Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I don't understand why they felt the need to come to NYC in the first place -- even with the tax break, it's more expensive than nearly every other place they considered and there are few places with so many entrenched, powerful interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

The only two things really left to be interested in are (1) how exactly Trump actually uses the powers and diverts funding to the wall (and of course how much)

So just saw this has already been reported - shoulda done my homework!

Quote

ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration.

A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget.

So, pretty sure he's gonna have to issue an EO for the $600 million from Treasury and $2.5 billion from the Pentagon program (in fact I expect he'll issue one for each action).  Other than the travel ban, those will be the most challengeable EOs of his presidency.  So, he'll have at least two (and probably three) challenges to contend with - one for the EO and one for using the emergency declaration to get the military construction money.  Becoming quite clear who the real winners in all this are:  lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Bizarre thought - would trump be okay simply not vetoing it and letting it die and then saying it would have been fine, save for these traitors? Kind of like what he did with the ACA repeal?

not dramatic enough?  This is Trump, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

So just saw this has already been reported - shoulda done my homework!

So, pretty sure he's gonna have to issue an EO for the $600 million from Treasury and $2.5 billion from the Pentagon program (in fact I expect he'll issue one for each action).  Other than the travel ban, those will be the most challengeable EOs of his presidency.  So, he'll have at least two (and probably three) challenges to contend with - one for the EO and one for using the emergency declaration to get the military construction money.  Becoming quite clear who the real winners in all this are:  lawyers.

Given all the options for legal challenges, it's lucky he hasn't thought to stack the courts in his favour before all of this....

Ahhhh, bollox!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the people that have an issue with her history as though its just ideological objection from middle class white liberals or that sort. The people I've seen that have an issue are predominantly members of marginalised communities that have been on the receiving end of the practices she is defending. It's a genuine push back against harm they have seen done. I'm not saying that means you can't support her, just don't view it as anything other than sincere and genuine.

Are we talking about whether merely being a prosecutor should rule her out, or are talking about her actual record as a prosecutor? Because I was really addressing the first point. Not the second.

Personally, I think the whole "tough on crime" thing that got popular, right around the election of Richard Nixon and continued well into the 1990s was very bad and certainly hit certain communities very hard, particularly African Americans. And I'm certainly well aware of the history of my country to understand that a lot of the "tough on crime" approach was often motivated by appeals to racism, with people like George Wallace running around the country decrying criminals being coddled because "their daddies never took them to see the Pittsburgh Pirates." as he put it. Nor am I ignorant of the fact that the "tough on crime" approach hits people without financial means differently, than with people with those means. For instance those without financial means are more likely to sit in jail, while waiting for their cases to be adjudicated, which means they are more likely to plead guilty.

That said, I still recognize you still need people to enforce and prosecute laws.

On the second point, certainly her actual record deserves scrutiny, in order to get some idea of what her actual beliefs are with regard to the criminal justice system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OldGimletEye yeah the criticism I've seen has been on the second score - her specific record, not the general fact of being a prosecutor. I'm not an expert on it myself so I'm not commenting on whether that criticism is accurate, but it is sincere from at least some sources whether they're right or not. I just think it's worth accepting that sincerity rather than confusing it for faux concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concerns are quite legitimate. That said, I'm also concerned that she will be held to a different standard, than others that have preceded her, that became generally regarded as civil rights icons, even though they had troubling stuff in their past as well. What I want to know was is she guilty of being a politician doing politics, which I can forgive to some extent, or does she actually believe in some of the stuff she did that is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok, here's some more electoral speculation for the future, but I'm not even talking 2020, I'm talking 2022.  Is there a Dem senator you'd like to see get primaried more than Schumer?  Looking your way, AOC!

I don't see it. Schumer is popular in New York; especially among upstate registered Democrats who usually vote Republican. Take a look at his last three general elections, he won nearly every rural county all three times. Democrats don't do that in New York (or anywhere usually). His approval rating in New York is at it's all time low right now, 53%, but that happens to every congressional leader as they energize the opposition party. Democrats are still with him. On top of that, he has basically unlimited funding and is close with every major Democratic power group in the state. He's not going on anywhere.

On the other hand, AOC will need something to do, since she's there's a good chance she's going to lose her seat after redistricting. New York is expected to lose two seats and this Amazon thing may very well cause the state legislature to decide its her seat that needs to go. She could run against one of the neighboring Democratic representatives, but with the changes in New York election law last month she's not going to be able to benefit from a low-turnout, under-the-radar primary. Also, none of them are quite the mismatch for their district's demographics the way Crowley was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a while since I've posted here. Been dealing with my mothers cancer. 

 

And ill start tart where I left off.

 

portland Oregon cops are working with white supremacist groups to attack those left of them. The PPB also released emails showing the FBI has also worked with the white supremacist groups to harm anti racist / anti fascist groups.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/02/text-messages-between-patriot-prayer-leader-portland-cop-spur-calls-for-investigation.html?outputType=amp

 

ACAB. Oh and Harris is a terrible person who should not be president, her being a prosecutor is a big reason why since her work as one has shown how garbage she is. 

 

Gabbard is the worst option out of all the Dems. Shes the only candidate I will not vote for if she wins the primary because she is as terrible as Trump minus the sexually predatory behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Green Deal was inspired FDR's New Deal.

Perhaps, those pushing for the New Green Deal ought borrow one other thing from FDR's playbook, who knew a thing or two about how to deal with the conservative clown crew, which was often don't take any shit from them.

Speaking in October of 1936, he said:

"They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

Now, I'm not always happy with old Chuck Schumer. But I do have to say, I'm glad to see that he is planning to take Mitch McConnell's attempt to make the Democrats look radical and extremist and jam it right up the Republican Party's butt. Me thinks, that is what FDR would have done.

Standby for conservative civility concern trolling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/14/republicans-are-trolling-green-new-deal-heres-how-democrats-will-troll-them-back/

Quote

Republicans are gleeful about the Green New Deal, which they see as a major political liability for Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is planning a vote on the GND on the theory that any Senate Democrat — a field that includes several 2020 presidential hopefuls — who votes for it will self-immolate on the spot.

 

Quote

On Thursday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will deliver a speech on the GND on the Senate floor, in which the minority leader will call on Republicans to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat and is largely human-created, and to pledge that Congress will act to address it, according to a source familiar with his plan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Bizarre thought - would trump be okay simply not vetoing it and letting it die and then saying it would have been fine, save for these traitors? Kind of like what he did with the ACA repeal?

Why bother doing that - which would emphasize a weakness with your own party members - when instead he can just use the courts as a boogeyman?

45 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@OldGimletEye yeah the criticism I've seen has been on the second score - her specific record, not the general fact of being a prosecutor. I'm not an expert on it myself so I'm not commenting on whether that criticism is accurate, but it is sincere from at least some sources whether they're right or not. I just think it's worth accepting that sincerity rather than confusing it for faux concern.

Certainly not doubting anyone's sincerity, but there is opposition that's rooted, quite clearly, in the simple fact that she was a prosecutor.  Take this example:

Quote

The list goes on and on. But in some ways, the details don’t matter. The problem isn’t that Harris was an especially bad prosecutor. She made positive contributions as well, encouraging education and re-entry programs for ex-offenders, for instance. The problem, more precisely, is that she was ever a prosecutor at all.

Now, that is just an op-ed in The Intercept.  But The Intercept* is a pretty good representation of a strain of leftism that feels this way.  That article preceded this more substantive one that attacks Harris' first campaign for DA of SF because she *gasp* used the incumbent's record against him and generally employed the "soft on crime" canard.  This just in - politician employs political tactics to get elected to her first political office, news at 11!

*This also may be some of my own bias against The Intercept - definitely do not like Greenwald and I absolutely loathe Jeremy Scahill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Certainly not doubting anyone's sincerity, but there is opposition that's rooted, quite clearly, in the simple fact that she was a prosecutor.  Take this example:

Now, that is just an op-ed in The Intercept.  But The Intercept* is a pretty good representation of a strain of leftism that feels this way.  That article preceded this more substantive one that attacks Harris' first campaign for DA of SF because she *gasp* used the incumbent's record against him and generally employed the "soft on crime" canard.  This just in - politician employs political tactics to get elected to her first political office, news at 11!

*This also may be some of my own bias against The Intercept - definitely do not like Greenwald and I absolutely loathe Jeremy Scahill.

I gave the Kamala Harris is a "tough on crime" prosecutor stories a quick once over and was left pretty unimpressed.  The NYT piece that started it off looked like a hit job to me.  Yes, there are a few cases that she oversaw as California AG that look like a miscarriage of justice.  Do you think that you could ever look at the AG office of a state with 40 million people and not find serious mistakes over an 8 year period?  Is that even possible?  Sure, I WANT the government to work perfectly, but it doesn't and it never will.  And cherrypicking a few cases that, with the benefit of hindsight, look like questionable judgement doesn't impress me.  Particularly when some of those cases Harris was only overseeing rather than really involved in the day to day decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The NYT piece that started it off looked like a hit job to me.

That's cuz it was a hit job and, as I said a few weeks ago, an oppo-dump.  Anyway, I haven't seen any substantive attack on her record thus far that is going to gain much traction with anyone outside of criminal justice reform activists - who've almost certainly made up their mind already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I gave the Kamala Harris is a "tough on crime" prosecutor stories a quick once over and was left pretty unimpressed.  The NYT piece that started it off looked like a hit job to me.  Yes, there are a few cases that she oversaw as California AG that look like a miscarriage of justice.  Do you think that you could ever look at the AG office of a state with 40 million people and not find serious mistakes over an 8 year period?  Is that even possible?  Sure, I WANT the government to work perfectly, but it doesn't and it never will.  And cherrypicking a few cases that, with the benefit of hindsight, look like questionable judgement doesn't impress me.  Particularly when some of those cases Harris was only overseeing rather than really involved in the day to day decisions. 

The issue with Harris is she has shown zero ability to admit she fucked up or held horrible positions. She goes and brags about smoking weed while also locking people up for such. Justifies slave labor in prisons and has no issues with overpopulating them because she felt the labor their provided was valuable to the state. Let's also talk about how she's put sex workers at risk with that anti sex trafficking bill thanks to it being highly flawed. Oh, and she's a transphobic individual as well. Her work a small a prosecutor did a lot of damage to the black community to the point David Duke probably would smile and congratulate her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Her work a small a prosecutor did a lot of damage to the black community to the point David Duke probably would smile and congratulate her.

Kamala Harris = David Duke? 

Yeah, don't think I'm gonna bother responding to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Kamala Harris = David Duke? 

Yeah, don't think I'm gonna bother responding to that. 

David Duke? I don't know who David Duke is! White Supremacy? I don't know any white supremacy! 

I want to be associated with interesting quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Kamala Harris = David Duke? 

Yeah, don't think I'm gonna bother responding to that. 

That kiddo is the kind of liberal that wants liberals to lose so they can complain about liberals not being liberal enough. This is why there’s the adult’s table and a kid’s table. Go fetch him a sippy cup and move on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Why bother doing that - which would emphasize a weakness with your own party members - when instead he can just use the courts as a boogeyman?

 

Because with the courts itll be in the news for a long while after this. Whereas if he just drops it now? People will move on in a month or two.

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...