There was a rumor that the sad sacks who went to Boaz's Konservative Kry Klub shared their passwords with each other.
BullBringer has stated there are a few different people who access that username.
#19 | Posted by ClownShack

Yes, Eberly confirmed that to be the case with the Bellringer handle at least.

#17 Well, that's your side of the story anyway.

This is a ridiculous assertion, what does "fail" even mean?
#18 | Posted by oneironaut

Doesn't deliver for the American people. VA services that can't be accessed. Social Security checks that don't arrive. FEMA funding that isn't available. That kind of thing.

The Lincoln Project is a bunch of war mongering pedo ----.
#13 | Posted by Bluewaffles

Or did you just give the handle to someone else?

#13 | Posted by Bluewaffles

This is the sort of bigotry I expect from Elite Democrats, while the man on the street suffers.
#17 | Posted by oneironaut

She is not talking about women in general but about two specific women, who have been leading the House and Senate appropriations committees. This would probably be clear to you if you actually read Pelosi's statement in full:

"Democratic senators should listen to the women," she says, referring to Murray/DeLauro who want a 1-month stopgap bill instead.

This is a ridiculous assertion, what does "fail" even mean? You're basically saying Trump wants to fail himself out of a job.
Preposterous, no wonder no one takes you guys/gals seriously. Just lies upon hoaxes with "anon" sources.
#18 | Posted by oneironaut

He wants most of the federal government to fail, which will in turn will justify all the cuts he is making. He doesn't want the defense dept or homeland security to fail, but everything else that can be privatized and/or turned over to the states he doesn't care if it fails.

Full Pelosi statement a link:

Sahil Kapur
@sahilkapur.bsky.social

Extraordinary moment--Nancy Pelosi issues a statement calling on Democratic senators to reject the House funding bill, i.e. to defy Chuck Schumer.

"Democratic senators should listen to the women," she says, referring to Murray/DeLauro who want a 1-month stopgap bill instead.

Gotta keep in mind that, unlike pretty much every other prez in hisotry, Trump wants the economy to fail. It assists him in manipulating the stock market and profiting from shorting it.
#4 | Posted by censored

Trump also wants the government to fail. Hello? That way he can justify all the cuts and executive orders he has already written as well as the ones he has ready to go the moment he is able to declare even more emergency orders that will give him unlimited and unfettered power over just about everything and in such a way that not even the courts will be able to stop him.

President Trump is testing the limits of emergency powers--again

Goitein, of the Brennan Center, says determining those limits is crucial. "There are powers that are available in a national emergency that are far more potent, including powers to shut down communications facilities, to control domestic transportation, to freeze Americans' assets without any due process or any judicial [approval]," she says. "So this question of 'What are the limits on a president's ability to abuse emergency powers?' is an absolutely crucial one for not just our individual liberties but for our democracy."

The question is how emergency powers are used--and for how long and with what limits.

Scheppele has studied how democracies, like Hungary, can turn toward autocracy. For her, the key question about the use of emergency powers is not whether they are legal--because lawful powers can be abused, she notes.

"The question is, does it move the president toward using powers that make it very difficult for powers ever to be taken out of his hands?" she says. "Autocracy is really about the executive capturing power and not letting it go."

With that in mind, she's watching to see whether declaring emergencies becomes a routine way for the Trump administration to push through policies over the objections of Congress or the public, sidelining the debates, compromises and checks and balances baked into democracy.

I called Gillibrand and Schumer on Wed. and asked them to vote no on the Republican budget. I had one qualm, however: how would the shutdown affect the court cases being brought against Trump, Musk and OMP, some of which are starting to bear fruit? Two of my favorite online pundits have been weighing in on the topic: Josh Marshall and Marcy Wheeler.

Here are their latest takes, both of which are worth considering, IMO:

Looking Squarely at a Shutdown

It's hard to write clearly when you're being flooded with new information. But here goes. I've heard people arguing the "yes' on cloture" argument, essentially saying, "don't assume you can shut DOGE down, undo the damage. It's not a silver bullet." I can only speak for myself, but if anyone is thinking, based on the arguments I've made, that this is a silver bullet and if Democrats just do this we can shut this whole thing down, I haven't been clear. I will further say that while the things I've written over the last week or so make it pretty clear where I stand on this, I have several times over the last week had a hard think with myself: are you sure you're right about this? I'm not sure I'd say this is a close call. But it's a hard call, for me at least. Both options hold out possibilities of calamity and destruction I've never seriously contemplated before. That is simply where we are. I wish we weren't here. But we are here.

I often think about this: what were we talking about before 9/11? What was the political obsession that was dominating our airwaves? As far as I remember it was Gary Condit and Shandra Levy, who it turns out wasn't killed by him. So what are we talking about now? Making Canada the 51st state, taking over Greenland, turning the Gaza strip into a swanky tourist destination, drastically downsizing the federal work force in a foolish, hapazard way, billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, adding trillions of dollars to the deficit and on and on and on. We are not a serious people. But, hey, at least we're not talking about immigrants eating the cats and dogs and geese.

I was thinking yesterday how this would be the perfect time for one of our adversaries to attack us--a terrorist bomb/cyber/biological attack. Think about it: we are so f---ed up right now in this country. We are being led by an erractic, senile malignant narcissist who has appointed the most unqualifed cabinet in our history (no one has ever seen anything like it!). Our federal agencies are being decimated by an unelected billionaire and his handpicked Lackeys. Tariffs are rising, the stock market is falling. Chaos and uncertainty are begining to swirl all around us. We are not at our best. We are vulnerable.

Everyone who voted for Trump is expecting him to carve out a special exception for them. This includes veterans, farmers, federal workers, the billionaires who endorsed him, red state voters, red district voters in swing or blue states. For the most part, they still don't care who he hurts as long as it's not them.

"They're still voting for a republican next time......assuming we are talking about rural red county residents. The ag community."

No, we're not necessarily. Sorry I confused the issue. I shouldn't have put the focus group info in this thread, so I started a new one about it.

Agreed, most farmers vote Republican and aren't swing voters. Unlike folks in the focus group who are and whose vote could flip:

"The online panels, conducted Tuesday night, were made up of Michigan voters who backed former President Biden in 2020 but switched to Trump last November. Eight were self-described independents, four were Republicans and one was a Democrat."

Well, he is certainly trying to burn the whole thing down. Whether he is going to rebuild anything is an open question:

Enough American's said this isn't what our government is here to do and thus, gave Trump the ability to light the match. Enjoy the bonfires my friend because he's going to burn the whole rotten thing down and rebuild.
#22 | Posted by Bluewaffles

Please note the caveat emptor, then and now (13 people in this focus group):

Seriously, a f*g "focus group" of 11 gd people and you idiots spent 14 hours arguing it. I mean for the lawd's sake do math, 11 divided by the Buffoons popular vote is so minuscule its not even a blip on any f*g radar. Give me something less anecdotal and more empirical. Thanks.
#47 | Posted by et_al

FTA:

"The voters' responses stand in stark contrast to last month's focus group with Arizona swing voters, all of whom said they approve of Trump's earliest actions."

I recall someone posting about that Arizonia focus group. At first I couldn't remember who, but thenI thought, Bluewaffles? BTW, whatever happened to him?:

Sunday, February 16, 2025

Focus Group: Arizona Swing Voters to Trump, Musk: Keep it Coming

Every Arizona swing voter in our latest Engagious/Sago focus groups said they approve of President Trump's actions since taking office ...

Posted by Bluewaffles at 12:33 PM | 139 COMMENTS

Veterans protesting, farmers, senior citizens and CEOs becoming uneasy? Hmm, maybe the worm is starting to turn against DonOLD Dementia?:

Focus group: Trump swing voters in Michigan have buyers' remorse

Most Michigan swing voters in our latest Engagious/Sago focus groups said that although they voted for President Trump in November, they have objections, frustrations and fears about his behavior since he returned to power.

Zoom in: A focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, but the voters' reactions suggest that Trump risks overplaying his mandate to reshape government, trade and international alliances.

Lujan: On Impoundment, Trump And Musk Are Already Doing This'

Fox News reporting indicates that the White House plans to impound the funds from the Republican continuing resolution, if it passes. When I asked Sen. Lujan (D-NM) about it, he pointed out that Musk, Vought et al. are already doing it.

"Republicans in the House of Representatives and Republicans in the Senate are complicit in allowing President Trump to violate the law," he told me. "They're letting it happen and it's already happening today."

It's a Biden spending bill.
#9 | Posted by lee_the_agent

Defintely not a Biden spending bill:

Gallego Explains Why The GOP CR Was Untenable

"What I see there is massive cuts to the VA, massive cuts to FEMA--Arizona is about to go into a harsh fire season--and wildland firefighters' pay being cut and/or just fired," he told us of the GOP CR. "I know what I get from it, and so I know that that is something I cannot support, and I'd rather take my chances in trying to see if I could have a better negotiating position to save Arizona from a lot of these impacts that are about to come."

"He sees the difference."

Or he doesn't and also doesn't realize other people aren't as naive and gullible as he is.

According to testimony from Elaine Karmarck, the director of Clinton's initiative, it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.
Seemed it was okay back then, so why no now...

You honestly don't see the difference between cutting the federal work force over a 7 year period after a review board was impaneled that gave their recommendations after a 6 months review, and Musk and his DOGE bros haphazardly cutting them in less than 60 days with no transparency and accountabliity? From the link you posted:

It's true that during his presidency, Clinton reduced the federal government's workforce by more than 377,000 employees as part of an initiative called the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (initially called the National Performance Review, or NPR). However, there's a key difference between how Clinton's NPR cut jobs and what Trump and Musk are trying.

In March 1993, just two months into his presidency, Clinton announced the creation of the National Performance Review, led by his Vice President, Al Gore. Its goal, according to Clinton's announcement, was "to make the entire Federal Government both less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment."

The review lasted six months, and made 384 recommendations to improve the federal bureaucracy. The implementation of those policies took a lot longer, and some required legislation to be passed through Congress. For instance, in 1994, Clinton signed a bill that offered federal workers buyouts of up to $25,000 in an effort to reduce the workforce by 272,000 employees. According to an April 1995 statement from Clinton, the buyouts were largely offered to management positions in an effort to "reduce the layers of bureaucracy and micromanagement that were tying Government in knots." That statement said that about 70 of the buyouts in non-Department of Defense agencies went to managers and other individuals "at higher grade levels."

The initiative continued to make recommendations for government reform. According to a 1999 article on an archived version of NPR's website, it reduced the federal workforce by 351,000 between 1993 and 1998. An archived FAQ page from 2000 said 377,000 jobs were cut between 1993 and 1999. In a 2013 appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, former National Performance Review leader Elaine Karmarck said the agency cut 426,200 jobs by September 2000.

I wish this guy was a senator.
#2 | Posted by grumpy_too

I wish he was a senator and that there were 10 more of him in both the House and the Senate.

"Canadians are already opting to vacation elsewhere. Dementia Donnie is making all the right moves during Spring Break, LOL"

LynnZ
@zizij.bsky.social

In Canada, if you are flying to the US, you go through customs at the airport.

Usually in mid March, many college students in Canada fly to AZ or Florida for Spring Break

This is the US customs hall at Pearson airport in Toronto on Saturday.

Here are the 3 things being suggested:

Opposition town halls

In recent weeks, Republicans have encountered anger and hostility from their constituents during town hall events, including in pretty solidly red states and congressional districts. Much of the hostility has been directed at Elon Musk. Internally, the party leadership has responded by instructing members of Congress to stop holding town halls. Externally, they've preposterously claimed that these events have been infiltrated by paid protesters.

As a born-and-bred Midwesterner, I'd say that the folks in this video look pretty Kansan to me.

In the wake of Republicans canceling these events, a few Democrats " including Bernie Sanders, Tim Walz, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--have offered to host town halls in districts and states where Republicans are no longer holding them.

This is a terrific idea. I'd imagine the first several would be newsworthy enough to generate earned media, but they should also stream and promote them anyway. The party should send its best communicators to hold these events in red districts and states--in addition to the three above, I'd suggest Pete Buttigieg, Jay Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, and Julian Castro.

Daily briefings

The public craves information in times of crisis confusion, and we tend to gravitate toward the politicians and public officials who provide it. Rudy Giuliani's popularity soared after September 11 because of his empathetic, straight-talk press conferences. Ditto for Andrew Cuomo during the earliest days of Covid. That both proved to be terrible public servants--and worse human beings--only underscores the point. If even the most unlikeable politicians can earn public trust by simply providing information and making themselves available, imagine what a likable politician can do.

The Democrats should assemble a rotating mix of trusted, high-ranking politicians--in addition to the people already named, I'd suggest popular governors like Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer--to hold regular briefings to inform the public about what Trump and Musk are doing. Stream these briefings on every social media platform. They could be as frequent as daily at first, then adjusted accordingly.

As I think I showed in my previous post summarizing just five days of Trump's madness, this administration is jamming our capacity to process information with a relentless barrage of destructive policies. They've made it impossible for normal people with normal lives, jobs, and families to keep up. It's all by design.

The shadow cabinet
In other Western democracies, the opposition party typically assembles a shadow cabinet to track and monitor what the party in power is doing. The Democrats should adopt this tradition.

Trump's cabinet isn't just the least qualified in U.S. history, it is aggressively unqualified. Unfortunately, holding office also lends built-in credibility, whether it's deserved or not. Designating someone as a vetted expert who speaks for the minority party for a given policy area can help overcome that built-in credibility. In our current hellscape, picking competent, experienced people to talk about these issues would also remind the public of what a credible government--or at least something better than an assertively incompetent one--looks like.