U.S. Politics: The Jeff Sessions: The Killing of a Keebler Elf

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Or simply by blocking an AG replacement in the event he fires Sessions - which would force him to fire Rosenstein and what's her name below him in order to get someone to fire Mueller.  We're going in circles, just don't misrepresent my position again.

Kinda feel like that should be my line, but okay. My understanding is that your position is firing Mueller would be incredibly stupid and put Trump into sub 30% polling numbers as well as cause a revolt between him and the Republican congress, right? (if that's not right, again I apologize and am asking, because that's what I understand your position to be). 

I think that it wouldn't move the numbers all that much and Republicans would cave, like they always have. For instance, I think Grassley would cave pretty damn fast despite him saying otherwise, because it's very easy to say how Grassley now all of a sudden doesn't want to support justice and immigration and any number of things, and get Fox News on board with Trump (like they really want to be). I think that Rosenstein might need to be fired, but I vaguely think he would fire Mueller if he gets to be AG. I wasn't particularly impressed with his bullshit reasoning to fire Comey earlier. In addition to poll numbers not moving a lot despite big scandals so far, another bit of evidence is that in general firing people from your cabinet doesn't end up moving the needle, period. Getting rid of Flynn didn't move things all that much either. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Triskan said:

commiedore - with all due respect, I think it's a bit unfair to McCain to say he's a BS maverick.  One, this was fucking enormous.  Two, he really did do some mavericky things Sure, that doesn't sound like much to ask for, but in today's GOP that is incredible.  How many other members of this cesspool would have done that?  These two things along make him stand alone apart from this abominable party.  Yes, they all suck. Yes, McCain has often sucked too.  But I celebrate McCain tonight for sure.  

Well, it may be soulless, but dying certainly removes the reelection motive.  I will always have respect for McCain because of McCain-Feingold.  That took balls.

[James Arryn]

My comment on John McCain: nobody talks about the women Jack the Ripper didn't kill.

[all swedes are racist]

32 minutes ago, Triskan said:

commiedore - with all due respect, I think it's a bit unfair to McCain to say he's a BS maverick.  One, this was fucking enormous.  Two, he really did do some mavericky things.  When all the GOP world was asking for Obama to be attacked as Muslim or whatever, McCain wouldn't do it and defied some of his advisors.   These two things along make him stand alone apart from this abominable party.  Yes, they all suck. Yes, McCain has often sucked too.  But I celebrate McCain tonight for sure.  

ETA:  to add to point 2, remember this shit:

It's sad that this make McCain the best Republican, but it does.  Mac is back.  

ETA2:  Isn't it possible that he gave the vote to allow this shit knowing he'd shut it down?  No idea, but it has to be a possiblity.

sure man, fair enough. gotta give credit where credit is due. all around real stand up guy, exemplar of his party

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Kinda feel like that should be my line, but okay. My understanding is that firing Mueller would be incredibly stupid and put Trump into sub 30% polling numbers as well as cause a revolt between him and the Republican congress, right? (if that's not right, again I apologize and am asking, because that's what I understand your position to be). 

OMG, you won't let it go.  Fine.  First, you were fucking wrong about Sessions, deal with it.  It's right there starting on Page 3 of this thread when I said "I doubt Sessions resigns, he's going to make Trump fire him" and you started a blurb arguing this that went on for 2 or 3 back-and-forths.  And you know what?  It doesn't matter that you were wrong - I was originally just teasing.  I'm wrong all the time and I do this for a living.  Certainly was with the election, and I think I was embarrassingly wrong on some very important policy point a couple months back I can't quite remember the specifics of, although I remember I admitted it immediately and posted this:

I respect people that can admit when they're wrong.  I don't respect people trying to stubbornly extend the argument and act like the very political operatives they purport to loathe.

Substantively, no, I tried to reiterate yesterday as much as possible that I was referring to Trump losing Independents from around 30 percent to 25 percent, and this would result in around a 2 percent total loss, tops.  That's not sub 30% polling numbers overall in the slightest, I thought you could understand the nuance.  And if he found a way to fire Mueller there'd be enough resistance among the GOP Congress acting in their own electoral interest to render any legislative progress moot (perhaps maybe not on taxes since they can still use reconciliation, but the administration doesn't even seem to be able to get together on that) - as well as seal their electoral fates.

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition to poll numbers not moving a lot despite big scandals so far,

And this is why you're wrong.  Comey, Junior, Flynn may seem like "big" scandals - even to me - but objectively they're really not.  Comey made that clear when he testified he was not investigating Trump, and Junior insulated the president.  And yes, the GOP has been steadfast with these because they want a successful GOP president, it's in their mutual interest, and they have excuses/defenses at the ready.  There's no cover from firing Mueller.  For everybody beyond those that have stuck with Trump, his guilt will transcend any cognitive dissonance - which, for the last time, means you're in the mid-30s for the rest of the presidency, an untenable position for the midterms, let alone 2020.

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

OMG, you won't let it go.  Fine.  First, you were fucking wrong about Sessions, deal with it.  It's right there starting on Page 3 of this thread when I said "I doubt Sessions resigns, he's going to make Trump fire him" and you started a blurb arguing this that went on for 2 or 3 back-and-forths.  

And I'm telling you, point blank, that you had me misinterpreted. I didn't think Sessions would resign. I didn't say he would. This isn't about me saying I was wrong; this is me clarifying my point to you. 

I don't think that Sessions will resign. I still don't. I really didn't think he would. I think he's too stubborn for that now that he thinks he hasn't done anything wrong and Trump keeps impugning his integrity. I'm sorry I wasn't eloquent enough to make that more clear, and that is entirely my fault, but I know what I meant earlier this week. And I'm happy to give you that action on Sessions losing his job as early as Friday, depending on how the ACA repeal went. I stand by it still.

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I respect people that can admit when they're wrong.  I don't respect people trying to stubbornly extend the argument and act like the very political operatives they purport to loathe.

I get that, but again - I'm trying to tell you what I meant. There's certainly every chance that I'll be wrong and Sessions won't be fired tomorrow - but that was entirely what I meant by it. I went back and looked, and while I said things like 'gone' and 'toast' I never said he'd resign. 

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Substantively, no, I tried to reiterate yesterday as much as possible that I was referring to Trump losing Independents from around 30 percent to 25 percent, and this would result in around a 2 percent total loss, tops.  That's not sub 30% polling numbers overall in the slightest, I thought you could understand the nuance.  And if he found a way to fire Mueller there'd be enough resistance among the GOP Congress acting in their own electoral interest to render any legislative progress moot (perhaps maybe not on taxes since they can still use reconciliation, but the administration doesn't even seem to be able to get together on that) - as well as seal their electoral fates.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. 

I don't think that many independents (or at least independents that actually vote independent) support him any more. I don't think he'll lose much more because I simply don't think he has more to lose short of an economic crisis. I also think that the GOP wouldn't resist all that much if he fired Mueller, nor do I think it would seal their fate. But that does seem like a more reasonable analysis than what I thought you meant earlier, and I'm sorry I got it wrong before. 

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

And this is why you're wrong.  Comey, Junior, Flynn may seem like "big" scandals - even to me - but objectively they're really not.  Comey made that clear when he testified he was not investigating Trump, and Junior insulated the president.  And yes, the GOP has been steadfast with these because they want a successful GOP president, it's in their mutual interest, and they have excuses/defenses at the ready.  There's no cover from firing Mueller.  For everybody beyond those that have stuck with Trump, his guilt will transcend any cognitive dissonance - which, for the last time, means you're in the mid-30s for the rest of the presidency, an untenable position for the midterms, let alone 2020.

I would have thought that too, but watching Fox News a bit made me think otherwise. There's a whole channel that most Republicans get their news from that simply doesn't report this stuff at all. What has been stated about Mueller so far is that he and his group are a bunch of crony Democrat lovers who are in the pocket of other people and are going after Trump despite him doing absolutely nothing wrong. They believe quite firmly that Russia had nothing to do with the election interference. If Fox News reports on Mueller's firing it'll be simply to say 'good riddance' and how the fake news is making a big deal out of it. Or they'll go after the REAL bad guys - Clinton. 

The one exception here would be if the GOP actually took a stand if Mueller got fired. Remember, this is a candidate who on tape stated that he sexually assaults women regularly and the GOP was back to supporting him within 2 weeks. I think you vastly overestimate people's ability for cognitive dissonance, and while I think that this would have sunk someone 20 years ago I don't think it will now - not with the combination of partisanship and incredibly safe seats, congressionally, combined with a very weak GOP leadership that won't abandon their flagship. 

There are plenty of ready-made excuses for firing Mueller. We have gone from collusion didn't happen to collusion isn't a crime, and people are buying it. Mueller firing barely dents that.

[DMC]

Sorry I came on so strong.  I honestly tried to avoid this because I knew it'd piss me off, this would be heightened because it's late, I'm drunk, and I really do think you're full of it - albeit perhaps unintentionally/subconsciously.  My frustration is specifically based on this exchange - I said:

On 7/26/2017 at 6:40 PM, dmc515 said:

I don't see how any of this is relevant.  Point is Sessions appears to be launching "leak" investigations in order to appease Trump and hopefully shut him up - a clear indication he intends to stay on and force Trump to fire him.

And you responded to this portion with:

On 7/26/2017 at 6:49 PM, Kalbear said:

We're also seeing a pledge from the AL race that says that if everyone in the senate special election bows out they'll do so if Sessions wants his seat back. So...yeah.

What interpretation of this exchange am I supposed to make other than you think Sessions intends to resign?  It seems very clear to me, and did at the time.  Particularly considering the original exchange started with an apparent objection from you when I said Sessions would make Trump fire him.  Obviously I have no idea about your intent, but based on how the entire conversation in this thread was going yesterday evening, I have a very hard time thinking otherwise.

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I'm happy to give you that action on Sessions losing his job as early as Friday, depending on how the ACA repeal went. I stand by it still.

Again, I never said Trump wouldn't fire Sessions, and I'd never bet against him doing so, or him doing any irrational or self-destructive action for that matter.

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that many independents (or at least independents that actually vote independent) support him any more. I don't think he'll lose much more because I simply don't think he has more to lose short of an economic crisis. I also think that the GOP wouldn't resist all that much if he fired Mueller, nor do I think it would seal their fate. But that does seem like a more reasonable analysis than what I thought you meant earlier, and I'm sorry I got it wrong before. 

Aye, this is an incredibly marginal argument not worth having.  Sorry I was unclear before.

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If Fox News reports on Mueller's firing it'll be simply to say 'good riddance' and how the fake news is making a big deal out of it. Or they'll go after the REAL bad guys - Clinton. 

This is true, but you're overestimating those that solely get their news from FNC or the like.  Mark Prior did the best work on this, but the point is that the small portion of independents I was referring to don't get their news from FNC (and the non-Trump base at least accesses alternative outlets).  What news they do get is what everybody is talking about.  And if Mueller is fired, everybody will be talking about it, even FNC.

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you vastly overestimate people's ability for cognitive dissonance, and while I think that this would have sunk someone 20 years ago I don't think it will now

I think you're misunderstanding what cognitive dissonance means based on this statement, which may be due to my own cavalier introduction of the term, or may just be a typo on your part.  All cognitive dissonance means is the discomfort in being exposed to information that is contradictory to one's preconceived notions, beliefs, values, etc.  My point was firing Mueller would be such a discomfiting piece of information for those precious few that only lean Trump, or are legit on the fence - these would be those that constitute the seeming statistical noise that allows him to range up to 40, or even 38 percent on occasion.

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that this would have sunk someone 20 years ago I don't think it will now - not with the combination of partisanship and incredibly safe seats, congressionally, combined with a very weak GOP leadership that won't abandon their flagship. 

This has no validity to me.  35-38 percent is the same no matter what era you're in.  Your repeated warnings about gerrymandering is well founded, but those numbers are historically low - to find the last guy to be around them (ETA:  during midterms!  that's an important caveat) you have to go back to the first (Truman).  And, primitive methods aside, it still didn't turn out well for him, particularly in 46.

[DMC]

Aaaaaaaanyway.  This thread should totally be about the Epic Fail we just saw.  It's been seven years.  Seven damn years of bitching about Obamacare from the GOP.  They won countless (well, actually, no - plenty people have counted them) seats using it as a political jackhammer.  And what happens when the get unified government?  Can't even repeal the individual mandate, which they arguably came closer to achieving in 2012 with SCOTUS til Roberts put the kibosh on it.  

The chickens have come home.  When you nurture a base and subsequent membership that hates all things government, governing becomes intractable.  It's at once hilarious, pathetic, and ultimately frightening.  But that's for tomorrow.  For now, we laugh at the teabaggers.

ETA:  Oh yeah, who wants to bet McCain was the deciding vote because it was a convenient way for everyone else to secure their positions?  I know it puts a damper on a great story, but the hard truth is he became a vehicle that protected a bunch of GOP members electorally - not pissing off the base by voting nay, and not immolating the party by allowing this skinny thing to become law.

[Inigima]

I'll be damned. I really thought McCain would vote for this. Thanks, McCain, and Murkowski and Collins.

Bit shocked Capito and Heller caved.

Edit: this while process has been insane.

[Relic]

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 and I really do think you're full of it - albeit perhaps unintentionally/subconsciously.

Lol, welcome to the board.

I'm surprised that McCain actually backed his words with action. I still loathe the guy, and i think his choice of running mate in 2008 is how we all ended up being ruled by the Tea Party, but...credit here credit is due. 

[Martell Spy]

Well, that was an ending written by Aaron Sorkin. David Frum and bipartisan-loving journalists all over Washington DC are creaming themselves.

We really should have some pity for Paul Ryan though. He has been dreaming about this since he was a dude bro in college. No matter how much he worked that phone, he could not keep his zombie baby alive.

That Hopey Changey thing seems to have worked out pretty well.

 

 

[Fez]

In hindsight, McCain's vote isn't too surprising, due to speech earlier this week. He's been clear that he doesn't like the ACA, but he also doesn't like any of the replacement plans, and he hates the process McConnell's been using. After his BCRA vote, his office did put out a statement saying it was only a procedural vote and that he wouldn't vote for the bill itself unless his amendments were adopted. Which at the time seemed like nonsense, but then he did vote against the clean repeal that wouldn't have had his amendments, and last night he votes against the skinny repeal that clearly wouldn't have them either (they all secure additional funding for Arizona residents, and others as a side benefit). It's an added benefit that he gets to be lionized again now and stick it to McConnell.

It's actually Murkowski I'm most impressed by. McCain has gone maverick before, even if it's been a while, and is almost certainly in his final term (if he beats his cancer, he'll still be 86 i think next election he's up).  Collins has been ideological outlier plenty of times before and joined Democrats on big votes before (she was one of three GOP to vote for the stimulus and give it that bipartisan sheen). But Murkowski, I don't think she's done anything like this before. Yes she says the right thing a decent amount, and has been consistently against the GOP process during repeal, but she was never actually the decisive vote to block things. And unlike Collins, who routinely wins elections with massive bipartisan support, she's never won a majority of Alaskan voters. She's lucky she's not up until 2022, and she better hope she can keep her unique voter coalition together. Her vote took more guts than McCain or Collins I think.

[LongRider]

6 hours ago, commiedore said:

anyone want to cheer on the people that really fought to help bring this down (and will continue to do so) please consider donating to http://adapt.org/donate/

The people who called, protested and otherwise were activated by this issue are rarely mentioned, but should be, as it took many activists and many different types of actions, to get that vote to fail.  I called Heller myself and connected some and got busy signals some.  The congress critters from the House and Senate heard from the people, and we need to continue our efforts. 

[drawkcabi]

Climatic end if that's what it is. I still don't trust the relentless GOPers to let this go, not after seven years. If not the bill then the entire repeal and/or replace campaign remains a zombie. I breathe a sigh of relief right now, like I've done half a dozen times this spring/summer but I believe it can come up again any time to bite.

I do love the gasp then applause when McCain says regrettably yet determinedly "No". That was some dramatic theater shit there.

 

I don't think there could me a more appropriate name for Scaramucci. You all know it means "little skirmisher" in Italian right? And often used as a synonym for "clown".

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, Fez said:

In hindsight, McCain's vote isn't too surprising, due to speech earlier this week.

TOLD YOU BRO! 

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

TOLD YOU BRO! 

To be fair, considering his votes on Monday, it does seem like his main objections were actually policy, not process; but his speech was all about process.

On the plus side, if that's the case, that makes it less likely he'll support future repeal attempts and race back to DC from being treated in Arizona to vote for them.

[Relic]

Enough about McCain. We should be focusing more on Collins and Murkowski, the only two Republican senators with anything resembling integrity.  

 

[Maithanet]

Not that it matters too much now, but I'm kind of confused about the Skinny Repeal bill.  It definitely included language to defund Planned Parenthood, even though the Senate Parliamentarian had previously said that such language would not pass Byrd rules, and therefore was not eligible for reconciliation.  What happened there?  Was the vote taking place, but the Parliamentarian would rule later on whether it could pass with 50+1?  If so, was McConnell's plan just to change the rules in order to push this through once the Parliamentarian made her ruling? 

Or did McConnell change the way the Planned Parenthood defunding would take place, such that it would pass muster with the Parliamentarian?

[Guy Kilmore]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Not that it matters too much now, but I'm kind of confused about the Skinny Repeal bill.  It definitely included language to defund Planned Parenthood, even though the Senate Parliamentarian had previously said that such language would not pass Byrd rules, and therefore was not eligible for reconciliation.  What happened there?  Was the vote taking place, but the Parliamentarian would rule later on whether it could pass with 50+1?  If so, was McConnell's plan just to change the rules in order to push this through once the Parliamentarian made her ruling? 

Or did McConnell change the way the Planned Parenthood defunding would take place, such that it would pass muster with the Parliamentarian?

I think it changed to be a 1 year defunding which did pass muster.  I could be very wrong on that.

I also think McCain was cover for other senators.

It took a ton of guts for Murkowski and Collins to vote the way they did.

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Or did McConnell change the way the Planned Parenthood defunding would take place, such that it would pass muster with the Parliamentarian?

The language had been changed. Congress can never pass a bill saying "planned parenthood can't get funding" because that would be a bill of attainder, which are explicitly unconstitutional. Instead, they try to structure the language so it only applies to whoever they want to target. 

In the language struck down by the parliarmentarian, it prohibited funding against community health centers that met certain requirements and also received at least $350 million in annual federal funding. The parliarmentarian said that was too clearly targeting PP, so the language was changed to keep the same community health center requirements but with a lowered threshold to at least $1 million in annual federal funding. There's a good chance it still would've only affected PP, but its also possible that some other centers would be affected, so that passed muster.