Tag Archives: Lindsey Graham

Doubtful settings

Yup, some settings are doubtful, they are so for any number of reasons, the jobseeker hopes that the Coronavirus continues, because with over 2,000,000 deaths and optionally another million by the end of March, that person feels that their chances of a job increases. It is a play on ‘One man’s death is another man’s living’ reminiscent of the national anthem of grave diggers ‘I’ve got no body’, even as we do not see it that dark, there is an upside towards recent events. As the YouTube continues to make way to the larger populous of cope opening the gates to the US Capitol mob, they too will be seeking a job and in their case Uber, the fast-food industry or Barber is all that remains. Even now we see ‘US Capitol rioter Jacob Chansley asks for presidential pardon, saying he was ‘answering the call’ of Donald Trump’ (at ABC News) we need to realise that these people are at the end of their party time, even if his name is within the list of 100 pardons, the soon to be fired President Trump is on dangerous grounds. He needs to keep stupid people like Ted Cruz and John Hawley in some kind of position of power, they overstepped and the US Senate will have its pound of flesh, Senator McConnell is already on the fence to avoid too much splatter and President Trump is also facing a $400,000,000 tax bill and without a second term as well as the Republican Party Shunning him, he might have to look forward to (see below)

The stage is however not yet set, not completely, in this I will state upfront that I have always been a decently proud Republican, but I have never been so ashamed to be one as we see ‘Sen. Lindsey Graham calls for Senate to reject impeachment trial for “national healing”’, in addition we see: “While the vice president and Senate Republicans rejected unconstitutional actions, you seek to force upon the Senate, what would itself be but one more unconstitutional action in this disgraceful saga — the impeachment trial of a former president”, no not the impeachment of the former president, of the current one, unless you can stall for along enough, and there we see it, bitches like Lindsey Graham is exactly why people hate republicans, and at present I cannot blame them. A setting of lawless actions, a setting of open lies directly from the White House and from the Press Secretary and this polarisation could continue for years and soon no one wants to do business with republicans, because if they cannot have their way, the sulk like little children.

As I see it, the Republican Party lost again and again by Accepting Donald Trump as a republican. Perhaps you forgot (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brGK5fcnm9o), but here it is again.

A setting of intentionally setting out confusion with the American people, or perhaps we consider how the police opened the gates to rioters in the US Capitol, which is opposite of the picture we see below.

Apparently the police fears Black Lives Matter, but that could just be me. The danger that I see is the one that ABC News gives with ‘Corporate donors flee Republican Party following Capitol Hill riot, and it’s only the beginning’ (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-16/us-political-donations-dry-up-after-capitol-insurrection/13062376), there we see “Some companies say those Republicans will receive no donations for the rest of their political lives. “The insurrection at our nation’s Capital was a direct assault on one of our country’s most revered tenets: the peaceful transition of power,” a Disney spokesman told Politico this week.” This is important, because if President elect Joe Biden does a decent job, it implies that the Republicans are out of options for 12-16 years. How does that help anything? A nanny state that has nowhere to go, is buckling under debts and will see a dark stage for at least half. Decade, all because we facilitated to a stupid man with delusions of megalomania. A stage we all created (those who voted for him the first time), and now that the party is over, we see even less intelligent people than President Trump (yes that is possible) giving us “he was ‘answering the call’ of Donald Trump”, it is a doubtful setting and there is no turning back, not at this time. As I personally see it, we need to go back and get rid of a whole range of elected republicans. In my view, the only decent Republican at present is former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is seen (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_P-0I6sAck), NOT ONE REPUBLICAN SENATOR was able to equal what the governator told the American people. 199 seats in the house, 53 seat in the senate and NONE of them equalled Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is that repugnant, as I personally see it Mitch McConnell has one option, to find a high visible position for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and hope that he is willing to lend a hand and clean the republican houses, because with the donors gone and the bad taste of Trump in everyones pallet, he is about to see what more than 8 years on the sidelines look like. It will be the direct result of letting stupidity ride and override common sense, now that lesson is about to hit the republican side, there is no option. The 152 way to silent seats will have an impact, perhaps a larger stage than ever thought possible, but that is the setting we all face, some will say that it is doubtful that it goes that far, but the amount of these so called friends sticking with President Trump are showing that I am right. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

The Jet joke

The old joke goes “How do you know the plane is full of politicians? When the engines shut down and the whining goes on”, I believe it should be followed by a da-dum-dum. Yet the stage is set and it has been going on for a while now. The BBC article ‘Amy Coney Barrett: Democrats attack ‘shameful’ Supreme Court hearing’ got the better of me and the whining (in an age where we we have actual problems) got on my nerves. OK, I will admit that I am mostly Republican in mind, the issue of this president is one that I am not happy about. From my personal point of view, this president is no Republican, I consider him a greed driven loon, yet he was elected and as I wrote earlier, the constitution allows him to nominate a Supreme Court Judge, and the senate gets to confirm the nomination, this is what the American constitution gives us, yet the BBC gives us “But one Democratic senator on the committee described the process as “shameful””, so which Senator was that BBC? Do the people not have a right to know? In addition, what legal premise is this senator working from? In addition, the BBC gives us “The Republicans – who currently hold a slim majority in the US Senate, the body that confirms Supreme Court judges – are trying to complete the process before Mr Trump takes on Democratic rival Joe Biden in the election”, which is correct, but what are the names in the panel? The BBC also gives us “this process has been nothing but shameful. Worse, it will almost certainly lead to disastrous consequences for Americans”, as such I wonder what evidence can Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy give us? So far he is giving us nothing but air, not even hot air. At what moment in time, has any supreme court judge been anything but legal? Yes, we get it, they all want to have liberal judges and no one denies that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and she was a liberal judge. Yet the law was clear, the elected president gets to nominate a Supreme Court Judge during his tour as president of the United States, electing a Supreme Court Judge is one of the few long term policies he can set, and as such President Trump is allowed to do what is happening today, but the media is nothing if not ‘appeasing’, they will print the ramblings of Democrats, because the larger belief is that this president is most likely a one term president and the media needs brownie points. 

So when we see “Democrats demonstrated that they want Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings to be about the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections and the possibility that she could be a deciding vote to strike down the increasingly popular healthcare reforms passed under Democratic President Barack Obama”, so where does it state in the constitutions that this is about  “the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections”, all whilst all parties (except the Republicans) ignore the constitution that states “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, that is the law and the law was abided to, it might not please the Democrats, but the is what it is, so now they all whine like little bitches (I meant like jet engines). Yet in all this we see no clarity on the panel, do we?

As such, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court , who exactly are these members?  Well there is a majority group which consists of Lindsey Graham (SC), Chairman,  Chuck Grassley (IA), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Joni Ernst (IA), Mike Crapo (ID), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN). These 12 members are the majority, the 10 minority members are Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VM), Dick Durbin (IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Chris Coons (DE), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Mazie Hirono (HI), Cory Booker (NJ), Kamala Harris (CA). 22 members ‘interrogating’ the next Supreme Court Justice, but the confirmation is set when all senators vote and the Republicans have a majority, a very slim one, as such the Democrats have one option, to ask the right questions, as they pound on those, they can merely hope to sway 3 senators away from the ‘Yay’ vote when the confirmation vote starts and they need a majority to make it pass, if ALL democrats agree this will not happen. The is as good as it gets for the Democrats. Will this happen? I do not know, the previous confirmation was Justice Kavanaugh and took 48 hours as well as more than 1200 questions. Will we see a repetition of this? We are about to find out. 

I wonder how much media will actually be focusing on the questions the democrats asked, and why they were asked. A similar setting does apply to the Republicans, yet the setting of “Democrats are avoiding the divisive topic of abortion, which motivates political adversaries as much as it rallies allies, for what they feel is more favourable political ground”, as such we see the chance of finding a justice with a focus on law is low compared to the Democrat need to find a person that is politically convenient. I merely wonder why they want judges to begin with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics