Jump to content

US Politics: A Feast for Crows


DMC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Exactly.  People have a right to speak to police and being irritated is not grounds for arrest.  People who believe in limited government should be disturbed by Police (the literal tooth and claws of Government) abusing their authority.

Should be, but the reality is that many conservatives reflexively support the police, even when it is not justified. And  many police are themselves conservative and there is a long history of police bias against black men, the homeless, and leftist activists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Should be, but the reality is that many conservatives reflexively support the police, even when it is not justified. And  many police are themselves conservative and there is a long history of police bias against black men, the homeless, and leftist activists.

 

I have long puzzled over that clear contradiction in policy postions.  Why would someone who fears government abusing its power not be frightened of clear examples of government abusing its power?  Yet “conservatives” go out of their way to defend and offer apologia for law enforcement abusing its power over the public...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something strange is going to down in the NC-9 congressional district, the board of elections voted 9-0 (5 Dems and 4 Reps) to refuse to certify the election result, which had been the incumbent Republican (Harris) winning the race by just 905 votes. Its unclear what the exact reason is, but one board member publicly mentioned something about "unfortunate activities" and an elections investigator seized some number of absentee ballots the week of the election from Bladen County, which Harris won by 1,557 votes. The Board has the authority to order a new election, so things are getting pretty heated in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have long puzzled over that clear contradiction in policy postions.  Why would someone who fears government abusing its power not be frightened of clear examples of government abusing its power?  Yet “conservatives” go out of their way to defend and offer apologia for law enforcement abusing its power over the public...

it's because the use of power is almost always directed at an other out group that is not part of thine own in group. This is the proper use of power for most people, "my privilege as a member of the in group protects me and I support policies that enforce the high status of my privilege" thus police/government abuse of power, for many/most people is NOT abuse of power but is representative of the proper use of power for many/most people.

They want it that way and they like it that way. They freak the fuck out at the prospect of their own strategies being implemented upon themselves and they believe any implementation that DOES NOT create privilege and status for themselves in the use of power is in fact an abuse of power against them. Thus blind justice or neutral justice is inherently abusive to them if implemented, by their rationale, because they are no longer getting special treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Assuming Trump doesn't pardon him, which, given the loyalty he's shown, is likely.  He still has state crimes to worry about, but this isn't one of them.

We'll see on the state crimes. Gamble v United States could end that threat though there is some dispute on that given State crimes might be "different" enough to avoid that. I think Manafort gets pardoned. Trump has been laying the groundwork for it the last few weeks by saying he's been really unfairly treated, that Mueller's group is forcing him to lie and that he won't rule out pardoning him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

it's because the use of power is almost always directed at an other out group that is not part of thine own in group. This is the proper use of power for most people, "my privilege as a member of the in group protects me and I support policies that enforce the high status of my privilege" thus police/government abuse of power, for many/most people is NOT abuse of power but is representative of the proper use of power for many/most people.

They want it that way and they like it that way. They freak the fuck out at the prospect of their own strategies being implemented upon themselves and they believe any implementation that DOES NOT create privilege and status for themselves in the use of power is in fact an abuse of power against them. Thus blind justice or neutral justice is inherently abusive to them if implemented, by their rationale, because they are no longer getting special treatment.

And that point of view is incredibly short sighted.  It assumes that “privilege” will always exist.  I’m concerned about my son, who’s never seen an argument he can avoid, is going to get shot by an irritated police officer and the officer will claim “subjective fear” to justify his or her actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And that point of view is incredibly short sighted.  It assumes that “privilege” will always exist.  I’m concerned about my son, who’s never seen an argument he can avoid, is going to get shot by an irritated police officer and the officer will claim “subjective fear” to justify his or her actions.

Privilege always exists. It has already always existed. It will always exist in the future. This is a very good and well founded assumption for people to make, its not short sighted, its about as long sighted as it’s possible to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Privilege always exists. It has already always existed. It will always exist in the future. This is a very good and well founded assumption for people to make, its not short sighted, its about as long sighted as it’s possible to get.

Until they or their child is killed.  This is not only a racial issue.  It is law enforcement holding itself to a different standard of behavior than that which applies to the rest of us.  That’s never proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi easily became the nominee for Speaker, however more than 30 blue dog Democrats voted against her, and a few more abstained. If that result repeats during the official vote and Republicans don’t cross the line to vote for her (a pretty safe assumption) she’d fall short of becoming Speaker, and the ensuing turmoil would probably lead Republicans to laugh all the way to the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Pelosi easily became the nominee for Speaker, however more than 30 blue dog Democrats voted against her, and a few more abstained. If that result repeats during the official vote and Republicans don’t cross the line to vote for her (a pretty safe assumption) she’d fall short of becoming Speaker, and the ensuing turmoil would probably lead Republicans to laugh all the way to the bank.

She's probably safe, though its not a guarantee yet. In 2016 (when the stakes were admittedly lower because she had zero chance of actually becoming Speaker), there were 63 defections in the caucus vote but only 4 in the floor vote.

She can probably strong-arm and negotiate most of those 30 (who aren't all Blue Dogs, though most do come from the moderate wing of the party). She doesn't need them to become yes votes either, she only needs them to vote present, which lowers the threshold of the floor vote. She needs an absolute majority only among members who actually vote for a candidate and she already has more votes than McCarthy even if she couldn't get any of the 30 to flip to yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Pelosi easily became the nominee for Speaker, however more than 30 blue dog Democrats voted against her, and a few more abstained. If that result repeats during the official vote and Republicans don’t cross the line to vote for her (a pretty safe assumption) she’d fall short of becoming Speaker, and the ensuing turmoil would probably lead Republicans to laugh all the way to the bank.

Some of the no votes had explicit clearance to vote against her to show off for their swing districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi is fine. Most of those votes are to fulfill campaign promises, and they can just turn around and say they voted for her on the floor because there's no way in hell they'd allow a Republican to be Speaker with a Democratic majority. She won't get the full caucus, and she may very well get by with the bare minimum, but she's all but a lock now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking News: Water is wet and Trump is losing his mind.

This interview he gave to WaPo is insane. Here's a funny highlight list:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/donald-trump-washington-post/index.html

My favorite is this one:

Quote
7. "You look at our air and our water, and it's right now at a record clean."
 
First off, "record clean." Second, we do not have "record clean."
 
8. "And when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over."
 
This is not The Onion. This is a real quote. On the "oceans are very small" point: Oceans cover roughly 70% of the Earth's surface.

I thought we couldn't  do a better job of helping Puerto Rico because we had to over come that "big water, ocean water."

In all seriousness though, I can't imagine anyone else saying some of the things on the list. I still have no idea how his supporters can think he's a smart guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Breaking News: Water is wet and Trump is losing his mind.

This interview he gave to WaPo is insane. Here's a funny highlight list:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/donald-trump-washington-post/index.html

My favorite is this one:

I thought we couldn't  do a better job of helping Puerto Rico because we had to over come that "big water, ocean water."

In all seriousness though, I can't imagine anyone else saying some of the things on the list. I still have no idea how his supporters can think he's a smart guy.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone so proud of his ignorance as Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The letter, obtained last week by The Atlantic, was sent to Democratic Representative Adam Schiff’s office on November 19 by an individual who claims to have been close to Papadopoulos in late 2016 and early 2017. The letter was brought to the attention of Schiff and House Intelligence Committee staff, according to an aide who requested anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The letter was also obtained by federal authorities, who are taking its claims “very seriously,” said two U.S. officials who also requested anonymity due to the sensitivities of the probe.

The statement makes a series of explosive but uncorroborated claims about Papadopoulos’s alleged coordination with Russians in the weeks following Trump’s election in November 2016, including that Papadopoulos said he was “doing a business deal with Russians which would result in large financial gains for himself and Mr. Trump.” The confidant—whose name The Atlantic is withholding at their request but whose identity is known to congressional and federal investigators—said they were willing to take a polygraph test “to prove that I am being truthful” and had come forward now after seeing Papadopoulos “become increasingly hostile towards those who are investigating him and his associates.”  A lawyer for Papadopoulos declined to comment.

 

Papadopoulos’s Russia Ties Continue to Intrigue
The former foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign boasted of a Russia business deal even after the election, according to a new letter under review.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/papadopouloss-russia-ties-still-interest-fbi-schiff/576895/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And that point of view is incredibly short sighted.  It assumes that “privilege” will always exist.  I’m concerned about my son, who’s never seen an argument he can avoid, is going to get shot by an irritated police officer and the officer will claim “subjective fear” to justify his or her actions.

The thought that your privilege might be being eroded is, if anything, incentive to double down on support for the institutions of govt that are exercising power in a way that you perceive as preserving your privilege. And of course oppose those institutions of govt that are not preserving your privilege or even actively working to erode it. Enlightenment, in this context is really nothing more than expanding who you consider to be "us" to the point of reducing the "them" group down to zero members. Once everyone is part of "us" then you start seeing the abuse of power for what it is. Until then most people won't don't perceive it as abuse so long as it is preserving your quality of life. Or at least keeping it better than the QoL of the them group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh Marshall says that what Gov Cuomo is going to get by going to Trump hat in hand for the federally owned bridge and tunnels is Trump demanding protection from the NY state judiciary against prosecution for his myriad state crimes. eff them all and their ilks.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/we-need-a-debrief-andrew

P.S. it's clear from hearing Cuomo dodging every question by people who know a whole lot that he's trying to leverage all these meetings with the orange nazi about the federally owned infrastructure around here (this is far from his first one), to the Dem nom for POTUS in 2020.

 

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...