Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Shryke said:

Mail in ballots ARE paper ballots. Like, literally.

Obviously.  It was an inelegant transition to emphasize that all-mail voting not only is the best way to alleviate concerns of fraud or tampering (which is arguable), more importantly it also is the best realistic measure to increase turnout (which is not).

3 hours ago, felice said:

The problem with mail-in (and online voting) is that actually filling in the ballot is entirely unregulated. There's nothing to ensure people get to vote freely without being watched and pressured by anyone. Or even that people get to fill in their own ballots at all.

Yes, there is an elevated level of trust that what you're getting back is actually from the voter you send it to, without any attempts at coercion.  This seems to be the (public) impetus behind the current Texas measure to criminalize "assistance" for mail-in ballots among the elderly that has drawn quite a bit of attention.  If all-mail voting was nationwide, this would be a concern - among the elderly, the young (i.e. parents filling out ballots for their kids), and the married (i.e. husbands filling out ballots for their wives).  Transient citizens would also be an issue.  However, weighted against the potential for abuse with online or traditional voting, I still think it's the best method.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

We've already gone past that point. Richard Lugar got primaried like 6 years ago. He was at least replaced by a Democrat (who is up for re-election in 2018, I believe) but there's no sign that centrist Republicans will do well, and every sign that they will be primaried. 

I see your Lugar and raise you Bob Bennett - who couldn't even credibly be described as centrist or moderate - but still gave us Mike Lee, U.S. Senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shryke said:

It's a non-answer to a fucking Fox News host. Feels like he's fishing for a "when will you quit" quote and she just gives him nothing because it's fox news and why would you?

Trying to read anything into it is silly.

lmao maybe she was just stroking out for a second

Quote

"So I feel very confident about the support that I have in my caucus. I have never not been opposed within my caucus," Pelosi added.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Par for the course for national democrats. They are currently ina fund raising cycle built around the "better deal" brand . It isn't actual policy, they could care less about policy, they never have to implement policy of the lose, since their goal is to lose that means that "policy" is just a code word they use for fund raising. It isn't about policy because they cannot implement any policy unless they win. And winning is not a goal for them. Fund raising is a goal for them .

if winning elections interferes with fund raising then the dccc will do everything possible to avoid winning elections.

lol, that's not true. they are trying very hard to win... working hard to transform into a winning party; the republicans

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion?amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The Mooch had a very short tenure but he will definitely be memorable. He definitely provided some images people will not forgot though they probably want to.

I feel like whenever someone eventually writes a book on the Trump administration, they can have an entire chapter entitled "The Week of The Mooch."  Fare Thee Well That Guy, we hardly knew ye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

lmao maybe she was just stroking out for a second

Quote

"So I feel very confident about the support that I have in my caucus. I have never not been opposed within my caucus," Pelosi added.

That quotes makes perfect sense though.

She's saying she's confident in her support within her caucus because she's always had people coming at her and all have failed. And they've failed because her caucus has backed her over them. Which is all true afaik. (I'm taking her word on never having been not opposed, but for sure every time she's been opposed she's easily beaten them)

I mean, her position as leader of the House caucus is an elected one, not an appointed one. She holds it because she commands the support of the Democrats in the House.

I really feel like a bunch of y'all are looking for something that's not there with this. Chris fucking Wallace, Fox News douchebag, basically threw a question to her about why she doesn't step down as leader and she just pivoted away from it because fuck that question.

 

I mean, shit like this is ridiculous:

3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Par for the course for national democrats. They are currently ina fund raising cycle built around the "better deal" brand . It isn't actual policy, they could care less about policy, they never have to implement policy of the lose, since their goal is to lose that means that "policy" is just a code word they use for fund raising. It isn't about policy because they cannot implement any policy unless they win. And winning is not a goal for them. Fund raising is a goal for them .

if winning elections interferes with fund raising then the dccc will do everything possible to avoid winning elections.

Of course they are trying to win. That's the point of a political party.

Whatever you think of their current "Better Deal" rebranding effort, it's clearly an attempt at pushing a new more populist message leading in to 2018 that's been cooked up in some focus-group-based marketing pit.

The whole "Better Deal" thing does contain policy if you've read it. Fight monopolies, boost the minimum wage, infrastructure investment, etc, etc. It's pretty clearly a populist message as written by people who've been reading op-eds about what went wrong in 2016 and running focus groups and polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

lol, that's not true. they are trying very hard to win... working hard to transform into a winning party; the republicans

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion?amp

Uh what?

That's always been true. The Democrats have backed candidates that aren't necessarily pro-life since always because there's only so much control you can have over the primary process and a Democrat is always better then a Republican at the end of the day. Certainly for, you know, the Democratic party.

You wanna challenge every seat, as is the growing opinion on the left on how to take back state and local governments, you need to run candidates like that some places. Or as it's put in the article:

Quote

"As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America."

Quote

 

"To pick up 24 [seats] and get to 218, that is the job. We'll need a broad coalition to get that done," Luj n said. "We are going to need all of that, we have to be a big family in order to win the House back."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have both argued against party litmus tests, saying there's room for people with different opinions on abortion. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), another influential voice, has echoed that argument.

 

 

 

That's Sanders arguing the same thing there at the end, btw.

I mean shit, you can even see this at the federal level. Joe Manchin's politics are, frankly, kinda shitty. But he's outta West Virginia. And at the end of the day, he's a Democrat and some abomination of a piece of healthcare legislation would be law right now if not for him cause he held the line when it counted. You wanna win, you need to be able to have people like Manchin in the party.

Manchin by the way? Identified as pro-life.

You wanna win in America and this is some of the shit you gotta do in some places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Shryke said:

She's saying she's confident in her support within her caucus because she's always had people coming at her and all have failed. And they've failed because her caucus has backed her over them. Which is all true afaik. (I'm taking her word on never having been not opposed, but for sure every time she's been opposed she's easily beaten them)

I think @r'hllor's red lobster is taking issue with her implication that she's never been opposed within the caucus, when in fact Tim Ryan got about a third of the vote in his attempt to oust her as minority leader all the way back in this January.  

39 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I really feel like a bunch of y'all are looking for something that's not there with this. Chris fucking Wallace, Fox News douchebag, basically threw a question to her about why she doesn't step down as leader and she just pivoted away from it because fuck that question.

First, I object to referring to Chris Wallace as a douche.  Sure, he works for FNC, but I view that as some weird type of rebellion towards his father, kinda like Dubya taking on all the neo-cons.  Anyway, he retains some credibility IRT tough questioning of whomever comes on his show.  Second, all that's being said is she answered a very easy question in a very dumb way - and did so repeatedly if you watch the entire interview.  There's no "reading into" or "looking for something" beyond pointing that out.

31 minutes ago, Shryke said:

That's always been true. The Democrats have backed candidates that aren't necessarily pro-life since always because there's only so much control you can have over the primary process and a Democrat is always better then a Republican at the end of the day. Certainly for, you know, the Democratic party.

You wanna challenge every seat, as is the growing opinion on the left on how to take back state and local governments, you need to run candidates like that some places. Or as it's put in the article:

Again, I think you're missing the larger context.  Abortion has been used as a litmus test for Dems in the past - if you believe Washington legend the Clintons blocked Bob Casey Sr. from a speaking slot at the 1992 DNC due to his pro-life stances - and is increasingly relevant after the objection from the left supporting the (barely) pro-life Dem candidate for the Omaha Mayoral race a few months ago.  I think RRL may have been sarcastic in this case, but it is indeed important for Democrats to challenge every seat - and continue to have a big tent - and that's something in which there is significant resistance among the Democratic base:

Quote

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said, adding that “every candidate who runs as a Democrat should” share the “Democratic Party’s position on women’s fundamental rights.”

The DNC’s message on abortion may alienate red-state Democrats at a time when the party is trying to expand its reach into conservative parts of the country it may need to win over if it wants to reclaim the White House and Congress. And moderate Democrats representing red states are distancing themselves from Perez’s remarks.

“I couldn’t disagree more with what Tom Perez said, I think it’s not correct that our party should have litmus tests about who wants to join our party,” Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who has a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s congressional scorecard and represents a state Donald Trump won, said in an interview. “We may disagree on various issues, and I just don’t think we should say ever anyone is not welcome in our party based on one of those issues.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2017 at 0:13 PM, Yukle said:

I know, it's wild! Cheating in elections is, I assume, as old as elections themselves.

The Roman Republic passed a law that voting boxes had to be at the end of a corridor only wide enough to allow one person through at a time (to stop people "checking" you voted correctly).  It was a real problem with poorer citizens who were often intimidated to vote a certain way by those who held their debts. They also made it a law that you weren't allowed spare voting ballots (or tokens, which some elections used instead) so you couldn't vote twice.

They eventually passed a law saying that you weren't allowed to serve in the same office twice within a ten-year period.

Even scarier, though, was the voter manipulation done during Germany's annexation of Austria in the 1930s. You had to tick the tiny circle stating no if you disagreed, or make any mark at all in the gigantic "yes" circle if you agreed. Since some patriotic and upstanding citizens would obviously be confused by these instructions, those counting the ballots were reassured that a mark made anywhere on the paper except for the no circle counted as a yes and a blank ballot paper was also assumed to be a consent - why else would a voter not take care to mark the paper unless they disagreed?

In a less extreme but still sad example from the United States, when Florida began a recount after the 2000 election, its high court demanded to know why thousands of ballots were disregarded. The hole punchers used in many voting stations were blunted after so much use and papers without completely punched holes were thrown out. The fact that poorer communities were more likely to have less robust voting equipment was probably a complete coincidence in deciding whether the papers counted or not... as was the case in Ohio in 2004. ;)

Before I keep slamming the USA, though, Australia has its own quirks. We have preferential voting and all boxes must be numbered. There are usually more than 100 Senate candidates per state. If you make any mistake - skipping a number, writing one twice, leaving a box blank by mistake - too bad, so sad, your ballot may be disregarded. By sheer coincidence, those with low numeracy are the most likely to be confounded by this process, and are more likely to live in poorer areas. Starting to spot a theme here...

Actually, that has been changed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, felice said:

The problem with mail-in (and online voting) is that actually filling in the ballot is entirely unregulated. There's nothing to ensure people get to vote freely without being watched and pressured by anyone. Or even that people get to fill in their own ballots at all.

Oregon has over 80% voter participation and they do a mail in ballot.  I've never heard of any drama with the system there.  Ballot shows up 6 weeks before the election with a SASE.  Anyone can write an official pro / con argument for any candidate or issue.  80%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, I'm totally acting like Trump here - posting on the internet something I'm watching on a morning show.  But Jeff Flake is currently on Morning Joe pushing his new book Conscience of a Conservative.  It's a pretty interesting position he's cultivating as a GOP Senator up for reelection next year - most obviously because the headline is why Trump is wrong for America and his party.  Granted, this is not a surprising position given Flake's past, but it is interesting he's basing his campaign on it.  A couple quotes from the Politico excerpt he released:

Quote

Too often, we observe the unfolding drama along with the rest of the country, passively, all but saying, “Someone should do something!” without seeming to realize that that someone is us. And so, that unnerving silence in the face of an erratic executive branch is an abdication, and those in positions of leadership bear particular responsibility.

...

So, where should Republicans go from here? First, we shouldn’t hesitate to speak out if the president “plays to the base” in ways that damage the Republican Party’s ability to grow and speak to a larger audience. Second, Republicans need to take the long view when it comes to issues like free trade: Populist and protectionist policies might play well in the short term, but they handicap the country in the long term. Third, Republicans need to stand up for institutions and prerogatives, like the Senate filibuster, that have served us well for more than two centuries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2017 at 8:07 AM, denstorebog said:

So what are your predictions? Will this be a relatively easy takeback of lost approval for Trump and R, or are there critical issues that the caucuses will have a difficult time seeing eye to eye on that could put this on the same path as health care? (If it isn't obvious, I'm asking as a complete tax policy ignoramus.)

"Tax cuts will pay for themselves"

This fantasy is the biggest obstacle to tax reform. The GOP wants lower taxes at higher income brackets (and some proposals for ridiculously lowering corporate taxes), and balance the budget or manage the deficit. Cant be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A VERY long, detailed article by NPR alleging that wealthy Texas investor Ed Butowsky, Fox News, and the Trump White House orchestrated the Seth Rich story. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story

Quote

 

The explosive claim is part of the lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.

Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.

Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR Monday there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.

The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.

-----

The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters, who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha.

On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then Press Secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.

The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that President Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.

-----

On May 14, about 36 hours before Fox News' story appeared, Butowsky left a voicemail for Wheeler, saying, "We have the full, uh, attention of the White House on this. And tomorrow, let's close this deal, whatever we've got to do."

Butowsky also texted Wheeler: "Not to add any more pressure but the president just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you."

Spicer admits to meeting with the two, but denies claims about the president.

"Ed's been a longtime supporter of the president and asked to meet to catch up," Spicer told NPR Monday night. "I didn't know who Rod Wheeler was. Once we got into my office, [Butowsky] said, 'I'm sure you recognize Rod Wheeler from Fox News'."

Spicer said Butowsky laid out what they had found about the case. "It had nothing to do with advancing the president's domestic agenda — and there was no agenda," Spicer says now. "They were just informing me of the [Fox] story."

Spicer says he's not aware of any contact, direct or not, between Butowsky and Trump. And Butowsky now tells NPR he has never shared drafts of the story with President Trump or his aides — that he was joking with a friend.

Instead, Butowsky repeatedly claimed that the meeting was set up to address Wheeler's pleas for help landing a job for the Trump administration. Wheeler's attorney, Doug Wigdor, says he has no evidence that supports that claim

 

Spicer always was a bad liar. Also,they are going to really try to tar this Wheeler guy, especially since later in the article he has also filed a lawsuit against Fox for racial discrimination.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump still has not signed the Russia sanctions bill (which the WH says he will sign). The WH claims it's because it hasn't been officially received from Congress yet; however, that's a lie. The bill was officially transmitted on July 28.

The deadline for Trump to sign or veto the bill is either Aug. 8 or 9 (its 10 days from when the bill is received, not counting Sundays, but I'm not sure if the day it arrives counts as day one). I'm not sure if he can pocket veto the bill; the House is not in session but the Senate is in session (and not just pro forma session, it's actively working through Aug. 11 due to McConnell delaying the start of August recess).

Trump has also said nothing in response to Russia announcing plans to expel 755 US embassy staff, more than half of the total staff. He responds to every other slight, no matter how minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Fez said:

Trump still has not signed the Russia sanctions bill (which the WH says he will sign). The WH claims it's because it hasn't been officially received from Congress yet; however, that's a lie. The bill was officially transmitted on July 28.

The deadline for Trump to sign or veto the bill is either Aug. 8 or 9 (its 10 days from when the bill is received, not counting Sundays, but I'm not sure if the day it arrives counts as day one). I'm not sure if he can pocket veto the bill; the House is not in session but the Senate is in session (and not just pro forma session, it's actively working through Aug. 11 due to McConnell delaying the start of August recess).

Trump has also said nothing in response to Russia announcing plans to expel 755 US embassy staff, more than half of the total staff. He responds to every other slight, no matter how minor.

 CSI%20Cheeto%20Veto_zpsary2058h.jpg

 

/YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

"Tax cuts will pay for themselves"

This fantasy is the biggest obstacle to tax reform. The GOP wants lower taxes at higher income brackets (and some proposals for ridiculously lowering corporate taxes), and balance the budget or manage the deficit. Cant be done.

Sure it can, if your actual short term goal is to create a deficit crisis to justify gutting the entitlement programs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I think @r'hllor's red lobster is taking issue with her implication that she's never been opposed within the caucus, when in fact Tim Ryan got about a third of the vote in his attempt to oust her as minority leader all the way back in this January.  

Except she said she'd never not been opposed. (ie - double negative) You two are supplying two separate different misreadings of her statement.

 

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

First, I object to referring to Chris Wallace as a douche.  Sure, he works for FNC, but I view that as some weird type of rebellion towards his father, kinda like Dubya taking on all the neo-cons.  Anyway, he retains some credibility IRT tough questioning of whomever comes on his show.  Second, all that's being said is she answered a very easy question in a very dumb way - and did so repeatedly if you watch the entire interview.  There's no "reading into" or "looking for something" beyond pointing that out.

He works for a propaganda network. He has no credibility. Fuck him. But anyway, she ain't the best at the whole PR game but it's silly to read what she's doing there as anything but a clear attempt to pivot away from a question about her leadership and back to the new slogan/campaign the Democrats are stumping.

 

 

Quote

Again, I think you're missing the larger context.  Abortion has been used as a litmus test for Dems in the past - if you believe Washington legend the Clintons blocked Bob Casey Sr. from a speaking slot at the 1992 DNC due to his pro-life stances - and is increasingly relevant after the objection from the left supporting the (barely) pro-life Dem candidate for the Omaha Mayoral race a few months ago.  I think RRL may have been sarcastic in this case, but it is indeed important for Democrats to challenge every seat - and continue to have a big tent - and that's something in which there is significant resistance among the Democratic base:

It's never been a litmus test at the level of congressional seats and lower and it's stupid to make it one. I supplied an example that shows both in the post you are responding to. That is the larger context here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

"Tax cuts will pay for themselves"

This fantasy is the biggest obstacle to tax reform. The GOP wants lower taxes at higher income brackets (and some proposals for ridiculously lowering corporate taxes), and balance the budget or manage the deficit. Cant be done.

The second actually doesn't matter to them. See: the Bush Tax Cuts.

They just want to slash taxes and regulation. Some take it as a matter of faith that this will totally work out eventually, many (including some of the that group too) just view it as a way to kill the federal government, etc, etc.

Their problem with passing tax reform is not so much that they want to balance the budget as that they kinda have to because of the rules of reconciliation and they can't figure out a way to pay for it. The Border Adjustment Tax is the only major possibility I've seen floated and most of the Right hates that shit. The Kochs are waging all out war on it last I heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except she said she'd never not been opposed. (ie - double negative) You two are supplying two separate different misreadings of her statement.

You're right, I was responding to her intent while he just seemed to be laughing at her stupidity.  What, exactly, is the correct reading of that statement?

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

But anyway, she ain't the best at the whole PR game but it's silly to read what she's doing there as anything but a clear attempt to pivot away from a question about her leadership and back to the new slogan/campaign the Democrats are stumping.

Ok - it was an incredibly poor effort at pivoting.  Does that meet your arbitrary limits on how we're able to criticize her statements?

14 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It's never been a litmus test at the level of congressional seats and lower and it's stupid to make it one.

In terms of recruitment and support from the party and DCCC?  Yes, it totally has been a litmus test in the past, and that's why it's important to ensure it doesn't become one in the future.

59 minutes ago, Fez said:

The deadline for Trump to sign or veto the bill is either Aug. 8 or 9 (its 10 days from when the bill is received, not counting Sundays, but I'm not sure if the day it arrives counts as day one). I'm not sure if he can pocket veto the bill; the House is not in session but the Senate is in session (and not just pro forma session, it's actively working through Aug. 11 due to McConnell delaying the start of August recess).

He could pocket it, sure.  Why bother challenging it when all you gotta do is send the same thing back to him after Labor Day?  Which is why, if he listens to any rationality, he won't bother.  I mean, I suppose it'd be an interesting move if he then spent August campaigning against the bill and offering reasons why, but we all know that's not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...