US Politics: The American Messias, Greenland and attacks on Jews voting Democrats. Or as we call it Wednesday.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Looks like Dorian may hit as a 4. 

Please God, hit Mar-a-lago and just sit on top of it.

You've been unmasked, BIRD!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/30/ex-canadian-prime-minister-roots-dorian-hit-trump-mar-lago/2161886001/

[Zorral]

Buttigieg made a miscalculation that is sinking his campaign as much as Gillbrand's on Franken contributed to her failure to launch at all -- whereas Buttigieg was launching, and then fizzled, though his very well-heeled supporters are still outraising campaign funding over any of the other candidates this quarter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-police.html?

Quote

 

Policing problems in South Bend came to national attention on June 16, when a white sergeant fatally shot a 54-year-old black resident, Eric Logan. The officer’s body camera was not turned on, which was widely seen as a sign of lax standards in the department. Mr. Buttigieg found himself flying home again, regularly, to face the fury of some black citizens and the frustrations of many others.

It is the great paradox of Mr. Buttigieg’s presidential candidacy: His record on public safety and policing, once largely a footnote in his political biography, has overshadowed his economic record in South Bend, which he had spent years developing as a calling card for higher office...

....But criticism of Mr. Buttigieg’s oversight of the police has damaged his viability as a Democratic presidential candidate, given the huge influence of black voters in choosing the party’s nominee. He has slipped in the polls in recent months, from double-digit poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire in the spring to the single digits more recently. In a recent Fox News poll, he earned less than 1 percent support from black Democratic primary voters.

 

As with KG, PB's showing us yet once again, if we didn't know, that political careers are crap shoots at best. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

She split the caucus and forced the issue. 

Ha!  Attributing causality to Gillibrand cuz she jumped on it first is about as classic a post hoc fallacy as you can get.  The caucus was going to turn on Franken no matter who came out first.  You think the likes of Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, Harris, Feinstein, Sanders, Warren, and Booker were all convinced because Gillibrand said it first?  That's hilariously naive.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, avenge me said:

hmm yes, if there is anything the metoo movement highlighted it was the fact wealthy and powerful men are usually held accountable for their actions and can’t rely on connections to gloss over or minimize their predatory behaviors 

Is there a sarcastic echo in here? Because the post of mine you quoted explicitly said that the context was about shining a light on how powerful men abuse their power to keep their actions under wraps and to allow them to continue to abuse others. 

Franken immediately called for the most open forum available to him to allow these women to make their allegations publicly and to subject himself to a process that could lead to formal sanctions, where he could actually have been held accountable. Am I saying he didn't abuse his power and that he didn't sexually assault women? No. But I am saying that his reaction to the allegations appeared different than just about everyone else being accused at that time, and that he should have been able to go before a hearing. And that's the disconnect I'm experiencing; I thought the point was to work to change the culture so that, first and foremost, these assaults and sexual harassment happen less, but also so that these men are brought to justice for their actions. And yeah, a lot of them had to resign and had to issue insincere apologies. But that doesn't stop them from being rich, powerful men. Hell, Epstein was apparently abusing young girls while he was supposed to be in jail back when he made his plea deal. Harvey Weinstein is going around hanging out at spas. That's not the kind of consequences I was imagining for them when this movement began.

And that also brings me back to my point that when dealing with allegations of this nature, or any kind of allegations really, that the degree of the alleged offence and the intent of the alleged offender must be taken into account.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Franken or not, can we just agree on that Gillibrand was not a particularly exciting candidate, and that it's past time that she as non-entity in this primary has left the stage. Maybe CNN will now finally be able to host an actual political primary debate instead of those clusterfucks, whcih were pretty much a waste for almost everybody's time. If anybody has Jack Tapper in his contacts, ask him to respond to that in 20 seconds. If he needs longer for an answer cut him off. On a related note, why did CNN bother to give Rick Sanscrotum airtime. If I was interested what corporate Jesus would do, I'd get a ouija board and watch Mike Pence and Mnuchin getting hammered before they start to communicate with the gost of Ronald Reagan, who is every bit as good as Jesus, if not better.

Anyway, right now I am really only interested in a debate between Biden, Harris, Sanders and Warren (alphabetical order). Feel free to add two flavour of the month candidates of your choice.

 

[Zorral]

Franken did not assault anybody, unlike the proven assaults of those like Weinstein and Epstein and Trump.

Franken got clobbered because he was a rather gross jerk, i.e. literally slobbery etc., and women don't like even innocuous physical contact with that, and he never seemed to get the message, even the one that he should have better manners when eating, including chewing with his mouth shut and not talking with food in his mouth.

As for KG and the woman voter and likeablilty --

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/why-couldnt-i-make-myself-like-kirsten-gillibrand.html

I'm not quite sure I buy this though, other than the discomfort she displayed wearing false eyelashes.

But the concluding paragraph:

Quote

So ultimately, here’s what I think really happened: Kirsten Gillibrand was hurt by sexism, yes. But in singularly attaching herself to a political disaster of an issue—a moral, legal, procedural morass we are still fighting over nearly every aspect of how to think about—she refused to let us work around it. Sexual assault and harassment are issues of crucial importance, and there are few things that the nation has discussed more since the election of Donald Trump. They’re just nowhere near enough—as yet—to determine a president. 

whether it did anything else had me re-evaluating yet again some of Nancy Pelosi's stances and decisions.

 

 

 

 

[DMC]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Franken or not, can we just agree on that Gillibrand was not a particularly exciting candidate

Yes.  The field is getting culled slowly but surely - there may only be a dozen candidates soon instead of two dozen!  But, still, 10 candidates on one stage is a little much.  It'd be nice if everyone outside, say, the top 8 (Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker and Castro) got out in the next couple months.  Then it'd start looking about the size of the 2008 field, which worked out fine.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Ha!  Attributing causality to Gillibrand cuz she jumped on it first is about as classic a post hoc fallacy as you can get.  The caucus was going to turn on Franken no matter who came out first.  You think the likes of Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, Harris, Feinstein, Sanders, Warren, and Booker were all convinced because Gillibrand said it first?  That's hilariously naive.

Duh, that’s what I was saying. It’s basic group dynamics. Once one person jumped, they’d all be forced to take a side, and in this situation there was clearly an easier side to take. The main reason why the blow back against Gillibrand has been so harsh though is because it was obviously self-serving. I think people would have reacted similarly towards Booker or Harris had they been the first to call for his resignation whereas I don’t think people would still be as upset if Feinstein was the initial caucus member to call for Franken to step down.

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

The main reason why the blow back against Gillibrand has been so harsh though is because it was obviously self-serving.

I'm not disagreeing there was a certain amount of blowback towards Gillibrand.  I'm saying fisrt, that that blowback is wholly unwarranted; plus I don't really think that's why her campaign failed so quickly.  She dropped out because she couldn't even qualify for the third debate by getting a measly 2 percent in four polls.  How much of the >98% of the primary electorate do you think didn't support her because of Al Franken?  Further, her "obviously self-serving" move is about as banal, common, and routine for politicians that there is no rational reason to view her as any more of a cynical politician than literally 99% of politicians.

[Fragile Bird]

I’ve been seeing comments about fake phone calls, and now I see aides are saying Trump did not actually have any telephone conversations with the Chinese, like he said he had.

I bet he was trying to influence the stock market, which would have been totally illegal.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ah you still believe in those empty phrases like rule of law, or in laws like if they were actual laws.

I miss those days.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not disagreeing there was a certain amount of blowback towards Gillibrand.  I'm saying fisrt, that that blowback is wholly unwarranted; plus I don't really think that's why her campaign failed so quickly.  She dropped out because she couldn't even qualify for the third debate by getting a measly 2 percent in four polls.  How much of the >98% of the primary electorate do you think didn't support her because of Al Franken?  Further, her "obviously self-serving" move is about as banal, common, and routine for politicians that there is no rational reason to view her as any more of a cynical politician than literally 99% of politicians.

As a main reason? Maybe 10-25%* of DFL voters here in MN and <1% everywhere else. I do think it caused people to look at other candidates though simply because there were so many and they didn’t have that attached to their names, but I’m sure there were also people who liked her because she called for Franken’s resignation. It could all be a wash in the end. The last thing I'll add on this topic is that when I just Googled Al Franken's name, mostly what came up were articles about Gillibrand and how her actions with Franken Affected her campaign. The opinions based on the headlines were all over the place.

And to address your last thought, normally I’d agree, but with Gillibrand it’s hard for me to get past how drastically she changed her stances on so many important issues, and honestly, that's what most likely sank her campaign from the jump. It's a common critique I hear about her.

 

 

*numbers are obviously unscientific, but rare is it that  you’ll find someone who is active in local party politics and supports what she did.

[Maithanet]

34 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’ve been seeing comments about fake phone calls, and now I see aides are saying Trump did not actually have any telephone conversations with the Chinese, like he said he had.

I bet he was trying to influence the stock market, which would have been totally illegal.

Trump is absolutely waging a concerted campaign to prop up both the stock market and consumer confidence.  He knows that consumer confidence is a funny thing and if people believe that a recession is starting, it can become a self fufilling prophecy (of course, plenty of other things, like trade wars, can also cause recessions).  So he's doing everything he can to prop up consumer confidence, and of course that includes lying, because that's what he does. 

Is it legal?  Probably not.  But he's done so many things that are probably illegal, and he's definitely not going to stop here.  His ability to influence the markets and the economy is actually greatly reduced because nobody trusts him anymore.  The stock market knows that if Trump says one thing and the Chinese government says something else then it is almost assuredly the Chinese who are telling the truth.  Which is pretty astonishing and sad. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It could all be a wash in the end. The last thing I'll add on this topic is that when I just Googled Al Franken's name, mostly what came up were articles about Gillibrand and how her actions with Franken Affected her campaign. The opinions based on the headlines were all over the place.

Sure, the media likes mentioning her a lot and that was her aim to begin with - but is that even one of many significant reasons she dropped out?  The bolded suggests you agree, that no, probably not.

Anyway, this all started because I said your language of "backstabber" and "self-serving fraud" was a bit much.  Then I explained why I thought blaming her for Franken was petty, unwarranted, didn't really affect her campaign's failure, and was a typical political move that just didn't work.  You haven't really challenged any of those points, and even agreed on most, so I'm not sure what's left to discuss here.

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

with Gillibrand it’s hard for me to get past how drastically she changed her stances on so many important issues

Yes, I've mentioned her rather radical ideological shift when she was appointed Senator as her biggest weakness since it became clear she was gonna run.  She definitely has what I'll call the Etch-a-Sketch problem.

[DanteGabriel]

Quote

President Trump has tweeted what experts say is almost certainly an image from a classified satellite or drone, showing the aftermath of an accident at an Iranian space facility.

Panda says that the tweet discloses "some pretty amazing capabilities that the public simply wasn't privy to before this."

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran

 

*sigh*

He's just so fucking stupid.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I skimmed the last few pages to see if anyone posted this and it appears not. This is taking evil to a next level:

 

Quote

Each year, the U.S. gets about 1,000 applications from immigrant families in the U.S. seeking permission to stay in the country and not face deportation so family members can continue lifesaving medical care that is not available in their home countries.

But the Trump administration recently told families who were granted permission to stay for medical care that their permission to stay has been rescinded and they have 33 days to leave the country. The policy, which was not publicly announced, is being applied retroactively to any requests filed on or before Aug. 7.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-low-trump-immigration-policy-seeks-deport-sick-dying-children-n1047901

 

They're literally deporting sick kids who need life saving medicine, knowing that the end result will likely be death.

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I skimmed the last few pages to see if anyone posted this and it appears not. This is taking evil to a next level:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-low-trump-immigration-policy-seeks-deport-sick-dying-children-n1047901

 

They're literally deporting sick kids who need life saving medicine, knowing that the end result will likely be death.

Don’t need death camps when you can just let them die naturally 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran

 

*sigh*

He's just so fucking stupid.

Lol remember all that shit he was talking about how Obama was telling the opposition what he was planning

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

1. The administration’s plan is intellectually dishonest

Defenders of indexing, like Cruz and Norquist, claim that it’s a matter of fairness. If an investor buys stock, and its price only keeps up with inflation, they aren’t really getting any richer, and shouldn’t be taxed as if they are. Pomerleau thinks that argument makes some sense. “In principle, if you want to tax income—and this is the traditional Haig-Simons definition of income— real income is what you want to go after,” he said. “It should be after you account for any inflation.”

The problem is that Republicans aren’t really being intellectually honest on this issue, Pomerleau said. There are lots of other parts of the tax code that it might make sense to index for inflation, some of which could raise taxes on investors. But the White House isn’t trying to address those—it’s just trying to enact a tax cut by fiat. “It would easier to defend if they said ‘we want to index everything because we think inflation interacts with the tax code and that’s unfair,’” Pomerleau told me. “But that’s simply not what they’re doing.”

 

Four Reasons the GOP’s Latest Tax Scheme Is a Terrible Idea, According to a Conservative Tax Wonk

https://slate.com/business/2019/08/indexing-capital-gains-taxes-donald-trump-economy.html

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Four Reasons the GOP’s Latest Tax Scheme Is a Terrible Idea, According to a Conservative Tax Wonk

https://slate.com/business/2019/08/indexing-capital-gains-taxes-donald-trump-economy.html

Sweet so then if our wages don't go up we that should be indexed against our relative tax burden for the rest of us, right?  Oh, no?  Oh it's only for rich people?  Lol.  Seriously this is what makes people start doodling guillotines