All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[PwrdOn]

It's not like people actually prefer incremental change because they like their freedoms a la carte and getting all your basic human rights at once is just too much to handle, it's just that radical change usually seems less feasible and biding your time appears to be a more prudent strategy rather than trying to stir up too much trouble. However, in the current political climate where we are taking giant leaps backwards on race issues, even restoring the 2016 status quo will be deemed unconscionable by conservatives who will fight any effort tooth and nail using all the dirty tricks at their disposal. So if we are going to have to gear up for a prolonged fight anyway, why not actually set some goals worth fighting for?

And besides, you only have to look at the history of this country to see that blacks have only succeeded when they pressed for radical change, using the threat of major upheaval to gain leverage and win relatively more moderate concessions. Whenever they've tried to placate the sensibilities of whites with passivity and compliance, they've only been driven further into the ground.

[PaulBullion]

"Gays for Trump" event goes hilariously wrong

[aja_christopher]

And besides, you only have to look at the history of this country to see that blacks have only succeeded when they pressed for radical change, using the threat of major upheaval to gain leverage and win relatively more moderate concessions. Whenever they've tried to placate the sensibilities of whites with passivity and compliance, they've only been driven further into the ground.

Not at all true -- there has been steady growth in black wealth, education and employment under most Democratic presidents as well as plenty of progress with regards to civil rights.

The real problem at hand is the Republican party, which consistently attempts to slow, stop, or reverse any gains made under said "moderate" Democratic leadership -- not "moderates" themselves.

Likewise, the Repbulicans "Great Recession" did more to destroy black wealth more than almost any other event in modern history.

That's not to say a more "radical" approach wouldn't be more effective, but they have to actually win the majority of elections to put those ideals into effect.

-----
"Fact check: Trump claims black Americans are doing better under his watch than ever before. Is that true?"

"President Donald Trump is exaggerating his role in bringing economic gains to black Americans.

Brushing off criticism that his tweets against nonwhite lawmakers are racist, Trump asserts that he’s done plenty to improve the fortunes of African Americans as seen by their low unemployment rate, while Democrats have done nothing. That’s not the case.

A look at the claim:

Trump: “The facts speak far louder than words! The Democrats always play the Race Card, when in fact they have done so little for our Nation’s great African American people. Now, lowest unemployment in U.S. history, and only getting better.” — tweet Sunday.

The facts: Trump is seeking credit he may not deserve for black job growth. He’s also simply wrong to assert that Democrats haven’t done anything to improve the economic situation for African Americans.

It's true that black unemployment did reach a record low during the Trump administration: 5.9 percent in May 2018. It currently stands at 6 percent. But many economists view the continued economic growth since the middle of 2009, when Democratic President Barack Obama was in office, as the primary explanation for hiring. More important, there are multiple signs that the racial wealth gap is now actually worsening and the administration appears to have done little, if anything, to specifically address this challenge.

African Americans also had higher income prior to the Trump administration. A black household earned median income of $40,258 in 2017, the latest data available. That's below a 2000 peak of $42,348, according to the Census Bureau.

The most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017."

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...gvq-story.html

[Tami]

From @AlanDersh
’s 2018 book: “Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that [President Trump] allows him to do it ... That would be terrible, but [not] impeachable.” That’s really Trump’s legal position??????!!!@lisamurkowski take note!

Twitter Link

[Mister Mets]

Andrew 'Why Can't We Race Science' Sullivan isn't really a voice to trust.

Do you disagree with his evidence or his conclusions?

A lot of black people accept "moderate" politicians (like Obama) because we know Republican "conservtives" will stifle any attempt at real change in America.

If your party wasn't always doing everything in their power to attack or disenfranchise black people and other "minorities" then maybe that wouldn't be the case.

But here we are -- with head Republican Trump in office being protected by his Republican supporters while rolling back civil rights as much as possible.

With regards to Sanders -- put simply: he has no real record to stand on regarding civil rights where at least Biden has Obama and the CBC's seal of approval.

-----
"In separate interviews with The Associated Press, the congressional [Black Caucus] trio offered similar reasoning for backing Biden, saying the white former vice president represents the ideological center of the Democratic Party and can appeal to the widest range of voters in a potential general election matchup with President Donald Trump.

“He can connect with the average American — black, white or brown,” said Butterfield, arguing that Sanders and Warren could threaten Democrats’ prospects to defeat an unpopular Republican incumbent. “Warren and Sanders cannot win North Carolina,” Butterfield said, because their policies veer too far left. “I have great respect for both of them, but they cannot win North Carolina. Joe Biden can.”

Butterfield and Cleaver finalized their decisions days after the CBC’s annual conference. Their endorsements give Biden three former CBC chairmen, with Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana already serving as Biden’s campaign chairman. Cleaver said he “struggled” with the decision, alluding to Booker and Harris when he said that “there are others that I’m closer to” than Biden. “I have nothing negative to say about them at all. I hugged both of them Saturday night” at the CBC gala, Cleaver said of the two black senators.

But he praised the former vice president’s experience and said he gives Democrats a chance even in states Missouri that moved decidedly to Trump in 2016.

“I told him, ’If you are the nominee, you have to campaign everywhere; you cannot surrender any geography to Mr. Trump,” Cleaver said, recalling a recent conversation he had with Biden. “He assured me he will not do that.”

Butterfield agreed, arguing that Biden’s approach on “kitchen-table matters” like college tuition assistance will attract voters in swing states. Warren and Sanders back free college tuition for public four-year schools, whereas Biden proposes only tuition-free community college. Sanders and Warren back single-payer, government-run health insurance to replace existing private insurance markets. Biden wants a “public option” plan that would be voluntary and sold alongside private insurance.

Cleaver, 74, and Butterfield, 72, said they’ve each heard criticisms from some younger black leaders and activists who question the complexities of Biden’s record and his understanding of racial politics in 2019.

“A lot of the young people don’t remember how supportive he’s been on civil rights,” Cleaver said. “He was strong on it back in the days when you could lose an election talking about civil rights.”

Butterfield said he’d ask Biden’s younger critics “to be patient and do their research and see that Joe Biden has been directly involved with the positive gains that we have experienced in the African American community ... for the last 40 years.” Cleaver recalled being mayor of Kansas City in the 1990s when Biden helped steer a crime bill that critics now partially blame for mass incarceration, even as it also included federal money for more police officers and a ban on some military-style guns.

“I supported the crime bill,” Cleaver said. “We had the Crips and the Bloods, a Jamaican gang ... crack cocaine had exploded.”

Echoing a point Biden has made on the campaign trail, Cleaver said most of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the bill, along with nearly all black mayors from large cities, despite the bill’s sentencing measures that are now so heavily criticized. “Ministers, politicians, mayors, city council members were all screaming, ‘Let’s do something!’” Cleaver said.

“Millennials don’t remember that history. ... Joe Biden — and I’ve told his people this — should not apologize for that.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/...ments-n1056821

It was generally seen that conservatives had a better chance winning when Democrats nominated someone from the far-left. It's not really about conservatives stopping the left, as much as it it is moderates being more willing to vote against the left (there's an argument that this has changed recently with a greater emphasis on base turnout, but the conventional wisdom was that it's better to go with a centrist.)

I'll push against the idea that Obama was a moderate in the American context. To say that someone is a moderate suggests that they're closer to the center than most members of the party and that's not quite true of Obama. If you ranked all the Senators just after the 2006 election (when Democrats did well so they had a majority in the Senate) from left to right, would he clearly have been outside the most liberal 25? He's been the most progressive President of the last 50 years (and if we're looking at those Presidents, it's a radically different era in terms of social politics and spending adjusted for inflation.)

On the question of "real change," what would you like to see? If Republicans really screw up, and Democrats have the White House along with congressional and state legislative supermajorities, what policies should they implement?

I know a big part of it is voter rights, so what provisions would you like to see? And what do you want the new people getting elected to do when in power?

[aja_christopher]

On the question of "real change," what would you like to see? If Republicans really screw up, and Democrats have the White House along with congressional and state legislative supermajorities, what policies should they implement?

I know a big part of it is voter rights, so what provisions would you like to see? And what do you want the new people getting elected to do when in power?

While this is a fair question, I really don't want to get into those hypotheticals at this point given the fact that far more pressing matters are at hand right now.

Realistically speaking, I think we both know there's a high chance that even if Democrats gain the trifecta, they'll just spoil it (again) with the same kind of infighting we see here almost daily, which is why I think it's a lot more important to address that directly.

That said, we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it -- for now it's more important to focus on your party's "Grim Reaper" obstructionism as well as their shameless support of an openly dishonest, corrupt, and racist president.

------
"McConnell pledges to be 'Grim Reaper' for progressive policies"

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday vowed to be the "Grim Reaper" for progressive policies if Republicans hold on to the Senate in 2020.

"If I'm still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass," McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky.

McConnell noted that if Republicans win back the House or President Trump wins reelection "that takes care of it." But he pledged that even if Republicans lose the White House, he would use his position as majority leader to block progressive proposals like the Green New Deal.

"I guarantee you that if I'm the last man standing and I'm still the majority leader, it ain't happening. I can promise you," McConnell added."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ssive-policies

[zinderel]

Twitter Link from Senator Wyden

FBI: Saudi government ‘almost certainly’ helps its citizens escape prosecution in US for serious crimes

Well, I mean...didn’t Bush/Cheney help Osama Bin Laden’s Family flee the US right after 9/11...? This isn’t new. Saudi Arabia is where Bin Laden came from, where most of his family is from, where most of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 are from...but no sanctions or punishments because they control the oil, and we can’t have them mad at us or rich asshats won’t be able to use dinosaur juice to lube up anymore...

[zinderel]

Pro-gun activists threaten to kill state lawmaker over bill they misunderstood

Whattayaknow...? Ammosexuals are morons with no reading comprehension. As if their understanding of the 2nd Amendment wasn’t proof enough...

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

A lot of black people accept "moderate" politicians (like Obama) because we know Republican "conservtives" will stifle any attempt at real change in America.

If your party wasn't always doing everything in their power to attack or disenfranchise black people and other "minorities" then maybe that wouldn't be the case.

But here we are -- with head Republican Trump in office being protected by his Republican supporters while rolling back civil rights as much as possible.

With regards to Sanders -- put simply: he has no real record to stand on regarding civil rights where at least Biden has Obama and the CBC's seal of approval.

-----
"In separate interviews with The Associated Press, the congressional [Black Caucus] trio offered similar reasoning for backing Biden, saying the white former vice president represents the ideological center of the Democratic Party and can appeal to the widest range of voters in a potential general election matchup with President Donald Trump.

“He can connect with the average American — black, white or brown,” said Butterfield, arguing that Sanders and Warren could threaten Democrats’ prospects to defeat an unpopular Republican incumbent. “Warren and Sanders cannot win North Carolina,” Butterfield said, because their policies veer too far left. “I have great respect for both of them, but they cannot win North Carolina. Joe Biden can.”

Butterfield and Cleaver finalized their decisions days after the CBC’s annual conference. Their endorsements give Biden three former CBC chairmen, with Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana already serving as Biden’s campaign chairman. Cleaver said he “struggled” with the decision, alluding to Booker and Harris when he said that “there are others that I’m closer to” than Biden. “I have nothing negative to say about them at all. I hugged both of them Saturday night” at the CBC gala, Cleaver said of the two black senators.

But he praised the former vice president’s experience and said he gives Democrats a chance even in states Missouri that moved decidedly to Trump in 2016.

“I told him, ’If you are the nominee, you have to campaign everywhere; you cannot surrender any geography to Mr. Trump,” Cleaver said, recalling a recent conversation he had with Biden. “He assured me he will not do that.”

Butterfield agreed, arguing that Biden’s approach on “kitchen-table matters” like college tuition assistance will attract voters in swing states. Warren and Sanders back free college tuition for public four-year schools, whereas Biden proposes only tuition-free community college. Sanders and Warren back single-payer, government-run health insurance to replace existing private insurance markets. Biden wants a “public option” plan that would be voluntary and sold alongside private insurance.

Cleaver, 74, and Butterfield, 72, said they’ve each heard criticisms from some younger black leaders and activists who question the complexities of Biden’s record and his understanding of racial politics in 2019.

“A lot of the young people don’t remember how supportive he’s been on civil rights,” Cleaver said. “He was strong on it back in the days when you could lose an election talking about civil rights.”

Butterfield said he’d ask Biden’s younger critics “to be patient and do their research and see that Joe Biden has been directly involved with the positive gains that we have experienced in the African American community ... for the last 40 years.” Cleaver recalled being mayor of Kansas City in the 1990s when Biden helped steer a crime bill that critics now partially blame for mass incarceration, even as it also included federal money for more police officers and a ban on some military-style guns.

“I supported the crime bill,” Cleaver said. “We had the Crips and the Bloods, a Jamaican gang ... crack cocaine had exploded.”

Echoing a point Biden has made on the campaign trail, Cleaver said most of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the bill, along with nearly all black mayors from large cities, despite the bill’s sentencing measures that are now so heavily criticized. “Ministers, politicians, mayors, city council members were all screaming, ‘Let’s do something!’” Cleaver said.

“Millennials don’t remember that history. ... Joe Biden — and I’ve told his people this — should not apologize for that.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/...ments-n1056821

There's alot to unpack here but let's start with the first thing...

Black people didn't merely accept Obama. He was the first black candidate with a chance to win and he had huge majorities of black support and enthusiasm for him in African American communities was extremely high. That's very different than a Clinton situation where it seemed to be more about party politics and the idea that she was the top candidate. And even then I'd argue that it was more about Clinton having an obcene head start in addition to the presumption that she would win. When it's two closer canidates, like Biden and Sanders, it's pretty evident that you are getting similar splits among age and location lines and there is less of a clear cut choice.

Furthermore, Sanders has a much better record of black rights than Biden who actively was problematic. Maybe not extremely successful but it's hard to not call him an ally to blacks. Could easily make the case Biden wasn't. Also it's not really applicable to go by association with Obama. Obama was staunchly against the war in Iraq and Biden was going around praising Bush at points where the war was starting to become unpopular. So I don't think in many situations he deserves credit for standing next to someone else.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The idea that Sanders is in any way popular with African Americans because he hangs out with Nina Turner and comes in second in a field including ... checks note ... Pete Buttigieg ... is adorable, really. I want to take that idea home and build it a little paper castle and a papier-mâché throne.

Kamala Harris was in the field, Cory Booker was in the field, etc.

You are being willfully dismissive with nothing to back you up because it goes against your narrative. Sanders is popular within a certain age, location, and class demographic, and if an African American mostly lines up within that, they generally support him. Same with Biden in seperate demographics.

The overall picture points to a scenario where African Americans find both acceptable if they personally fit within either candidates messaging wheelehouse.

Either way, it was still a mistake by this thread to conistently act like he was toxic to black voters. It was a narrative that never fit.

[Malvolio]

"Gays for Trump" event goes hilariously wrong

"...the Republican Party is the party of inclusion for all Americans." "That's why I'm so glad all twelve of you showed up today."

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Are you talking about Biden or Sanders here? Between the two, Biden has a far more troubling record on race issues and there is no great love for him among his black supporters, or any of his supporters really, the only reason anyone would ever vote for him is that tired old argument that he's the only one that can win. Never mind that his whole vision of "nothing will fundamentally change" isn't really inspiring to Obama loyalists or people hoping to actually address the problem of racial inequality in this country.

The ironic point about this is:

1. Biden was the Vice President for 8 years. He easily has the highest name recognition in the field. Unlike Bernie who comes from a mostly white state, Biden was tied to the most popular and visible black Democrat of the last decade. Name recognition significantly benefits him here.

2. Yes the field is crowded. But currently there are three candidates that nationally are polling in double digits. Biden, Warren and Sanders. Ideologically outside Biden and Sanders, the biggest support block is coming from someone who lines up ideologically with Sanders and is more a threat to stealing his voting block. The people who are likely to steal from Biden are mostly people like Klobuchar and Buttigied who combine for much less than Warren. So it's highly likely Biden benefits more from the crowded field in multiple ways. The biggest power house outside the top two is pulling for Bernie's progressive lane and he benefits from the split amongst moderates being much smaller so no true alternative can really make it through

[aja_christopher]

Furthermore, Sanders has a much better record of black rights than Biden who actively was problematic.

I'll take the opinion of the Congressional Black Caucus and many other black voters (including myself) over yours in that regard.

Again, ideals are great but you need to show actual political wins and passed legislation to back up your assertions.

I'll also point out that it makes absolutely no sense to try to lecture black people about who they should prefer in an election -- it certainly doesn't do your candidate any favors and it just makes you look as if you just want to use the "black vote" to achieve your own political ends.

This is exactly the same narrative I saw from Sanders supporters in 2016, so don't be surprised if you achieve exactly the same results this time around.

-----
"‘A dream ticket’: Black lawmakers pitch Biden-Harris to beat Trump"

Senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus say it’s an ideal ticket if the former vice president stays atop the polls.

"“The data are clear that he has strong support among African Americans,” Clyburn said. “It’s just that simple. He’s had that for a long, long time, and he’s kept it steady so far.”

The CBC isn’t expected to endorse in the Democratic race, although its political arm, CBC PAC, will likely wade into the crowded contest at some point. In the meantime, Biden, Harris, Booker and other candidates are all wooing members of the CBC, who have outsize influence with African American voters.

“I don’t think people should underestimate the significance of this older white guy playing the role of second, a supportive second, to a younger man who is African American,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). “And people felt this was real and authentic, [Biden] wasn't faking it. There was a real friendship there.”

Biden also has a natural ease in the black community in a way that other white Democratic candidates don’t, according to some caucus members.

“Biden is very comfortable in African American circles. Sometimes a white politician in an all-black setting, you can feel the seed of nervousness,” Cleaver said. “With Biden, he’s just right at home. You can see it and feel it.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ticket-1317561

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" ran a profile of Ed Martin, a not-so-lovable loser in Missouri elections who has lost every election he’s run for any office since 2005. In fact, his political high water mark was still when he was appointed to be former Gov. Matt Blunt’s chief of staff, but was forced to resign for sending out anti-abortion e-mails from his government e-mail account, and when caught, violated Missouri’s Sunshine Laws by trying to delete any evidence of his wrongdoing and was forced to resign. During his 2010 campaign against Congressman Russ Carnahan, he spread as many lies as possible as he could about the Affordable Care Act, like that it funded abortions, and started launching attacks at both Carnahan’s wife, for working with Planned Parenthood, and Carnahan’s late father, while cheering on a crowd that burned a photo of Carnahan while chanting “death to the dictator”. He also said the 80% of the country who supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were “out of touch”, that “climate change science is garbage”, and on a local radio show, claimed that President Obama and Russ Carnahan wanted to “take away your chance to find the Lord,” in the ultimate example of a victimized Christian. While Martin didn’t win a trip to Washington, D.C., he did win the election to become the new leader of the Missouri Republican Party, in spite of all that for a stint, and currently is being surgically excised from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum via lawsuit. When you’re too nutty for them, that says a lot.

On this date in 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as in 2019, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published its profiles of Kansas State Senator Steve Fitzgerald, who back in 2012, was a guest at a forum where he was introduced by a Ernest Evans, a political science professor at Kansas City Community College, who opened up the question and answer session with a joke, of sorts, sarcastically asking the famous loaded question of, “When did you stop beating your wife?” to get a laugh from the audience. Y’know, it’s the classic “the media is out to get you” reference. Well, what Evans probably wasn’t expecting was Steve Fitzgerald took the bait, and joked back, “Who said I stopped?” and then was surprised when nobody thought making light of abusing your spouse was hilarious. Fitzgerald also once told a group of Catholics that “one cannot support the Democratic platform and be a true follower of Christ” because Democrats support gay marriage. When you consider Jesus never said anything about gays, and was pretty specific about feeding the hungry and aiding the poor, the GOP platform seems a lot more out of synch with his teachings. Just to nitpick. Fitzgerald also has a staunchly conservative legislative record, including showing his Pro-Life credentials by sponsoring the “Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act”, his vote to drug test welfare recipients, his attempts to nullify federal firearms laws, his cooperation with insane Kansas Governor Sam Brownback on his tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor, and his sponsorship of a bill to legalize concealed carry without a permit in Kansas. In March of 2017, Fitzgerald added to his extremist anti-abortion statements by, upon learning that someone made a donation to Planned Parenthood in his name, comparing Planned Parenthood to the Nazi concentration camp at Dauchau. When asked if he sent the letter by the media, Fitzgerald admitted he did, called the letter he received “harassment” and “political theatre”, but thought that people should be confused over who should be offended, saying, “I think the Nazis ought to be incensed by the comparison.” He went on to then compare Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan, while he was at it. In July of 2018, Steve Fitzgerald decided to go full-on white nationalist in his talking points, when during a meeting of the Leavenworth County GOP, he spoke about how “Christendom is under attack”, and that “outside of Western civilization, there is barbarism”. For whatever reason, he thought that meant he’d be a great U.S. Congressman, and in 2018, ran for the U.S. House seat for Kansas 2nd Congressional District, to replace the retiring Congresswoman, Lynn Jenkins. After finishing fourth in the primary, Fitzgerald announced he was retiring from politics, thus, we will also retire his profile at this time and profile a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 824-40, since this was established in July 2014.)

[worstblogever]

Pat Roberts

Welcome to what is the 824th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile, where we’ll be discussing the long-time U.S. Senator from Kansas, Pat Roberts, who has now been in Congress since 1981, serving eight terms in the U.S. House of Representatives for Kansas’ 1st District before winning a seat in the upper chamber in 1997. During his 1996 campaign for Senate, Roberts was the only major party candidate for Senate that year to not sign an agreement to honor term limits. He did, however, pledge that he would only serve two terms in the Senate. (Spoiler alert, his second term started in 2003, and he still ran for re-election for a third and fourth term in 2008 and 2014.) And that’s how there’s an 84 year old Senator Pat Roberts. Well, that and you don’t pay attention to the fact that he hasn’t actually lived in Kansas since 2014, and lists a rental property he never actually visits that's a golf course as his “home” back there.

But seriously, he doesn’t go back to Kansas. If you needed that underlined any more for you, consider that Sen. Roberts’ personal website uses a sunflower field that isn’t, in fact, in Kansas, but is actually a stock photo from Ukraine.

While for some time, Pat Roberts has been thought of as one of the “more responsible” Republican Senators as the Tea Party wave gave way to the GOP becoming the “Party of Trump”, he has, in his old age, caved to the extremists within his own party repeatedly. In 2014, he actually followed Sen. Ted Cruz’s lead and voted against the Farm Bill… even though Roberts is from Kansas… and was the one who wrote the Farm Bill. He also allied himself with the loons when Bob Dole begged the Republican Party to vote for the United Nations’ treaty for people with disabilities, which is even sadder given Dole campaigned for Roberts’ 1996 Senate campaign back in Kansas while he was running for president.

In 2016, Sen. Roberts may have put the cherry on top of his long, long history of anti-LGBTQ votes (including against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and for the Defense of Marriage Act) when he unilaterally blocked Eric Fanning as a nominee for Secretary of the Army because Fanning was openly gay. Roberts tried claiming it was because Fanning wanted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but critics noted, he was full of s***, because he’d voted for other nominees who also wanted Gitmo shut down.

Pat Roberts was, like most Republicans, opposed to federal healthcare. After serving as one of the most staunch critics of the Affordable Care Act or any of the early versions of it that were up for votes in 2009, he supported every repeal of the bill that came forth in its wake from Republicans. In 2017, Sen. Roberts made some headlines during debate on the AHCA, aka Trumpcare, when he was arguing against funding for it also covering maternity and women’s health coverage. When asked about it by Alice Olstein, Roberts sarcastically quipped, “I wouldn’t want to lose my mammograms.” After facing widespread criticism for mocking breast cancer screenings, he reluctantly apologized on social media.

Go figure, he also resents women’s rights so much that he stated in 2014 that calling Roe V. Wade “settled law” was “unconscionable”, and celebrating the ruling in the Supreme Court case that allowed employers to reject the contraceptive coverage of women on “religious grounds”. Oh, and he also shrugged when asked about investigations into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh being accused by multiple women of sexual assault, arguing against the FBI investigating the claims because, “What else could we learn?”

As far as gun control discussions go, how typical is Pat Roberts, and his “A” rating from the NRA? Even in the wake of the Las Vegas Shooting, where more people were killed in a single mass shooting in American history by a madman with modified semi-automatic rifles who used bump stocks to effectively turn them into automatic weapons… even then, in the wake of the shooting when people thought gun stocks should be banned, Roberts insisted “I think it’s too early for that,” regarding ANY measures that could be taken.

We’re not going to get into every last detail of four decades of Sen. Roberts being a s***ty conservative tool. Feel free to parse his full voting record if you choose. We just wanted to say a fine “good riddance”, to the Senator as he’s not running for re-election in 2020, because of course he is, he’s starting to look like the rapidly-aging Nazi at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

So good riddance to bad Roberts.