Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Kamala Harris to make 2020 decision 'over the holiday'

The suspense is killing me.  Is she gonna run, or is she gonna run?

 

More importantly, can she stand up to Trump in the debates - maybe get him so ticked off that Trump has a 'cardiac event?'

(I still maintain Trump is a walking advertisement for a heart attack.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The fact that Farr came so close to being seated on the federal bench is a symptom of a greater sickness afflicting American democracy, which is that one of the two major parties has decided that disenfranchising a core constituency of its rival party is a legitimate political approach. The polarization of the two parties into one that is almost entirely white and one that relies substantially on the support of racial and ethnic minorities has exacerbated a trend toward conservatives believing that their opponents’ political victories are illegitimate. It is no coincidence that the voter-fraud conspiracies of Trump and his defenders center around undocumented immigrants or black neighborhoods—alleging criminality allows them to suggest political victories that rely on minority voters are usurpations, without saying so explicitly.

The rhetoric with which conservatives describe elements of the Democratic coalition—black voters are frequently described as being stuck on a “plantation”—denies black agency and also Republicans’ responsibility for their difficulties attracting minority voters. Suggesting that voters of color are somehow coerced or brainwashed into voting for Democrats not only justifies efforts to disenfranchise them, it means that criticism of the Republican Party’s record on racism can easily be dismissed as fake news.


Those who hold these beliefs naturally conclude that extraordinary measures are justified in order to maintain power. Whether it’s deliberately baroque voting rules, prohibitive costs to casting a ballot, voter-suppression campaigns, or racial gerrymanders, the alternative—allowing Democrats to steal elections—is ultimately worse. They’re just trying to protect democracy.

 

The Conscience of a Conservative
It should not fall to the only black Republican senator to block a man who spent his career seeking to disenfranchise minority voters from being appointed to the federal bench.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/tim-scotts-stand-against-voter-disenfranchisement/577132/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

The Conscience of a Conservative
It should not fall to the only black Republican senator to block a man who spent his career seeking to disenfranchise minority voters from being appointed to the federal bench.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/tim-scotts-stand-against-voter-disenfranchisement/577132/

Agreed.  I like Tim Scott.  I wonder if he can be wooed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I bought Jon Meacham's book about Bush the day before he died. Kinda spooky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Agreed.  I like Tim Scott.  I wonder if he can be wooed?

How about Scott Free? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Trump's witness tampering in real time is something to behold. 

Yeah, no kidding!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Trump's witness tampering in real time is something to behold. 

As I’ve said before, innocent people don’t behave like they’re the guiltiest person on the planet….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bonnot OG said:

Lol you serious with this?

Completely serious.

On 12/1/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bonnot OG said:

Lol you serious with this? Do you realize how fucking racist he was or how racist his policies were? 

Was he racist? Probably to an extent. But, then again, so are lots of people. How I will deal with that issue depends on the level I'm encountering.

LBJ was likely racist to certain extent. That doesn't mean he was the worst sort of racist. Even if you don't buy Robert Caro's story that LBJ worked tirelessly to get the 1964 Civil Rights Bill passed, I think its rather indisputable that when advised not to pursue Civil Rights Legislation, upon becoming President, he responded "Then What in the Hell is the Presidency For?".

Your fundamental problem is treating everyone that has some level of racism or prejudice as being fundamentally the same. Not every bit of racism or prejudice requires the same response. That is where you error. 

I certainly think the Willie Horton ad was atrocious and H.W. Bush certainly deserves criticism for that ad.

And I certainly dislike him running around the 1960s, when running for Senator, saying he didn't support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, he did vote for the 1968 Civil Rights Act, even though that wasn't a particularly popular position among his constituency. And he has condemned racism in the past. He did so in the 1980s and after Charlotesville. He signed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.

The point here is I don't categorize him as being the same as Trump.

On 12/1/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bonnot OG said:

Do you realize how many people died because of his homophobia and doing nothing about AIDS? 

Hmm. I think it's fair to criticize a lot of his statements and actions about AIDS and his comments about gay marriage.

That said, I think it's a tad misleading to say he did nothing. For one, he did sign the Ryan White Act. And he did sign the American With Disabilities Act, which among other things, protected HIV positive people from discrimination.

And the discretionary part of federal aids spending did increase over his presidency. At the beginning it was something like 1.1 billion dollars. By the end it was around something like 2.6 billion. Now I don't recall all the budget battles he had with the Democratically controlled congress, but I'd imagine they probably asked for more money, which Bush probably balked at. But, his refusal to grant more money to federal aids/HIV spending likely had more to do with his concern over the deficit, where he likely tried to reduce spending on a variety of programs, than it had to do with just screwing over HIV victims specifically. Now, likely his deficit worries were likely overblown and he should have been more willing to spend more money on HIV research, but I'd say his deficit worries were likely genuine as he did agree to tax raises.

On 12/1/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bonnot OG said:

How about how many war crimes he committed? 

You know, I think there is a lot of confusion on your part when it comes to the issue of war crimes.

You are clearly not a "peace at any price" sort of person, generally indicating that you think the use of force against Nazis is justified. The difference between you and me evidently is that I realize that armed conflict, even if their is Jus Ad Bellum, it will likely result in civilian casualties. You seemingly think that fighting Nazis will never cause what the military euphemistically calls "collateral damage".

And because I realize that armed conflicts are likely to produce civilian casualties is the primary reason I tend to be in the Sanders, Paul, and hell even Koch Brothers camp on the use of military force. I'm highly skeptical of its use, to include regime change as advocated by the Neo-Cons or for "humanitarian" purposes as advocated by the Susan Power's camp.

That said, I find H.W. two wars, while not free from all problems, to be a lot less problematic than some of the other armed conflicts we have been in, including Vietnam, and even Hillary Clinton's planned intervention into Syria or her pushing Obama to involve the US into the Ukariane, who in my opinion rightly refused, though pushed by the establishment to get involved. With regard to Gulf I, Hussein did invade another country and was not wanted there. And that war was prosecuted under UN resolution 678, one of the few US wars that got UN approval. And Panama invasion did seemingly have the approval of the majority of Panamanians and it was over and done with quickly.

Also, I'd note that I think H.W. Bush handled aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union quite well, being generally conciliatory to an old foe and trying not to gloat or embarrass them, which I think was the right approach at the time.

On 12/1/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bonnot OG said:

I guess you like their bigotry to be hidden so you don't feel uncomfortable seeing it out in the open in the person like a Trump. 

No, I think the difference here between you and me is basically you see the issue of racism/bigotry as  a simple and discrete binary proposition. You either are or you are not. I think that is your view of things. You are either part of the alt-right or you are not.

I don't think of the issue in those terms. I'm not saying that racism/bigotry is okay, but not everyone who displays those things is a card carrying member of the alt right or a monster. And how you respond to that issue depends on the type your encounter. You believe in always bring out a hammer. I believe in bringing out the hammer at times, but not in every situation.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

With regard to Gulf I, Hussein did invade another country and was not wanted there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trebla said:

How about Scott Free? 

 

I must say, the first one had me wondering for a sec whether it was real. As in, no sane person would write "totally unrelated to me", well he didn't even write me, but spoke of himself in the third person. But then I the I recalled, we are not talking about a sane person. Guys, seriously, it's not funny anymore, just impeach him for crying out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That said, I find H.W. two wars, while not free from all problems, to be a lot less problematic than some of the other armed conflicts we have been in, including Vietnam, and even Hillary Clinton's planned intervention into Syria or her pushing Obama to involve the US into the Ukariane, who in my opinion rightly refused, though pushed by the establishment to get involved. With regard to Gulf I, Hussein did invade another country and was not wanted there. And that war was prosecuted under UN resolution 678, one of the few US wars that got UN approval. And Panama invasion did seemingly have the approval of the majority of Panamanians and it was over and done with quickly.

You're missing everything about Iran-Contra, and the utter lying corrupt hypocrisy this was in his and Reagan's administrations of "Just Say No", "War On Drugs" and Drug Czars -- which brought us the crack epidemic.  And Bush was instrumental in fabricating and faciliating these policies -- and the cover-ups.  And then, hooray -- the pardon for Caspar Weinberger, so he didn't need to testify and tell the world what Bush knew and did.  Along with so many other cover-ups, including stuff that went on in even the Kennedy administrations and certainly Nixon's. 

Then the hypocrisy of pretending he never had affairs regularly, and was constantly 'handsy' as his good old-fashioned decent New England gentlemen cronies like to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Completely serious.

Was he racist? Probably to an extent. But, then again, so are lots of people. How I will deal with that issue depends on the level I'm encountering.

LBJ was likely racist to certain extent. That doesn't mean he was the worst sort of racist. Even if you don't buy Robert Caro's story that LBJ worked tirelessly to get the 1964 Civil Rights Bill passed, I think its rather indisputable that when advised not to pursue Civil Rights Legislation, upon becoming President, he responded "Then What in the Hell is the Presidency For?".

Your fundamental problem is treating everyone that has some level of racism or prejudice as being fundamentally the same. Not every bit of racism or prejudice requires the same response. That is where you error. 

I certainly think the Willie Horton ad was atrocious and H.W. Bush certainly deserves criticism for that ad.

And I certainly dislike him running around the 1960s, when running for Senator, saying he didn't support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, he did vote for the 1968 Civil Rights Act, even though that wasn't a particularly popular position among his constituency. And he has condemned racism in the past. He did so in the 1980s and after Charlotesville. He signed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.

The point here is I don't categorize him as being the same as Trump.

Hmm. I think it's fair to criticize a lot of his statements and actions about AIDS and his comments about gay marriage.

That said, I think it's a tad misleading to say he did nothing. For one, he did sign the Ryan White Act. And he did sign the American With Disabilities Act, which among other things, protected HIV positive people from discrimination.

And the discretionary part of federal aids spending did increase over his presidency. At the beginning it was something like 1.1 billion dollars. By the end it was around something like 2.6 billion. Now I don't recall all the budget battles he had with the Democratically controlled congress, but I'd imagine they probably asked for more money, which Bush probably balked at. But, his refusal to grant more money to federal aids/HIV spending likely had more to do with his concern over the deficit, where he likely tried to reduce spending on a variety of programs, than it had to do with just screwing over HIV victims specifically. Now, likely his deficit worries were likely overblown and he should have been more willing to spend more money on HIV research, but I'd say his deficit worries were likely genuine as he did agree to tax raises.

You know, I think there is a lot of confusion on your part when it comes to the issue of war crimes.

You are clearly not a "peace at any price" sort of person, generally indicating that you think the use of force against Nazis is justified. The difference between you and me evidently is that I realize that armed conflict, even if their is Jus Ad Bellum, it will likely result in civilian casualties. You seemingly think that fighting Nazis will never cause what the military euphemistically calls "collateral damage".

And because I realize that armed conflicts are likely to produce civilian casualties is the primary reason I tend to be in the Sanders, Paul, and hell even Koch Brothers camp on the use of military force. I'm highly skeptical of its use, to include regime change as advocated by the Neo-Cons or for "humanitarian" purposes as advocated by the Susan Power's camp.

That said, I find H.W. two wars, while not free from all problems, to be a lot less problematic than some of the other armed conflicts we have been in, including Vietnam, and even Hillary Clinton's planned intervention into Syria or her pushing Obama to involve the US into the Ukariane, who in my opinion rightly refused, though pushed by the establishment to get involved. With regard to Gulf I, Hussein did invade another country and was not wanted there. And that war was prosecuted under UN resolution 678, one of the few US wars that got UN approval. And Panama invasion did seemingly have the approval of the majority of Panamanians and it was over and done with quickly.

Also, I'd note that I think H.W. Bush handled aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union quite well, being generally conciliatory to an old foe and trying not to gloat or embarrass them, which I think was the right approach at the time.

No, I think the difference here between you and me is basically you see the issue of racism/bigotry as  a simple and discrete binary proposition. You either are or you are not. I think that is your view of things. You are either part of the alt-right or you are not.

I don't think of the issue in those terms. I'm not saying that racism/bigotry is okay, but not everyone who displays those things is a card carrying member of the alt right or a monster. And how you respond to that issue depends on the type your encounter. You believe in always bring out a hammer. I believe in bringing out the hammer at times, but not in every situation.


I see a lot of apologism here, but not shocking from a moderate like yourself that is also a former military individual. 

I'm not into privileged moderate politics that enables scumbags like Trump to come along. And make no mistake, your apologism for dog whistling bigots like the Bush family, who have the same policies Trump does, makes it okay for the Trumps of the world to come along. 

You're just uncomfortable with the bigotry being out in the open. 

Fuck the Bush family, especially that racist homophobic sexual abuser scumbag HW.

Edited by Bonnot OG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:


I see a lot of apologism here, but not shocking from a moderate like yourself that is also a former military individual. 

I'm not into privileged moderate politics that enables scumbags like Trump to come along. And make no mistake, your apologism for dog whistling bigots like the Bush family, who have the same policies Trump does, makes it okay for the Trumps of the world to come along. 

You're just uncomfortable with the bigotry being out in the open. 

Fuck the Bush family, especially that racist homophobic sexual abuser scumbag HW.

I see somebody that refuses to contend with facts or points he doesn't like. And is willing to play fast and loose with his assertions.

Quote

You're just uncomfortable with the bigotry being out in the open.

And tell me, how did you figure this out? Walk us through the reasoning process here, step by step.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder just how far this case will get?  Might be a bigger threat to Trump than the Mueller investigation...

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-greenlights-subpoenas-in-trump-hotel-lawsuit/ar-BBQrXdU?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

A federal judge on Monday said lawyers for Maryland and Washington, D.C., can begin issuing subpoenas in a lawsuit that accuses President Donald Trump of using his luxury hotel in Washington to unconstitutionally profit from his political office.

 

The attorneys general in Maryland and Washington say they plan to serve as many as 20 companies and government agencies with subpoenas by mid-day Tuesday. It’s the first time a lawsuit alleging a president violated the Constitution's emoluments, or anti-corruption, clauses has advanced to the discovery stage.

A similar suit against Trump brought by Democratic lawmakers cleared an initial hurdle in federal court in Washington, while a pair of suits filed in New York were thrown out by a judge there. That decision is on appeal. None of those cases has proceeded to the discovery stage yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez being a genius again.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/3/18122947/pentagon-accounting-error-medicare-for-all

Quote

The US military budget is such a bloated monstrosity that it contains accounting errors that could finance two-thirds of the cost of a government-run single-payer health insurance system. All Americans could visit an unlimited array of doctors at no out of pocket cost. At least that’s a notion spreading on left-wing Twitter and endorsed and amplified by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of Democrats’ biggest 2018 sensations and an undeniable master at the fine art of staying in the public eye.

Unfortunately, it’s not true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SweetPea said:

Ocasio-Cortez being a genius again.

Yup. And yet somehow she still sounds so much smarter than Trump...
Like, at least she got the numbers right... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yup. And yet somehow she still sounds so much smarter than Trump...
Like, at least she got the numbers right... :P

Still, I wish she would make sure she understands what she’s talking about before she hits send on Twitter.  In that she does have a similarity to Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan are being sore losers who are trying to change the rules of the game after losing. After losses in governors and State Attorney General races, Republicans are trying to strip both positions of power, (including trying to give themselves an end run around the Attorney General) and is Wisconsin they're also trying to change elections to hurt Democrats and help Republicans.

Article 1

Quote

After being defeated at the ballot box last month, Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan are seeking to deny Democrats full control of state government, prompting a public outcry against the attempted power grab by national figures who include potential 2020 candidates Tom Steyer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
In a scene reminiscent of the protests against the anti-union push by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) eight years ago, demonstrators rallied at the state capitol here Monday and repeatedly spoke out during a hearing on the GOP legislative package, which was introduced late Friday and is expected to come up for a vote as early as Tuesday.

“This is a lame-duck session, and here the legislature is abusing power,” state Rep. Katrina Shankland (D) said during the hearing, calling the move “a slap in the face of every voter who voted in record turnout in the midterms.”

...

Among the more controversial parts of the plan are provisions that would limit early voting — which has helped Democrats — restrict Evers’s ability to make appointments and move the Wisconsin 2020 presidential primary to March, a shift that by lessening the turnout for the April 2020 state Supreme Court election would likely boost the chances of conservative judges.

The plan would also take away from the governor the power to withdraw the state from a lawsuit, allowing lawmakers to make the decision instead. That proposal, critics say, is aimed at ensuring Wisconsin remains part of a Republican challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission estimated Monday that moving the date of the 2020 presidential primary would cost more than $6 million. In a unanimous vote, the six members of the bipartisan panel said it would be “extraordinarily difficult” to make the move, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

...

Republicans in both states have defended the moves as necessary to prevent Democrats from unraveling what they view as their legislative successes.

“Most of these items are things that either we never really had to kind of address because, guess what? We trusted Scott Walker and the administration to be able to manage the back-and-forth with the legislature,” Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said Monday in an interview with conservative radio host Jay Weber. “We don’t trust Tony Evers right now in a lot of these areas.”

Republican politicians and activists hating Democracy and being general pieces of shit? No surprise there.

More in-depth analysis of specific measures being pushed by the Republican legislatures:

Quote

The state governments have proposed a slate of bills that would touch everything from voting access to the judicial system. In Wisconsin, the proposals, some of which are expected to pass Tuesday, could limit Evers’s power to change policies around welfare, health care, and economic development, cut down early voting, and even allow the Republican-led legislature to hire their own lawyers to undermine the Attorney General. In Michigan, a Republican proposal would guarantee the GOP-controlled legislature the right to intervene in any legal battles involving state laws that the attorney general may be reluctant to defend.


If Republicans are successful, it’s a power grab that would seriously undermine the platform Evers campaigned, and won, on.

Two years ago, North Carolina set the precedent for this kind of move, when the Republican-controlled legislature stripped then-incoming Democrat Roy Cooper’s power over Cabinet appointments, made the state’s judicial system more partisan and ensured that the state’s board of elections would be controlled by Republicans in election years. Cooper has been in legal fights over the changes since.

In the span of four days, Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature is trying to overhaul the powers of the governor. Last Friday, Republican state lawmakers unveiled a 141-page package of bills that would give Republicans power over key gubernatorial decisions, weaken the role of the attorney general, as well as proposals to limit voter turnout.

“Wisconsin law, written by the legislature and signed into law by a governor, should not be erased by the potential political maneuvering of the executive branch,” Speaker of the Assembly Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a joint statement.

They plan on voting on some of these bills on Tuesday, after only one day of hearings.

A quick rundown of what Wisconsin Republicans proposed:

Republicans want to cut down the number of early voting days, limiting it to two weeks. This would very likely draw legal challenges; the proposal is very similar to a previous law that the courts struck down in 2016 for “stifling votes for partisan gain.” There’s a proposal that would allow the Republican Legislature to intervene in legal cases and hire their own lawyers, to effectively replace the Democratic Attorney General all together — the constitutionality of which is up for debate.

They also want to change the date for Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential primary from April to March, which Republicans say will separate “nonpartisan” elections from partisan ones, and liberal advocates say is a play to protect conservative state Supreme Court candidates up for reelection. This idea has already raised the ire of Republican and Democratic election clerks across the state, who say it would be a logistical nightmare to hold three elections.

The changes would give the legislature more power over the boards of certain commissions, like the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), the state’s jobs-focused agency, which has come under a lot of scrutiny for giving Taiwanese company Foxconn Technology Group $3 billion in tax breaks in exchange for their $10 billion factory — an investment that even the state’s Legislative Bureau said the state wouldn’t bring returns until after 2043. Evers said he wanted to get rid of WEDC altogether, as it has garnered a reputation of falling short of its jobs promises.

The proposals would limit Evers’s abilities to change the state’s work requirement laws around food stamps and health care, giving the legislature oversight over any federal waivers the state has received. Walker pushed for Medicaid work requirement waivers and waivers to drug test food stamp recipients. Republicans want to stop Wisconsin’s incoming attorney general from withdrawing the state from a federal lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, instead requiring legislative approval to do so.

 

Edited by Paladin of Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×