Joe Ferguson forever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIpLE7Nn50

Because ole tuck has nothing to gain by telling this story. What are his ratings? You know several posters will have ears to laptop tonight

Well Mike, It's a little late for candor and honesty but better late than never...and I'm not sure "performative outrage" is going to sway the base. https://www.axios.com/2023/09/06/pence-trump-populism-speech "A leading candidate last year called for 'the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution' … while his imitators have a demonstrated willingness to brandish government power to silence critics and impose their will on opponents." Pence argues that the Republican Party can choose populism or conservatism, but not both, because conservatives embrace checks and balances while populists scorn them. He also warns that the GOP risks standing for little more than "personal grievances and performative outrage."

The Wisconsin election of this judge was very encouraging for 2024. It’s one of the most important swing states, the R’s spent big on her opponent and she won by a wide margin. Don’t see how they can overturn the election but not surprised they’re trying

Does it matter? Do you think they might ask the witness what was on the deleted tape? Do you think deleting the tape was a good thing? Why defend this scumbag?

I agree. He’s too old and truly hope he bows out or is forced out. And I think that’s somewhat likely. But if he stays in and trump is his opponent, I don’t see rational people voting for a 4x indicted crook. Especially after his Georgia trial and the evidence against him is televised. I think there are still more rational people than idiots in the country. If not, we’re doomed

No. The problem is that there aren’t enough MAGAs for the R’s to win. Way too many yet not enough…

Sounds like mobster stuff to me

https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225

The SCOTUS decision is federal and thus a national ruling. Blue states will likely abide. Not so much for red states.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/06/oil-prices-saudi-production-elections

What? Almost everyone loves Taylor! You're an outlier...but I guess that video could more accurately be described as satire...good, no? re employment data, even with overestimates and revisions, Biden's job creation has been impressive: https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wisdems-on-13-5-million-jobs-created-under-president-biden/

He never has anything. Waste of space.

I don't agree with it anywhere. But with Alabama thumbing its nose at SCOTUS, their ruling is not having the desired effect. At least for now. As Frank said, this could easily be ruled contempt. Once again, "law and order" red states ignoring the law...

The SCOTUS case isn't about the act of voting (although that's another worthy topic - a national holiday on election day is a fine idea imo.). It's about gerrymandering so that there are no districts with a black majority. This is done by cutting and pasting the geography to meet their goals. Look at the district maps for Alabama and you'll see.

wrong again...gonna try for levity again. keep counting

See I can actually learn some cool stuff on the board a·bey·ance /əˈbāəns/ noun a state of temporary disuse or suspension very nice word! Is that used in banking frequently?

What no nazi trail reference or anti Zionist racist comment? Debate is not your thing.

yes, unlike R pols, we don't play down for the audience.

Is there a mercy rule in debate? It's like dunking the pretzel logic in a cold stella...

I understand and acknowledge...

ya know. I've tried to be funny at least a dozen times. The exaggeration remark was meant to be funny but went unappreciated. I'll try and do better... who tells us what? you mean like professors at liberal universities. Yes, "we" sit at the political science hero's feet in coffee shops and pubs absorbing every word without question or analysis...

Nice. Fold that really bad hand you tried to play. Better put, played so badly. It was embarrassing even for me. But Sherpa did himself proud.

"he Fed has its mandates, which are different, and some times at odds, for the billionth time." This was from my first linked CNBC article: "But the central bank’s leaders did not vote unanimously for the cut: Three Fed regional presidents voted against the move, two of whom have said they preferred to keep the funds rate unchanged.". And the first post was about a rate decrease, for the trillionth time for goodness sake. trump didn't't think they decreased it enough. wanted the rate at zero "or below..." And I'm still wondering how you and cali dude3 messed up a post about a rate decrease rather than a rate increase. Kinda makes one question YOUR expertise here. Oh and there's this from the Brookings institution: "The statute says nothing, however, about whether the President can “fire” the Board chair, effectively demoting him to being just one of the other governors. Other presidents have concluded that they lacked that authority, and there is good reason to think they were right. But we just don’t know: it’s legally uncertain." But you're quite certain of it. hmmm, who do I think knows more about the subject. Let me think.... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-happens-if-trump-tries-to-fire-fed-chair-jerome-powell/ Here's the author of the piece. Care to compare your credentials to his? https://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/petercb/ But you do0n't want to discuss it. So let's leave it right here.

not going anywhere. trump threatened to fire powell and publicly pressured him. Both were unprecedented in US history. There was serious debate whether he had the power to fire him. Given his disregard for laws, it's entirely possible that he would try to fire him. not surprised you don't wanna talk about it. And I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate... Oh, and Cali dude doesn't know decrease from increase. You failed to criticize that error but I'm happy to.