If the dotard gets removed by a secret vote, Mitch will lose his majority so fast it will make his head spin.
Article I, Section 5.
“…and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”
So they’d need 81 Senators to agree to some form of a secret vote, if it’s even procedurally possible.
LOfuckingL nunnehi. You think Mitch is going to pass out blindfolds in the fucking United States Senate?
And, again, it’s not procedurally possible if 20 Senators object.
Except that, as everyone keeps explaining, this secret vote theory does not seem valid whatsoever. Also, did I miss something or is Jeff Flake maybe not the guy we should be trusting for whip counts on the Senate? Like, any chance he’s just trying to get attention here? Maybe a little airtime?
Or maybe Mitch will make everyone do two shots of Kentucky bourbon, then blindfold them one at a time, spin them around three times and play pin the hair on the dotard. A hit = yay, a miss = nay.
1 Like
I wish I was an English or History major and not ignorant with blind-spots to half of what has happened, and better able to put into words what has transpired lol. This President’s legacy, this whole spectacle of USA’s forfeiture to even feign sanity, etc. etc. etc.
In time, it’ll be surreal to watch documentaries or read about.
2 Likes
Unless the trump cult turns on him Senate republicans wont. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.
They would even knowingly let him drag them to massive losses at the ballot box (like the midterm) and they would still stay hitched because they know they would lose either way.
1 Like
Mike Pence can’t reach the climax of his political career in a room with 100 people blindfolded. That’s way too kinky for him.
I seriously spent 10 minutes trying to come up with a way to turn nunnehi’s blindfold idea into something that could trigger a Clovis kink-shaming lecture.
Also, perhaps how nunnehi envisions Mitch’s secret impeachment vote (NSFW from :09 to :23, but cued up to :25):
Kubrick Goat
oh that solo piano will chill you to the bone!
4 Likes
This is the diplomat’s wife who killed a young guy by driving on the wrong side of the road.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1182905501308346374
I bet if it was in Saudi Arabia trump would make her go back. (Ignoring women not being able to drive there)
1 Like
Women can drive in SA now although at least one of the activists who pushed for this was put to death.
Yeah I was pretty sure that changed recently but wanted to cover my bases.
Maybe he shops for groceries at old radio shacks?
https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1182887331805777921
1 Like
He has a point, though.
1 Like
From Wikipedia:
According to an interview with the CIA in 2011, Golsteyn claimed that another soldier had later taken the bomb-maker off base, and then shot and killed him. Golsteyn said that he later helped burn the body. After this revelation, the Army investigated the case, but closed it with no charges in 2013.[9]
In November 2016, Golsteyn was a guest on a Fox news show. Asked by host Bret Baier if he had killed the suspected bomb-maker, Golsteyn responded “yes”. Golstyen’s admission led to the Army reopening the case.[9]
So this dude most likely took an unarmed prisoner off base and shot him down in cold blood for no good reason, tried to pin it on someone else, skated on the first investigation, then admitted to his crime on national TV.
Trumps next lawyer?
4 Likes
Paging @simplicitus. Simplicitus, please report to the Presidency thread.
I’m curious about your response to the latest episode of the Weeds where they talk about the rightwing judiciary. On the one hand, it’s Matt Yglesias talking to an expert about lawbro stuff and the evils of the Federalist Society, so like simplicitus spank bank material.
On the other, the expert arrives at what appear to me as opposite conclusions to the ones you espouse on here. For example,
-
The Federalist Society is filled with shrewd, smart people who are a force to be reckoned with now and going forward.
-
The judiciary is inherently conservative (e.g. judges must be confirmed by the Senate) and progressives should be doing as much as they can to reduce its power. The attitude that courts will save us some day is incorrect and counterproductive.
I found myself nodding along to most of what was said. Your rebuttal, counselor?
(Edited per cuse’s suggestion)
Interesting stuff… Curious to see what @simplicitus and @j8i3h289dn3x7 have to say about it.
We can tag people on here @AllTheCheese, so you can actually make a special notification pop up for the people you’re trying to page.
1 Like