posted by O-Trap

Yeah, it's not collaborative.  It's not like all the news outlets get together in a huddle where someone goes, "Okay, guys.  Here's what we're gonna do: We're gonna suppress these three things, because they make our assumed agreed-on candidates/leaders look bad.  Instead, we're gonna put this bullshit out there, because it will help our assumed agreed-on candidates/leaders."

In reality, they're individually saying to themselves, "I'M RICH, BIYOTCH!"

Not collaborative????  Wut?  The dems can run with this crap becAuse they know the media isn't going to report thr news in an accurate way.  That's the meaning of collaboration

posted by O-Trap

Yeah, it's not collaborative.

oh, ok

posted by Spock

Not collaborative????  Wut?  The dems can run with this crap becAuse they know the media isn't going to report thr news in an accurate way.  That's the meaning of collaboration

posted by QuakerOats

oh, ok

The number of people who would have to keep quiet about that as an actual cover-up makes it functional untenable.  All it would take would be one person blabbing (but realistically, there would be far more than one with the number who would necessarily be involved in the cover-up).

It's the same reason that it would be dumb for anyone to think 9/11 was an inside job.  The sheer number of people who would have to be involved in not only the execution, but the cleanup, analysis, etc. afterward.

If you have a secret that needs kept between three people, all of whom have a direct vested interest in it being kept, then it's plausible.

If you have a secret that needs kept between a few thousand, it's not a secret, and it won't be kept.  It's implausible to the level of being functionally impossible.

Get ready for another left-wing meltdown.

posted by QuakerOats

 

Get ready for another left-wing meltdown.

Because of RBG's new cancer news?  Hasn't she beat cancer like a dozen times now?  Gotta give her credit for her persistence.

As for a meltdown, not yet.  If she passes near (or after) the election, look for Democrats to try to do the same thing Republicans did that ultimately resulted in Gorsuch's appointment.

posted by O-Trap

As for a meltdown, not yet.  If she passes near (or after) the election, look for Democrats to try to do the same thing Republicans did that ultimately resulted in Gorsuch's appointment.

They'll make the Repubs look really hypocritical (which that accusation is like a gnat to politicians), but the Dems can't stop it without controlling the Senate.

What it would do is give the Dems justification for adding seats to the SCOTUS.   But they're probably prepared to keep RBG on life support for 5 more years, if need be.

posted by gut

They'll make the Repubs look really hypocritical (which that accusation is like a gnat to politicians), but the Dems can't stop it without controlling the Senate.

What it would do is give the Dems justification for adding seats to the SCOTUS.   But they're probably prepared to keep RBG on life support for 5 more years, if need be.

The funny part about how that will play out is that both sides will be hypocritical then.

It's one of the things I love watching about politics.  It's like reality TV, but better.

posted by O-Trap

The funny part about how that will play out is that both sides will be hypocritical then.

It's one of the things I love watching about politics.  It's like reality TV, but better.

I really don't know anymore what politicians actually believe/plan vs. what they just throw out as chum for the useful idiots.

But adding seats to the SCOTUS is an awful, awful idea.  It's very troubling that Dems are trying to press their slight edge in popular support into rigging the game so they don't have to compromise.  That's a progressive ideology - true liberals would be mortified over the thought of the majority doing an end around state rights and minority interests.

And I laugh at people who rail against big money and big corporations influencing politics....but, ummmm, where do you think all those trillions for free shit are going?  I'm sure there's no big money corporate interest behind the Green New Deal.  Nope, pure as the driven snow.

posted by O-Trap

Because of RBG's new cancer news?  Hasn't she beat cancer like a dozen times now?  Gotta give her credit for her persistence.

 

Yeah she's a tough old bird!

This time its pancreatic......not good

posted by gut

They'll make the Repubs look really hypocritical (which that accusation is like a gnat to politicians), but the Dems can't stop it without controlling the Senate.

What it would do is give the Dems justification for adding seats to the SCOTUS.   But they're probably prepared to keep RBG on life support for 5 more years, if need be.

Well, we knew for a fact we were getting a new president in ’16; we do not know about ’20 ………deferring to the incumbent makes sense. 

posted by QuakerOats

Well, we knew for a fact we were getting a new president in ’16; we do not know about ’20 ………deferring to the incumbent makes sense. 

If it's part of the duties of office, and the person is still in office, then it's equally reasonable to not defer if you believe you have a good candidate.  There's no logical framework for deferring.  Neither is there anything in writing to defend it.

As such, I guess I'd like to hear why you think it "makes sense" just because there will be someone else in office.  Connect those dots, if you would.

The democrats will be employing a taxidermist soon.

posted by O-Trap

If it's part of the duties of office, and the person is still in office, then it's equally reasonable to not defer if you believe you have a good candidate.  There's no logical framework for deferring.  Neither is there anything in writing to defend it.

There's a reason the Senate has to confirm.  Now McConnell broke with tradition, but I don't really have a problem with what he did.  That said, I'm not sure where you draw the line.  1 year?  3 years before an election?  Or as long as you have until losing control of the Senate?

Plus, it's not like Obama put up an uber liberal.  Garland seemed like a pretty good moderate.

posted by Spock

This time its pancreatic......not good

I thought that is what she always had.   It's pretty amazing she has been able to fight it for so long.  She is one tough SOB.

posted by like_that

I thought that is what she always had.   It's pretty amazing she has been able to fight it for so long.  She is one tough SOB.

My guess is 6 months with this diagnoses.  

posted by Spock

My guess is 6 months with this diagnoses.  

That they successfully treated it and she's cancer free?