Only in excess of 10% of AGI

That's for everyone, doesn't apply to self employment income. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tool.../INF12128.html

Dems are confirmed Charlie Brown

I ****ing hate everything

Maybe he doesn't want a liberal justice on the bench.

WaPo editorial page

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.e74c75616c80

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.e74c75616c80

She had potential, too. Really ruining a good thing.

Tulsi needs to go. She's a weird Assad apologist.

This makes no sense. The next time the repubs get power after that and there's a filibuster they'll just reduce the threshold back to 50. wtf is this person thinking?

Can we put together a fund to get Sklansky or somebody to go out and explain the basic ideas of game theory to all Democrats in office. Good lord it's embarassing and the consequences of these tactical mistakes are really starting to pile up.

you read sklansky's posts in this forum and decided that HE would be the one to teach people about game theory as it relates to politics?

yeaaaa, no.

Based solely on that interview, I've determined that he is an idiot and needs to be primaried in 2020.

Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:

If someone can't figure out that this is a poor tactical decision, there's no hope for them. The problem is that these complete ****ing idiots don't actually view this as a tactical issue. Their worldview is that politics inherently incorporates fairness, and that over time fairness will win out over the bad guys.

This is probably related to growing up in the direct shadow of WWII and during the Cold War, where the dominant narrative in American society was that good triumphs over evil. They believe this to be inherent. If we are good, we will win. The fact that they are eating **** on a day to day basis is so at odds with How Things Work that they can't even process it.

The blame falls more directly on Aaron Sorkin

Imagine what a good episode it would've been for President Bartlett to say no matter how dirty the opposition plays he'll rise above it all

At this point I think one should at least be suspicious that some Democrats don't really want to get all the things they purport to want, like maybe the possibility of a justice who isn't pro-business.

You guys actually believe him? He is just trying to pretend there is such a huge reason why the 60 vote requirement is in place and the evil Republicans changed it. Hard to take that line and not say it is important to restore.

The supremes was a pretty great episode iirc.

Yeah the principle to stand on here is that regardless of controling party consensus is important for the highest court. You do feel like Charlie Brown sometimes, and then you need to make it harder to fool you next time, but at some point you don't just burn the constitution because another kid in the class did it first.

slow pony me it seems. I had an issue with social media popping up but figured out how to disable on specific sites.

I don't think you are necessarily making a bad point about having broader consensus for the supreme court but sometimes you need to show the Republicans what it's like to be on the receiving end so that they can come back to the middle. At this point they rightfully think they can just get away with pretty much anything.

I think you do. Paper don't stop bullets or unethical, norm destroying, power mad sociopaths.

Yep, that is why the Republicans had no choice but to vote the way they did after the Democrats destroyed the norm on Judges in 2013. Which Senator Markey voted to do at that time.

JLawsure.gif