Here's a weird thing that Rachel Maddow noted as part of her wrap-up of post-election silver linings the other day: Due to a Kentucky law prohibiting candidates from appearing on the same ballot for two offices, Rand Paul can't run for both President of the USA and for re-election to the Senate. Dude's awfully pumped to run for Preznit, but he also knows in his heart that he's never going to be Preznit, and so he'd really like to run to keep his current job in the Senate. Kentucky Republicans had hoped to take the state House so they could just change the law and help Aqua Buddha out, but the voters were not at all compliant, and the House remains stubbornly Democratic. (Don't they realize this was a wave election, and they are required to stand down for the new Permanent Republican Majority? Apparently not.)
CNN headline this morning: Investors pull back after 3-day rally
IOW it took 3 days for the booze and drugs to wear off and the investor class, battling their crippling hangovers, all bolted upright and gasped "Holy shit! Who the fuck did we just elect?"
Wait, he has to follow laws and stuff? Didn't Republicans pass a law saying all laws don't apply to them?
<i>Who couldn&#039;t beat this guy? </i>
Scott Brown?
CNN headline this morning: Investors pull back after 3-day rally
IOW it took 3 days for the booze and drugs to wear off and the investor class, battling their crippling hangovers, all bolted upright and gasped &quot;Holy shit! Who the fuck did we just elect?&quot;
Is it clearer with A? or B?
this seems to be normal practice after a Repub victory. The job-killing regulations do not look so bad to investors.
and pretty much anyone involved in the 2016 GOP primaries
What have the dogs done to deserve Runt Paul?
I find this comment easy to masturbate to.