay since I don't need much. Not sure I could make much like this anyway. It is really more trouble than what it is worth, if the truth be told. Plus I want to stretch out, so to speak, but cannot. I am hemmed in by worries and restrictions of one kind or another.
Let's say I am tempted to give up on the project and move on. I could write off the property as a loss and get rid of one of these vehicles. My life would be simplified, that is for sure.
It is a tough position to be in. My history with stock trading has been that I really hate taking losses. However, I have decided to do that a few times when it became obvious that I was holding a loser.
This could work, though. It is not clear that it is a loser. How do you know when to quit?
I gotta get an answer to that one.
Originally posted 1.9.18
Updated 1.11.18:
After a lot of thought, I decided to stay on course for now. Nothing really has changed except for one thing: this is only to be continued with the idea that it is only to be a place to stay if I need to go somewhere, and don't have nowhere else to go. For me, that is always in the back of my mind.
I know it is not a good choice, if it should come to that. What I am doing now is to prepare in case I have to use it. That is so that if I have to go out there, or feel that I have to go out there, then I can go and it would have a chance to work. This means that the experiments in off-the-grid living are to continue for the time being.
Even this much is likely to draw some "why don't you's" from the relatives. Well, we'll cross that bridge when and if we get to it.
The original post follows:
This financial situation I am in limits what I can do. Also, if I want to save bucks, I have to do things myself. Trouble is, my skill level is not that good. Finally, my health is dicey.
Anyway, the idea popped in my head to borrow money and just go do what I want. The fact of the matter is that I still have good credit. Getting the money to put a cabin on the property is not a deal breaker. But the amount of debt that would be incurred makes me wonder how it would all be paid back.
The idea was to build a cabin and sell off half of the property with the cabin on it. If there was sufficient profit, it could pay off some bills, and I could keep the other half of the 40 acres, leaving me 20.
The trouble with this idea is the risk. The obvious risk is what if there are no buyers? Or if there was a buyer, what if there was no profit?
That puts me back in the straightjacket. Can't do anything.
Not to mention that I don't really like to do Uber. Yeah, I realized that today. Every time I go into town to work, I come back before I accomplish much. Just don't like what I am doing for bucks. It is okay since I don't need much. Not sure I could make much like this anyway. It is really more trouble than what it is worth, if the truth be told. Plus I want to stretch out, so to speak, but cannot. I am hemmed in by worries and restrictions of one kind or another.
Let's say I am tempted to give up on the project and move on. I could write off the property as a loss and get rid of one of these vehicles. My life would be simplified, that is for sure.
It is a tough position to be in. My history with stock trading has been that I really hate taking losses. However, I have decided to do that a few times when it became obvious that I was holding a loser.
This could work, though. It is not clear that it is a loser. How do you know when to quit?
I gotta get an answer to that one.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Give them a pill or something.
Art imitating life?
Fascinating. ( almost like Spock! ) If so, it is life imitating art. What the hell. I don't know movies. Either way it is bad.
Fascinating. ( almost like Spock! ) If so, it is life imitating art. What the hell. I don't know movies. Either way it is bad.
Monday, January 8, 2018
David Prentice: The left is like the Gotti crime family
Yeah, and Seth Rich is dead ( along with many others )
comment:
The big question is what can be done about it? It may take a war to clean this up. Do people have the stomach for what should be done?
comment:
The big question is what can be done about it? It may take a war to clean this up. Do people have the stomach for what should be done?
Nuclear powered airships
Updated:
Originally post many moons ago ( 9.23.12)
Updated 1.8.18:
Want to force the Norks to quit? Show them that we can shoot down anything that they aim at us.
With this idea, we can convince them to give it up.
But we can do a whole lot more... Just have to have the will to do it.
the original post follows:
Speculation alert.
Another brainstorm here. Kirk Sorensen didn't like the nuclear aircraft idea. But what if you used an airship instead? You wouldn't have to support the weight of the reactor with aerodynamic lift, but would supply it with lift from the airship itself.
These airships are said to be quite capable of lifting heavy stuff. I tried to get an idea of how much and if it would be enough to put a reactor on-board. If you could get a reactor on an airship, the thing could fly indefinitely. The only time you'd have to come down would be for resupply of the people-- not fuel as in conventional aircraft. They could work like nuclear aircraft carriers or subs.
Instead of using light water reactors, you could use molten salt reactors.
The buoyancy of the airship would give you time to restart a reactor if needed, or go to a backup source of power until you could power up again.
It would have all the advantages mentioned for molten salt reactors, such as inherent safety of these types of reactors, proliferation resistance, and waste reduction.
What would you do with this thing if you had it?
Good question.
Intelligence gathering would appear to be one use.
Transportation to almost any location on Earth is another. High altitudes may be out, but perhaps the thing could lift itself to very high altitudes. If that is possible, it may also be possible to speed up to high speeds because wind resistance would be much less at higher altitudes.
Here's another idea: Put an Airborne Laser-- not the plane, but the laser--- on one of these things. It could shoot down anything that came against it.
Originally post many moons ago ( 9.23.12)
Updated 1.8.18:
Want to force the Norks to quit? Show them that we can shoot down anything that they aim at us.
With this idea, we can convince them to give it up.
But we can do a whole lot more... Just have to have the will to do it.
the original post follows:
Speculation alert.
Another brainstorm here. Kirk Sorensen didn't like the nuclear aircraft idea. But what if you used an airship instead? You wouldn't have to support the weight of the reactor with aerodynamic lift, but would supply it with lift from the airship itself.
These airships are said to be quite capable of lifting heavy stuff. I tried to get an idea of how much and if it would be enough to put a reactor on-board. If you could get a reactor on an airship, the thing could fly indefinitely. The only time you'd have to come down would be for resupply of the people-- not fuel as in conventional aircraft. They could work like nuclear aircraft carriers or subs.
Instead of using light water reactors, you could use molten salt reactors.
The buoyancy of the airship would give you time to restart a reactor if needed, or go to a backup source of power until you could power up again.
It would have all the advantages mentioned for molten salt reactors, such as inherent safety of these types of reactors, proliferation resistance, and waste reduction.
What would you do with this thing if you had it?
Good question.
Intelligence gathering would appear to be one use.
Transportation to almost any location on Earth is another. High altitudes may be out, but perhaps the thing could lift itself to very high altitudes. If that is possible, it may also be possible to speed up to high speeds because wind resistance would be much less at higher altitudes.
Here's another idea: Put an Airborne Laser-- not the plane, but the laser--- on one of these things. It could shoot down anything that came against it.
You means to tell me that the Pope is not infallible?
Originally posted
1.7.18
Updated
1.8.18:
Yep. They are becoming royalty. Just looks what happens to you when you dispute their phony claims.
the original post follows:
Also from Ace, I find the story of an American cardinal who says that homosexuality is abnormal. The webpage puts the word abnormal in scare quotes to say what, exactly?
Anyway, not everything is hunky dory these days with the status of these most favored of people. Why do I say that? It seems to me that Western culture is pushing the notion that being a homosexual is supposedly a great way to be. Better than normal, it seems to say.
Some say the Vatican might as well be a bathhouse. I wouldn't know. I am not Catholic. But I do know that same sex "marriage" is the law of this land---the good 'ol US of A. Thanks to Justice Kennedy.
It is good news that this story is out there. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, so I heard once upon a time. Oops! That was most politically incorrect. I might get into trouble for that.
1.7.18
Updated
1.8.18:
Yep. They are becoming royalty. Just looks what happens to you when you dispute their phony claims.
the original post follows:
Also from Ace, I find the story of an American cardinal who says that homosexuality is abnormal. The webpage puts the word abnormal in scare quotes to say what, exactly?
Anyway, not everything is hunky dory these days with the status of these most favored of people. Why do I say that? It seems to me that Western culture is pushing the notion that being a homosexual is supposedly a great way to be. Better than normal, it seems to say.
Some say the Vatican might as well be a bathhouse. I wouldn't know. I am not Catholic. But I do know that same sex "marriage" is the law of this land---the good 'ol US of A. Thanks to Justice Kennedy.
It is good news that this story is out there. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, so I heard once upon a time. Oops! That was most politically incorrect. I might get into trouble for that.
Talking about projection...
Updated,
9:00:
Dershowitz hits the nail on the head. They did this stuff in Soviet Russia.
continued....
Now, I am no "fizzie kee uh trist" ( mangled pronunciation of "psychiatrist" by Desi Arnaz in a comedy skit mucho year ago ), but dog my cats if this b-eye-itch isn't crazy as a barrel of bedbugs.
This tortured soul wants to physically restrain the POTUS so that they can get him removed from office for being crazy, which is what SHE is.
She is crazy because...
Number one, she cannot read the Constitution of the United States. If she could, she would know that you cannot remove the POTUS like the way she seems to believe.
Number two, the nuclear war between the nuclear powers will not end the human race. Yes, that is right. I am stating that a nuclear war will not wipe out humanity. It will wipe out a lot of what is civilized, but it will not end life on this planet. No sir, I don't believe that for an instant. That is my candid opinion.
Radiation has been hyped up so much that people are deathly afraid of it. Yet, in the book, Trashing the Planet, by Dixie Lee Ray, it has been shown that animal life can live right on top of a natural nuclear power plant. It seems that there are places on this planet where there is enough nuclear material to make it "critical". Which means it self- sustains nuclear reactions. The nuclear ash is very radioactive, yet it doesn't kill everything around it. As Limbaugh might say, "it is a beautiful thing".
Number three, she ought to know that what she says can be debunked with the greatest of ease. Since she doesn't seem to know, she must be crazy.
9:00:
Dershowitz hits the nail on the head. They did this stuff in Soviet Russia.
continued....
Now, I am no "fizzie kee uh trist" ( mangled pronunciation of "psychiatrist" by Desi Arnaz in a comedy skit mucho year ago ), but dog my cats if this b-eye-itch isn't crazy as a barrel of bedbugs.
This tortured soul wants to physically restrain the POTUS so that they can get him removed from office for being crazy, which is what SHE is.
She is crazy because...
Number one, she cannot read the Constitution of the United States. If she could, she would know that you cannot remove the POTUS like the way she seems to believe.
Number two, the nuclear war between the nuclear powers will not end the human race. Yes, that is right. I am stating that a nuclear war will not wipe out humanity. It will wipe out a lot of what is civilized, but it will not end life on this planet. No sir, I don't believe that for an instant. That is my candid opinion.
Radiation has been hyped up so much that people are deathly afraid of it. Yet, in the book, Trashing the Planet, by Dixie Lee Ray, it has been shown that animal life can live right on top of a natural nuclear power plant. It seems that there are places on this planet where there is enough nuclear material to make it "critical". Which means it self- sustains nuclear reactions. The nuclear ash is very radioactive, yet it doesn't kill everything around it. As Limbaugh might say, "it is a beautiful thing".
Number three, she ought to know that what she says can be debunked with the greatest of ease. Since she doesn't seem to know, she must be crazy.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Has Trump really been good for the economy? Some folks out there seem to dispute it. There is one way to check out what is going on. It is the number of people actually working. You can argue about unemployment numbers all you want. However, if the number of people actually working doesn't change all that much, well then...
So, what is the case? What has really happened in the past year since Trump became POTUS? Let's look at the chart and see.
Looks like nearly 2 million more people at work since Trump took office.
A question here: is there data showing acceleration, or a mere continuation of a trend already in place?
Looks like Obama did about the same as Trump. If anything, slightly more. Nope, there is no acceleration here.
Without digging a whole lot deeper, Trump's numbers may be better in the private sector. Just a hunch, there. Obama's government job machine has been shrinking a bit, or so I heard. Trump's private sector job machine may be getting cranked up. May have to wait a few years to see what that produces.
Not a whole lot of difference for now.
If you get past all the hype, there hasn't been any real change in the trend. Of course, if they would just do what I suggest, and start prioritizing the development of nuclear energy, a few things might improve at a faster clip.
Even more if we prioritize space as well. But, I am beating an old drum here. Fact is, none of these people are going to make much of a difference. The culture hasn't really changed, and until that does, things are not likely to change much from what is already there.
So, what is the case? What has really happened in the past year since Trump became POTUS? Let's look at the chart and see.
 |
| Bureau of Labor and Statistics Household Data |
Looks like nearly 2 million more people at work since Trump took office.
A question here: is there data showing acceleration, or a mere continuation of a trend already in place?
 |
| Apples to apples comparison: last year of Obama and first year of Trump |
Without digging a whole lot deeper, Trump's numbers may be better in the private sector. Just a hunch, there. Obama's government job machine has been shrinking a bit, or so I heard. Trump's private sector job machine may be getting cranked up. May have to wait a few years to see what that produces.
Not a whole lot of difference for now.
If you get past all the hype, there hasn't been any real change in the trend. Of course, if they would just do what I suggest, and start prioritizing the development of nuclear energy, a few things might improve at a faster clip.
Even more if we prioritize space as well. But, I am beating an old drum here. Fact is, none of these people are going to make much of a difference. The culture hasn't really changed, and until that does, things are not likely to change much from what is already there.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Like dogs?
Here's a post with a video about a dog that can carry a small plastic sked up a hill, and then slide back down.
Somebody probably taught the dog to do this, but it is still fun to watch. ( I don't believe the dog was smart enough to figure this out on its own. )
Dogs are a lot of fun. I don't own one, though. Actually, I never have owned a dog. I will have to get one out west for sure, though.
Somebody probably taught the dog to do this, but it is still fun to watch. ( I don't believe the dog was smart enough to figure this out on its own. )
Dogs are a lot of fun. I don't own one, though. Actually, I never have owned a dog. I will have to get one out west for sure, though.
Has Trump gone to the dark side?
Trump ran on what is been called a populist message. Since the tax cut seems to favor corporations, and since this has somehow united the GOP, could it be that Trump is now fully captured by the very people that he ran against?
I'm not so sure. Trump did say that he would not campaign for insurgents. But most of the insurgents have already shot their wad, so to speak. For him to say that really doesn't say much.
Still, Trump seems to have united the GOP, and is pushing for peace within the caucus. As long as he can do this, he is pretty safe from the Dems efforts to impeach. This would still be true if the "wave" election takes place.
The GOP would rather play defense than offense, anyway. They may let the Dems have Congress, and they will keep the Presidency. At least for now.
But it may not be a wave election after all. A united party may do better in the election. A fractured party that cannot govern will not inspire confidence.
It is still a long time before the elections in November, and a lot can happen. But right now, the Dems have a long shot in the Senate, and maybe even the House.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think the GOP has a shot at keeping the whole shooting match in place.
If that happens, a lot of screeching at the moon may ensue. Awwwwwwwww. /sarc
I'm not so sure. Trump did say that he would not campaign for insurgents. But most of the insurgents have already shot their wad, so to speak. For him to say that really doesn't say much.
Still, Trump seems to have united the GOP, and is pushing for peace within the caucus. As long as he can do this, he is pretty safe from the Dems efforts to impeach. This would still be true if the "wave" election takes place.
The GOP would rather play defense than offense, anyway. They may let the Dems have Congress, and they will keep the Presidency. At least for now.
But it may not be a wave election after all. A united party may do better in the election. A fractured party that cannot govern will not inspire confidence.
It is still a long time before the elections in November, and a lot can happen. But right now, the Dems have a long shot in the Senate, and maybe even the House.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think the GOP has a shot at keeping the whole shooting match in place.
If that happens, a lot of screeching at the moon may ensue. Awwwwwwwww. /sarc
Can anybody play this game?
Updated,
originally posted 4.18.17,
updated on 1.7.18:
Here we go again. I see that there are some Dems who want to physically restrain the president, and then have him mentally evaluated.
Am I missing something? Even if they did this, and even if it succeeded, they still have to get the GOP onboard. That is cuz you need 2/3rds of both Houses to remove the president.
So, why would you think that a kangaroo court of experts can get a president removed from office?
The president is due his rights like anybody else. You cannot just force your way in and do something like this. They wouldn't even do this to a terrorist who killed dozens of people. Why would you do this to the president?
These people are the ones who are nuts. THEY NEED TO BE TREATED THIS WAY. Then watch them howl in protest about their rights.
What a bunch of assholes.
1.4.18:
The write up referenced here does not include a mention of Congress, which always has the last say on the presidency.
If the cabinet tries to remove him, he can just say "nope", all "is a-ok". If Congress votes 2/3rds in both houses to remove him, then he is a goner. Otherwise, it is going nowhere. This is a tougher standard than impeachment, which only requires a majority in the House, and then a 2/3rds vote in the Senate.
More fake news? Maybe. What else can it be?
With around a 90 percent approval rate amongst Republicans, how can you get him removed?
Delusional.
the original post follows:
That was quote from Casey Stengel, I believe. He said it of his expansion team, the New York Mets, which was at that time, the worst team in baseball.
I used that quote in reference to the ruling class, who seem to not be able to read the Constitution, and understand basic straightforward language.
The Democrats want to keep saying that Trump is crazy, and therefore can be removed from office according to the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. The amendment is pretty straightforward. It provides the means by which a president can be removed from office if a disability truly exists. It is not sufficient to say that it can be used just because you don't like him. However, if two thirds of both Houses say that he's nuts, then he can be removed.
There ought to be a means by which to remove a Congresscritter, who insists that this amendment says what it does not. But there is a means. The Congress polices itself. So, why don't the Republicans tell the Democrats to STFU?
You have to wonder about that.
Update:
Even though the Gop doesn't act like a party, they still beat the Dems, who do. Make what you will out of that one.
originally posted 4.18.17,
updated on 1.7.18:
Here we go again. I see that there are some Dems who want to physically restrain the president, and then have him mentally evaluated.
Am I missing something? Even if they did this, and even if it succeeded, they still have to get the GOP onboard. That is cuz you need 2/3rds of both Houses to remove the president.
So, why would you think that a kangaroo court of experts can get a president removed from office?
The president is due his rights like anybody else. You cannot just force your way in and do something like this. They wouldn't even do this to a terrorist who killed dozens of people. Why would you do this to the president?
These people are the ones who are nuts. THEY NEED TO BE TREATED THIS WAY. Then watch them howl in protest about their rights.
What a bunch of assholes.
1.4.18:
The write up referenced here does not include a mention of Congress, which always has the last say on the presidency.
If the cabinet tries to remove him, he can just say "nope", all "is a-ok". If Congress votes 2/3rds in both houses to remove him, then he is a goner. Otherwise, it is going nowhere. This is a tougher standard than impeachment, which only requires a majority in the House, and then a 2/3rds vote in the Senate.
More fake news? Maybe. What else can it be?
With around a 90 percent approval rate amongst Republicans, how can you get him removed?
Delusional.
the original post follows:
That was quote from Casey Stengel, I believe. He said it of his expansion team, the New York Mets, which was at that time, the worst team in baseball.
I used that quote in reference to the ruling class, who seem to not be able to read the Constitution, and understand basic straightforward language.
The Democrats want to keep saying that Trump is crazy, and therefore can be removed from office according to the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. The amendment is pretty straightforward. It provides the means by which a president can be removed from office if a disability truly exists. It is not sufficient to say that it can be used just because you don't like him. However, if two thirds of both Houses say that he's nuts, then he can be removed.
There ought to be a means by which to remove a Congresscritter, who insists that this amendment says what it does not. But there is a means. The Congress polices itself. So, why don't the Republicans tell the Democrats to STFU?
You have to wonder about that.
Update:
Even though the Gop doesn't act like a party, they still beat the Dems, who do. Make what you will out of that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)