Taro T

As was the most revered Republican President since Lincoln.

Probably not too far off from how he chooses them. Sadly.

Don't know. Suppose you'd have to ask the resident paint chip eater how he chooses them.

Probably not. And it probably includes Bill Nye, the cast of Big Bang Theory, and Thomas Dolby (She Blinded Him with Science. SCIENCE!), and the like.

Thank you very much for the perspective. Would've expected ticked off to be the reaction, but can definitely see how it all could be amusing from your perspective. So, are you a Sanders supporter or do you back one of the others? (Assuming from your reply that you do support Bernie.) Agree that caucuses have a ton of flaws. Counterintuitive that there are still a handful of states that hold them to allocate delegates. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes the 2 parties make to their caucus rules in Iowa and elsewhere.

So, she gets her news from MSNBC? That seems to be a vicious little feedback loop.

Legit question regarding the apparently failed Iowa Caucuses for the Dems that venture to this portion of the board. Are you ticked off, embarrassed, indifferent, or other by what appears to this outsider to be either gross corruption or gross incompetence? Suppose in fairness, it could be both. And, considering the D party always claims to be the party of the little guy (or the person without a voice to be less gender specific), does it ever get frustrating to see them once again act in a manner that only helps the established power structure? (Not expecting an answer to that one, but would appreciate any feedback you wouldn't mind supplying.)

SMH. Didn't expect it to be possible, but the Dems found a way to make Shiff and Nadler appear relatively competent.

You forget Pasta. He was heartbroken in November '16.

99% sure that back in the very early 90's (when GHWB was in the WH) he made a big deal out of being a smoker and would say he was holding a piece of paper in his "nicotine stained fingers." Sometime late '90's it switched to "formerly nicotene stained fingers."

Ray just interfered with a double homicide investigation. He didn't actually pull the trigger, so the NFL has no qualms with letting him back in the club.

Fair enough.

To the top paragraph, if the staffers are there for a couple decades but the Congress Critter they work for can only be there for 6 years max, then they will know the lobbyists a lot better than their boss will and they will be even more involved in actually crafting the legislation their bosses sponsor and eventually vote on. If the Congress critter is daily hearing from his staff a certain message, that will resonate with many of them. And, different circumstances but analogous to a point, look at how hard it's been for 45 to root out the Ciaramellas from the Executive branch. When Congress faces the same sort of limits on tenure that the President faces, they'll face similar issues, IMHO. To the lower paragraph, my point must not have been clear. Wasn't saying the Reps would be working to help the Senators, was saying they'd be working to BECOME the Senators. And the best way for them to make names for themselves in the limited time they have to do so is to get the big bucks lobbyists supporting them and getting them in contact with "the right people." Which just screams out as an opportunity for corruption IMHO.

And, again, adding term limits cuts down on the ability for elected officials to be corrupt in theory. We agree there. But it increases the power the career staffers end up wielding and the staffers are only beholden to their boss, not the electorate. My expectation is we'd see things get even worse in that regard. And term limits might backfire on another front as well, they might also raise the stakes for members of the House especially in the big states as there will be an order of magnitude more of them vying to hold one of their state's 2 Senate seats as that is the next step for them and they can no longer abide their time in the House.

Well, any Superbowl w/ the Cheatriots involved is a stinker by definition, so ... Seahawks Denver was awful. The one w/ Chicago was awful. That's what, 10 this century just ottomh.

The only GOOD ad was the Jeep ad. There were a handful of others that weren't awful, but for the most part they generally were awful. Shockingly, the game was actually good. Had it been a typical stinker of a game, the whole night would've been a loss. (Usually the commercials save the evening; this time the game did it.)

It would reduce the ability of ELECTED officials to enrich themselves. Unelected staffers gain even more power as it won't take long for all of them to be in Washington longer than their bosses that we send there. Absolutely support the concept of term limits, but haven't heard a proposal yet that doesn't create more problems than it solves.

Now that the UK left, do they have to redo their flag with 1 less star?

Ah, yup. Was only looking at it from the perspective of not letting 45 gloat in his SotU speech. But, the D's end up w/ a small victory 2fer on this one. Gee, not remotely sleazy there.

Don't believe you are correct on that, but it is possible. But Clinton and her sycophants have only themselves to blame for that if you are right. Because if the polls hadn't all been cooked to make her coronation look inevitable, that craven coward Comey never would've had the balls to announce that at the time. He, like everybody else, was sure she'd win, so announcing the e-mail investigation when he did would allow her and her allies to sweep it under the rug were the Republicans to have held the House and try to investigate that matter themselves. His expediency may have cost her though that is highly debatable, but it wasn't nearly as harmful to her as her prior 24 years in the public eye which the deplorable comment clearly confirmed - she is a horrible, spiteful, selfish person who only cares about herself and POSSIBLY Chelsea; and rather than look out for the little guy like the D's all try to claim they do, she clearly looks down on them. Why anybody would want to vote for that is truly puzzling. Obviously a lot of people did vote for her, but she so clearly doesn't give a darn, it just becomes hard to see how they buy into her.

Unless the Senate flips, it will go down as one of the dumbest political plays ever. If it flips, she was crazy like a fox. Thing is, IMHO, she did realize this would blow up in all their faces, but she got backed into it by the far left part of her party. That, or when it started to come out that Biden was in the cross hairs, the deeply entrenched members of her party who've gotten wealthy on Congress critter salaries had their 'if he's coming for Biden, who's next? We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen' moment and decided to throw the bullet-less gun at him to see if they could get lucky. Maybe the combination of both plus whatever illness she seems to be suffering from got the better of her.

Hunter Biden, fresh after getting kicked out of the Navy for being a coke head, was a name that would add legitimacy? How? Most companies get rid of board members when something like that happens. Burisma went out and hired him after that. Now, if a cokehead can't add legitimacy to a company, what might he bring to that company if he is related to very influential people?

They're typically called brownies.

Not ignoring you. Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, and likely won't tonight. Will respond after reading it.

Except that is an almost comic book level of review of what happened. Though it sets a bad precedent (not that the impeachment process to date hasn't been setting all sorts of bad precedents which will bite whoever's is the next President to have a House led by the other party) as 2 of these 3 potential witnesses didn't testify previously, am perfectly fine with Bolton testifying, provided we also get the whistleblower testifying and IG Atkinson testifying. Get this all out in the open and under oath. Would expect that won't go the way the D's want/ expect but am willing to let the chips fall where they may.