US Politics, October 2019 — I guess statement you could say with thread. I made a thread. The thread was PERFECT.

We have been Told shit by Our lawyers

damn I wanted a commemorative plate

swamp: drained!!!

Call off the impeachment

next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms

Hmm

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4823553/trump-flips-women-astronauts

Mark Esperanto

Oh man, story of the day. So that McKay Coppins piece on Mitt Romney runs:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/mitt-romney-middle-impeachment-fight/600373/

In the middle of it, this paragraph:

“That’s kind of what he does,” Romney said with a shrug, and then got up to retrieve an iPad from his desk. He explained that he uses a secret Twitter account—“What do they call me, a lurker?”—to keep tabs on the political conversation. “I won’t give you the name of it,” he said, but “I’m following 668 people.” Swiping at his tablet, he recited some of the accounts he follows, including journalists, late-night comedians (“What’s his name, the big redhead from Boston?”), and athletes. Trump was not among them. “He tweets so much,” Romney said, comparing the president to one of his nieces who overshares on Instagram. “I love her, but it’s like, Ah, it’s too much.”

I shared that out and joked that Ashley Feinberg should be alerted.

She came through!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/mitt-romney-has-a-secret-twitter-account-and-it-sure-looks-like-its-this-one.html

Meet, if this is him, Pierre Delecto!

https://twitter.com/qaws9876

Account now protected as noted -- but all sorts of fun to be had. Thread with some screencaps starts here:

lmao pic.twitter.com/k01b7K2rJE

— kilgore trout captured isis (@KT_So_It_Goes) October 20, 2019

Seriously, WTF at Pierre Delecto. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Marrioti suggested it might be this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_pari_delicto

Which is so skullcrushingly boring and sad that...yeah, it's him.

jokin around with erick erickson, what fun

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aI4Bk4Dv2m0

Buncha turds with punchable faces:

NEW: The private Instagram account of Lev Parnas reveals new clues about his access to the Trump family and his close relationship with Rudy Giuliani.

https://t.co/oXcW96zdhb
w/ @emmatscott @LaurizzleK @WSJVideo pic.twitter.com/Z6XNZhMfkh

— Shelby Holliday (@shelbyholliday) October 21, 2019

good morning!

Reading that Twitter thread now, and apparently Donald taught Melania how to write her name:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHZSgA2XYAA-5j6.jpg

lmao @ "Pierre Delecto" I kinda like Romney now

Mitt's porn star name

ashley feinberg's such a great digital gumshoe

why are they going full speed ahead with the syria withdrawal, whereas with the G7 thing they caved immediately?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeast/us-withdrawal-syria-iraq.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

That Photo of Trump kissing Melania for November Thread Title.

yeah i kinda sighed and admitted it was dece dadjoeky+ name xp

Trump's avg approval ratings at RCP now the worst they've been in six months. And seem to be consistently declining.

Should be much lower obv but lol @ us

xp yeah I couldn't figure out what Twitter's take was on the Romney/Delecto thing. Like, does anyone think this makes him look bad?

there must be new content, every day

twitter was flagrante delecto

Can someone help me break down what this means? It says SC overturned the lower court ruling, which struck down the gerrymander as partisan/favoring the GOP, but further on it says that the challenge failed so... wait waht? Does the lower court just have to write a different ruling (I assume they could come to the same conclusion under different reasoning?) I am confused.

The Supreme Court in another defeat for gerrymandering reformers overturned a lower court's ruling that Michigan's electoral districts are overly partisan and need to be withdrawn.

Monday's order follows a June decision from the nation's top court that questions over partisan gerrymandering are not under the jurisdiction of federal courts.

The new order returns the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A three-judge panel in that court had ruled that 34 state legislature and congressional districts needed to be redrawn because they were designed to favor Republicans.

The League of Women Voters and a group of Michigan voters had argued that GOP officials in the state had "engaged in a concerted effort to redraw district lines to benefit Republican candidates while disadvantaging their opponents."

The three-judge district court panel agreed, writing, "Federal courts’ failure to protect marginalized voters’ constitutional rights will only increase the citizenry’s growing disenchantment with, and disillusionment in, our democracy, further weaken our democratic institutions, and threaten the credibility of the judicial branch"

The case had been put on hold by the Supreme Court as it considered similar challenges in Maryland and North Carolina, which led to the sweeping decision earlier this year and all but guaranteed that the challenge in Michigan would fail.

like, if the SC says this isn't under their jurisdiction, why are they overturning a lower ruling? Isn't that the opposite?

The three-judge district court panel agreed, writing, "Federal courts’ failure to protect marginalized voters’ constitutional rights will only increase the citizenry’s growing disenchantment with, and disillusionment in, our democracy, further weaken our democratic institutions, and threaten the credibility of the judicial branch"

I'm guessing the "Federal courts" thing is why they're overturning.

but if the lower court has no jurisdiction either, why did the ruling get kicked back down to them?

i found the GOP candidate for 2024:

Gene Gorelik, a property developer in Oakland and an aggressive critic of the homeless, recently suggested luring the thousands of homeless people in the San Francisco Bay Area onto party buses stocked with alcohol and sending them on a one-way trip to Mexico. “Refugee camps in Syria are cleaner than this,” he said in an interview at a fast-food restaurant in Oakland that overlooks a homeless encampment.

...Although rarely as coarsely as Mr. Gorelik — who made headlines recently when he tried to shower a homeless encampment in Oakland with dollar bills to persuade those living in tents to move elsewhere — residents say they have found themselves weighing concerns for the less fortunate against disruptions to their own quality of life.

...Few have been more outspoken about the homeless than Mr. Gorelik, the property developer. “Compassion is counterproductive,” he said, adding that services for the homeless only encourage homelessness to flourish. Charities in California provide food, clothing and tents to homeless people. California cities also provide many services. But shelter is more elusive in the state, where more than two-thirds of the homeless live outdoors, compared with 5 percent in New York.

...Mr. Gorelik said he saw a connection between the 90 homeless encampments in Oakland and crime. His construction sites have been burglarized nine times, he said, and his car has been broken into twice.

https://i.imgur.com/PkoHROs.jpg
2024 President of the United States, Gene Gorelik

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/california-homeless-backlash.html

if the SC says this isn't under their jurisdiction, why are they overturning a lower ruling?

the lower court is a federal court and its ruling asserted such jurisdiction. since the SCOTUS has ruled such jurisdiction does not exist for any federal court, it vacated the lower court ruling.

why did the ruling get kicked back down to them?

procedural move. the case was accepted prior to the new SCOTUS ruling and must be reconsidered in light of that ruling, which means automatic failure unless a wholly new constitutional theory is raised that was not addressed by the SCOTUS ruling. court procedures can seem very weird, but they are very thorough.

ah got it

btw Sunday NY Times op section had a long piece detailing our "gerontocracy" if you want the gory details... the electorate is the oldest it's been since at least 1970. Also the Latin root of "senator" means "old man."

senescence etc

Senescator Schumer

We're riding on the senescator of life
We're shopping in the human mall
We're dancing on the senescator of life
Won't be happy till we have it all

These are all real quotes from the pool report filed just moments ago.

On whistleblower:
“Do we have to protect a whistleblower who gives a false account? I don’t know. You tell me.”
“It’s possibly Schiff.”
“Why didn’t he say he met with the whistleblower.”

“I’m trying to get out of wars. We may have to get in wars, too.”
“I have to fight off these lowlifes at the same time I’m negotiating these deals.”

Will you send troops home?
“Sending them home”
“That was our largest cheer in Dallas,” during rally
“I send many letters home to parents.”
“We have tremendous economic power…much better in a certain way [than playing with guns]

Doral
“I own a property in Florida”
“I would have given it for nothing.”
Touts giving up salary, says probably only George Washington did that, not Obama
“I’m very good a real estate.”
“Everyone in the G-7 would have had their own building.”
Security, next to Miami airport
“The Democrats went crazy, even though I would have done it free.”
Not for promotion, but no
“I don’t need promotion. I don’t need promotion.”
“It would have been the best G-7 ever.”
Washington ran business at the same time he was president
“Obama made a deal for a book. Did he run a business?”
“He has a deal with Netflix. When did they start talking about that?”
“You people with this phony Emoluments Clause”
Actually losing money
It’s cost me “between $2 billion and $5 billion”
Would do it again
“If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter.”
At rallies, sending records every place he’s been
“I can set a world record for somebody without a guitar.”

North Korea
“If somebody else became president with that mindset they had, right now you’d have war with North Korea.”
N. Korea would not take Obama’s call

On Doral:
“Well look at other locations.”
“I don’t think it will be as good.”

Will you be impeached?
“I think they want to.”
“Why would they want to impeach me? It’s so illegitimate.”
Mocks Rep. Al Green

could someone just break the Grifter's jaw? having to eat pudding for a week wd probably kill him.

“I can set a world record for somebody without a guitar.”

wins ILM vote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJyj0tGQ4q8

so many thread titles

lol @ “You people with this phony Emoluments Clause”

So many thread titles... but “You people with this phony Emoluments Clause” is my pick.

lol xp!

just heard an audio clip not rep'd above. "WE helped the Kurds. NOT Obama. US.... No angels."

"“If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter."

he's fond of this one

Can't believe that in this insane gun-happy country nobody has taken a pop at this guy.

xpost i mean, say what you will about the guy but he's spent a lifetime studying what you can get away with. i'm inclined to trust his expertise in the field.

xpost He doesn't really go anywhere besides rallies and his own properties, right? Both seem to be the least likely places for someone to give it a shot (so to speak).