US Politics: Wondering the Acosta

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I like Warren and I wish she ran against Clinton, but I think she missed her chance. 

I agree.  If recent (and even not so recent) elections have taught us anything, it's that you need to strike while the iron is hot.  Warren in the 2016 primary could have made it interesting, but she was understandably cautious.  Still has a chance though, which is more than you can say for many that wait too long.

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Barr is clearly the worst that isn't actually 'acting'. 

Yeah Barr's aggressive and damaging policymaking has really surprised me.  I thought he'd be just some lazy Trump appointee that enjoys the title.  Instead he almost makes me yearn for the days of Jeff Sessions.  Just goes to show, ya never know.

[ThinkerX]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Barr is clearly the worst that isn't actually 'acting'. Mulvaney is up there too, but Barr has managed in about 3 months to entirely politicize the Department of Justice, something that hasn't happened to this degree since Nixon. It's quite impressive. I mean, we've still got DeVos and a number of other dumbasses, but Barr is really what Trump wanted - his own personal attack dog for the DoJ and to turn the entire justice department into a weapon against his enemies.

Yes, Barr is what Trump wants in an AG.  However, Trump is also his own worst enemy.  More, Trump CANNOT tolerate any of his minions being in the limelight for any significant period.  Given this, I deem it very likely Trump will be publicly dissing Barr by the end of the year, and Barr will be out of a job within a year of that. 

[DMC]

Yeah Sessions did the responsible thing there.  Except I didn't know it was all because of this Jess character.  Is Jeff hiding away his little hobbit wife or something? 

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

At some point Sullivan wrote something like "And now an unlikely hero has emerged:  Jess Sessions."  

I'll say.

I think the context was when Trump really wanted Sessions to start using DOJ to pursue enemies or just can Mueller's whole team.  

You can say a lot about Jeff Sessions, but he does fall into the category of traitors who at least had some delusions about personal dignity. I like to imagine him occasionally tuning into the SNL cold open to see Trump get taken down a notch after a rough week only to burst into tears when Kate McKinnen shows up to drag his ass through the barbed wire.

[Jace, Extat]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

Hard to say who's right with Larry and Tywin there.  But it will be an epic disaster if tens of millions lose their insurance.  Here's my question if that happens:  can any patch, robust or feeble, be passed without 60 Senate votes?

I meant to respond to this earlier but LOSER LARRY! Distracted me. I could actually see Schumer giving away the farm to McConnell as part of some horrific 'fix' or 'replacement'. I trust Nance to hold the line, but Schumer is worse than useless at this point and could make shit really painful by putting pressure on Pelosi to pass whatever McConnell thinks is most insulting to libs in the run up to the election.

That turtle looking motherfucker knows how to manipulate his coalition into turning out, I'll give him that.

[Gorn]

6 hours ago, Triskele said:

Hard to say who's right with Larry and Tywin there.  But it will be an epic disaster if tens of millions lose their insurance.  Here's my question if that happens:  can any patch, robust or feeble, be passed without 60 Senate votes?

If ACA actually gets repealed over the next year, that "unwinnable" 2020 Senate map will turn blue from sea to sea. The Republicans were slaughtered in 2006 for merely attempting to mess with Social Security, and then again in 2018 for merely attempting to mess with ACA.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Gotta say, still will happily vote for Harris, but this can't really be a good look.  How is expanding what's covered under credit scores good for anybody that isn't already in good shape?  Oh right because it's not for us, it's for financial institutions.  

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Seriously at this point "bipartisan support" is synonymous with either "big donor support" and "corporate giveaway" or "feel-good legislation".

Guess which boxes this checks?

[DMC]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Gotta say, still will happily vote for Harris, but this can't really be a good look.  How is expanding what's covered under credit scores good for anybody that isn't already in good shape?  Oh right because it's not for us, it's for financial institutions.

Maybe it's just cuz this stuff is over my head, but I'm not really seeing the problem with her proposal.  I'm not "credit invisible," I actually have a damn good score last time I checked, plus as an anticipated lifelong renter I really don't care.  But, yeah, it'd be nice if they counted the fact I'm almost always on time with rent and utilities.  I think I've been a few days late on rent maybe 3-4 times over the past 12 years, and I would assume the apartment complexes don't really mind the fact I gave them 25 extra dollars because I forgot it was the first of the month.  I do know people that this could screw over, i.e. they're habitually late with such payments, but I'd think most of those aren't going to qualify for loans anyway, so I have a hard time seeing how this wouldn't be a net positive.

Personal anecdotes aside, I mean, the link says there was a bill like this in the House that was pushed by Keith Ellison, who scandals aside was a pretty damn liberal MC.  And then when Tim Scott (R-SC) took it up in the Senate, Harris did not support it.  So I'm wondering if there's something in her proposal that actually is not so "bipartisan" and there's a sticking point between the parties policywise.  Anyway, politically this just seems clearly aimed at going after the black vote (from the link):

Quote

Black and Hispanic consumers are more likely to be unscorable or credit invisible. About 15% of blacks and Hispanics are “credit invisible,” compared to 9% of whites and Asians, according to 2015 data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This disparity contributes to the racial gap in homeownership, Harris has argued. The homeownership rate among white Americans is 73.2%, whereas the rate among black Americans is just 41.1%, per the U.S. Census Bureau.

She also proposed giving $100 billion in down-payment and closing-cost assistance — up to $25,000 per household — to help black families purchase homes in parts of the country that were traditionally “red-lined,” meaning that people of color were historically denied mortgages to purchases homes in those neighborhoods.

 

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, Gorn said:

If ACA actually gets repealed over the next year, that "unwinnable" 2020 Senate map will turn blue from sea to sea. The Republicans were slaughtered in 2006 for merely attempting to mess with Social Security, and then again in 2018 for merely attempting to mess with ACA.

Bullshit. The senate map didnt do this in 2018. The dems lost seats. Not just hard seats like ND either - they lost Florida as an incumbent and Missouri as an incumbent. 

The main changes in the House were in previously gerrymandered seats that went a bit more fair and essentially all of California. It wasnt nearly as nationally spread as I'd like. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The main changes in the House were in previously gerrymandered seats that went a bit more fair and essentially all of California. It wasnt nearly as nationally spread as I'd like. 

That is unreasonably pessimistic.  Democrats picked up Congressional seats in 20 of the 50 states (21 if they win the special in NC).  Considering that Democrats already controlled the entire delegation in 5 more states, and another 5 are one seat super Republican states, that's pretty damn good. Democrats made gains in cities, in suburbs and in rural districts, and all across the country. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

While skimming headlines, I was shocked to see this one from Fox:

“Trump rails against “Fake News” in bizarre tirade, warns industry will fold when he leaves office”

Looks like even the worst of the worst is starting to wake the F up about how bats**t crazy Trump is.

[Zorral]

Shocking, no doubt, but, girlz 'n boyz, politicians don't give a flying eff what you the voter think or you the voter want.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/politicians-voters.html?

Quote

 

How much do legislators really care about the views of their constituents?

Over the past two years, we [Dr. Joshua Kalla and Dr. Ethan Porter, political scientists] conducted a study to find out. We provided state legislators in the United States with access to highly detailed public opinion survey data — more detailed than almost all available opinion polls — about their constituents’ attitudes on gun control, infrastructure spending, abortion and many other policy issues. Afterward, we gauged the willingness of representatives to look at the data as well as how the data affected their perceptions of their constituents’ opinions.

What we found should alarm all Americans. An overwhelming majority of legislators were uninterested in learning about their constituents’ views. Perhaps more worrisome, however, was that when the legislators who did view the data were surveyed afterward, they were no better at understanding what their constituents’ views. Perhaps more worrisome, however, was that when the legislators who did view the data were surveyed afterward, they were no better at understanding what their constituents wanted than legislators who had not looked at the data. For most politicians, voters’ views seemed almost irrelevant....

 

 

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I bet Pelosi and Schumer both think someone should do something about it.

Yah, they think somebody ought to make AOC and the investigators shut the eff up, especially about them giving the deranged villain even more money to rip even more children from their parents' arms and kill them.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

That is unreasonably pessimistic.  Democrats picked up Congressional seats in 20 of the 50 states (21 if they win the special in NC).  Considering that Democrats already controlled the entire delegation in 5 more states, and another 5 are one seat super Republican states, that's pretty damn good. Democrats made gains in cities, in suburbs and in rural districts, and all across the country. 

20 of the 50 is exactly my point. 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

20 of the 50 is exactly my point. 

??  You pick up seats where the seats are.  Of the 14 states with 10+ representatives, Democrats made gains in 13 of them (all but Ohio).  I'm not crying over the fact they couldn't pick up Wyoming at large.  And those states are spread across the country, not just pockets on the coast. 

[Zorral]

What will it take for Pelosi to finally impeach any of the many figures who have earned impeachment process?

"What Does Nancy Pelosi Think She’s Doing?"

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/nancy-pelosi-is-hurting-the-democratic-party.html

Quote

 

On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee chairman Elijah Cummings announced that Democrats would investigate Acosta’s conduct in the Epstein case. But if Pelosi truly does oppose impeachment, the investigation could find itself at a dead end. Her intransigence does encourage some unsavory speculation: that Pelosi might want to protect prominent Democrats. Before he went to jail in 2008, Epstein was friendly with powerful members of both parties, including former president Bill Clinton. But there’s no evidence that Clinton abused underage girls while in Epstein’s company, and right now, the federal case in New York against Epstein seems focused on Epstein alone. Her evident willingness to allow a wide-ranging investigation suggests she’s not afraid of what supervisorial spadework might turn up. But there’s a likelier explanation for Pelosi ruling out, even prior to an investigation, impeaching Acosta. She’s clinging to an outdated view of the world, which makes her unfit for the challenges of the moment. Pelosi is willing to confront Trump, or his officials, but only to a point. She not only believes the center will hold; she seems to think that it will, once some unspecified red line is crossed, topple Trump and his administration without any direct intervention on her part....

Pelosi’s reluctance to investigate Acosta is part of a pattern. She’ll criticize, call on someone to resign, or even permit an investigation, but impeachment is too far. Trump, she said in May, is becoming “self-impeachable,” a nonsensical phrase that absolves her of any responsibility to act. In June, she refused to even censure the president, telling the press that “if the goods are there, you must impeach.” For Pelosi, it seems to be impeachment or nothing, and so far, she’s chosen nothing. Meanwhile, she’s jabbed repeatedly at left-wing policies and progressive members of her own party. The Green New Deal, to Pelosi, isn’t a promising proposal to address a pressing existential crisis; it’s “the green dream or whatever.” When she speaks of the party’s left-wing, four-woman freshman “squad,” Pelosi can sound distinctly sour. “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” she told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, after Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib voted against a humanitarian bill that included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got.” [Recall, none of that money is actually going to humanitarian action for any of the detainees in the concentration camps, not even the children, but to the pockets of private prison corporations.]

Pelosi’s job, as Speaker in a time during which her party does not control the Senate or the White House, is to protect a Democratic majority in the House. She’s also responsible for helping maximize her party’s chances of defeating Trump. The only legible explanation for her reluctance to investigate Acosta, or censure Trump, is that she fears a backlash that would cost her moderate members their seats. But if that’s the case, she overestimates the risk. 

.

 

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Bullshit. The senate map didnt do this in 2018. The dems lost seats. Not just hard seats like ND either - they lost Florida as an incumbent and Missouri as an incumbent. 

The main changes in the House were in previously gerrymandered seats that went a bit more fair and essentially all of California. It wasnt nearly as nationally spread as I'd like. 

But, But, Texas is going blue!

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

That is unreasonably pessimistic.  Democrats picked up Congressional seats in 20 of the 50 states (21 if they win the special in NC).  Considering that Democrats already controlled the entire delegation in 5 more states, and another 5 are one seat super Republican states, that's pretty damn good. Democrats made gains in cities, in suburbs and in rural districts, and all across the country. 

And LOST SEATS in the Senate, Maith! As in, there are now less Democrats than there were this time last year. And guess what, pal? We're gonna lose more seats next year. The whole healthcare for victory strategy already didn't work

 The house isn't enough, that's what we are saying.

47 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

20 of the 50 is exactly my point. 

It's fucking strange, isn't it? I know people need to keep believing that we will win or something, but they just flat refuse to deal with the fact that the Senate is just gone.

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What will it take for Pelosi to finally impeach any of the many figures who have earned impeachment process?

"What Does Nancy Pelosi Think She’s Doing?"

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/nancy-pelosi-is-hurting-the-democratic-party.html

 

Dude that entire quote gets wrapped up in a limp opinion supported by no evidence to speak of. 

[aceluby]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Gotta say, still will happily vote for Harris, but this can't really be a good look.  How is expanding what's covered under credit scores good for anybody that isn't already in good shape?  Oh right because it's not for us, it's for financial institutions.  

 

It would have helped my wife, who two years out of school had never taken out a loan (she got a full ride) and pays her credit card in full every month.  Because there were so few data points her credit score was obscenely low despite being extremely good with money and debt.  Could help pave the way for people to get better rates for home loans for people who don't use credit often or at all.

I don't see this as a bad thing.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

And LOST SEATS in the Senate, Maith! As in, there are now less Democrats than there were this time last year. And guess what, pal? We're gonna lose more seats next year. The whole healthcare for victory strategy already didn't work

 The house isn't enough, that's what we are saying.

My response to Kal was specifically regarding the House and rejecting the idea that the 2018 House gains were not geographically spread out.  They were. 

The senate map is shitty for democrats and will remain shitty for democrats for an indeterminate amount of time.