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

[Martell Spy]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

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

 

By opposing it, she created something to give them. It does not mean it had value. Some see it as a face-saving gesture for the rebels.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

By opposing it, she created something to give them.

Sorry this doesn't make sense.  If it was all just a gambit she easily could have offered this after the caucus vote, but continued to oppose it.

[The Anti-Targ]

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

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

 

I read that more as opposing any imposed timeline for her stepping down. That doesn't mean she can't make an advanced announcement of her retirement, and make use of it for political purposes.

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

By opposing it, she created something to give them. It does not mean it had value. Some see it as a face-saving gesture for the rebels.

Yeah, I mean who the fuck knows if the Dems will even hold the house after 2020 elections.  All she gave up was something she doesn't even have.  

 

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Well if you put that against the much more abundant stuff she's said about being a transitional speaker, ok, but you're not really refuting anything.

 

ETA:  like @Martell Spy said, it also lets douchebags like Seth Moulton look slightly less douchey.  (But really Seth, ya still look really douchtastical)

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I read that more as opposing any imposed timeline for her stepping down. That doesn't mean she can't make an advanced announcement of her retirement, and make use of it for political purposes.

I don't understand the distinction between the two.  Announcing an advanced retirement is a nice synonym for an imposed timeline.

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well if you put that against the much more abundant stuff she's said about being a transitional speaker, ok, but you're not really refuting anything.

I think the fact she opposed this since the election, until now, quite effectively refutes your original assertion that she's not really giving anything up.  Or at least she clearly thought it was for a month.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't understand the distinction between the two.  Announcing an advanced retirement is a nice synonym for an imposed timeline.

I think the fact she opposed this since the election, until now, quite effectively refutes your original assertion that she's not really giving anything up.  Or at least she clearly thought it was for a month.

You don't think that was a negotiating tactic?  If the House flips back she can't be speaker anyway.  She literally has nothing to lose.  Unless you're claiming one comment she made, loosely interpreted, negates everything else she's said recently.  

[Martell Spy]

There is something definitely being given up though, other than Pelosi stepping down. Term limits on the other leaders. That only has a value for Pelosi though if she actually likes those leaders. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

How many speakers serve for three terms though?  I still don't see what this is giving up.  

[Martell Spy]

Did Michael Flynn Try to Strike a Grand Bargain With Moscow as It Attacked the 2016 Election?
His associates say he claimed he was in contact with the Russian ambassador during the campaign.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/michael-flynn-contacts-russia-campaign-robert-mueller/

Quote

 

There has been no public information, via the Mueller investigation or other sources, regarding Flynn’s interactions with Kislyak during the 2016 campaign when he was Trump’s top adviser on national security matters.

Yet two Flynn associates tell Mother Jones that Flynn has informed friends and colleagues that prior to Election Day he spoke with Kislyak about how Trump could work productively with Russia if he won the presidency.

One of these Flynn associates, who each asked not to be identified, notes that Flynn said he discussed with Kislyak a grand bargain in which Moscow would cooperate with the Trump administration to resolve the Syrian conflict and Washington would end or ease up on the sanctions imposed on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine. The other Flynn associate says Flynn said he had been talking to Kislyak about Syria, Iran, and other foreign policy matters that Russia and the United States could tackle together were Trump to be elected. A third Flynn associate recalls that shortly after the election, Flynn told him he had been in contact with Kislyak about Syria—but without stating whether that was before or after Election Day.

The nature and the timing of Flynn’s pre-election communications with Kislyak could be a significant element of the Trump-Russia story.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump and his campaign surrogates continuously denied Russia was behind the hacks of Democratic targets and the public dissemination of the stolen material. Their statements echoed Moscow’s false claims that it had nothing to do with these attacks on the US presidential campaign. Trump and his team continued to bolster this Russian disinformation campaign by insisting there was no evidence of Kremlin culpability, even after Trump and Flynn received a secret intelligence briefing in mid-August 2016 that noted the intelligence community had reached the preliminary conclusion that Moscow was orchestrating this assault—and after the Obama administration, in early October 2016, publicly declared that Russia was responsible for these hacks.

Had Flynn privately met or communicated with Kislyak during the summer or fall, it would mean Trump’s chief national security aide was secretly interacting with the representative of a foreign power as that government was mounting information and cyber warfare against the United States. Such an interaction could signal to the Vladimir Putin regime that Trump didn’t mind the Kremlin’s interference in the election and would be willing to work with Moscow despite its efforts to subvert the US election. And if Flynn held such conversations with the Russian ambassador, this could have bolstered the Kremlin’s preference for Trump over Hillary Clinton and provided Moscow with further incentive for intervening in the 2016 campaign to assist Trump—especially if there was any talk of a sanctions-for-Syria deal or other policy aims desired by Putin. (Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions, a top Republican supporting Trump, met with Kislyak at least twice in 2016, including in September in his Senate office.)

 

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You don't think that was a negotiating tactic?  If the House flips back she can't be speaker anyway.  She literally has nothing to lose.  Unless you're claiming one comment she made, loosely interpreted, negates everything else she's said recently.

Not as such, no.  It's certainly a bargaining chip, but I see no reason to doubt how genuine her objections were - that it will hamper her power as Speaker.  Because she's right, we literally just saw how weak a lame duck Speaker is.  Like I said originally, her critics have lost almost all their leverage since (and right before) the caucus vote.  It doesn't make sense to offer it now other than she just was sick of fighting - which is probably the case.  But acting like this is something she wanted to do all along directly refutes how she's been negotiating the past month.

11 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

There is something definitely being given up though, other than Pelosi stepping down. Term limits on the other leaders. That only has a value for Pelosi though if she actually likes those leaders. 

To clarify, Pelosi has vowed to step down whether that term limits rule passes the caucus or not.  So, no, she's not really giving that up at all.  Also, neither here nor there, but I hope the caucus does vote that down.  We shouldn't need a rule for these leaders to step down.  Plus advocating three terms seems pretty hypocritical when the top 3 Dems had the same ranking for 12 years now, or six terms.

[Martell Spy]

DeVos cancels $150M in student loan debt after losing court battle

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/13/betsy-devos-student-loans-1063442

Quote

The Trump administration said Thursday it will cancel thousands of borrowers’ federal student loans, carrying out an Obama-era policy that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had fought to kill.

Quote

 

The move comes as DeVos is being forced to implement a package of regulations that created more protections for student loan borrowers who were affected by a school closure or defrauded by their college.

A federal judge in September ruled that DeVos' efforts to stop the 2016 “borrower defense” regulations from taking effect was illegal. And in October, the same judge rejected a bid by for-profit colleges to immediately stop the regulations, clearing the way for them to take effect.

Education Department officials said Thursday that they will cancel the loans of about 15,000 borrowers who qualified for “closed school” loan discharges but who haven’t yet applied for that benefit. Those student loans total approximately $150 million.

Department officials said they would begin notifying borrowers Friday by email that they will receive the loan discharges. Borrowers will not have to take any action, but the process could take as long as 90 days to complete.

 

 

[EZLNYPG]

Ohio banned abortion, now Kentucky is trying to. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Perlmutter and a band of a dozen incumbents hoped to combine forces with roughly 10 incoming freshmen who had promised to vote against Pelosi on the campaign trail. They planned to gather the signatures of 25 opponents on a letter and publicize it as a show of force against Pelosi. It would have been more than enough votes to block her from the gavel — Pelosi can only afford to lose 17 votes on the floor.

But the incumbents ran into an unexpected problem. Most of the Democratic candidates who knocked Pelosi during the midterm campaign wouldn’t sign their document.

It wasn’t for lack of trying. One of the most high-profile rebels in the group, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), had told his colleagues that he’d win over the incoming freshmen, even referring to these lawmakers as “my candidates,” according to multiple Democratic sources.

 

How Pelosi beat the rebels and got her gavel back
The longtime Democratic leader outmaneuvered her critics and showed exactly why she will be speaker once again.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/13/nancy-pelosi-speakership-1063494

[OldGimletEye]

Not a millennial, but I sympathize with the plight that many of them faced when trying to enter job market, causing me at times to read the riot act to old Republican guys that think its cool to take swipes at them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/13/reason-millennials-arent-spending-much-money-is-they-dont-have-any/

 

Quote

it is the question that has launched a thousand TED talks: What do millennials want? Or, more precisely, why don’t they want the things I am selling?

Like anthropologists striving to understand the cultural practices of a remote Amazonian tribe, marketers have devoted themselves to studying the spending habits of people under the age of 35 to try to figure out how to appeal to their alien tastes. Maybe millennials are too health-conscious and illiterate in the ways of opening metal containers to like canned tuna. Or are too environmentally conscious and content to bike around their urban habitats to want a new car. Or would rather splurge on Instagram-friendly brunch items such as avocado toast than embrace the responsibility of adulthood and save up for a down payment on a house.

 

Quote

Which, according to economists at the Federal Reserve, really is the reason young people today are not buying as much stuff as young people of yore. Indeed, the researchers found that, once you account for demographic factors such age and income, there is “no evidence that the generation-specific tastes and preferences of millennials favor lower levels of consumption than the tastes and preferences of other generations." Which is to say young people are not spending as much money right now not because they do not want to, but rather because they do not have any. Or at least not as much as young people did in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s.

 

Quote

The problem, though, is we live in a media culture that prioritizes what is interesting but wrong over what is boring and true. Take unemployment. We literally spent years debating why it was so high in the wake of the biggest financial shock in history, worse even than the Great Depression.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2018, summated in one tweet:   

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

2018, summated in one tweet:   

 

 

I would pay a lot of money to see Canseco try to "buff up" our suet pudding of a President.

[Ormond]

11 hours ago, Triskele said:

uncommoIt would be really great if some quasi-protester stood outside capitol hill with a sign saying "Who names their kid Steny?"

I know you are trying to be funny, but this would certainly NOT be "really great."

From Wikipedia (which I assume is more trustworthy on a question like this than a lot of other things):

Quote

Hoyer was born in New York City, New York, and grew up in Mitchellville, Maryland, the son of Jean (née Baldwin) and Steen Theilgaard Høyer. His father was Danish and a native of Copenhagen; "Steny" is a variant of his father's name, "Steen",[5] and Hoyer is an anglicized form of the fairly common Danish surname "Høyer".

So someone protesting with a sign like that would be just as ignorant and ethnically insensitive as someone holding up a sign saying "Who names their kid Hakeem, Ilhan, or Ayanna" about African-American representatives or "Who names their kid Chuy, Xochitl, Salud, or Nydia" about Hispanic ones. 

And of course one really shouldn't use someone's uncommon name as a way to mock them even if it doesn't come from their ethnic ancestry.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I would pay a lot of money to see Canseco try to "buff up" our suet pudding of a President.

Well it won’t ever happen, because, and I’m not making this up, Trump thinks exercise will cause you to die sooner:   

Quote

After college, after Trump mostly gave up his personal athletic interests, he came to view time spent playing sports as time wasted. Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted. So he didn’t work out. When he learned that John O’Donnell, one of his top casino executives, was training for an Ironman triathlon, he admonished him, "You are going to die young because of this."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/9/15590962/donald-trump-thinks-exercise-will-kill-you

The leader of the free world, ladies and gentlemen…..   

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it won’t ever happen, because, and I’m not making this up, Trump thinks exercise will cause you to die sooner:   

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/9/15590962/donald-trump-thinks-exercise-will-kill-you

 

And yet he doesn't define golf as "exercise" (which it is to some extent for his upper body even if he uses a golf cart.)

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

And yet he doesn't define golf as "exercise" (which it is to some extent for his upper body even if he uses a golf cart.)

Well he has a point.

Golf is not a sport!

And I am still surprised this spare time activity survived the invention of the blue pills.