im in oklahoma so the racism and the corruption are BIG features not bugs here. see pruitt, scott or fallin, mary… but the one rep that just won oklahoma city’s district during the midterms might be a bright light.
Remind me of her name again.
kendra horn.
i think she hasn’t staked much out yet. although she did go on record saying corporate tax breaks are bad. which is like unheard of in oklahoma where we have tax cut ourselves into bankruptcy
1 Like
Did it say who the guy on the bottom right is? It looks like this might be in order, or at least somewhat in order.
No 
Looks like it’s Pete Aguilar of CA as the CNN list has been updated.
1 Like
Pete Aguilar of California come on down! You’re the next contestant on Impeachment is Right!
He’s the 117th (or 119th) Democrat to go on record in support of starting an official impeachment inquiry. He voted Yay to table the Al Green impeachment resolution.
Salud Carbajal of California come on down! You’re the next contestant on Impeachment is Right!
He’s the 118th (or 120th) Democrat to go on record in support of starting an official impeachment inquiry. He voted Yay to table the Al Green impeachment resolution.
This makes it 100 percent official that they’re over the over half the Caucus threshold.
My next post is going to list the people who voted Nay on tabling the Al Green impeachment resolution who haven’t gone on record in support of starting an official impeachment inquiry to get a better idea of what the floor is for support.
Of the 26 Democrats who have gone on the record in support of starting an official impeachment inquiry since Mueller’s testimony, 17 voted Yay to table the Al Green impeachment resolution. On the day of the tabling of that resolution, my estimation was that based on the Nay list that there were probably around 120 Democratic members willing to go on record that day (85 were on the record that day). The amount of Yays coming out suggests this is significantly higher.
Of those who voted Nay on tabling the resolution, here is who is not on the CNN list yet (the first 2 are on ActBlue’s list so I will put them at the top as an oversight):
- Karen Bass (CA)
- Frank Pallone (NJ)
- Anthony Brown (MD)
- Debbie Dingell (MI)
- Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX)
- Zoe Lofgren (CA, Judiciary)
- Jerry McNerney (CA)
- Jerry Nadler (NY, Judiciary chair)
- David Scott (GA)
- Mike Thompson (CA)
- Frederica Wilson (FL)
Based on where we’re at as of today, that puts a hard floor at 129 Democrats pretty much on the record in support of starting an official impeachment inquiry. There are most likely only 8 more left to come out from the Nay list of the tabling of the Al Green impeachment resolution (Nadler won’t officially come out on this, even though he’s already said he’s in support).
An additional FYI is that my Tony Cardenas post is in error. He came out in the 70s, it was an accent mark search issue that prevented me from seeing him.
1 Like
Headline Watch:
CNN.com has ‘Analysis: Democrats reach an impeachment milestone Nancy Pelosi can’t ignore’
MSN.com in their trending has an ABC headline of ‘More Dems calling for impeachment’ on their front page and in the click through news it has the headline ‘Pelosi defends approach amid impeachment calls’
Washington Post and New York Times have nada.
Right now, I am watching an interview with Salud Carbajal on MSNBC, a guy who probably has never been interviewed on a national program. Why? Because he was number 118. Ready for my apology cuse.
Sure, I’m immature for wanting a person who refuses to say I’m right about anything big picture. Whatever you say. I certainly won’t lose any sleep over the fact that he never will.
I’m sorry that I’m in your head so much that you actually think you deserve an apology for something on this topic. I’m pretty confident in standing by what I was saying about it a couple days ago, but maybe you can dig up a sentence or two that I was off on.
It was more a general statement for previous stuff. It’s not really related to this because we came to an agreement quickly that the media would make something of it. I mainly just want you to stop dropping ‘nunnehi this/nunnehi that’ as some sort of punchline. If you have problems with my arguments, break them down. You know I’m more than willing to debate, and I’ll freely admit when I’m wrong.
24/39 posts is pretty impressive. When do we get an apology for that.
Hmm, let’s see why there would possibly be 24/39 posts in a thread created by me.
Wait for it. Wait for it…
IT’S A THREAD LIVE UPDATING THE COUNT CREATED BY ME.
It won’t be updated by me unless someone says something specifically to me or a new name is added to the record. Your life would be so much easier related to me if you would just click mute. I’ve heard it makes people just disappear.
How dare the author update the post during the game to let me know what’s going on? He’s dominating his thread dedicated to that! lol@you
1 Like
I appreciate the work nunnehi
5 Likes
You said whoever was #118 would go down in history. You are probably the only person in this very politically aware forum that knows who #118 is. In the minute it’s taken since I scrolled by your post I’ve already forgotten their name.
Like, it’s a good thing that more people are being dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing that we should at least ask the questions about impeachment - but the breathless updates about each one is really dumb. And, as everyone predicted, #118 was absolutely meaningless in terms of influencing Pelosi.
What’s the next magic number? Surely she can’t go against a 3/5 majority right?
Here you are being disingenuous again. I said the person would get media notice. The guy who was 118 was interviewed on MSNBC. This guy had never ever been interviewed nationally before. He has been noted on several major news sites as being the guy over the ledge. In no way have I said he’s a move the needle on Pelosi. History will note this guy if something happens, but he’s noteworthy to the media now for his 15 seconds of fame that he never had before.
As for your comment about magic number, your assumption should be that she doesn’t have one. If it somehow stays stuck at 118, then that was probably a number Pelosi gave them to reach. The clock has been stopped because of the tragedies, which benefits both slow walking Democrats and Trump. A story I read today said that Nadler expects to move on filing impeachment articles (if he does) by late fall. He isn’t trying to time it with the election. His caveat is that the American people have to be in support of impeachment in order for them to do it, but he thinks the hearings (Sep/Oct) will get them there. I’m dubious about that if the media doesn’t give it enough attention, which is quite possible.
Finally, this thread is here because a lot of Democrats have come out in support of starting an official impeachment inquiry since July 18th (33 if memory serves). It’s newsworthy whether you think it is or not, sorry. I’m only as ‘breathless’ as how many people actually go on the record.