Who will be the Democratic nominee?

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election. 

I think project 2025 only animates the D base.  It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls.  I wouldn't confuse the issues too much. 

Project 2025 is the future of America.

The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams.  No chance.  

Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”

Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable.  This isn't one of them.  So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not.  I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues.  I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it.  I think the D's can win on more concrete issue.  Abortion is #1.  

All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.

People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.

I know what they are saying.  I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off.  And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it.  And I can only vote against him once.  So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.

They said Roe would never be overturned too....

Who said that?  That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight.  And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations?  Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it.  They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases. 

The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A.   I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.  

All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?

Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.

Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.

No, they lied.  I understand that.  My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.  

Any law is always in “danger” upon reaching SCOTUS and it’s common practice for the senate judiciary committee members to ask questions about existing laws, views, etc. The difference here is that all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees lied under oath regarding Roe. All three were short listed by the Heritage Foundation. In effect, all three were “hired” by the conservatives who back Heritage to overturn Roe and they, the appointees, had no qualms with lying under oath to deliver for their benefactors.

Do you honestly believe this court, as currently appointed, won’t or wouldn’t go along with Project 2025 initiatives if and when challenged, particularly in light of the “official acts” ruling? Or that any future POOTWH or other con SCOTUS appointees wouldn’t lie under oath when asked how they might rule or what considerations they’d make if an EO was issued eliminating the department of education? Or if funds for said department were diverted to build a wall, effectively starving it into an inability to function?

First, there was no case re: abortion in front of the court during any of the nominations.  Second, I don't know what you're arguing with me about.  I already said that they lied on the stand, as far as I'm concerned.  

And you don't need Trump in the WH to institute much of the project 2025.  It could be done at the state level easily.  

I’m arguing that your spin of Project 2025 being a wish list and not to be concerned about it because of Ukraine, abortion and whatever else you mentioned as priorities is a naive approach to something that serious people with serious resources intend to implement in all seriousness. SCOTUS may not have had an abortion case before it at the time of the appointees hearings but there were certainly cases winding their way through the lower courts, hence the questions and concerns as it related to Roe.

How does Project 2025 implemented at the state level impact DOD, FBI, NSA, etc,, exactly? And more importantly, the power of the Executive Branch? C’mon man, I know you’re smarter than that.

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election. 

I think project 2025 only animates the D base.  It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls.  I wouldn't confuse the issues too much. 

Project 2025 is the future of America.

The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams.  No chance.  

Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”

Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable.  This isn't one of them.  So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not.  I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues.  I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it.  I think the D's can win on more concrete issue.  Abortion is #1.  

All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.

People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.

I know what they are saying.  I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off.  And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it.  And I can only vote against him once.  So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.

They said Roe would never be overturned too....

Who said that?  That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight.  And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations?  Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it.  They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases. 

The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A.   I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.  

All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?

Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.

Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.

No, they lied.  I understand that.  My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.  

Any law is always in “danger” upon reaching SCOTUS and it’s common practice for the senate judiciary committee members to ask questions about existing laws, views, etc. The difference here is that all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees lied under oath regarding Roe. All three were short listed by the Heritage Foundation. In effect, all three were “hired” by the conservatives who back Heritage to overturn Roe and they, the appointees, had no qualms with lying under oath to deliver for their benefactors.

Do you honestly believe this court, as currently appointed, won’t or wouldn’t go along with Project 2025 initiatives if and when challenged, particularly in light of the “official acts” ruling? Or that any future POOTWH or other con SCOTUS appointees wouldn’t lie under oath when asked how they might rule or what considerations they’d make if an EO was issued eliminating the department of education? Or if funds for said department were diverted to build a wall, effectively starving it into an inability to function?

First, there was no case re: abortion in front of the court during any of the nominations.  Second, I don't know what you're arguing with me about.  I already said that they lied on the stand, as far as I'm concerned.  

And you don't need Trump in the WH to institute much of the project 2025.  It could be done at the state level easily.  

I’m arguing that your spin of Project 2025 being a wish list and not to be concerned about it because of Ukraine, abortion and whatever else you mentioned as priorities is a naive approach to something that serious people with serious resources intend to implement in all seriousness. SCOTUS may not have had an abortion case before it at the time of the appointees hearings but there were certainly cases winding their way through the lower courts, hence the questions and concerns as it related to Roe.

How does Project 2025 implemented at the state level impact DOD, FBI, NSA, etc,, exactly? And more importantly, the power of the Executive Branch? C’mon man, I know you’re smarter than that.

I'm not spinning, I said I'm not worried about it.  It's lower on my concerns.  But maybe if you keep writing about it, I won't sleep tonight.  

And every day Germans weren’t concerned with Hitler. Sleep well.

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election. 

I think project 2025 only animates the D base.  It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls.  I wouldn't confuse the issues too much. 

Project 2025 is the future of America.

The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams.  No chance.  

Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”

Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable.  This isn't one of them.  So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not.  I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues.  I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it.  I think the D's can win on more concrete issue.  Abortion is #1.  

All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.

People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.

I know what they are saying.  I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off.  And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it.  And I can only vote against him once.  So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.

They said Roe would never be overturned too....

Who said that?  That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight.  And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations?  Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it.  They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases. 

The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A.   I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.  

All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?

Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.

Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.

No, they lied.  I understand that.  My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.  

Any law is always in “danger” upon reaching SCOTUS and it’s common practice for the senate judiciary committee members to ask questions about existing laws, views, etc. The difference here is that all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees lied under oath regarding Roe. All three were short listed by the Heritage Foundation. In effect, all three were “hired” by the conservatives who back Heritage to overturn Roe and they, the appointees, had no qualms with lying under oath to deliver for their benefactors.

Do you honestly believe this court, as currently appointed, won’t or wouldn’t go along with Project 2025 initiatives if and when challenged, particularly in light of the “official acts” ruling? Or that any future POOTWH or other con SCOTUS appointees wouldn’t lie under oath when asked how they might rule or what considerations they’d make if an EO was issued eliminating the department of education? Or if funds for said department were diverted to build a wall, effectively starving it into an inability to function?

First, there was no case re: abortion in front of the court during any of the nominations.  Second, I don't know what you're arguing with me about.  I already said that they lied on the stand, as far as I'm concerned.  

And you don't need Trump in the WH to institute much of the project 2025.  It could be done at the state level easily.  

I’m arguing that your spin of Project 2025 being a wish list and not to be concerned about it because of Ukraine, abortion and whatever else you mentioned as priorities is a naive approach to something that serious people with serious resources intend to implement in all seriousness. SCOTUS may not have had an abortion case before it at the time of the appointees hearings but there were certainly cases winding their way through the lower courts, hence the questions and concerns as it related to Roe.

How does Project 2025 implemented at the state level impact DOD, FBI, NSA, etc,, exactly? And more importantly, the power of the Executive Branch? C’mon man, I know you’re smarter than that.

I'm not spinning, I said I'm not worried about it.  It's lower on my concerns.  But maybe if you keep writing about it, I won't sleep tonight.  

And every day Germans weren’t concerned with Hitler. Sleep well.

Like I said, maybe if I worry about it, I'll vote extra hard.  

Hope you don’t have daughters.

mrussel1 said:

Fascinating.  So one of the problems with Mark Kelly is that he did not support the PROS act, which is a labor priority.  A few of them have bene critical in teh last 48 hours about that.  Now today, he tells a reporter that he would support the bill.  It is clearly coordinated and might be clearing the way for his nomination as the VP.  Why else would the timing work like this?  There is some combination of either he wanting it, or he wanting it and the Harris team telling him he needs to get behind this bill.  Can't split labor.  

OnWis97 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The Kelly angle is good...military always provides an edge...and he's a fucking astronaut

And his wife is an assassination attempt survivor

Agreed. The military history is one of the few things that sniveling toady JD Vance really has going for him with middle-of-the-road types. Seems like this could offset that and we could focus on him whining about cat-owning women.

curmudgeoness said:

I think Shapiro or Kelly are the most likely picks. My personal choice remains Pete Buttigieg.

Beshear doesn't look like he's quite ready for a national campaign -- he's not comfortable with it.

Walz and Cooper have good presence and messaging and are old white guys, which could be reassuring to some people.

Everything I've heard is that Whitmer is not interested. Gina Raimondo is great, I don't know that we want to get overconfident and have two women on the ticket quite yet. I hope to live to see the day when gender, sexuality, etc. don't matter -- I don't think we're there yet.