atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#7035: I'd count on it happening, myself.

The headline asks the question: Are they going to impeach Trump again? If the Democrats keep their majority in the House of Representatives, they will. Count on it. There's not enough time in the year for them to push articles of impeahment through again, but next year--

If. If they retain their majority in the House of Representatives.

And that depends on a lot of factors. One of those factors is who they front for President in November's election. If it's Bernie Sanders? I'd bet a couple bucks they lose the House. I don't think that 2020 is the year that a socialist rises to power in the United States; it particularly will not be Bernie Sanders. He's weak, he's old, and based on what I've seen he would be utterly incapable of holding his own in a debate with Trump.

I say "there's not enough time this year" but really, there is. They'd actually have to work more than a few hours per day to do it, but they could push it through. They could have a second trial in the Senate right about the time of the Republican convention, even.

But politically, it would be a disaster for the Democrats.

Trump hit the second-highest approval numbers of his Presidency during the height of the impeachment fiasco. (The highest were set this week.) Not only did the impeachment not reduce his standing with the American public, but actually increased it. After a constant drumbeat of scandal, scandal, scandal from the Democrats since 2016, America is sick of hearing about it, especially because with all the investigations and scandals and predictions that Trump has had it this time! and hooting and hollering, every charge they leveled turned out to be NOTHING.

That impresses people: all these investigations find that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, even with the Democrats and the FBI scouring his rectum with a Brillo pad in search of anything they could hang him with. Sifting through all the documents and testimony with a fine-toothed comb and coming up TOTALLY EMPTY-HANDED--it makes the general populace think, "Hey, Trump must be pretty honest, then, huh?"

Combine that with policies which are working extremely well to improve the lot of the average American citizen. Wages up. Unemployment at a statistical zero. Illegal immigration down. Manufacturing jobs coming back to the country. A sensible foreign policy that doesn't rely on groveling to foreign dictators. The United States becoming the largest producer of oil in the world.

...and every time the supposed experts make a prediction about how this or that Trump policy is a complete disaster and will lead to wrack and ruin, they turn out to be utterly wrong. Remember when Suleimani was killed, how everyone said it would start World War III? Their "World War III" consisted of Iran firing unguided rockets at American military positions and was over in a weekend.

So here we stand, nearing the end of the second month of an election year. The President is insanely popular. The opposition party is divided, and has demonstrated that it can't even hold a freaking caucus without mucking it up. There's a real threat that if the party does not nominate the current leading candidate, it will split, but the party leadership knows they can't win if they front that guy, and that it is quite possible that they'll even lose the legislature if they do. But splitting the party guarantees it. And meanwhile, the candidates are all doing well enough that it is in their best interests to force a brokered convention, because then all their chances of being the nominee increase greatly. Do not expect any of them to drop out any time soon.

If the Democrats are wise, they quietly take all the impeachment talk off the table entirely, and do not speak again of it before January 2021. It doesn't help them. If they impeach Trump again this year the public will collectively roll its eyes and say, "For fuck's sake, enough already." And vote accordingly.

* * *

God help Boeing if this turns out to be true. If Boeing deliberately misled the FAA during the 737MAX certification process? It's over. Fuckin' over.

* * *

Federal law trumps state law which means you can't complain when ICE agents arrest illegal aliens, in contradiction of a California state law.
Here's the thing, Cognitive Elite: Federal law trumps state law. You've relied on that yourselves when you've forced a liberal ideology on a country that did not want it.

Remember gay marriage? Would you like to cancel federal supremacy, and get rid of gay marriage?

Let us know.
It's really that simple.

* * *

Larry Correia knocks one out of the park, again. The plaint is "That wasn't real socialism!" And his reply?
It's pretty simple.
Socialism is HIV.
Communism is AIDS.
The rest of the piece amplifies that comparison.
Socialism, the government owns you. You are an asset to be managed. The state matters more than the individual, and sometimes bad assets must be eliminated.

The difference between socialism and communism is mostly how stringently they manage their assets. Either way, you are nothing more than property of the state. The state holds the monopoly on force, property, and industry. Inevitably in either version, the state will control the media (what you learn must benefit the state), your medical (the state decides who is viable and who dies) and eventually they'll control how much food and other resources you are granted.

So you can either be a slave with a benevolent master, or a harsh one, but you're a slave, because the government owns you.
And nothing exemplifies this reality better than this piece I linked the other day, which tells us that England's National Health Service--their socialized medical system--now denies health care to you if they decide you are racist and/or sexist.

"Health care is a right," say those who want to socialize it, but it's really not, is it? Not if the government can choose not to give it to you. And I notice that this denial is based entirely on how the NHS staff feel about it; there's no hearing or trial or anything.

If health care is a right then it can't be denied, regardless of how skunky the patient may be...but if providers can refuse to treat patients based solely how how they feel about them, health care becomes a privilege granted to the politically correct.

And that rather nicely puts this into perspective. If you think it's impossible that a doctor working for a socialized medical system might decide not to treat a gunshot victim who's wearing a MAGA t-shirt, you sure don't understand human nature very well. "He's a racist! I'm not treating that bigot."

Look, I know the history of socialism. It's chock-full of violence and horror. One hundred million people were murdered in the twentieth century in the name of marxism. "That wasn't real socialism"? Anyone making that claim is self-identifying as an ignorant fool who is incapable of understanding historical fact.

Read this and tell me that I am exaggerating.

* * *

Sex is a biological fact.
"In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time," they write. "The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova."

"No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex 'spectrum' or additional sexes beyond male and female," state the biologists. "Sex is binary."
Understand? 99.98% of the time, a human baby is unambiguously male or female. There are a very few cases where the baby is born with ambiguous characteristics; in those cases--and only those cases--how the individual feels about it is significant.

Otherwise? If you're born with a penis and testicles, you are a male and how you identify is irrelevant. If you're born with a vagina and ovaries, you are a woman and how you identify is irrelevant. It is a matter of biological fact.

Get over it.

* * *

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is indeed a weapon. The theory here is that if enough states join the thing, so that they total 270 electoral votes, then whoever gets the popular vote in a particular Presidential election will be the winner.

However, this compact is being emplaced by Democrat state legislatures, and signed into law by Democrat governors. There are four possible outcomes for a Presidential election based on popular versus electoral vote tallies with two parties, and this arrangement is meant to ensure that the Republicans can win in only one of them:
1) Republican wins an electoral vote majority and also wins the popular vote. Republican elected.
2) Democrat wins an electoral vote majority and also wins the popular vote. Democrat elected.
3) Democrat loses the electoral vote but wins the popular vote. The NPVIC makes the Democrat the winner. Democrat elected.
4) Democrat wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote. Democrat elected.
The post neatly lays out why #4 would turn out that way--and if you think it wouldn't go that way, if you think the Democrats would actually let a Republican win using a rule they emplaced specifically to ensure the Republcans couldn't, then you're naive at best and a complete fool at worst.

The NPVIC is nothing but an attempt to make an end run around the Constitution's electoral vote, specifically because the Democrats own the large cities. The east and west coasts are almost universally Democrat, as are the largest cities in between, so they expect to win the popular vote almost exclusively going forward. The electoral college was meant to counter the "tyranny of the majority", the ability of populous areas to dictate to rural ones how elections would go. The vote for President is supposed to be everyone, not just Democrat enclaves to the exclusion of everyone else.

Because if NPVIC had been in effect in 2016, Hillary Clinton would be President. These areas are the ones whose votes would have counted:



Everywhere you see water on that map? Disenfranchised. That's what the Democrats want: they want the votes only on those islands to be counted, and the rest to be ignored. Because the water areas, they vote Republican.

* * *

Andy Weir pretty much sums up why I only ended up watching Independence Day one time.

* * *

Somehow, the Jeep's windshield got cracked.

Noticed it today: driver's side, upper left corner, maybe two inches long. *sigh* Well, for me to fix the passenger-side A pillar the windshield needs to come out, anyway.

The big project for this spring is to get Buttercup to start and run and drive without its driver needing to be a gearhead--ie set up so my wife can drive it--and then I can turn my attention to doing two things.

1) Obtain some kind of cheap but reliable temporary transportation that I can use while I
2) Fix the Jeep, properly.

Ideally, #1 should be a cute little sports jobby like a Miata or something. It can be rough around the edges as long as it's reliable and has a body in good condition; ideally I wouldn't pay much more than a couple grand for it, and since the goal here is to end up with a thoroughly massaged Jeep that's ready for another 50,000 miles AND a fun little project car, a Miata would make sense.

I do intend to fix the motorcycle, but I can't use that as primary transportation. I could not carry everything I need for work on one. It'd only be good for days when I'm not going offsite.

But if I have that, then the Jeep can be put into the garage and I can take the interior out (to fix the floorboards) and I can rebuild the front end and stitch in an A-pillar from a donor vehicle and-and-and, all without depriving myself of transportation.

That's later, though.

* * *

Which reminds me--

You may remember that Mrs. Fungus got rear-ended in September and because I'd been working from home and stashing gas and toll money in my savings account, I paid the $500 deductible so we could get the car repaired. With the proviso that when the refund came back, it would go back into my savings account.

Fast-forward to today when I finally got an email saying I'd get the deductible back. It's not our underwriter's fault; it's because trucking companies apparently use fly-by-night insurance companies that refuse to pay even when the person they underwrite is 100% at fault in an accident.

Let's face it: low-speed collision in a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam, and the hit barely even dented the trunk lid--the truck driver's foot slipping off the clutch is enough to cause that kind of accident, and it should have been avoidable, particularly by a professional driver, FFS.

But taking nearly six months to pay a claim--that's inexcusable.

* * *

I was hard put to stay awake at work today, and a couple of times I think I actually did nod off at my desk. My head drooping woke me up, though. Getting up at about 5 AM to be at my off-site by 6 (I made it at 6:11) is for the birds but I was able to get the new core switch mounted, and get all the cables moved to it, and the old switch unmounted. So, score one for me.

And I left work at 3 PM, came home, and flopped for three hours. Tired? Me?

* * *

Trying to find that Fungus post above, I came across this, which will be one of the epitaphs for 20th Century America:
When someone tried to abort a baby but it was born alive, they would leave him in a storage room until he expired.

This was known as "women's health".
Yeah.

* * *

Well, it's Friday night, anyway. Got that going for me!
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments