US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html

Oh look, the catholic church caught covering up sex abuse again.

Imagine what would happen if the same thing happened within an Islamic group in the US.

Eta:

Quote

The report, which covered six of the state’s eight Catholic dioceses and found more than 1,000 identifiable victims, is the broadest examination yet by a government agency in the United States of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The report said there are likely thousands more victims whose records were lost or who were too afraid to come forward.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Direct election of Senators?  

So would that make the senate like a House of Lords?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

How to Discuss the Far Right Without Empowering It

A lesson from Germany

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/how-to-discuss-the-far-right-without-empowering-it/567520/

 

No one who speaks German cold possibly be an evil man.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Or how about Iran, 1953. Americans, by and large, completely blame Iran and the uprising in 1979 for the poor relations between the two countries. I doubt that more than 5% of Americans even know what we did to that country. I'd be chanting "death to (insert country)" too if said country toppled my democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator for 25 years all because they didn't want to let us keep a little more of the wealth generated by our natural resources. 

Afghanistan too. Ref the excellent Tom Hanks movie (probably with a lot of artistic license taken) 'Charlie Wilson's War'

[DMC]

So Keith Ellison won his primary race for Minnesota AG in spite of the (credible) abuse allegations.  Glad he'll be out of Congress, but there should be pressure from both sides for him to suspend his campaign (not sure what the Dems would do).  Minnesota hasn't had a Republican AG since 1955.  The next step for the Dems is to strip him of his vice chair position at the DNC.  That should happen soon.

6 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Look at the map. There are 33 Republican governors, which means there would be 66 Republican senators. With a super majority like that, you can get anything through while permanently blocking Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court. And with that type of majority, the 16th Amendment would be irrelevant. 

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You need Republican State legislatures.  They pick Senators without the 17th not governors.

First, there won't be 33 GOP governors for long.  There are four (IL, ME, MI, NM) easy pickups for Dems this cycle, and another 8 GOP seats (6 open) that are very much up for grabs.  Second, as Scot said, Article 1 Section 3 states state legislatures chose Senators before the seventeenth - there's 31 states in which the GOP holds both chambers (again, for now).  Ultimately, it's entirely unclear if reverting Senate selection back to the legislatures would be more of an advantage than the GOP already has in the Senate with popular elections.  The effort and capital expended on abolishing the 17th would be pretty damn stupid considering the uncertain and very marginal gains.  Of course, the fact that doing something would be very stupid does not preclude the GOP from trying it.

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Afghanistan too. Ref the excellent Tom Hanks movie (probably with a lot of artistic license taken) 'Charlie Wilson's War'

While I love Charlie WIlson's War, I don't think us weaponizing the Mujahideen then abandoning them financially compares to the coup in Iran nor the dog wagging at Gulf of Tonkin.  Nor Guatemala, nor Chile, nor Nicaragua...

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Charlie WIlson's War, I don't think us weaponizing the Mujahideen then abandoning them financially compares to the coup in Iran nor the dog wagging at Gulf of Tonkin.  Nor Guatemala, nor Chile, nor Nicaragua...

When you can pretty much draw a direct line from that to the Taleban, to 9/11 and all the shit that has come from 9/11, it pretty much joins the list shame.

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

An originalist can easily say that because it's not in the constitution, it isn't what the founders intended. Alternately, they can reinterpret the 22nd to mean something else if they choose to. 

And I think you're probably right that Roberts right now wouldn't do it, because he'd be the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision. However, if he isn't the deciding vote, I think he'd go along with it just fine. 

While as I've repeatedly stated judicial "originalism" is bullshit justification and an ideological fig leaf, it is decidedly against originalist dogma to "reinterpret" amendments.  It would be exceedingly problematic in terms of that one big amendment the right holds so dear (as well as, in Thomas' case, the 10th, which he frequently cites).  Like Scot, I'd put good money on Roberts voting down anything of the sort - and I suspect both Thomas and Gorsuch would as well, perhaps even Alito.  The only sure yay vote in such a case would be Kavanaugh.  Even in the current climate, it's not reconcilable to simultaneously hold a "plain text" ethos and overturn the first sentence of the 22nd:

Quote

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

When you can pretty much draw a direct line from that to the Taleban, to 9/11 and all the shit that has come from 9/11, it pretty much joins the list shame.

That a repercussions argument - which I of course agree with.  My argument was about our involvement in regime change infringing upon another state's sovereignty.  In that regard, Afghanistan in the 80s is not comparable to the above.

[Jace, Extat]

8 hours ago, James Arryn said:

More cra cra than using it to justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Someone once asked me if I knew the difference between a Citizen and a Civilian.

I can tell you now.

A Citizen has the courage to make the safety of the Federation their personal responsibility.

[Gorn]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

So Keith Ellison won his primary race for Minnesota AG in spite of the (credible) abuse allegations.  Glad he'll be out of Congress, but there should be pressure from both sides for him to suspend his campaign (not sure what the Dems would do).  Minnesota hasn't had a Republican AG since 1955.  The next step for the Dems is to strip him of his vice chair position at the DNC.  That should happen soon.

Why do you consider the accusations credible? From what I've read (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race), I had the opposite impression. There hasn't been any clear evidence, and the story gives me a "bitter ex trying to ruin ex-partner's career" vibe.

I'm a big supporter of the Me Too movement, and I tend to trust women, but I've mentally filed this under the "probably exaggerated bullshit" category, along with Aziz Ansari and James Franco "cases".

[OldGimletEye]

In response to @SweetPea

Quote

You're right, but that's not relevant, the point is that there are a myriad of reasons one could have for supporting Trump. Denying that and blaming everything on racism is such an extremely oversimplified view that I don't even understand why I have to point it out.

You know the so called alt-right or Nazis love Trump for a reason. And that is because he replaced the usual low level dog whistle with a loud bullhorn. They saw mainstream conservative politicians as being too squishy on matters of race. Hence the reason they came up with the names like "cuckservatives".

You may be correct that not all Trump supporters who voted for him in 2016 were outright racists.

You may have won a small battle here on a technical point. 

But you have still lost war.

You're not seeing the bigger picture here.

As others have pointed out on this forum, there is a growing body of evidence that the primary reason for Trump support was racism or white resentment. And that is extremely troubling. And people rightly worry that Trump style politics might begin a new phase where unscrupulous politicians, noting his success, might seek to emulate him. The low level dog whistle politics that has been always present in conservative politics, which was bad enough, has been replaced with something worse and more insidious by Trump style politics.

It would be nice if you'd acknowledged that and why it's a problem. 

But instead, you focus on "but, but, the left!" Or "Antifa!"

Also, even if all of Trump's supporters in 2016 aren't racist per se, it still troubling that  many of them are blind or, often willfully obtuse to Trump's bullhorn style politics.
And of course when people give non racists reasons for supporting Trump, those reasons are extremely thin, which leads you to the conclusion that 1) those people that give those reasons are badly misinformed and completely obtuse to Trump's bullhorn style politics or 2) they just aren't really putting their cards on the table why they support Trump.

[Jace, Extat]

35 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Why do you consider the accusations credible? From what I've read (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race), I had the opposite impression. There hasn't been any clear evidence, and the story gives me a "bitter ex trying to ruin ex-partner's career" vibe.

I'm a big supporter of the Me Too movement, and I tend to trust women, but I've mentally filed this under the "probably exaggerated bullshit" category, along with Aziz Ansari and James Franco "cases".

Jace thought that the Aziz Ansari thing sounded like Aziz was a little bit rapey and the woman was a little bit eager to call him out. A situation where the man in question wasn't 'wronged' but probably didn't deserve being put on blast for failure to acquit himself in a manner suggestive of a gentleman.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Why do you consider the accusations credible? From what I've read (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race), I had the opposite impression. There hasn't been any clear evidence, and the story gives me a "bitter ex trying to ruin ex-partner's career" vibe.

You're right, we do have opposite impressions of that article (and what it presented).  I think that vox piece is fundamentally wrong in depicting the media as being unable to determine the credibility of the accusations.  No, the media has been unable to confirm the credibility of a video, but last time I checked video evidence was not required to confirm credibility.  To directly answer your question, I think the accusations are credible because Ellison confirms a relationship - which in turn confirms the credibility of those texts that while cropped are plainly damning if only based on his cursory and casual responses to serious accusations.  I know for sure that would not be my response if a woman was just making shit up - especially if I was in the midst of a political career.  Further, the fact there was a previous accuser is not a good look politically, regardless of the dubious details in that case as well.

Anyway, this is certainly different than the Ansari case because there are physical assault charges being leveled (I can't recall if there were in Franco's case).

[OldGimletEye]

Why if the Republican Party and the conservative movement ever rids itself of Trumpism, it can't just later say:
Golly, how did Trump take over our party or movement!
We just don't understand!
It's just something that came out of the blue!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/13/17683416/trump-republican-party-conservatives-seth-cotlar

Quote

Is President Donald Trump a perversion of the American conservative movement — or simply an honest reflection of what it’s been for decades?

Ever since Trump’s victory in the Republican primary, this has been one of the big questions hanging over American politics. If Trump’s anti-intellectual and race-baiting brand of politics is a parasite on the American right, then it’s possible the Republican Party can be cleaned up after him. That’s the premise of the so-called Never Trump movement, a small group of Republican elites and conservative intellectuals who have denounced the president and his allies in no uncertain terms.

You know, if you continue to play with matches and a can of gasoline, at some point, your fingers are going to get burned.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why if the Republican Party and the conservative movement ever rids itself of Trumpism, it can't just later say:
Golly, how did Trump take over our party or movement!
We just don't understand!
It's just something that came out of the blue!

He wasn't conservative enough.

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

He wasn't conservative enough.

LOL. 

Yep, standby. That excuse will likely cometh.

Why was Bush bad? He wasn't conservative enough.

Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo? He wasn't conservative enough.

Why did the Titanic sink? It wasn't conservative enough.

Why did the Hindenburg burn? It wasn't conservative enough.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why did the Titanic sink? It wasn't conservative enough.

Well, Jack Dawson was clearly a commie.  He even convinced Rose to redistribute the Heart of the Ocean.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, Jack Dawson was clearly a commie.  He even convinced Rose to redistribute the Heart of the Ocean.

If he'd been smart, he would have favored tax cuts for all the people riding first class.
That would of caused them to go into Galtian overdrive, producing more life boats.
If there would have been more life boats he wouldn't have froze to death in the North Atlantic.
Serves the proletarian scumbag right.

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. 

Yep, standby. That excuse will likely cometh.

Why was Bush bad? He wasn't conservative enough.

Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo? He wasn't conservative enough.

Why did the Titanic sink? It wasn't conservative enough.

Why did the Hindenburg burn? It wasn't conservative enough.

Why did Brutus stab Caesar? He wasn't conservative enough.

Wait, that might actually be true...

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If he'd been smart, he would have favored tax cuts for all the people riding first class.
That would of caused them to go into Galtian overdrive, producing more life boats.
If there would have been more life boats he wouldn't have froze to death in the North Atlantic.

Yeah if only he'd have abided trickle down life boats would have saved thousands of lives.