TF Guy! You know what it means

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Posts
2,349
Reaction score
4,678
She's baaaaaaaacccckkkkk!

If you thought former Senator Kelly Loeffler would slink off into political obscurity, returning to what sounds like a pretty nice life as a very wealthy woman, after her loss to Raphael Warnock in January’s runoff Senate election, you’d be wrong! Perhaps jealous of all of the attention and praise that’s been justifiably given to Stacey Abrams’s organization Fair Fight, Loeffler has started a new group named Greater Georgia, with the goal of, as far as I can tell, ensuring as few Democrats in the state can vote as humanly possible.

Greater Georgia, which Fox News reported will be kicked off by a “seven-figure investment” from Loeffler, will allegedly focus on voter registration, turnout campaigns, and what Loeffler described in a statement as efforts to enhance “election integrity.” “Our state is greater—and our democracy is stronger—when everyone’s voice is heard, and that’s exactly what Greater Georgia’s work is about,” Loeffler wrote.
But it’s obvious that she only wants some people to have their voices heard. We all know what “election integrity” is code for! As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted, Greater Georgia will “push conservative electoral policies as state lawmakers weigh a range of new voting restrictions after the GOP defeats.” In an interview with the Journal-Constitution, Loeffler claimed what she and her new organization are calling for is “transparency and uniformity,” which apparently includes voting restrictions like forcing voters who want an absentee ballot to show proof of identification.
But it’s obvious that she only wants some people to have their voices heard. We all know what “election integrity” is code for! As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted, Greater Georgia will “push conservative electoral policies as state lawmakers weigh a range of new voting restrictions after the GOP defeats.” In an interview with the Journal-Constitution, Loeffler claimed what she and her new organization are calling for is “transparency and uniformity,” which apparently includes voting restrictions like forcing voters who want an absentee ballot to show proof of identification.
 

DT

Elite Member
Posts
1,235
Reaction score
2,337

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Posts
2,349
Reaction score
4,678
This DUMB MOTHER FUCKING Guy

 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Posts
1,724
Reaction score
3,446
I look at the appointees of Trump that the GOP rubber-stamped and I see their responses to Biden’s infinitely-more-qualified choices. It is maddening. You’ve got no problem with Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, etc, etc…. And these GOP turds have the gall to attack somebody for some “divisive tweets” or to question the integrity of a lifetime public servant like Garland? They are hateful human beings and should just resign en masse. I hope the Trump party ”primaries” all of them. Good riddance.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Posts
1,724
Reaction score
3,446
TF Professor:
William W. Hogan, considered the architect of the Texas energy market design, said in an interview this past week that the high prices reflected the market performing as it was designed.

The rapid losses of power — more than a third of the state’s available electricity production was offline at one point — increased the risk that the entire system would collapse, causing prices to rise, said Mr. Hogan, a professor of global energy policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

“As you get closer and closer to the bare minimum, these prices get higher and higher, which is what you want,” Mr. Hogan said.
So, millions without power in freezing temperatures, children dying, and people with middle class incomes who had power for an hour or so per day pay $17K for the privilege. That is how the market was designed? Somebody who designed a system like that should not only be fired, but spend some serious time in jail. This is the ultimate “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature“ BS.

His quote ”which is what you want…” is beyond the pale. Who the heck wanted this?

Awesome timing with him getting this award:


Somehow if the award was to be handed out a week later, the outcome might have been different. I think he should be cancel-cultured into oblivion by Harvard for these tone-deaf statements… on top of being extremely bad at his job of designing functioning markets.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Posts
2,349
Reaction score
4,678
I look at the appointees of Trump that the GOP rubber-stamped and I see their responses to Biden’s infinitely-more-qualified choices. It is maddening. You’ve got no problem with Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, etc, etc…. And these GOP turds have the gall to attack somebody for some “divisive tweets” or to question the integrity of a lifetime public servant like Garland? They are hateful human beings and should just resign en masse. I hope the Trump party ”primaries” all of them. Good riddance.
Yup.


 

Thomas Veil

Elite Member
Staff member
Posts
1,609
Reaction score
3,264
Welp, it’s Ron Johnson’s turn in the spotlight.

The Senate was having hearings today on the 1/6 riot, and he just hadda open his mouth...

Johnson used his time in the first public Senate hearing on the Capitol attack to spread a single eyewitness account suggesting that there were professional provocateurs seeded in the crowd on January 6 that led the largely peaceful gathering to turn violent.
Yes, in a hearing in which former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund described what he said was the most horrible situation he’d ever been in in his career, Johnson had the nerve to quote a conspiracy theory which said that
the Capitol Police badly overreacted to the crowd, which turned things violent. And that, in his words, "apparent agents-provocateurs placed hundreds of unsuspecting supporters of the president in physical danger. They attempted to block exits for people seeking to escape tear gas. They endangered vulnerable people, including children, the frail, and the elderly."

Johnson is out of his ever-loving mind.

 

lizkat

Elite Member
Site Donor
Posts
2,688
Reaction score
6,089
Grassley is such a horse’s ass

Ron Johnson even worse... and the two of them occasionally in cahoots making partisan distractions from matters at hand in security or intel related committee matters. Today Johnson took the prize though, actually reading into the record parts of a Federalist piece full of conspiracy theories on what was going on in the runup to the breach of the Capitol on January 6th. I never actually thought I'd hear anyone read such BS into the record and in particular relating to the attack on the Capitol. Wow.

Between that and even having to listen to Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz pretending to be serious with their questions and remarks gave me a headache worth having an extra cuppa java to cure...
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Posts
2,349
Reaction score
4,678
Keep an eye on this...

Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that could shred much of what remains of the right to be free from racial discrimination at the polls. The defendants’ arguments in two consolidated cases, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, are some of the most aggressive attacks on the right to vote to reach the Supreme Court in the post-Jim Crow era.

These two DNC cases concern two Arizona laws that make it more difficult to vote. The first requires voting officials to discard in their entirety ballots cast in the wrong precinct, rather than just not counting votes for local candidates who the voter should not have been able to vote for. The second prohibits many forms of “ballot collection,” where a voter gives their absentee ballot to someone else and that person delivers that ballot to the election office.

The most important question in the DNC cases isn’t whether these two particular Arizona laws will be upheld or stuck down, but whether the Court will announce a legal rule that guts one of America’s most important civil rights laws. And there is reason to fear that it will. The Supreme Court doesn’t just have a 6-3 Republican majority; it’s a majority that includes several justices who’ve shown a great deal of hostility toward voting rights generally and the Voting Rights Act in particular.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Posts
2,349
Reaction score
4,678
Top Bottom