MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I mean. If you expected politicians not to be lying shits I don't know what to tell you.

The thing is that they’re not supposed to be so ‘mask off’ about it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I mean. If you expected politicians not to be lying shits I don't know what to tell you.

The thing is that they’re not supposed to be so ‘mask off’ about it.

I prefer it this way tbh. We all know politicians are lying pieces of shit, they might as well not even bother hiding it.

[The South Falls]

Do y'all have the money to pay for the pressing issues of our own dominion, not to mention that of Mexico's?

[Gormwood]

But the point everyone missed is that it wasn't that long ago Graham said he was against any tariffs on Mexico in the name of border security. Now he's a full on bootlicker.

Shouldn't really be surprising to anyone. Graham has always been a parasite deriving relevance from others.

He used to feed off of John McCain, so he was critical of Trump.

Then McCain died and he needed a new host so he latched himself to Trump, and now competes with Devin Nunes to see who can give the Presidents shoes the best tongue shine.

They both have yet to be in Ivanka's league.

[Gormwood]

The thing is that they’re not supposed to be so ‘mask off’ about it.

I prefer it this way tbh. We all know politicians are lying pieces of shit, they might as well not even bother hiding it.

If Obama and the Democrats had gone Full Luther the GOP and its base would all be pointing and shrieking like the Body Snatchers.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I prefer it this way tbh. We all know politicians are lying pieces of shit, they might as well not even bother hiding it.

If Obama and the Democrats had gone Full Luther the GOP and its base would all be pointing and shrieking like the Body Snatchers.

Well yeah, that's politics.

[Ifreann]

The thing is that they’re not supposed to be so ‘mask off’ about it.

I prefer it this way tbh. We all know politicians are lying pieces of shit, they might as well not even bother hiding it.

Not really a good sign that your politicians don't care about being seen as spineless liars.

[The South Falls]

I prefer it this way tbh. We all know politicians are lying pieces of shit, they might as well not even bother hiding it.

If Obama and the Democrats had gone Full Luther the GOP and its base would all be pointing and shrieking like the Body Snatchers.

Hypocrisy in politics. Such is it.

[Gormwood]

If Obama and the Democrats had gone Full Luther the GOP and its base would all be pointing and shrieking like the Body Snatchers.

Well yeah, that's politics.

So just hipster edginess then, not a real social address.

[Cannot think of a name]

What is this, open mic night?

[The South Falls]

What is this, open mic night?

It's more like the dinner table at Thanksgiving.

[Cannot think of a name]

In general American politics news:
Why can't weeee be friends, why can't we be friends...

The two lawmakers who have often been at odds found common ground in a place that often highlights polarizing opinions: Twitter. That's where Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez vowed to set aside their differences and work on new lobbying restrictions for lawmakers. Now an unlikely coalition is forming around their joint effort.

It started when Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Thursday morning that members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to become corporate lobbyists.

"At minimum there should be a long wait period," she wrote. Ocasio-Cortez cited a statistic from Public Citizen, in which the advocacy group reported that among former Congress members who move to jobs outside of politics, nearly 60% start lobbying or otherwise influencing federal policy.

It didn't take long for Cruz to chime in.

"Here's something I don't say often: on this point, I AGREE" with Ocasio-Cortez, Cruz stated. He went on to say that he has long called for a lifetime ban on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists.

"The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?" he asked.

By early afternoon, Ocasio-Cortez said she would co-lead a bill with Cruz — if there were no "partisan snuck-in clauses, no poison pills."

Cruz, who has previously argued with the freshman Democrat on Twitter, agreed.

You’re on. https://t.co/S3TBfNeO3Q
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 30, 2019

At least one politician from each side of the aisle came forward to support the pact: Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, tweeted, "IN," and Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, offered to lead or co-sponsor a bill in the House.

Craig Holman, who lobbies on ethics, campaign finance and lobbying on behalf of Public Citizen, told NPR that it is "heartening" that Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez moved to bridge the deep partisan divide.

"I am not sure if Congress will be willing to adopt their proposed lifetime ban," Holman said in an email. He added, "but the sheer fact of a left-and-right agreement that the revolving door is a grave problem that must be addressed is going to move the ball forward."

I almost forgot what governing looked like. I'm sure someone will sink this in the most facepalming way eventually but I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate the initial effort.

[The South Falls]

In general American politics news:
Why can't weeee be friends, why can't we be friends...

The two lawmakers who have often been at odds found common ground in a place that often highlights polarizing opinions: Twitter. That's where Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez vowed to set aside their differences and work on new lobbying restrictions for lawmakers. Now an unlikely coalition is forming around their joint effort.

It started when Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Thursday morning that members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to become corporate lobbyists.

"At minimum there should be a long wait period," she wrote. Ocasio-Cortez cited a statistic from Public Citizen, in which the advocacy group reported that among former Congress members who move to jobs outside of politics, nearly 60% start lobbying or otherwise influencing federal policy.

It didn't take long for Cruz to chime in.

"Here's something I don't say often: on this point, I AGREE" with Ocasio-Cortez, Cruz stated. He went on to say that he has long called for a lifetime ban on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists.

"The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?" he asked.

By early afternoon, Ocasio-Cortez said she would co-lead a bill with Cruz — if there were no "partisan snuck-in clauses, no poison pills."

Cruz, who has previously argued with the freshman Democrat on Twitter, agreed.

You’re on. https://t.co/S3TBfNeO3Q
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 30, 2019

At least one politician from each side of the aisle came forward to support the pact: Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, tweeted, "IN," and Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, offered to lead or co-sponsor a bill in the House.

Craig Holman, who lobbies on ethics, campaign finance and lobbying on behalf of Public Citizen, told NPR that it is "heartening" that Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez moved to bridge the deep partisan divide.

"I am not sure if Congress will be willing to adopt their proposed lifetime ban," Holman said in an email. He added, "but the sheer fact of a left-and-right agreement that the revolving door is a grave problem that must be addressed is going to move the ball forward."

I almost forgot what governing looked like. I'm sure someone will sink this in the most facepalming way eventually but I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate the initial effort.

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

I don't think Trump is going to kill it, if anything he might support it. Pushback from the rest of the House and Senate is what's going to put it under.

[The Rich Port]

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

I don't think Trump is going to kill it, if anything he might support it. Pushback from the rest of the House and Senate is what's going to put it under.

Plus, he can claim credit for it in some way.

[The South Falls]

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

I don't think Trump is going to kill it, if anything he might support it. Pushback from the rest of the House and Senate is what's going to put it under.

Pro-lobbying lobbyist groups. I'm not sure that special interest has that much power.

[Cannot think of a name]

I don't think Trump is going to kill it, if anything he might support it. Pushback from the rest of the House and Senate is what's going to put it under.

Plus, he can claim credit for it in some way.

If he signs it, he can have it. With things like this all the president has to do is not get in the way. It's not like doing one thing right and a million things wrong is suddenly going to make him a good president. He's done some actual good things regarding drug pricing I mentioned a while back. He hasn't managed the track record of a broken clock but he can accidentally find a good idea now and then.

[Gormwood]

In general American politics news:
Why can't weeee be friends, why can't we be friends...


I almost forgot what governing looked like. I'm sure someone will sink this in the most facepalming way eventually but I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate the initial effort.

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

"Lyin' Ted" and "AWOL AOC" in 3... 2... 1...

[Thermodolia]

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

I don't think Trump is going to kill it, if anything he might support it. Pushback from the rest of the House and Senate is what's going to put it under.

Like the disaster aid bill. Killed in the house

[Bear Stearns]

In general American politics news:
Why can't weeee be friends, why can't we be friends...


I almost forgot what governing looked like. I'm sure someone will sink this in the most facepalming way eventually but I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate the initial effort.

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

What? This is the exact sort of bill Trump would sign and then say it was his idea.

[Gormwood]

It's either going to be one of the few pillars of civility or Trump will start right back up and begin denouncing it as "anti-freedom".

What? This is the exact sort of bill Trump would sign and then say it was his idea.

Until a FOX talking head says he'd be a bitch for doing it.

[Duhon]

Sai's obsession aside, this Daily Beast lead regarding the adding of a citizenship question to the 2020 census doesn't mince words at all:

A secret trove of documents was revealed Thursday showing that the Trump administration added a citizenship question to the 2020 census as part of a right-wing plan to change how voting districts are drawn in the United States—a plan hatched to benefit “non-Hispanic whites.”

This is worse than anyone thought. This is white supremacy.

Now, you might think the above claim is overblown, and I did too at first, but then I checked the first link to appear in the article, which brought me to the original documents obtained by USA Today, which you can peruse here.

And now the Wall Street Journal has an article about it. Impeach the motherfucker.

[Nakena]

Maybe in an idealistic utopia sure, but Washington DC is not that. I well and truly think pursuing impeachment is a dangerous strategy for the Dems cuz it's not gonna work and it could backfire in a lot of ways.

According to this guy, unless they impeach, the Democrats are fucked.

And they can't successfully impeach. So....

Pretty much yep.

Lichtman knows the keys. But things may still change.

[Rio Cana]

The US leader today announce a measure which would start with imposing a 5% tariff on Mexican goods that would increase every month until illegal immigration arriving from Mexico is greatly curbed. Some say this will more then likely economically backfire. Others who cannot see past illegal immigration support it. Supposedly, "USMCA" the new NAFTA treaty was written to replace the old NAFTA treaty because the US leadership insisted on it. Now with this tariff fiasco it could be jeopardy.

The Mexican side on hearing about this has been very diplomatic. They will be going to the US to discuss this. This following article from today talks about all this - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... b902530bef

On youtube, some Mexican sources have downloaded videos on this. One video indicates that the US leader is furious so is enacting those tariffs because Germany will be helping develop the Southeast of Mexico. Most of the comments from ordinary Mexican, most seem young, are not very pro-US. Some have even responded that they think the US is trying to forcibly annex the Sea of California and Baja California.

So what do you think. I think this tariff fiasco has more to do with next years election, pandering to supporters, then anything else.

Edit - Supposedly, Germany would be supporting Mexico in the development of the Mexican Southeast and also help Mexico in developing Northern Central America. Has for the tariffs, it would start at 5% and go up each month until it reached the max. of 25%.

[Thuzbekistan]

Name the last time we had a large number of white illegal immigrants. Europeans are fucking terrified of the USA. As they should be.

Still, this would all be solved if we just annexed mexico.

Annex Mexico, annex the corruption, annex the drug cartels, annex the separatist guerillas... Central and South American migrants keep coming. Just pure brilliance.

Annex and enslave them