Jump to content
Tywin et al.

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

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

People who wear denim to the symphony or opera.

Well I can't get too judgy there - at least they're going to symphonies or operas.

12 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I know it's way too early to say for sure, but right now Harris looks like the person to beat for the nomination. 

Yeah I don't think anyone's reached "person to beat" status just yet, but like I said she's clearly had the most successful rollout of any candidate - and it isn't even close.  Warren seems perpetually dogged by the Native American thing, and while it's way too early to pronounce her DOA, she's gonna be close to it if/when Bernie announces.  It's gonna take her a lot of resolve to survive - like John McCain in 2007 flying coach level resolve.  No way she could have known how quickly and detailed the staff thing was gonna come out, but Klobuchar should have known she'd eventually have to address it and should have gotten out in front of it.  

Booker, Gillibrand, and Castro didn't make any errors that I can think of, but they also didn't do anything to stand out and gain momentum - and it's incumbent on them to do so to stand out in such a crowded race (especially Gillibrand and Castro).  Meanwhile, Harris used her book and MLK day to prolong coverage of her rollout, used the advantageous part of her Bay area base to have a huge announcement event, and even felt comfortable enough to hold her own town hall - which helped further prolong her coverage.  All demonstrate adept political strategy and planning that no other candidate has shown (I guess Beto with the dueling rallies this week but he kinda got lucky with that).  And her one flub - kinda sorta saying we should abolish private health insurance during that town hall - smartly erred to the left, so she can always walk that back to the center if she makes it to the general.

Can't believe Harris is already beating Sanders in that Emerson Iowa poll that came out a couple weeks ago.  I did not expect her to get this much traction so quickly.  No one's ever won anything a year out from Iowa, but candidates can lose during this time, and she's off to a great start.

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

It's a mess all right.  I really thought people had talked Trump down from this cliff, and instead he was just going to use executive actions to move money to the wall.

I don't think it's too surprising, and based on Trump's M.O. it's always seemed the most likely outcome.  While it did seem like there'd be a new report of someone (oftentimes McConnell himself) warning Trump not to declare an emergency every other day over the past few weeks, Trump would still go out and promptly threaten to do so at basically any opportunity.  Plus his consistent tweets undermining and criticizing the congressional negotiations.

Anyway, I don't think what happens in Congress now is too interesting at all.  Really the most interesting part about it is the resolution will be a test of McConnell's leadership.  He intentionally did not whip the caucus in the shutdown vote(s) three weeks ago, but he clearly will be doing so now.  The 7 GOP Senators that voted to end the shutdown then are gonna have a tough time spinning now standing by the president, but of course anything's possible with the Republican constituency.  Regardless, Trump will veto it even if it passes the Senate and that will be that.  I think it's more likely the resolution passes the Senate, but from what I've heard this evening I think some are underestimating the GOP caucus' ability to stay united - and McConnell's whipping ability.  I'd put the odds at, like, 60/40 right now that the resolution passes.

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) and (2) how SCOTUS will vote on the court challenge.  2 somewhat depends on 1.  And while we should know most of 1 very soon, it'll probably be quite a while before we know 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DMC said:

Then...what does it mean?  Measurably?

To circle way back to this question, here's an approximation of what I meant:

It could also mean idealistic young people of all stripes that know next to nothing about the social security trust fund, debates about trickle down economics, what the Supreme Court is, what the nuclear triad is, etc...

 

Share this post


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

It could also mean idealistic young people of all stripes that know next to nothing about the social security trust fund, debates about trickle down economics, what the Supreme Court is, what the nuclear triad is, etc...

Gotcha, thanks.

Share this post


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

Gotcha, thanks.

Which is not to suggest that Bernie, Kamala, etc...couldn't also attract these kinds of voters.  But I think that Beto possibly has some kind of liftoff potential not dissimilar from Obama.  

And Beto, at least from what I know so far, is such a tabula rasa which I think we've learned in recent years might be more of an advantage than we might've liked to admit.  

 

Share this post


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

But I think that Beto possibly has some kind of liftoff potential not dissimilar from Obama.  

And Beto, at least from what I know so far, is such a tabula rasa which I think we've learned in recent years might be more of an advantage than we might've liked to admit.  

I think Harris has similar potential in both cases (which are kind of correlated) - she's already demonstrated an excellent liftoff (let alone potential), and other than the prosecutor stuff she's pretty close on the tabula rasa thing too.  I think if Beto took the bull by the horns when his hype was at it's height a month or two ago this could've been the case, but the glean has already started to wear off.  Maybe he was smart to wait to announce and has something planned I'm not aware of though, who knows.

Share this post


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

I think Harris has similar potential in both cases (which are kind of correlated) - she's already demonstrated an excellent liftoff (let alone potential), and other than the prosecutor stuff she's pretty close on the tabula rasa thing too.  I think if Beto took the bull by the horns when his hype was at it's height a month or two ago this could've been the case, but the glean has already started to wear off.  Maybe he was smart to wait to announce and has something planned I'm not aware of though, who knows.

Gun to my head right this moment I think that Harris is my choice.  Very, very early and very open to having my mind changed, but she has got a lot going for her.  

Beto allegedly met with Schumer to discuss running against Cornyn for the Senate in 2020...have to see what's up with that and if he's really not running.

Doing some MSNBC'ing to my shame right now (just knocking cable news in general), and O'Donnell just suggested that he thinks there's a sign that Bernie will not run after but it was subtle enough that no one should read too much into it.  

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


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

Doing some MSNBC'ing to my shame right now (just knocking cable news in general), and O'Donnell just suggested that he thinks there's a sign that Bernie will not run after but it was subtle enough that no one should read too much into it. 

I thought it was interesting he voted for the spending deal today (along with Klobuchar and Brown), while Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Warren all voted against it.  One of those does not fit with the others.  Hm...

As for running against Cornyn, I wouldn't risk that if I was him.  That's almost certainly gonna be more difficult than beating Cruz, and if he loses another Senate race his national ambitions are probably killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Fez

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Bonnot OG

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


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

×