US Politics: Mueller....Mueller....Mueller...

[Inigima]

Rep.-elect Biff was always projected to win, but I'm still disappointed.

The big thing for me, though, is the acceptance, even endorsement, of violence against reporters by Gianforte's supporters. Even some national GOP figures barely acknowledge it as a bad thing. (Ryan gave a solid condemnation. I think maybe Sanford also?)

It's hard not to think we are fucked as a country. Once political violence against reporters is normalized, it won't stay confined to reporters. As if that weren't bad enough.

I really thought that, apart from a few bad apples, decency would win out among most people. It didn't. I'm starting to think again about whether I need to have an emergency plan to flee in case of widespread hate crimes or even state violence.

[OldGimletEye]

The Republican Party says, "What can we fuck up next?". 

Hoping the OLA doesn't make the list, but it probably will:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-rules-could-stop-the-next-big-financial-crisis-dont-get-rid-of-them/2017/05/25/

Quote

Sometimes, though, a step backward can be a move squarely in the wrong direction. In reconsidering our post-crisis financial reforms today, we have real opportunities for both responsible simplification and for significant missteps.

One serious misstep would be eliminating the regulatory tools, such as resolution planning and orderly liquidation authority, that are necessary to end bailouts and fight too-big-to-fail.

 

Quote

However, in the case of sudden failure, it may not be possible for large financial institutions to use traditional bankruptcy approaches. A resolution will be necessary in a matter of days — preferably over a weekend — to head off a destructive market impact, as was the case with the Lehman failure. To its credit, Congress created a backstop called orderly liquidation authority (OLA), which enables the treasury secretary, in consultation with the president, to call on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to wind down and liquidate a financial firm in situations when traditional bankruptcy procedures could not be effective.

 

Food for thought: US China Relations:

http://voxeu.org/article/growth-import-dependence-and-war

Quote

World trade has increased tremendously in recent decades, driven by the rise of China and other emerging economies. Rapid industrialisation has meant that China has become increasingly dependent on imported natural resources. A huge share of this trade is channelled through maritime choke points. For example, 40% of China’s crude oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and 80% through the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea (Kaplan 2014). Not surprisingly, Chinese policymakers have on occasion expressed unease at their country’s ‘Malacca dilemma’.

 

Quote

Such theoretical and historical considerations suggest that it is Chinese vulnerability, rather than American, that we should be worried about. As long as the US retains control over maritime choke points, a policy which is probably globally welfare-enhancing, it may be China, rather than the US, that fears becoming more vulnerable over time. In that context, Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, while potentially dangerous, may not be so surprising.

Fortunately, the world is a much safer place today than it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Globalisation, and, especially, nuclear weapons, have made war between the leading powers so costly that it is much less likely than it was a hundred years ago. Nonetheless, anything that can be done by China and other rising powers to diversify their supplies of energy, and other crucial resources, reduces the risks identified by our model. And an unambiguous commitment by all countries to a rules-based international trade regime, including a blanket prohibition of strategically-motivated export restraints, can contribute to making the world a safer place.

 

 

[Fez]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sounds like a helluva lot of people voted by post, which means their votes went in before the assault, and that probably means he's already won before any walk in votes have been cast. All the dis-endorsements by news media across the state won't count for squat. Indeed, media endorsements seem to generally count for squat and are just ways for media to make themselves think they are important. How much conservative media endorsed Hillary over Trump? Not one Romney State went for Hillary. And we all know the Obama states that went for Trump.

It does look like the Election Day vote swung towards Quist pretty strongly from the early vote, but too many votes were already banked. One example I saw was that the largest Republican county in the state went from -20 for Quist in the early vote to -10 on election day. Considering he lost by 7 overall, a 10 point uniform swing would've meant a win.

Still, even though a loss is disappointing, the fact that Quist lost by a 7 in a district/state that Clinton lost by 21 is a good sign for the midterms. Especially since a lot of the vote happened when the main election-related news was about Quist's tax problems. I know not winning any of these specials so far can be demoralizing, but I keep the 2006 midterms in mind. Democrats didn't win any of the congressional special elections in 2005 or 2006, but they consistently outperformed their usual losses in those districts, and then the midterms happened and the vulnerable Republicans finally had to face the music and most of them lost.

Hopefully that happens this time too; though the midterms are still a long ways off and a lot can happen.

 

[The Wedge]

12 hours ago, Brendan Moody said:

So Trump told the EU leadership that the Germans are (depending on the translation) "very bad" or "very evil" because of their trade surplus with the US, and that he would stop the sale of German cars in the US.

Trump is so ignorant that he doesn't realize German auto makers like Mercedes and BMW have assembly plants in the US.

Even more ignorant of Trump is that these plants are in ALABAMA and SOUTH CAROLINA.

I'm sure his supporters in those deep red states will applaud his defiance of those evil Huns, just like Eisenhower done back in Double-U Double-U Two.

[The Anti-Targ]

13 hours ago, Brendan Moody said:

So Trump told the EU leadership that the Germans are (depending on the translation) "very bad" or "very evil" because of their trade surplus with the US, and that he would stop the sale of German cars in the US.

IOf course he can't stop the sale of German cars. And the thing about BMW and Mercedes is they are pretty much Tariff-proof. People who want a Merc or Beemer want a Merc or Beemer and they are rich enough to pay for it. But of course there's nothing under the WTO he can do about it, because punitive tariffs by one country let the other country do the same.

Germans don't want what America is selling, so sell something they do want. You can;t force the German people to buy American. After all, Trump is promoting buy American in the USA, so why wouldn't Germany promote buy German in Germany?

[Fragile Bird]

So, Gianforte apologized and all is forgiven, by the voters and by the GOP.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

So, Gianforte apologized and all is forgiven, by the voters and by the GOP.

I hope the Guardian comes back and sues the shit out of his stupid ass.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Before I respond to a few posts, I've got to say that the creepy pro-GOP ads keep one upping themselves. The latest one is straight out of a dystopian future young adult movie. It's a string of lies about the AHCA, followed by a woman looking into the camera and saying, "Make sure you call your Republican Congressmen and thank them for giving you the health care you deserve." 

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

That's pretty interesting. I can understand the sentiment, but I would have guessed that the candidate doing it personally would be viewed unfavorably. Looks like decorum is also losing its power.

In any case, FiveThirtyEight has called the race for Gianforte so either the news didn't get out in time or not enough people cared (or perhaps they even shared the general opinion of the sandwich haunt).

You can understand people thinking that's a good thing for a politician to attack a member of the press? WTF dude.....

3 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Yeah, it is now up to Ossoff to trigger the wave election narrative. Once again, even though Quist should never have come within 7 points of Gianforte, the fact that he lost is going to be the primary takeaway for everyone, as absurd as it is. And what may be much worse, Gianforte's treatment of the reporter is now going to be part of the Republican playbook, even more than it was before. Maybe not outright assaulting journalists, but certainly emulating Trump in threatening them and creating a hostile environment for them.

This is actually the best out come from a narrative standpoint. A narrow victory or defeat could have been written off because of the assault. Now Dems can spin it and say, "Look at how shameful the GOP is, they'll vote for and support a guy who attacked a reporter for asking a benign question." 

1 hour ago, Fez said:

It does look like the Election Day vote swung towards Quist pretty strongly from the early vote, but too many votes were already banked. One example I saw was that the largest Republican county in the state went from -20 for Quist in the early vote to -10 on election day. Considering he lost by 7 overall, a 10 point uniform swing would've meant a win.

Still, even though a loss is disappointing, the fact that Quist lost by a 7 in a district/state that Clinton lost by 21 is a good sign for the midterms. Especially since a lot of the vote happened when the main election-related news was about Quist's tax problems. I know not winning any of these specials so far can be demoralizing, but I keep the 2006 midterms in mind. Democrats didn't win any of the congressional special elections in 2005 or 2006, but they consistently outperformed their usual losses in those districts, and then the midterms happened and the vulnerable Republicans finally had to face the music and most of them lost.

Hopefully that happens this time too; though the midterms are still a long ways off and a lot can happen.

 

Not really. Winning a few special elections is meaningless, and could cause the base to become complacent. You want them as hungry as possible going into the 2018 elections. 

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 Not really. Winning a few special elections is meaningless, and could cause the base to become complacent. You want them as hungry as possible going into the 2018 elections. 

I think its important to have some successes to point to when trying to recruit candidates and when soliciting major donors. You can get by without them, but it helps.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

It does look like the Election Day vote swung towards Quist pretty strongly from the early vote, but too many votes were already banked. One example I saw was that the largest Republican county in the state went from -20 for Quist in the early vote to -10 on election day. Considering he lost by 7 overall, a 10 point uniform swing would've meant a win.

Still, even though a loss is disappointing, the fact that Quist lost by a 7 in a district/state that Clinton lost by 21 is a good sign for the midterms.

Yeah I'm not trying to minimize Gianforte's actions or GOP voters condoning them, but Montana has a Cook PVI of R+11.  When you couple that with Quist's problems as a candidate, inluding his boilerplate liberal platform (supporting single payer in Montana??), and the results are...not surprising.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I think its important to have some successes to point to when trying to recruit candidates and when soliciting major donors. You can get by without them, but it helps.

Inversely, you can get the same results with losses. In can inspire more qualified candidates to step up and get people to donate more, especially when the loss is still seen as over preforming. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And the travel ban appeal failed again.

 

My home Circuit Court.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

From wikipedia, Murray is a " American libertarian conservative political scientist" who literally wrote a book entitled "What it means to be a libertarian". 

Here's the thing.  We read that book for my third year Law School Class "Law and Cultural Evolution" (17 years ago so be nice if you've just read it).  He isn't a "libertarian" who believes that "all taxation is theft"or that "all government is bad."  He freely acknowledges in What it means to be a libertarian that government is necessary.  What he wants is government limited to areas like national defense (roads would come under than category) and having vigorous and well staffed court system to deal with disputes between people within a given state.  He's about "limited government" not "no goverment".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 hours ago, WinterFox said:

At my local sandwich haunt gianforte was on the news and the general response was "about time they go after these reporters".

Not good...

That's really not good.  I'm disturbed by how people are advocating or not disturbed by violence.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the thing.  We read that book for my third year Law School Class "Law and Cultural Evolution" (17 years ago so be nice if you've just read it).  He isn't a "libertarian" who believes that "all taxation is theft"or that "all government is bad."  He freely acknowledges in What it means to be a libertarian that government is necessary.  What he wants is government limited to areas like national defense (roads would come under than category) and having vigorous and well staffed court system to deal with disputes between people within a given state.  He's about "limited government" not "no goverment".

And no one ever said all libertarians are Murray Rothbard.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And no one ever said all libertarians are Murray Rothbard.

I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that libertarianism is on a spectrum like most beliefs.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that libertarianism is on a spectrum like most beliefs.

I certainly have a healthy respect for things like the First Amendment, Due Process (particularly where the state’s criminal powers are involved) and appreciate that we should have some skepticism of government power and I disdain authoritarians, like the Orange One. I’ve always been kind of ACLUish Democrat and it’s one reason I was against things like military tribunals that Dubya was pushing and torture and water boarding all that.

Yet, quite frankly, I have a problem with libertarians, at least what that means, in an American context. My problem is they often push a lot of dubious economic garbage and they often fail to acknowledge that at times private power can be oppressive.

I agree that libertarians can have different beliefs. Certainly Milton Friedman was more reasonable than Murray Rothbard, the Pauls, and Mr. Lincoln Hater.

Yet, I still would have some issues with what somebody like Friedman would say, although lately even he isn’t conservative enough.
 

[Fez]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Inversely, you can get the same results with losses. In can inspire more qualified candidates to step up and get people to donate more, especially when the loss is still seen as over preforming. 

Also possible. And while Democrats have been over-performing so far and I think that is a good argument, its also not as easy to explain to people; especially major donors, who I generally don't think that highly of.

 

Worth noting, more votes came in from Missoula over night, further narrowing the margin from a 7 point loss to a 6 point loss.

[denstorebog]

A Georgia win would be a lot more beneficial to the opposition's morale than no wins at all. You have to show people at some point that putting over 20 millions and a shitload of effort into a race will pay dividends.

That said, given that Georgia (along with S.C. on the same day) is that last election of its kind for some time, an Ossoff win would mean less for future elections than for an opportunity to raise some money in the aftermath and perhaps to soften some Republicans up for opposing Trump's policies later this year.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

So, Gianforte apologized and all is forgiven, by the voters and by the GOP.

Playin' team Republican as always.

Fortunately, I have yet to hear conservative sorts of people I know say that reporters deserve it.