So let’s not throw political shit behind it on a hunch. Let’s keep it out of this thread. Stuff is bad enough as it is without piling on legit fake news.
Doesn't make sense to cut off your fingerprints before shooting up your former office. They don't need your fingerprints if they can just point at you and be like "Oh, that's Bob. We fired that nutcase three weeks ago."
In better news it sounds like the police did their job rapidly and effectively. Reports are they got there in under 2 min, some indicating the first officers arrived within the first 60 seconds. Fucker had smoke bombs and flash bangs, so no clue how many lives they saved but their rapid response certainly curbed an even worse shitshow. Hopefully the media focuses on these positive stories rather than the negative crap. **edit** So turns out that newspaper is really old. In 1761 it ran an ad looking for 4 runaway slaves. That ad was placed by George Washington.
Here's the court documents if anyone wants to read them. He sued them for defamation after they published an article about how he harassed a woman online (for which he was found guilty). The newspaper article about his facebook stalking and harassment begins on page 2 of the court documents. Dude is bonkers.
Dude tweeted as recently as six hours ago. We really do have a social media addiction as a country if you can't focus on prepping a mass murder without checkin' the old twitters.
So...not to get too tinfoil hat-like up in here but as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t believe in coincidences, not this high up in the world. But it looks like Justice Kennedy’s son, was at some point, personally involved in handling Trumps finances with Deutche bank. As it’s been widely reported before, Deutsch bank is the only bank to have loaned Trump money to the tune of over a billion dollars. They also have been in trouble for laundering before. What are the chances this is related? If something goes before the supreme court and it even tangentially involves someone related to a Supreme Court Justice, it would be an obvious conflict of interest. I think Kennedy peaced out before he got sucked in.
I think it's simpler than that. I think Kennedy is a Republican, and always intended to retire under, and thus be replaced by, a Republican, and despite the fact that Trump is an Eldritchian Horror birthed from the grotesque mating of narcissistic rage and ideological insanity, who under normal circumstances would give a justice pause about vacating the bench to his whims, Kennedy figured "my son has worked with the Trumps, and says they're not so bad, so I don't see what the big fuss is about" and went on with his plans as if everything were normal.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...mocrats-could-use-to-retake-the-supreme-court This is a really good article to get a sense of how far down the rabbit hole we are. As the Declaration notes, "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and the Republicans are rapidly losing the consent of the other half. Support for the kinds of radical remedies proposed in this article will only grow. I don't know where we go from there.
From the article: Speaking of hysterical responses, that entire article qualifies. Is this the Left's attempt at trying to soothe itself? Trying to pretend whats about to happen isnt going to? The odds of Trump getting a third justice pick, especially if hes only a 1 term President, are pretty slim. Packing the court like that article mentions would be a grotesque abuse of power, and no, failing to confirm Garland isn't equivalent. Republicans would turn around do the exact same thing the next time they are in power. Nothing would ever get done when two branches of government are constantly manipulating the third every election cycle. If the Republicans start sensing thats what the Democrats are going to do, whats to stop them from doing that right now? Would you be okay with that?
About as slim as the odds of an 85-yr old judge willing herself to survive the next two+ years with full cognizance. The proposal is absurd tho, just an arms race to see who can bend government's branches the most before they snap completely.
How is this the first we're hearing of this? Noteworthy, wasn't it? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/...retirement.html#click=https://t.co/Dtb5uc2015
This is my point. The idea that the Republicans can do whatever they want and the Democrats aren't going to respond is naive. Things are going to get worse. And contrary to your point, failing to confirm Garland is equivalent, which is why we're on this path in the first place.
I see your point in the escalation factor and the Republicans knew they could see the Democrats respond in kind. It’s still a world of difference to legislatively add any amount to get a result you want. Pragmatically you have to know the opposition will respond in kind. It was wrong for FDR to have tried then as it would be now. I think too many on the left are too worked up in the moment to see the forest for the trees. It could be just as easy for Roberts to become the center right swing vote like Kennedy did. Particularly if the court ends up bending to public sentiment and legislative threats. Back to the same makeup as last week and women won’t be forced into back alley abortions and gays won’t be sent to fema camps.
One point that the piece makes that I agree with is that the Republicans don't need a justification, they're going to do it anyway. Democrats should have no fear about Republicans responding in kind, because responding in kind is literally no different than what they were going to do anyway. There is nothing the Democrats can do that will induce worse behavior from the Republicans than they were going to get regardless. So fuck it, punch as hard as you can.