Jump to content
Tywin et al.

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I suspect that he (and his Russian-backed bots) wants to take advantage of an overly-crowded field of Democratic candidates.

Yup. The Dems learned the wrong lesson from 2016.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, some poor people and non-whites do commit crime. Look, I could understand critiquing how Harris did her job in LE, but please, it sounds as if you’re ready to condemn based off of her having had the job in the first place(which is unfair we do need prosecutors) and prosecuted individuals from certain demographics.

It's not that people of color or poor people commit crime, but that these groups of people are disproportionately prosecuted for non violent, drug related offenses at rates far more significant than their white and affluent counterparts. The sentencing difference, what the prosecutor seeks in terms of time served for specific drugs, is higher when dealing with marginalized groups. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping when I saw the news alert this morning that it was reporting Barry Sanders was running for president.  Now there's a guy that could lock up Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DMC said:

I was hoping when I saw the news alert this morning that it was reporting Barry Sanders was running for president.  Now there's a guy that could lock up Michigan.

I've actually met the guy in person twice: once at a charity basketball event after his Heisman winning season and once at a bar in OKC where he called next on the pool table I was playing on, and where he proceeded to kick my ass six ways from Sunday, after he retired. Probably the nicest guy you could ever meet. I'd vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I've actually met the guy in person twice: once at a charity basketball event after his Heisman winning season and once at a bar in OKC where he called next on the pool table I was playing on, and where he proceeded to kick my ass six ways from Sunday, after he retired. Probably the nicest guy you could ever meet. I'd vote for him.

Psh, the man said he was tired and it was reported that he was retired. He just accepted it. How is he supposed to stand up for the U.S. in tough negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump appointees have been pursuing the sale of nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia.

Quote

Several current and former Trump administration appointees promoted sales of nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia despite repeated objections from members of the National Security Council and other senior White House officials, according to a new report from congressional Democrats.

The officials who objected included White House lawyers and H.R. McMaster, then the chief of the National Security Council. They called for a halt in the nuclear sales discussions in 2017, citing potential conflicts of interest, national security risks and legal hurdles.

Yet the effort to promote nuclear sales persisted, led by former National Security Council chief Gen. Michael Flynn and more recently by Energy Secretary Rick Perry. The possible nuclear power sale was discussed in the Oval Office as recently as last week.

Details about these internal White House battles are contained in a 24-page report released Tuesday morning by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Is this administration actively insane?  How could you possibly think a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia is not just acceptable, but something we want to actively promote? 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

It's not that people of color or poor people commit crime, but that these groups of people are disproportionately prosecuted for non violent, drug related offenses at rates far more significant than their white and affluent counterparts. The sentencing difference, what the prosecutor seeks in terms of time served for specific drugs, is higher when dealing with marginalized groups. 

Not to mention a prison system that basically takes petty criminals and turns them into violent criminals. You take away someone's ability to make a living with a felony brand, then send them to crime college where they spend their time learning to evade rules and use violence as a form of redress (and often means of survival).

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Is this administration actively insane?  How could you possibly think a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia is not just acceptable, but something we want to actively promote? 

What's more sane than a nuclear arms race in the middle east?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

What's more sane than a nuclear arms race in the middle east?

And it's so much more than that!  Saudi Arabia is probably the worst ally we have.  15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and that wasn't just a weird coincidence - anti-American sentiment is widespread.  Their government is incredibly corrupt, has a horrible human rights record, and if they ever lose power, will probably be replaced by a regime that is equally bad, but also hates America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

probably be replaced by a regime that is equally bad, but also hates America.

Equally bad is being hopeful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And it's so much more than that!  Saudi Arabia is probably the worst ally we have.  15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and that wasn't just a weird coincidence - anti-American sentiment is widespread.  Their government is incredibly corrupt, has a horrible human rights record, and if they ever lose power, will probably be replaced by a regime that is equally bad, but also hates America. 

Since I rarely agree with the CW on here...let me agree now.  It is mind boggling that both Dems and Republicans continue to treat Saudi Arabia and their poisonous wahhabism as an ally.  They are absolutely, by far, the worst ally we have or have had in decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Not to mention a prison system that basically takes petty criminals and turns them into violent criminals. You take away someone's ability to make a living with a felony brand, then send them to crime college where they spend their time learning to evade rules and use violence as a form of redress (and often means of survival).

As long as for profit prisons get their slave labor all is well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I mean that's a big number (10 percent of voters defecting), but in 2008, around 24 percent of Clinton supporters voted for McCain. I believe Sanders' defectors is fairly normal in primary to presidential elections (around 10 percent of voters). My question is where this 10 percent stands now. Do they realize they fucke

You know what I forgot to awknowledge that’s a fair point.  It’s just Hillary was so unpopular the typical rate of defection was catastrophic towards her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Equally bad is being hopeful.

That just means we’ll have another country to bomb. Get ready for a freedom injection Saudis!!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump appointees have been pursuing the sale of nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia.

Is this administration actively insane?  How could you possibly think a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia is not just acceptable, but something we want to actively promote? 

Trump likes the Saudis. They rent properties from him, and that’s all he needs to know. Besides, thanks to his gut and very good brain, he knows more about war than the generals, more about intelligence than spies, and more about international relations than the diplomats, so we’re in good (tiny) hands.

It sure is a good thing voters considered issues like this with all due diligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In SCOTUS news, we have another decision (albeit a narrow one involving a death penalty case) where Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the four liberals. Kavanaugh didn't write anything, but Roberts wrote a concurring opinion explaining why he was reversing his position (since this was a follow-up to an earlier decision in the case where he was in the minority with Alito and Thomas; Scalia's seat was still open and Kennedy sided with the liberals to have a 5-3 decision).

This now twice in only a few months where Kavanaugh has sided with the liberals on a social issue case (the other was abortion restriction-related), and I'm not sure what to make of it. In both cases Roberts also joined the liberals, so he wasn't the swing vote; and there was that second abortion restriction case where Roberts still sided with the liberals but Kavanaugh joined the conservatives, so it's certainly not a universal thing. But it is interesting to see that neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch (who had that 5-4 immigration case with the liberals last year) have been as entirely bedrock conservative as Alito or Thomas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that Klobuchar staked out the moderate lane in her Town Hall last night.  She has been getting some press for it, and if nothing else it makes her stand out a bit amongst the crowded field.  The real question is whether there's a significant segment of the Democratic electorate that actually wants a moderate Democrat.  I know any president is going to be limited by her/his constituency and Congress, etc, so I'm not really sure how different a President Klobuchar would be from say, President Harris or even President Warren.  But nonetheless, I sort of doubt she's going to catch on with such an approach.  A center left candidacy doesn't have much to get excited about, and excitement matters a lot in primaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maithanet said:

Interesting that Klobuchar staked out the moderate lane in her Town Hall last night.  She has been getting some press for it, and if nothing else it makes her stand out a bit amongst the crowded field.  The real question is whether there's a significant segment of the Democratic electorate that actually wants a moderate Democrat.  I know any president is going to be limited by her/his constituency and Congress, etc, so I'm not really sure how different a President Klobuchar would be from say, President Harris or even President Warren.  But nonetheless, I sort of doubt she's going to catch on with such an approach.  A center left candidacy doesn't have much to get excited about, and excitement matters a lot in primaries. 

That'll be the question. I do, if only because it's the only way I believe stuff will get done on any level but that's just me. Will be interesting to see where she polls as she goes against the well polling liberal agenda.

Share this post


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

That'll be the question. I do, if only because it's the only way I believe stuff will get done on any level but that's just me. Will be interesting to see where she polls as she goes against the well polling liberal agenda.

 It's still a liberal agenda, just, not as liberal as some of the other candidates. Personally, it's the closest so far to the agenda I want to see Democrats to try to enact; Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, as currently understood, would be massive political disasters if there was an attempt to actually put them in place. 

I don't think she'll get majority support in the primary for it, but it seems like the only competition she'll have in this lane is Biden, if he runs. And there's so many other candidates to split up the voters and donors who want a more liberal candidate that I think it probably gives her the breathing room needed to last until the field starts narrowing. At which point she can pivot if she needs to.

Share this post


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

That'll be the question. I do, if only because it's the only way I believe stuff will get done on any level but that's just me. Will be interesting to see where she polls as she goes against the well polling liberal agenda.

She's on my list of candidates I could see voting for in the primary.  She's definitely hoping that Biden (and to a lesser extent Beto/Bullock/Hickenlooper) don't run.  If she is the only big (medium?) name candidate advocating for the center-left, it definitely increases her relevance in the discussion, as well as avoiding having to split the vote. 

Her path is still pretty narrow.  She has to win Iowa, because I don't see any way she wins NH or SC or NV.  And if you are 0fer on the first four, there's not much chance of Super Tuesday going well for you.  But even winning Iowa isn't necessarily enough, she could still be finished after Super Tuesday if one candidate (Harris or Beto being the most likely) cleans up the delegates in places like CA and TX.  There's a lot of things that have to fall just right for her to emerge out of this field.

But at least she has a path, something I'm increasingly unable to see with about half the candidates in the field. 

 

Share this post


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

×