MixtyMotions

Read: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618870982/supreme-court-upholds-controversial-ohio-voter-purge-law

Run over them while texting.

Voters should not be purged merely for not voting. And I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that they are. In Alabama if they don't vote in a two year period they are notified. If they respond to the notification they aren't purged.

Make your list.

Most detestable to least: Avenatti Warren Sanders Steyer Clinton Harris Brown Booker Newsome Bloomberg Kerry Klobuchar Biden

I'll go now: Senate R 54 - D 46 (tiebreaker Flips ND, MO, FL) House D 221 - R 214

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi639O5o5DeAhXVqYMKHZZACfkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmemecrunch.com%2Fmeme%2FC2C7V%2F1-1024th-bald-eagle&psig=AOvVaw0fRXYQy8UFj0-PjpY0TxBQ&ust=1539961927774088

In defense of Elizabeth, I'd like to say that it isn't the funniest thing to say "Liawatha, Fauxcahontas, Spouting Bull, Spreading Bull, Sacashita, or She Who Hunts at Whole Foods". It's funnier to talk about Anthony Weiner sending dick pics, Hank Johnson fearing Guam will tip over, or anything about Chelsea Clinton.

There was more than just what she did at Penn. Harvard claimed she was Indian. They didn't say she had an ancestor in the woodpile ten generations ago. She owns that.

"OK, I admit it's ridiculous to claim to be an Indian if you're only 1/1024th Indian, but it's totally defensible to claim to be an Indian if you're 1/64th Indian. And maybe she's 1/64th Indian. So, don't criticize."

I'm unclear whether some of you don't understand why this resonates, or are arguing that it shouldn't. Well, you can't liberal logic it away. Half the country will howl with laughter or snort with anger at the mention of the idea that Warren and Harvard claimed she was Indian. A report showing she was 1/1024th, or whatever, does not make it go away; it confirms it. The bitch ain't Indian.

Everybody with any sense knows that somebody who is 1/1024th Indian is not Indian. And somebody who is 1/1024th Indian who claims to be Indian deserves to be scorned or laughed at. And if they run for President the derision will be massive. And should be.

The people on the hiring committees assert that her claim of Indian heritage was not used in the hiring decision - that they chose they best candidate, regardless of ethnicity. I'd be curious for which hires do they assert that ethnicity was a consideration used to hire somebody who wasn't they best. I'm sure they'll say "none", to which we all know is a bullshit assertion. In the early days of affirmative action an employer was not permitted to ask about race or request a photo. We need to go to a time when an employer can not obtain gratuitous race info. 1/500th Indian doesn't make you an Indian, and it won't lose the Liawatha moniker.

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article219869925.html

Obama filled 55 appellate seats in eight years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama Trump should fill 44 appellate seats in two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump 29 of the 44 have been filled. 12 more are in the pipeline, and I think there is a firm plan to get these seated before the next Senate takes over, as there is some risk the GOP loses control. The last three have not been named, but I think they will be and there is enough time to get them through during the lame duck period. Feinstein and Harris are not operating in good faith. There is no reason to believe that they are doing anything other than blocking Federalist type nominees and trying to delay in the hopes that a Dem Senate will take over and put a halt to Trump nominees. The Dem plan for appellate nominees has been to stall on all, vote against most, but be selective about which ones to raise a fit over. Most of the fits have been about failures to let Dems block or stall, or about a few nominees they had the most heartburn over. The district courts are less clear. Obama filled 268 seats in eight years. Trump has the possibility of filling at least 180 in two but I see that as unlikely. It's not clear how many he will fill. To date 53 have been filled. Another 58 are in the pipeline and most all appear to me to be on target to be seated by the end of this term. Two - Giampetro and O'Connor - may be exceptions. I'm not sure they have the needed votes. Something seems amiss. That leaves 69 which need to be named. If they aren't named damned soon, and even if they are, there isn't the time to go though the process this term. Most all of these (maybe all) are in states that have Dem Senators. The White House has been trying to develop consensus nominees and had usually been successful. But it's tough to read. To date the Dems have played hardball with appellate nominees but not with district nominees. That may be because they want to save all their political capital for where it counts most. It may be because both sides are trying to do what is right where their bases don't cause a fuss. I suspect it's because they recognize that a good district judge has a lot less latitude for ideological foolishness. But, try as I might, I can't understand what is truly at play. The Dems stall but they usually don't vote against them. However, the White House started with the ones of the 180 which were easiest. It's clearly moving to the states and nominees that the Dems had the most objections to. Bottom line: I don't know what the hell is going on with the last 69 or so. If the GOP keeps control of the Senate all will be good. If the Dems gain control I expect judicial confirmations will come to a screeching halt, with the exception of some district judges.

Party Purity is a huge issue. Some people advocate it; some don't. But I can see neither those who support it or those who don't are interested in discussing the topic. I give up. Again.

I'm not concerned about attacks on Murkowski. She is easily replaced. I would be concerned about attacks on Collins. She would be difficult to replace. I also did not like attacks on Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Arlen Specter, Dean Heller, and Jeff Flake to name a few. If I were a Dem I'd be mortified at attacks on Manchin. There isn't a dream he'd be replaced by another Dem. But then if I were a Dem attacks on Doug Jones wouldn't bother me. He's gone.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/red-state-democrats-can-do-better-than-joe-manchin.html I love it when Dems go on a parity purity kick. I hate it when the GOP does. If the Dems lose Manchin they don't have a dream of replacing him with another Dem. I'm a firm believer in having somebody on the team who isn't with you 100% if it means the alternative is having someone who is with you far less. I hate the crazies in my party who don't understand power - who are just ideological dreamers. And I LOVE the crazy Dems, like this author. Are YOU a crazy party purity type?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wife-of-clarence-thomas-dismisses-justices-retirement-talk-as-bogus Ooooops!!!

Which nominee should Trump make next? You have 24 to choose from: https://www.c-span.org/blog/?4177/president-trumps-list-supreme-court-candidates Number 9 (Kavanaugh) is gone. I'll go with Hardiman or Kethledge for the moment. 1. Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2. Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia 3. Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida 4. Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 5. Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 6. Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia 7. Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 8. Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10. Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 11. Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 12. Mike Lee of Utah, U.S. senator 13. Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah 14. Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa 15. Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida 16. Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 17. William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 18. Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 19. David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 20. Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 21. Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 22. Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 23. Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.) 24. Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas 25. Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

They can't vote from the fetal position.

I can't prove anything. I can only guess. 99 times out of 100 this sort of this is the result of mildly motivated people becoming highly motivated. I'll guess that's the case here.

I'll give you a few examples: - There was a sharp move in the North Dakota Senate race. - There was a sharp move in the Tennessee Senate race. - The was a huge move in GOP voter intensity. - There was a tripling in fundraising. (I can't remember which national group.) - Locally, we're getting a big uptick in response by workers knocking on GOP doors.

There are things I like and things I dislike about this board. The thing I like best is to read Lefties advocate political tactics rooted in anger that I know will play in Berkeley but backfire in Peoria.

I was thinking of the people suffering debilitating depression.