Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Earlier today McConnell announced that the resolution to block Trump's national emergency claim will pass. This wasn't a surprise, but what is is the number of Senators who have publicly stated they're uneasy about it. It will be interesting to see if they can really get to a veto proof majority given that the rest of the caucus now has some measure of cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 44 minutes ago, Morpheus said: Huh? I am talking about the newer comments which have prompted House leadership to call for a vote on a resolution condeming anti-semitism and possibly rebuking Omar by name, not the Benjamins comment from a few weeks back. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/04/omar-israel-house-democrats-1201881 Ah, apologizes then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 47 minutes ago, Morpheus said: Huh? I am talking about the newer comments which have prompted House leadership to call for a vote on a resolution condeming anti-semitism and possibly rebuking Omar by name, not the Benjamins comment from a few weeks back. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/04/omar-israel-house-democrats-1201881 It's odd indeed. I'm Jewish and she's my MoC and I didn't take much issue with what she said. It could have been phrased better, but we do need to question Israel and many of their activities. At a minimum I'd suggest they read up on apartheid South Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 49 minutes ago, Morpheus said: Huh? I am talking about the newer comments which have prompted House leadership to call for a vote on a resolution condeming anti-semitism and possibly rebuking Omar by name, not the Benjamins comment from a few weeks back. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/04/omar-israel-house-democrats-1201881 What's ridiculous about this is a quote from that article: Quote Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), who sits on the committee, wrote on Twitter that Omar should apologize for “hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes.” “Questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable,” Vargas wrote. What? Questioning the US-Israeli relationship is "unacceptable." And a Democrat said this? As I stated here, I had a problem with her flippant comments a couple weeks ago, but it's really a stretch to call her most recent comment "anti-semetic," let alone a "slur" as others have said. It is, however, obviously provocative and she knew what she was doing. Politically, I really wish she would knock it off as all this can do is hurt the Democratic party and she keeps on playing with matches next to a powder key. But I'm not going to tell a member of Congress it's out of bounds to raise and emphasize any issue, and I don't think any of her colleagues - including the leadership - should either. The Dem leadership reacting like this just emboldens the GOP's attacks, so now they're responding in a politically stupid way as well. 54 minutes ago, karaddin said: I can't even come close to matching his unhinged style but the point is even the economy tanking can be rationalised away for the faithful If there is the combination of serious accusations/objective rationale for articles of impeachment coming out of the Mueller report AND the economy tanks, then yes it's quite possible he loses even the faithful. In such a case, his approval among Independents will tank. They always shift according to the economy, plus they express their disapproval when he goes way over the line. There have been four noticeable dips in his approval throughout his presidency. Two weren't very much, and these were after Charlottesville and while the tax bill was getting passed. One was the recent shutdown. But the most precipitous decline was when he fired Comey. And it (as well as the other three) was driven by independents. As for Republicans, yes, there will need to be a considerable drop there as well. Looking at the latest poll, 60% of Republicans strongly approve, but also 30% somewhat approve. If two thirds of those that somewhat approve abandon him, which is quite possible under such conditions given their soft support - combined with the almost certain drop in independents, then he's looking at an approval in the low 30s. Which means reelection would be very unlikely, which means it's then in GOP MCs' interest to abandon him. At that point, it's very realistic he could be convicted of impeachment. A certainty? No, but a distinct possibility. All that being said, I do think both of those conditions - a very damaging Mueller report coinciding with a significant drop in the economy - are necessary for there to be any chance. 25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Earlier today McConnell announced that the resolution to block Trump's national emergency claim will pass. This wasn't a surprise, but what is is the number of Senators who have publicly stated they're uneasy about it. It will be interesting to see if they can really get to a veto proof majority given that the rest of the caucus now has some measure of cover. I think this may be his way of signaling he's gonna stop whipping votes, in which case we may see a vote similar to the clean CR vote in January. But enough for veto proof majority? Get outta here. Even if we dream about that in the Senate, it's even less likely to happen in the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 3 hours ago, Maithanet said: You think Fox News is going to turn on Trump because of a pardon for Junior? That's very optimistic. you need to work on reading comprehension - not an attack, an observation. Trump rates the reporters at Fox News on a 1-10 scale. Hannity, unsurprisingly, rates a '10,' as do a couple others. At least one, though, is considered a '6,' and almost certainly quite a few others. Now, barring something that lands Hannity on the wrong side of a courtroom, he's going to be pro-Trump for as long as it suits his interests, as will a few others. However the number with middling to low ranks on that scale will almost certainly explode should Kushner and/or Trump Junior get indicted. Legal indictments that even much of the Fox staff will be unable to dispute. Even among right wing media occasionally attack Trump - witness Ann Coulter's little display a couple weeks back. Imagine the effect on Trumps ego should that sort of thing get ramped up a few notches - and remember - Trump cannot handle ANY sort of criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 1 hour ago, ThinkerX said: At least one, though, is considered a '6,' and almost certainly quite a few others. Bret Baier - who is their chief anchor, was the '6.' Chris Wallace would probably be even lower, and Shepherd Smith (is he still around) even lower than that. There are anchors on FNC that at least pretend to not be completely biased, but even their shows (e.g. Baier's nightly 6 o'clock show or Wallace's Sunday Morning) are designed for the host to pose as objective, and then have on a bunch of talking heads that will excuse Trump's behavior and drown out the token Democrat on the panel. This has been their MO since Dubya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: It's odd indeed. I'm Jewish and she's my MoC and I didn't take much issue with what she said. It could have been phrased better, but we do need to question Israel and many of their activities. At a minimum I'd suggest they read up on apartheid South Africa. I think it's going a bit far people saying Israel = apartheid South Africa. And it's really only the left that makes that connection. The right has its equal share of anti-Semites, but they all hate Muslims and Palestinians more, so they won't be going around calling Israel an Apartheid regime any time soon. There are similarities, but also significant differences. Perhaps people reading up on it will help them understand both the similarities and the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 I don't think Sanders thinks of it like that. Instead of thinking that he'll change the laws by the existing system, I think he thinks he'll get enough people in power that think like he does, and they'll go along with it. And if they don't think like him, they should be removed. Which is why he's willing to support pro-life candidates who are also for $15 minimum wage. Or he's willing to support Tulsi Gabbard. It's an idealistic viewpoint, but that's what he has. And yeah, I used to be against the filibuster going away, but I think that it's the only way to have some semblance of actual laws. Republicans get to do things they want to via reconciliation, since most of the stuff they want is removing laws and taxes - which is easy to do with a budget trick. Passing new laws that aren't budgetary? Nope, you're hosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Sooooo...AOC and campaign finance scandal, now? Is this why we can’t have nice things? Honestly, her Cohen depo was the first time I actually liked her in person, and now....yeah. How long does alcoholism take, anyone know offhand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 45 minutes ago, Triskele said: I've always disagreed with Romney 47% element of this argument but felt like the thrust of it is not entirely off, and see the failed Obamacare repeal last year. I don't think Romney's 47% should be equated with why Obamacare, or any social program, usually doesn't go away once it's implemented. Successful social programs - pretty much uniformly implemented by Democrats since the New Deal - don't go away because they are successful policy, or at least an improvement on the prior status quo. Therefore, they become popular even with many in the non-47%. 48 minutes ago, Triskele said: If there's something to this, and if it's nigh-impossible for the Dems to get to 60 (not just in 2021, but like, almost ever), then does it not follow that ending the fillibuster is the only way to pass progressive legislation? Sure, it goes the other way and allows the GOP to pass things more easily too. It is nigh impossible they'll get to 60 again, and the same thing could be said for the GOP - to a slightly lesser extent. But no I still don't think it follows. I don't want Trump to only have to convince fellow Republicans to pass any legislation, and that goes for future Trump's. There is a very good normative argument that both chambers of the legislature should be majority rule - in fact that's an intuitive argument. But not with such extreme and asymmetric polarization. 50 minutes ago, Triskele said: But how the hell else to ever pass anything? Did Bernie really recently way he doesn't want to end the fillibuster? How will he pass anything? The same way Trump did and the same way Obama ultimately did with the ACA - through reconciliation. I do believe Sanders said recently he's still opposed to abolishing the filibuster but I don't wanna look it up right now (taking a quick break from writing). And Bernie won't pass anything - I agree with the general point of that link in terms of the dual fallacies. 5 minutes ago, James Arryn said: How long does alcoholism take, anyone know offhand? Take for what? To start becoming an alcoholic? Didn't take me long at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Sooooo...AOC and campaign finance scandal, now? Is this why we can’t have nice things? Honestly, her Cohen depo was the first time I actually liked her in person, and now....yeah. How long does alcoholism take, anyone know offhand? You got a link for that so I can cry myself to sleep?(or laugh if it turns out to be shit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: You got a link for that so I can cry myself to sleep?(or laugh if it turns out to be shit) Well from literally 5 seconds of googling I found this:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies%3f_amp=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: You got a link for that so I can cry myself to sleep?(or laugh if it turns out to be shit) The only things I can find are the already-debunked claim she funneled money to her boyfriend illegally and a right-wing only thread about how her campaign manager created a slush fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: The only things I can find are the already-debunked claim she funneled money to her boyfriend illegally and a right-wing only thread about how her campaign manager created a slush fund. Laughter it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said: Laughter it is! Sorry, it wasn't her campaign manager. It's her current chief of staff and formerly someone who ran a PAC. Which connecting that specific behavior to something AOC should know about and have done something about is...well, that's special. It does look a bit hinky, honestly - the PAC behavior - but it was a PAC that supported a bunch of progressive candidates. This feels akin to blaming AOC for climate change because she is in a car sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Triskele said: I wondered if he meant how long until sweet death by alcoholism arrives. LOL, well if he wants to go all Christian Shepherd in LOST and drink himself to death, I obviously don't have firsthand experience. Anyway, decided to take a longer break. Re: Bernie and the filibuster, from two weeks ago: Quote "I'm not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster," Sanders said during an interview with CBS News's "This Morning." Also, just to argue with myself, while the argument for the Senate being majority rule is intuitive, the counter-argument is quite compelling as well: the Senate is not a majority rule institution in the first place based on its structure of representation, so all abolishing the filibuster would do is give more disproportionate power to the small states that benefit. 14 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Sorry, it wasn't her campaign manager. It's her current chief of staff and formerly someone who ran a PAC. Which connecting that specific behavior to something AOC should know about and have done something about is...well, that's special. It does look a bit hinky, honestly - the PAC behavior - but it was a PAC that supported a bunch of progressive candidates. This feels akin to blaming AOC for climate change because she is in a car sometimes. Aye, it's her CoS. Here's a puff piece on him that mentions (one of) the PACs in question: Quote Two years ago, after working for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, Saikat Chakrabarti co-founded an organization called Brand New Congress with a lofty goal: Launch hundreds of progressive candidates into congressional races. Hundreds didn’t exactly pan out. But one major star emerged from that process: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who shocked the political world this summer with a primary upset over rising party leader Joe Crowley (N.Y.). If this turns out to be true it is totally fair to criticize AOC for it. Is there any doubt most here would be jumping all over a GOP MC if it was her CoS? Is it fatal? Hell no, certainly recoverable. But considering she obviously benefited from the PAC she should have made sure someone was making ensuring the PAC was being run on the up and up. The buck stops here and all that, and this is pretty clear and compelling hypocrisy for the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Quote Conservatives are starting beef with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez again. Earlier this month, on Showtime’s Desus & Mero talk show, the freshman congresswoman said her plan to fight climate change—the Green New Deal—would require the meat industry to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. “We gotta address factory farming,” she said. “Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.” The right-wing media pounced, bleating that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to rip hamburgers from Americans’ hands. Then, last week, it seemed she was caught red meat–handed: Republican strategist Caleb Hull tweeted a picture of Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, eating a hamburger. The hypocrisy was supposedly self-evident. The Potency of Republicans’ Hamburger Lie The GOP's latest attack against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is dishonest. But history shows why it might work. https://newrepublic.com/article/153187/potency-republicans-hamburger-lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 40 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: The Potency of Republicans’ Hamburger Lie The GOP's latest attack against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is dishonest. But history shows why it might work. https://newrepublic.com/article/153187/potency-republicans-hamburger-lie Terrific. We are going to go from the war on Christmas to the war on hamburgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 nvm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Stop the war on hamberders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.