Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
November LC Thread **Survivor White House Edition** November LC Thread **Survivor White House Edition**
View Poll Results: Who will NOT survive the month of November?
Jefferson Beleaguered Sessions III
24 52.17%
John Kelly
8 17.39%
Kjrstyn Njielessen
2 4.35%
James Mattis
7 15.22%
Ben Carson
1 2.17%
Ryan Zinke
12 26.09%
Sarah Huckabee Sanders
3 6.52%
Kellyanne Conway
1 2.17%
Rod Rosenstein
12 26.09%
Write-in
1 2.17%

11-01-2018 , 12:28 PM
11-01-2018 , 12:33 PM
You know who I think sucks? 6ix.
11-01-2018 , 12:42 PM
I feel like voting all of them. Trump gonna clean house this month.

Last edited by biggerboat; 11-01-2018 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Well, maybe not sanders or kellyanne
11-01-2018 , 12:43 PM
4dth
11-01-2018 , 12:43 PM
ZINKE
11-01-2018 , 12:56 PM
Really wish the polling software allowed for exacta/trifecta bets.

WIN Zinke
PLACE Sessions
SHOW Rosenstein
11-01-2018 , 01:05 PM
Sessions has about 5 days left as AG.
11-01-2018 , 01:16 PM
Dreaming about the bloodbath if dems take both houses.
11-01-2018 , 01:22 PM
ALL OF THEM
11-01-2018 , 01:33 PM
yeah a lot of people leaving in November regardless of what happens in the midterms.
11-01-2018 , 01:45 PM
Write in: 3 or more of the above.

Ok, 4, but three should pay imo. It will be a personnel bloodbath like no pres. has ever seen.
11-01-2018 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
You know who I think sucks? 6ix.
Sometimes I forget why I have a certain poster on ignore. Then an episode like the one recently comes and I'm like - oh yeah.
11-01-2018 , 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Write in: 3 or more of the above.

Ok, 4, but three should pay imo. It will be a personnel bloodbath like no pres. has ever seen.
It's already been pretty bad and maybe is already a record? I can't think of any other president in my lifetime that's lost so many key people before the first midterm.
11-01-2018 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycosid
Dreaming about the bloodbath if dems take both houses.
Also worried about the monumental bull**** that McConnell will pull in the lame duck session if they lose the senate.
11-01-2018 , 02:17 PM
Mike "Big Deal" Pence is kind of a big deal

11-01-2018 , 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Write in: 3 or more of the above.

Ok, 4, but three should pay imo. It will be a personnel bloodbath like no pres. has ever seen.
Imagining a Godfatheresque montage of different Trump flunkies delivering pre-written resignation letters to a bunch of cabinet officials, interspersed with Trump babbling incoherently at a rally.
11-01-2018 , 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyebooger
Also worried about the monumental bull**** that McConnell will pull in the lame duck session if they lose the senate.
On the flip side, I think Ryan will "peace out" fairly quietly while auditioning for pro-marijuana lobbying jobs.
11-01-2018 , 02:22 PM
Even by Vice-Presidential standards, Mike Pence is about as far from a big deal as you can get.
11-01-2018 , 02:25 PM
I routinely go 60+ days forgetting Mike Pence exists.
11-01-2018 , 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dth123451
I routinely go 60+ days forgetting Mike Pence exists.
The Tennessee Titans of VPs.
11-01-2018 , 03:01 PM
The real bloodbath will be next month. And lol Pence.
11-01-2018 , 03:12 PM
Nathan J. Robinson on birthright citizenship, arguing that stopping at "it's in the constitution" cedes too much ground to right-wingers and fails to acknowledge the case that it's actually the correct thing to do:

Quote:
I think the major mistake here is focusing on the status of the parent rather than the status of the child. If we think about this from the child’s perspective, we realize that not granting birthright citizenship is far “nuttier” than granting it. A child, conceived in the U.S., is born in a U.S. hospital. Not a moment of their life has been spent anywhere but the U.S. They have never seen another country. Where is the child from? Having citizenship in your “country of birth” makes much more sense to me than having it run through “blood,” and having your “allegiance” depend on what the “allegiance” of the womb you popped out of was. Having a baby who has never seen France owe their loyalty to France, when they will grow up indistinguishable from any other American, strikes me as strange.
Quote:
The child is not an “immigrant,” because the child never came here. The child has always been here! I think the writer who worries about “parents being rewarded for coming here illegally and having a child” is missing half the story: What about the punishment of a child who was born in the same place, and raised in the same manner, with the same degree of loyalty, as every other child in the neighborhood, but is not considered part of the country because of a legal violation committed by a parent?
11-01-2018 , 03:54 PM
The whole ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION ethos is just genuflecting to right wing arguments, and it's a perpetual and ever lasting Democratic/liberal/left mistake. See when we try to one-up them on patriotism and felating the military or Christian piety or whatever. They can mercilessly mock war heros and ****, put a porn star on retainer, have 5 kids with 3 women, it doesn't matter, but you better stand for the anthem and you better be God fearing blah blah blah.

Same thing here. The right invented the whole "it's gotta be IN the Constitution" game despite most of them never having read it or even particularly cared about its contents, and they will take out Ouija boards and dream up whatever fantastical **** they want about about Constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence, originalism, intent, who cares, it doesn't matter to the right and it shouldn't matter to anyone else either. It's all made up, bad faith, ad hoc and don't bother with it unless you're a lawyer getting paid to it, it's a fools errand for everyone else to try to keep up with the right on this.

The whole "the Constitution is sacrosanct and you laboriously scan the writings of the people who wrote it and its Amendments is the critical thing that matters the most" rather than its effect on humans is a total right winger bull**** escapade meant to solidify regressive policies. Liberals should never ever play it because Charlie Brown can always pull the football away since it's the right's game and they make all the rules and set all the standards, which is why Donald ****ing Trump is out talking to reporters that it's clearly Constitutional to end birthright citizenship, but hasn't a ****ing clue even why, he isn't even going to pretend to care:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/66454869.cms

Quote:
"Birthright citizenship is a very, very important subject. In my opinion, it's much less complex than people think. I think it says it very loud and clear in the Constitution that you don't have to go through the process of whatever they're talking about," Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday.
The reason why we shouldn't stop at "it's in the Constitution" is because it cedes the entire field to the right wing to make up whatever they want. In many ways Donald Trump is much sharper than his opponents because he realized this instinctively. His opponents do cartwheels and flips trying to score the perfectly cited argument and he's like "yeah it's clear as day that the Constitution just says whatever we want obviously and bigly" and their whole base will cheer that on.

The correct argument is that it would actively harm lots of people, the end, put your books away nerds.
11-01-2018 , 03:58 PM
It also introduces space for idiots to pull the same argument out about the 2nd amendment (ignoring the fact that the 2nd amendment isn't anywhere close to as clear about meaning as the 14th)
11-01-2018 , 05:28 PM
I'm legit confused, and am declining at this moment to try to research it, but if you take away birthright citizenship, then how do you get citizenship at all? Resident status until you're old enough to pledge fealty to TRUMP, then you're in?

      
m