US Politics: Sing us a song, you're the Tariff man

[Morpheus]

Republicans in congress are saying those same things essentially. It is good to know that so many of our representatives are wiser than prosecutors and leading legal experts (the majority of whom say that in a sane world, Trump would be super fucked at this point)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm not so sure she would have won the general, or even beaten Hillary, but yes that was certainly her optimal time to run.  I also share your suspicion that Biden is angling to be a king (or queen!) maker.

I think both Warren and Biden would have beaten Hillary if they jumped in when she was damaged. And both would have likely defeated Trump too, as would damn near any Democrat in the country. Hillary is virtually the only major Democratic candidate that would have lost to Trump because she was so demonized, unlikable and served as a perfect foil for Trump’s message. And I say that as someone who supported her.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think both Warren and Biden would have beaten Hillary if they jumped in when she was damaged. And both would have likely defeated Trump too, as would damn near any Democrat in the country. Hillary is virtually the only major Democratic candidate that would have lost to Trump because she was so demonized, unlikable and served as a perfect foil for Trump’s message. And I say that as someone who supported her.

While Clinton's historic unpopularity is of course a given, it has fed into this myth-building that she was the only Dem candidate that could have lost to Trump.  In the general, Warren could have been demonized very easily as well and the environmental conditions would have been the same.  I'd say it's fair to assume Warren would have done better with the ~3-5% of idiots that voted third party, but it's equally fair to assume she may well have increased the number of Obama-Trump voters - and further depressed minority turnout to boot.  As for the primary, this similarly sounds like revisionist history.  Hillary built an insurmountable lead by Super Tuesday and wasn't really "damaged" in any significant way until she already banked that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

While Clinton's historic unpopularity is of course a given, it has fed into this myth-building that she was the only Dem candidate that could have lost to Trump.  In the general, Warren could have been demonized very easily as well and the environmental conditions would have been the same.  I'd say it's fair to assume Warren would have done better with the ~3-5% of idiots that voted third party, but it's equally fair to assume she may well have increased the number of Obama-Trump voters - and further depressed minority turnout to boot.  As for the primary, this similarly sounds like revisionist history.  Hillary built an insurmountable lead by Super Tuesday and wasn't really "damaged" in any significant way until she already banked that.

I’m not sure that the demonization of Warren would have been as impactful though. The Clinton hate has been stoked for years, and it’s not only on the right. A lot of moderates and liberals hate her too, and that likely wouldn’t be the case with Warren or Biden. Furthermore, given how close the election was, I think it’s quite likely that most other hypothetical candidates could have made up the 70k votes Clinton needed in WI, MI and PA.

Regarding the primaries, there were multiple points where there was speculation that Hillary would drop out and/or Biden or Warren would jump in. It is revisionist history to say they could have won it in the end, but I genuinely think there were instances in which they would have.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

To not knowingly accept donations over $200 from oil executives (or companies or PACs or fronts linked to those companies, but it's the executives bit that O'Rourke has broken, apparently in a couple of dozen cases). 

And I'm sorry, but even if the argument were that he hadn't technically broken the letter of the pledge because he took the money but wasn't going to allow it to influence his decisions? That's nonsense. First of all, the point of the pledge is that if politicians accept money from oil execs, voters can never be sure that it hasn't affected their decisions. That's not how human beings work. Secondly, arguing technicalities is not a good look if you're criticising other candidates for dubious funding. 

The amounts are not huge. But the principle is relevant to the point Mexal was making, I think. 

So this intrigued me a bit and I looked into it further. 

The Splinter article is quite misleading.

The headline of the article straight out accuses O'Rourke of breaking a campaign promise. Then the article describes the nature of the "broken promise like so:

Quote

 

This information is evidence that O’Rourke broke a campaign promise. During his campaign, he signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, which required that candidates not take any donations exceeding $200 from fossil fuel PACs or individuals in the industry. The pledge was endorsed by 16 environmental groups.

So from the start, the article mischaracterizes the specifics of the pledge. The key phrase is "individuals in the industry". The pledge does not state that those that sign will refuse donations exceeding $200 from any individual involved with the oil and gas industry. It specifically limits excluded individuals to "executives".

The Splinter article then references an article from Sludge, which which provided a comprehensive analysis of the campaign contributions from individuals associated with oil and gas. The article has a few problems, including some basic math.

Here is one finding:

Quote

33 were maximum donations of $2,700, adding up to $96,400, or 22.4 percent of the total.

All well and good, except that 33 individuals donating the maximum of $2700 leads to a total of $89,100 in contributions, not $96,400.

There are other continuity errors in the analysis. For example, the article lists the 20 most common oil and gas industry occupations who donated to O'Rourke. But, among those occupations are nearly 100 donors with a combined total contribution amount of about $64,000, whose "occupations" are listed as "Not Employed", "Retired", and "Homemaker". I think it may be safe to assume that none of these people are oil and gas executives.

Here are the key findings:

Quote

24 oil and gas executives made 64 donations to O’Rourke through Oct. 17.

29 of these donations were “large” donations of over $200.

Five of these donations were the maximum of $2,700.

22 of the donors gave more than $200 in aggregate, and 14 gave $1,000 or more.

So, there were 29 total donations of $200 or more from "oil and gas executives". I haven't reviewed the actual data used for the article, but it's problematic based on the haphazard methodology used in the analysis. For example, there were 8 donors with a listed occupation of "Homemaker", with combined total contributions of $15,500, which averages out to more than $1,900 each. Were these homemakers included in the 29 donations of $200 or more from "oil executives"? The article doesn't say.

Also, to break the pledge, a candidate must "knowingly" accept a large contribution from an executive. By flat out stating O'Rourke broke his promise, the articles are asserting that his campaign knowingly took these donations in spite of signing the pledge. I'm not sure how they're able to make that assertion.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Regarding the primaries, there were multiple points where there was speculation that Hillary would drop out and/or Biden or Warren would jump in.

While there was certainly plenty of speculation about Biden and Warren running, I don't recall any credible speculation that Hillary would drop out.

[Morpheus]

 

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

Sure. But as noted, this is not regular people who happen to work in oil donating $10 each. This is executives of oil companies making very large personal donations, and O'Rourke accepting them in apparent violation of a pledge he signed up to. If Mexal is criticising Booker and praising O'Rourke for their supposedly contrasting fundraising approaches, it's absolutely relevant to note this. 

They aren't very large - they're the maximum of $2700. The other weird thing is how they define as 'executive'. 

Anyway, it's mostly bullshit as a number goes to look at 'x industry contributions' when most of that comes from small donors. 

[Zorral]

Butina pleads guilty.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/russian-spy-maria-butina-pleads-guilty-conspiracy

Quote

 

The prosecutors in the Butina case are not from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russia’s role in the 2016 US election and whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow to help him win.

Nevertheless, Butina’s guilty plea means she becomes the first Russian citizen to be convicted of working to shape US policy in the time period spanning the 2016 election campaign. Mueller has brought criminal charges against a series of Russian individuals and entities but those cases are still pending.

The prosecution’s complaint against Butina did not explicitly mention Trump’s campaign. Reuters previously reported that Butina was a Trump supporter who bragged at Washington parties that she could use her political connections to help people get jobs in his administration.

 

Butina, of course, does get one thinking of the NRA, particularly on a day when encountering on several newspaper sites the information that over 40,000 people died by gun in the USA in 2017.

So I thought of this old piece of info too:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/09/nra-in-the-red-for-2nd-straight-year/

Quote

 

.... The NRA went big in 2016, breaking its own spending records to help catapult Donald Trump into the White House and protect Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The organization’s Federal Election Commission reports show that the nation’s preeminent gun-rights group spent at least $54.4 million boosting Republicans — with Donald Trump being, by far, the biggest beneficiary of that firepower, reaping $31.2 million in support.

The bulk of the NRA’s spending in 2016, $35.2 million, was channeled not through its political action committee, but through its 501(c)(4) nonprofit arm. It’s this section of the NRA — which doesn’t have to disclose its donors — whose finances are reported in the audit obtained by OpenSecrets....

 

 

[Corvinus85]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-prepares-vote-to-curtail-us-support-for-saudi-led-military-effort-in-yemen/2018/12/13/cf934a96-fed7-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.2f771891c8d0

Quote

The Senate cast two historic votes Thursday to end U.S. participation in the Saudi-led war effort in Yemen and condemn the Saudi crown prince as responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, delivering clear political rebukes of President Trump’s continued embrace of the kingdom.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Does Trump care about rebukes from politicians? Does the senate vote bind Trump's hands? Trump's cheer squad only has to hear that the US action in supporting Saudi Arabia is aimed at hurting Iran and they will continue to cheer him on.

[KingintheNorth4]

23 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-prepares-vote-to-curtail-us-support-for-saudi-led-military-effort-in-yemen/2018/12/13/cf934a96-fed7-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.2f771891c8d0

 

It's about fucking time the Senate voted to end an unauthorized war.

[Morpheus]

The Trump inauguration committee is now under investigation for misspending, materials seized from Cohen are part of the probe. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inauguration-spending-under-criminal-investigation-by-federal-prosecutors-11544736455

[Jace, Extat]

28 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

The Trump inauguration committee is now under investigation for misspending, materials seized from Cohen are part of the probe. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inauguration-spending-under-criminal-investigation-by-federal-prosecutors-11544736455

The one like a full third of the NFL donated a million bucks to each before we even start counting the Cock brothers? How the hell is it legal to curry favor at those things?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

While there was certainly plenty of speculation about Biden and Warren running, I don't recall any credible speculation that Hillary would drop out.

I think the key word is "credible." I did some interwebs sleuthing and all I could find were gasbags and talking heads, more often than not Republican ones, saying that she'll have to consider dropping out at various points in the primaries, and to a lesser extent, during the general (and that doesn't include the aftermath of her "health scare").

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The one like a full third of the NFL donated a million bucks to each before we even start counting the Cock brothers? How the hell is it legal to curry favor at those things?

This is America, Jace. Bribery is as American as apple pie and Moe Szyslak's five in one gun! 

Jokes aside though, this investigation started because of a Cohen tape. Makes one wonder just how many of them exist. 

[Zorral]

Maybe somebody can make sense of these two things being said within hours of each other?

Supposedly, for effing up the COS - Ayers thingy thing thing, Jared was punished by the orange nazi daddy in law and ordered to go on eff noose and take the blame:

https://splinternews.com/jared-kushner-reportedly-played-himself-1831069517

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/jared-kushner-trump-chief-of-staff

 

Quote

 

• relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the C.I.A. says ordered the assassination of a U.S. resident.

As of Thursday afternoon, various White House reporters had contradicted the Huffington Post’s report, while others had confirmed it, which probably means that, in typical White House fashion, no one has the slightest clue what’s going on. On Thursday, Trump claimed that he’d narrowed his search down to “Five people. Really good ones. Terrific people. Mostly well known, but terrific people.” According to my colleague, Gabriel Sherman, other names in the mix include Citizens United president David Bossie and acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker.

 

 

Now, this?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-chief-of-staff-jared-kushner_us_5c12c616e4b0f60cfa277b93

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/jared-after-fiasco-trump-is-eyeing-bannon-ally-dave-bossie

Or, this is the real punishment?  But maybe, if so, both the oval office nazi and the sil nazi should consider that Mueller's team is now concentrating on Saudi and the Middle East and Jared:

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/13/mueller-will-tie-trump-to-unsavory-middle-east-operatives-in-new-filings-report_partner/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mueller-team-asking-if-kushner-foreign-business-ties-influenced-trump-n852681

[Larry of the Lawn]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

 

Kinda surprised she was willing to do that given her detractors lost basically any leverage over the past few weeks.  

I mean she's not really giving anything up - she's been saying she just wanted to be a transitional speaker for awhile now and given her age, maybe she's ready planning on stepping back.  It's all upside for her - she's consolidated support 6 weeks after the election and the Dems as a party are looking the least fucked-up they have in awhile.  I also think it's a good move looking forward because it gives millennials a reason to show up big in 2020: claim your seat at the table.

[lokisnow]

16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean she's not really giving anything up - she's been saying she just wanted to be a transitional speaker for awhile now and given her age, maybe she's ready planning on stepping back.  It's all upside for her - she's consolidated support 6 weeks after the election and the Dems as a party are looking the least fucked-up they have in awhile.  I also think it's a good move looking forward because it gives millennials a reason to show up big in 2020: claim your seat at the table.

It also pissed off the power hungry decrepit and undead Steny Hoyer, so that’s a nice bonus.

[DMC]

40 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean she's not really giving anything up - she's been saying she just wanted to be a transitional speaker for awhile now and given her age, maybe she's ready planning on stepping back.

Except she opposed any timeline for her stepping as recently as two weeks ago:

Quote

U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Friday drew a tough line against a small band of Democrats opposing her planned return to the speaker’s job next year, saying she would not agree to step down early to win their support.

“I don’t think...that they should be putting timelines on a woman speaker,” Pelosi told reporters in a Capitol hallway.