US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

[Fragile Bird]

The worst hangovers ever. Puke hangovers.

 

eta: Lifetime hangovers, in fact.

[Rippounet]

@Free Northman Reborn

Quote

At stake is the very way of life conservatives hold dear, for which people have died in wars to defend.

I'm also genuinely curious to know what this way of life is and how it can be protected by the Supreme Court.

Also, warS plural? I would have assumed only one war has ever really threatened the United States.

[OldGimletEye]

I think it's quite interesting that the same bunch that mindlessly chanted "lock her up" are now taking this huge interest in due process and criminal procedure.
And I think it's quite interesting, from what I understand, that Clownnaugh, is a big fan of Justice Rehnquist, who wasn't exactly criminal defendant friendly, and if I recall correctly, rendered a pretty horrid opinion in Arizona v Youngblood, which basically stated that police departments can negligently lose evidence.

[Rippounet]

@Altherion

Quote

I guess it can come off this way, but my intent was to analyze this most recent iteration of the Democrat's strategy of reaching far back into the past of people they're trying to sink and making completely unverifiable allegations about that time.

I doubt it was entirely strategy. I believe Dr Ford did come out on her own and then the Democrats had to decide whether to build a strategy around her accusation.

Seriously, given what we now know about Kavanaugh's youth, accusations of inappropriate sexual behaviour were rather predictable. I find the "penis incident" for instance to be 200% credible, because I have seen comparable stuff in my own parties.

Quote

For the same reason that Trump has deferred to the courts: defying them is not going to be a popular move. Also, it has a good chance of splitting the country into at least two groups and possibly more.

Popular? What Trump has shown is that winning is the only thing that is popular. The only reason Trump hasn't defied the courts is because he didn't have to (someone no doubt told him as much). But this is a man who has hung a portrait of Andrew "let him enforce it" Jackson in the Oval Office.

As for splitting the country... That ship sailed some time ago.

Mind you, I don't think a Democratic president is likely to be the one to ignore a SCOTUS decision, because Democrats want a functioning government and institutions. But eventually, someone will.

[Serious Callers Only]

Remember the guy that 'suicided' after passing the Clinton emails from 'hackers' to the GOP?

 

https://outline.com/pjBC62

 

Quote

According to an email in the “Robert Tyler” account reviewed by the Journal, Mr. Smith obtained $100,000 from at least four financiers as well as a $50,000 contribution from Mr. Smith himself. People familiar with Mr. Smith’s financial transactions confirm there were donations.

The email, dated Oct. 11, 2016, in the “Robert Tyler” account, included the subject line “Wire Instructions—Clinton Email Reconnaissance Initiative” and was addressed to Mr. Smith. The writer, who identified himself as “ROB, ” said: “This $100k total with the $50k received from you will allow us to fund the Washington Scholarship Fund for the Russian students for the promised $150K.” The Journal couldn’t determine if such a fund actually exists.

“The students are very pleased with the email releases they have seen, and are thrilled with their educational advancement opportunities,” the email read. Because multiple people had access to the “Robert Tyler” email account, it couldn’t be determined who sent the email to Mr. Smith.

The email about obtaining the pledges came just days after WikiLeaks and the website DCLeaks began releasing emails damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and four days after the U.S. government publicly warned that Russia was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election through the hacking and release of stolen emails and doing so at the direction of the Kremlin’s “senior-most officials.” Russia denies interfering in the election.

The activities of Mr. Smith—who died in May 2017 at 81—remain an active area of interest to investigators, according to people familiar with the investigation. An autopsy report said he had killed himself in a Minnesota hotel room.Mr. Smith left behind carefully prepared documents including a statement, which police deemed a suicide note, that read: “NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

 

"Washington Scholarship Fund for the Russian students" these guys think they're funny

[Ran]

Wow. That's ... some pretty obvious euphemism.

[Martell Spy]

Collins continues to call Ford a liar.

Collins defends Kavanaugh vote, dismisses 2020 concerns

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/07/susan-collins-kavanaugh-rice-2020-880202

Quote

"Whatever the voters decide, but I'm going to do what I think is right," Collins (R-Maine) told CNN anchor Dana Bash. "That's what I owe my constituents."

 

[Martell Spy]

If we strip insurance from tens of millions, they will die quicker and we will save money. That is the Republican health plan.

Quote

 

It’s unclear if these gambits will work to protect Republicans from political attacks. Sixteen of the 18 sponsors of Sessions’s resolution voted for Obamacare repeal in the past, and the party’s record on the issue is clear and unambiguous. Trump’s DOJ is literally on the record that the Obamacare provision stopping insurers from price-gouging or denying people with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional. And so, the DOJ argument goes,  is any effort to compel them to provide any services related to those conditions, even if they do choose to cover those people. The resolutions provided by Republicans are vague and not necessarily as resonant as the imagery of sick, dying people that is already being used to thwart their plans.

And it’s still clear that these plans from Republicans aren’t really serious about the policy issue of coverage for pre-existing conditions. The issue is complicated, since the patient population is expensive and requires many other policy levers—such as the old, dead individual mandate—to act as pay-fors. And most of the Republican efforts to head off criticism for abandoning people with costly conditions, like high-risk pools, have been woefully underfunded and anemic, and unsuited to the true task of covering such a difficult population. But those older plans, although not nearly big or ambitious enough for the task, provided some semblance of a plan. Sessions’s resolution and Trump’s promises do not.

Perhaps more than anything else, the pre-existing conditions provision has limited Republican options when it comes to actually repealing Obamacare. And it’s provided Democrats with some lasting and damaging political ammunition against opponents. The upshot is that cases like the Texas lawsuit actually affect people’s lives. The GOP doesn’t yet have the language—or the policy—to reckon with that fact.

 

The Fate of Obamacare’s Most Popular Provision
In the 2018 elections, Republican lawmakers are torn between their ongoing pledges to repeal or oppose the health reform, and overwhelming support for its protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/public-support-strong-pre-existing-condition-coverage/572410/

 

[OldGimletEye]

25 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

If we strip insurance from tens of millions, they will die quicker and we will save money. That is the Republican health plan.

The Fate of Obamacare’s Most Popular Provision
In the 2018 elections, Republican lawmakers are torn between their ongoing pledges to repeal or oppose the health reform, and overwhelming support for its protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/public-support-strong-pre-existing-condition-coverage/572410/

 

Well let's just remember that denying people with pre-existing conditions healthcare is a way of life that conservatives hold very dear. Evidently they even went to war and died for it. Or at least they sent other people to die for it, while they sat around and crapped their pants or grew out their cheesy 70s porn stache.

[Mexal]

This isn't cool.

 

[Serious Callers Only]

Oh look, the fanta fuhrer is screeching about a 'angry left wing mob' in the midterms. No doubt for the false flag and the national guard election 'suspension'.

 

Lol america 1%. Just have the CIA assassinate this trash and the top republican nazis instead of mowing down citizens in machine gun fire if you're so determined to coup. It's bad for the economy doncha know?

[Morpheus]

People protesting Republicans shitting all over norms and process are an angry mob, people marching with nazis are very fine, got it Donnie, please get cancer.

oh, in other news Mitch McConnell told some truth. He changed his tune about the precedent they invented about presidents not choosing an SC pick in an election year and said, when asked if he would have hearings for a Trump nominee in 2020, that he will not let  presidents from  an OPPOSING PARTY choose a justice in election years.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I doubt it was entirely strategy. I believe Dr Ford did come out on her own and then the Democrats had to decide whether to build a strategy around her accusation.

They sat on the letter for months and only released it when all else had failed. I'm sure they were initially surprised, but by the time all of this came out, it was definitely strategy.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As for splitting the country... That ship sailed some time ago.

Not in this sense. Yes, the country is divided by which party they support and a variety of other issues, but we all follow the same federal laws and all of the states structure their laws to abide by the same federal policies. This won't be the case if the federal government no longer follows existing procedures to determine what it's policy is. Again, it can be done (especially with things that the federal government controls), but given that Trump didn't do it in the face of a flagrant judicial power grab which was eventually overruled by the SCOTUS, I have a hard time seeing it done elsewhere.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

@Free Northman Reborn

I'm also genuinely curious to know what this way of life is and how it can be protected by the Supreme Court.

Also, warS plural? I would have assumed only one war has ever really threatened the United States.

There was only single war that conservatives themselves and far more others that they persuaded to fight for them died for their way of life, and that was the War of the Rebellion, to keep slavery and those who owned the most wealth via slavery at the very top of the power elite. 

Now, many, many, many USians of all walks of life did die and make many many many other sacrifices to stop the nazis in WWII, because everyone knew the nazis were bad for our way of life -- except, of course, those power elites, particularly out of the south, who had shyte-loads of money and power, who quite liked both the nazis and the fascists.  They didn't die either.

Otherwise all the other wars the US got into were just for the power elites and those who thought war was bully, like the war hawks who make the War of 1812, Teddy Roosevelt's war against Spain because he wanted a war!, Vietnam, etc.  Not to mention the centuries' of Indian wars here.

Anyway, the last thing this last act in the war against me and mine and our ilks has made drinking to hangover state the very last thing I can stand to do.

In fact, I have committed a risible vow, like as to what one might do for Lent -- I am giving up beer here in the USA until things change. Which probably means for the rest of my life, no beer here.  My vow allows me to drink local beers in other countries, of course, which only contributes to the risibility of this vow, not to mention I have not given up wine, only beer.  OTOH, this vow of mine makes my friends laugh, so that's a great positive, as finding anything to laugh about these days is really hard to do.

 

[Rippounet]

43 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They sat on the letter for months and only released it when all else had failed. I'm sure they were initially surprised, but by the time all of this came out, it was definitely strategy.

I won't necessarily dispute that. But your initial comments suggested the accusation was fabricated, which I don't believe.

43 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not in this sense. Yes, the country is divided by which party they support and a variety of other issues, but we all follow the same federal laws and all of the states structure their laws to abide by the same federal policies. This won't be the case if the federal government no longer follows existing procedures to determine what it's policy is. Again, it can be done (especially with things that the federal government controls), but given that Trump didn't do it in the face of a flagrant judicial power grab which was eventually overruled by the SCOTUS, I have a hard time seeing it done elsewhere.

Ah, I see. But again Trump had no reason to go head to head with federal courts when the SCOTUS was already majoritarily conservative.
We can still expect some serious conflicts between the federal government and the states under Trump btw. It's only been two years, and things are about to get worse.

I'm surprised that you wouldn't see it done elsewhere. You have been one of the few people warning that Trump could be prelude to a worse populist demaogue/autocrat. I have come to agree in part, in the sense that I think the erosion of institutional norms and traditions will only get worse now, with or without Trump. The SCOTUS justices now being openly partisan for instance is something that will remain, and as political players adapt to that fact it will have various ripples on the functioning of the entire federal government.

It'll be interesting to see how conservative justices on the SCOTUS, who tend to claim they believe in a federal government of limited powers, will react when Democratic states such as California clash with the federal government over issues. Will they still promote states' rights, I wonder...

[Ran]

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I won't necessarily dispute that. But your initial comments suggested the accusation was fabricated, which I don't believe.

I'll dispute it. They didn't "sit" on it. Feinstein kept it in confidence at Ford's direction. The Intercept got wind of something, and the likely source for them were either acquaintances of Ford who had heard about it from her in confidence and turned around and told the news... or, more likely, other Democrats who knew the very broad outline of what Feinstein  (possibly through Rep. Eshoo who first had the letter from her constituent)  had  BUT who were getting upset about the fact that Feinstein was not making use of the letter because, again, Ford didn't want it to get to this point.

The letter itself leaked only after it had been sent to the FBI following the Intercept story, and specifically after the FBI sent a redacted version to the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee as a whole. Feinstein and her staff were not the source, and only the redacted letter ever leaked which suggests either the FBI (doubtful), the DoJ (maybe), White House itself (maybe, if they wanted the info out there to let oppo start getting to work) or someone on the Judiciary Committee leaked it (in that case, one of the other Dems who had been upset Feinstein wouldn't release it, or a Republican, re: oppo).

[Zorral]

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I won't necessarily dispute that. But your initial comments suggested the accusation was fabricated, which I don't believe.

Ah, I see. But again Trump had no reason to go head to head with federal courts when the SCOTUS was already majoritarily conservative.
We can still expect some serious conflicts between the federal government and the states under Trump btw. It's only been two years, and things are about to get worse.

I'm surprised that you wouldn't see it done elsewhere. You have been one of the few people warning that Trump could be prelude to a worse populist demaogue/autocrat. I have come to agree in part, in the sense that I think the erosion of institutional norms and traditions will only get worse now, with or without Trump. The SCOTUS justices now being openly partisan for instance is something that will remain, and as political players adapt to that fact it will have various ripples on the functioning of the entire federal government.

It'll be interesting to see how conservative justices on the SCOTUS, who tend to claim they believe in a federal government of limited powers, will react when Democratic states such as California clash with the federal government over issues. Will they still promote states' rights, I wonder...

they've been stuffing the federal benches with their ilks everywhere for a very long time.  SCOTUS is the last bastion of the legal system they didn't entirely control.  Now they do.  There are only local hold-outs within states in the legal system and they aren't going to last long at all.  Also part of the targeting to get rid of 'liberal'  / Dem judges is to undermine the economies of the blue states like CA and NY and transfer that wealth via tax laws etc. to the crazy white supremacy red states, whose policies have kept their people poor on purpose.

[Fragile Bird]

Is anyone reading Fear?

Woodward starts with describing the events from about three months before the election, when Bannon joins the campaign, Mannafort is dumped and Conway becomes campaign manager.

At that time Obama had been receiving security reports about the Russians relentlessly hacking into state election sites (27 altogether, eventually) and the behind the scenes discussion about what to do about it. The initial move is to have frank discussions with the Russians about the fact the US knew what they were doing and having proof of it, with the Russians absolutely denying it.

Then the gang of 8 are told. Then news reports come out about the Russian interference. I remember posting the news in the US politics thread as soon as I heard about it, and having many of you say it was a nothing burger. That night the story breaks about the pussy grabbing comments.

I always thought that was unfortunate coincidence, wiping the Russian news off the tv screens. Now I wonder if that wasn’t the Russians actually diverting attention away from themselves. They had weeks of notice about the Americans knowing what they were doing, and it would have been easy to leak that story. After all, we have no idea who leaked the tape. I don’t think we have ever seen much in the way of speculation about the identity of the leaker, have we?

 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

There were seven Republicans who signed the statement of conscience against Joe McCarthy when he was terrorizing the country for four years. It seems the ranks have thinned since then. Kavanaugh's place in history isn't quite settled yet, but those hand-wringing cowards Susan Collins and Jeff Flake may have just solidified theirs, and history is not going to be kind.

[OldGimletEye]

An interesting read:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/5/17940610/trump-hitler-history-historian

Quote

Usually, comparisons between Donald Trump’s America and Nazi Germany come from cranks and internet trolls. But a new essay in the New York Review of Books pointing out “troubling similarities” between the 1930s and today is different: It’s written by Christopher Browning, one of America’s most eminent and well-respected historians of the Holocaust. In it, he warns that democracy here is under serious threat, in the way that German democracy was prior to Hitler’s rise — and really could topple altogether.

 

Quote

Browning’s essay covers many topics, ranging from Trump’s “America First” foreign policy — a phrase most closely associated with a group of prewar American Nazi sympathizers — to the role of Fox News as a kind of privatized state propaganda office. But the most interesting part of his argument is the comparison between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Paul von Hindenburg, the German leader who ultimately handed power over to Hitler. Here’s how Browning summarizes the history:

 

Quote

McConnell, in Browning’s eyes, is doing something similar — taking whatever actions he can to attain power, including breaking the system for judicial nominations (cough cough, Merrick Garland) and empowering a dangerous demagogue under the delusion that he can be fully controlled:

Hmm. And here I wonder, after Hitler proved to be a disaster for the world and for Germany itself, if conservative aristocrats like Hindenburg said to themselves,"We can wash our hands of this whole affair. Hitler didn't do the true conservatism."

Quote

If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings.