posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIf you can't beat 'em, join 'em....
The guy in front of me in line at the DMV this morning audibly farted, but it didn't stink. Whatever Trump did to make that happen, I'm grateful.
Yeah, I'll one-up that! I took a vacation day today, so I'm thanking Trump for not forcing companies to outlaw employees using their time off! IT'S ALL YOU, BUDDY!!!!!!
Blowout jobs report today.
Wow.
maga
BTW – 8 more judges confirmed this week > total Trump appointed federal judges now at 170.
Best
posted by QuakerOats
BTW – 8 more judges confirmed this week > total Trump appointed federal judges now at 170.
Best
Not an expert on judges....is that alot?
posted by SpockNot an expert on judges....is that alot?
That is a rate of 60 judges per year.
In comparison, Obama had an average of 42 judges confirmed per year. Bush was at 43, and Clinton at 48. But maybe things slow down in a second term. GHB confirmed 197 judges in 4 years. Carter confirmed 262 in 4 years.
Also, there a hundreds of federally appointed judges. But if a 2-term POTUS ends-up appointing 1/2 or even 1/4 of them, that's a pretty significant impact on the courts. Although for that argument we'd probably have to focus on appelate courts, because I don't expect a lot of these appointments are as political as what you see on the SCOTUS or appelate courts.
So I guess the short answer is it's fairly typical. But the number is not something the POTUS really controls - they aren't removing judges just filling vacancies.
posted by gutThat is a rate of 60 judges per year.
In comparison, Obama had an average of 42 judges confirmed per year. Bush was at 43, and Clinton at 48. But maybe things slow down in a second term. GHB confirmed 197 judges in 4 years. Carter confirmed 262 in 4 years.
Also, there a hundreds of federally appointed judges. But if a 2-term POTUS ends-up appointing 1/2 or even 1/4 of them, that's a pretty significant impact on the courts. Although for that argument we'd probably have to focus on appelate courts, because I don't expect a lot of these appointments are as political as what you see on the SCOTUS or appelate courts.
So I guess the short answer is it's fairly typical. But the number is not something the POTUS really controls - they aren't removing judges just filling vacancies.
but it only takes one liberal judge to make stuff come to a grinding hault
General Motors is spending a total of $1.5 billion to manufacture Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon pickup trucks at its Wentzville, Mo., factory. The plant will get $1 billion, with the remainder going to suppliers for new machinery and tooling.
Better than Cash-for-Clunkers
Also -
Housing permits hit 12 ½ year high.
posted by QuakerOats
You've never answered my question...
These are great stories you post. I personally don't think that the president (whoever is there) has nearly as much immediate influence on economic activity as you, but that's okay. You obviously think Trump is responsible for good things happening. What about bad things in the economy. Is he responsible for those things too? If not, why not?
LMAO....."B" and "C" list politicians getting their 60 second to grandstand today. And you thought the clowns on the committee were bad! How do you get elected when you can't even nail a 60-second speech?
One of the Repubs LITERALLY sounded like Elmer Fudd, stutter and all.
posted by gutLMAO....."B" and "C" list politicians getting their 60 second to grandstand today. And you thought the clowns on the committee were bad! How do you get elected when you can't even nail a 60-second speech?
One of the Repubs LITERALLY sounded like Elmer Fudd, stutter and all.
Damn, if it's not great TV.
Loudermilk's simile comparing Trump to Jesus was terrible. And hilarious. And proof that Loudermilk either hasn't read that account in the Bible or doesn't remember it for shit.
posted by O-TrapDamn, if it's not great TV.
Speculation that Pelosi might not send the impeachment to the Senate. Say what you will about Pelosi, but that would be a BOSS move.
Also, if Trump is re-elected it seems almost certain he'll be impeached again if the Dems hold on to the House.
On a related note, it seems like a bad strategy to talk about Trump trying to interfere in the 2020 election after you accused him of that for 2.5 years and completely whiffed.
Nancy had to shush all the somber prayerful democrats as they cheered when the votes were final lol.
posted by gutSpeculation that Pelosi might not send the impeachment to the Senate. Say what you will about Pelosi, but that would be a BOSS move.
Also, if Trump is re-elected it seems almost certain he'll be impeached again if the Dems hold on to the House.
On a related note, it seems like a bad strategy to talk about Trump trying to interfere in the 2020 election after you accused him of that for 2.5 years and completely whiffed.
Yeah, but there will be some spin to turn it into some righteous crusade on principle. I've heard enough of that about his one even.
posted by fish82Nancy had to shush all the somber prayerful democrats as they cheered when the votes were final lol.
I actually have to give her some credit for that.
Also, holy shit. That was a mom stare she gave them. I can't stand most of her policy, and she's a wackadoo on an awful lot of things, but this was an appropriate move.
posted by O-TrapAlso, holy shit. That was a mom stare she gave them. I can't stand most of her policy, and she's a wackadoo on an awful lot of things, but this was an appropriate move.
I'm not that impressed considering the incredible losing battle she was fighting to hold back a smile when she officially announced his impeachment.
History will write this chapter as a complete BS clusterf$%k. She will go down as a partisan hack, nobody will ever remember any of the specifics but Trump was the only president to be impeached and then reelected. Making him a GOAT president.
posted by gutI'm not that impressed considering the incredible losing battle she was fighting to hold back a smile when she officially announced his impeachment.
Eh, she held it back, though. Regardless of how she felt, she did the appropriate thing and provoked her party allies to do the same. I can't not give her credit for that. It's not like she would have faced any backlash from her constituency or from other Democrats in the House, who were all cheering. She pretty much had a hall pass to do so as well, if she wanted to, but she took the appropriate route and immediately got her House majority to do the same.
posted by SpockHistory will write this chapter as a complete BS clusterf$%k. She will go down as a partisan hack, nobody will ever remember any of the specifics but Trump was the only president to be impeached and then reelected. Making him a GOAT president.
I am pretty sure Nancy and the dems secured Trump's reelection. I hope it was worth it for them. Let's just say for argument's sake that Trump did indeed expect a personal favor from Ukraine before he sent the money. Are any of us ignorant enough to think that is not how the game is played. The US has sent trillions of dollars out to countries over the decades. Do we actually believe none of the men in the oval office have made these funds conditional on things that aren't exactly above board. Talk about the land of unicorns and rainbows.
I'm not a Trump fan, but let the voters determine this - especially when they dems know it is literally impossible to get a vote in their favor from the senate. They just want to be on record as voting "for" - much like the republicans in the house did in 1997.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI am pretty sure Nancy and the dems secured Trump's reelection. I hope it was worth it for them. Let's just say for argument's sake that Trump did indeed expect a personal favor from Ukraine before he sent the money. Are any of us ignorant enough to think that is not how the game is played. The US has sent trillions of dollars out to countries over the decades. Do we actually believe none of the men in the oval office have made these funds conditional on things that aren't exactly above board. Talk about the land of unicorns and rainbows.
I'm not a Trump fan, but let the voters determine this - especially when they dems know it is literally impossible to get a vote in their favor from the senate. They just want to be on record as voting "for" - much like the republicans in the house did in 1997.
Doubt it. The election is still 11.5 months away and a shit ton of stuff can change from now to then. A lot of the numbers for Trump are already baked in, and this hasn't changed Trump's approval/ disapproval rating really at all. I think most of America view impeachment as meh and it won't matter in 2020.
Trump is still hovering between 42-47% and right around 50% in Wisc and Penn.
The 2020 election will come down to who the Ds put up as their ticket and how that tickets plays in 3 states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in comparison to Trump.
On your other point, that is probably why the impeachment story has not gained traction, People either view the call as no big deal or nothing at all.
I wouldn't know why anyone with a brain wouldn't look at impeachment as meh. I was at a friend's last night and while the news was on, the broadcaster was talking about "this historic day" because of it being the third impeachment vote and all I could think was that we know how it's going to go. It'll pass in the house and die in the senate and everyone will be back to square one, continuing to be annoying twats to each other and trying to get the most cutting soundbite to fire up the slackjaws composing their base.
Wake me when something that's actually meaningful happens, as opposed to partisans all doing partisan things because that's all partisans know how to do.
