US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

[A Horse Named Stranger]

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think it comes down to Democrats being scared about electability and convincing themselves that a black woman was "unelectable".  Harris' favorability among Democrats is still good, and like you said she hasn't done anything that bad.  She had a stumble when Tulsi Gabbard attacked her in the second debate, but that was hardly a lethal blow.

It strikes me as a shame that Democrats seem committed to picking a 70+ year old candidate.  I think they will regret that decision. 

I don't think her demographic played a roll in her plummeting. At least not in the sense your post implied.

I think her being a black woman made up part of her appeal in the first place - at least it did for me.

The issue is more that now her track record as AG in California gets more scrutiny, and there her record (on race ironically) is not particularly great. And that is counteracting her appeal as a black candidate. Her being a woman is pretty much an afterward in that regard. It'll be interesting to see where her support ends up. My guess is Warren.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think it comes down to Democrats being scared about electability and convincing themselves that a black woman was "unelectable".  Harris' favorability among Democrats is still good, and like you said she hasn't done anything that bad.  She had a stumble when Tulsi Gabbard attacked her in the second debate, but that was hardly a lethal blow.

It strikes me as a shame that Democrats seem committed to picking a 70+ year old candidate.  I think they will regret that decision. 

Eh, I think it's more that she didn't have a built-in constituency, and then tried to pander to all constituencies equally when she excited people after the first debate. Everyone wanted to see someone have a go at Biden, and she did, but didn't capitalize on the attention given to her in the aftermath. 

That's not to count her out of the race yet. There's still a long time to go before voting begins, the race opened up some with Bernie's heart attack, and Harris has enough money to keep her campaign going for a while.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Eh, I think it's more that she didn't have a built-in constituency, and then tried to pander to all constituencies equally when she excited people after the first debate. Everyone wanted to see someone have a go at Biden, and she did, but didn't capitalize on the attention given to her in the aftermath.

I agree she was running as a middle of the road Democrat, and has mostly gotten lost in the wash as a nominee who is clearly to the left of Biden and clearly more moderate than Sanders and Warren.  She definitely made some missteps with respect to where she actually stands, because she had to fend off attacks from both the Left and the Center, and that isn't easy for a politician to do.  However, I think that every candidate in the field has made a few missteps, and in general voters have been more skittish about sticking with Harris than they have Sanders or Biden or Warren. 

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The issue is more that now her track record as AG in California gets more scrutiny, and there her record (on race ironically) is not particularly great. And that is counteracting her appeal as a black candidate. Her being a woman is pretty much an afterward in that regard. It'll be interesting to see where her support ends up. My guess is Warren.

I agree that she got some scrutiny there, but I never felt like it was a crippling or even particularly problematic blow.  Her record on race is far better than Biden's, and she has much more establishment support with the African American community than either Warren or Harris.  It's hard for me to believe that her record as a prosecutor was a bridge too far for her. 

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this.  I'm not claiming that she had a perfect campaign or anything, but research has shown that in general Americans are less forgiving of the mistakes of politicians of color and women, and it seemed to me that Harris was a great example of that phenomenon. 

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I don't think her demographic played a roll in her plummeting. At least not in the sense your post implied.

I think her being a black woman made up part of her appeal in the first place - at least it did for me.

The issue is more that now her track record as AG in California gets more scrutiny, and there her record (on race ironically) is not particularly great. And that is counteracting her appeal as a black candidate. Her being a woman is pretty much an afterward in that regard. It'll be interesting to see where her support ends up. 

I'm an outsider so this would require indulgence, but I find the above bolded rather fascinating. I liked Kamala off the hop [as opposed to Warren but she's definitely grown on me] but I'm wondering about this spin and how it's been so successful in undermining Kamala's candidacy. To most effects and purposes she was a very progressive AG in California, and her programs were quite successful. I mean, zero people were jailed re: her back to school initiative [for instance] yet there remains this mythological perception that her record was 'bad.' Where does it come from, how does it work? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

43 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree she was running as a middle of the road Democrat, and has mostly gotten lost in the wash as a nominee who is clearly to the left of Biden and clearly more moderate than Sanders and Warren.  She definitely made some missteps with respect to where she actually stands, because she had to fend off attacks from both the Left and the Center, and that isn't easy for a politician to do.  However, I think that every candidate in the field has made a few missteps, and in general voters have been more skittish about sticking with Harris than they have Sanders or Biden or Warren. 

I agree that she got some scrutiny there, but I never felt like it was a crippling or even particularly problematic blow.  Her record on race is far better than Biden's, and she has much more establishment support with the African American community than either Warren or Harris.  It's hard for me to believe that her record as a prosecutor was a bridge too far for her. 

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this.  I'm not claiming that she had a perfect campaign or anything, but research has shown that in general Americans are less forgiving of the mistakes of politicians of color and women, and it seemed to me that Harris was a great example of that phenomenon. 

Agree.  I think she also has had a pretty lackluster social media campaign and presence, at least from my perspective.  Her twitter account is pretty tone deaf to daily stuff and she hasn't set herself apart from the field on anything.  She was great during the Kavanaugh hearing and after the debate where she called out Biden she sounded pretty good.  

I feel like if Sanders or Biden dropped out she'd pick up whatever support didn't go to Warren.  

But 100% with you on the less forgiving electorate angle.

[Bonnot OG]

54 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I'm an outsider so this would require indulgence, but I find the above bolded rather fascinating. I liked Kamala off the hop [as opposed to Warren but she's definitely grown on me] but I'm wondering about this spin and how it's been so successful in undermining Kamala's candidacy. To most effects and purposes she was a very progressive AG in California, and her programs were quite successful. I mean, zero people were jailed re: her back to school initiative [for instance] yet there remains this mythological perception that her record was 'bad.' Where does it come from, how does it work? 

How about her ignoring judges orders to release nonviolent offenders from prison so prisons aren’t so filled in California because it would impact the slave labor they use prisoners for?

[JGP]

Sounds like more spin, man. And she disputed those reports at the time. I mean, I don't know if I'm invested in this enough to actually do hours of online research instead of just reading the first few search articles-- but how does that square with steering first time drug offenders into education initiatives in lieu of being charged at all?

I'm not saying I'm 100 on this, but there's does seem to be a lot of weird angst gossipy type shit against Kamala that doesn't really hold up on consistency. 

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Sounds like more spin, man. And she disputed those reports at the time. I mean, I don't know if I'm invested in this enough to actually do hours of online research instead of just reading the first few search articles-- but how does that square with steering first time drug offenders into education initiatives in lieu of being charged at all?

I'm not saying I'm 100 on this, but there's does seem to be a lot of weird angst gossipy type shit against Kamala that doesn't really hold up on consistency. 

There's a wing of 'progressives' who are basically just incels with an anarchist bent that is extremely vocal on the interwebz. I had one of them tell me (in person) during the 2nd debate "I'll vote for Donald Trump if Kamala is the nominee". 

And he believes he's the only real progressive in the entire universe. Anyone who actually understands the state of politics in 2019 and doesn't believe in his ridiculous world view is "stupid". 

There's a shitload of those people, too. More than a few post on this very board.

 

[JGP]

Yikes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

I think you're vastly overestimating the political salience of the court overturning Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt.  The right can legitimately argue it is not technically overturning Roe, and no I don't expect Roberts to respect the precedent when he was opposed to it three years ago.

Maybe, but I think this is one of the rare issues where Democrats can out spin Republicans simply because their argument is shorter. It may only help at the margins, but that’s where we lost.

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Just gonna keep this around for a couple weeks. Because shitting on women's rights is something that they're happy to do any time they want. And in roughly 50% of the country, shitting on women's rights helps them get people voting. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are success stories to them. 

You’ll probably need months, but if I’m wrong I’ll acknowledge it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Agree.  I think she also has had a pretty lackluster social media campaign and presence, at least from my perspective.  Her twitter account is pretty tone deaf to daily stuff and she hasn't set herself apart from the field on anything.  She was great during the Kavanaugh hearing and after the debate where she called out Biden she sounded pretty good.  

I feel like if Sanders or Biden dropped out she'd pick up whatever support didn't go to Warren.  

But 100% with you on the less forgiving electorate angle.

I also agree with Maith, but the bloded needs to be brought up. It helped her initially, but I think it could have backfired in the long run once people realized it was coordinated set up. Not saying that's the reason, but it could be a reason.

[Larry of the Lawn]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I also agree with Maith, but the bloded needs to be brought up. It helped her initially, but I think it could have backfired in the long run once people realized it was coordinated set up. Not saying that's the reason, but it could be a reason.

I think that whatever small number of people know about that, and whatever smaller number care, are not significant in any way shape or form.  

The field is also still huge, and Trump dominates all headlines.   This alone is probabaly a huge boon for Sanders, Warren, and Biden in that they have way better name recognition than everyone else and they are white.

[Ice Queen]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, they'll just make it a crime to knowingly abort a fetus. 

They can't if they don't know about it.

Women are way smarter about this than men. We've been dealing with this for millennia, and we'll always be one step ahead.

We shouldn't have to resort to such methods in this day and age, but here we are.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think that whatever small number of people know about that, and whatever smaller number care, are not significant in any way shape or form.  

The field is also still huge, and Trump dominates all headlines.   This alone is probabaly a huge boon for Sanders, Warren, and Biden in that they have way better name recognition than everyone else and they are white.

Maybe not at first, but it was something I also heard people bring up when saying she's a cop so they can't support (i.e. she's a back stabber). Just figured it was worth mentioning in the larger discussion of her decline, one that I am sad to see.

[polishgenius]

3 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

They can't if they don't know about it.

Women are way smarter about this than men. We've been dealing with this for millennia, and we'll always be one step ahead.

We shouldn't have to resort to such methods in this day and age, but here we are.

Surely if it was as easy as you're implying, there would be neither need nor demand for medical abortions and all that? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

Surely if it was as easy as you're implying, there would be neither need nor demand for medical abortions and all that? 

I know a woman who got pregnant freshman year in HS. She asked guys on the football team to pummel her stomach.  She also drank heavily. I guess it worked, but......

[Kalbear]

46 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

They can't if they don't know about it.

Women are way smarter about this than men. We've been dealing with this for millennia, and we'll always be one step ahead.

We shouldn't have to resort to such methods in this day and age, but here we are.

We live in a world where a woman was tried for manslaughter of her child that was shot by another person, and where people routinely state things like 'had to take Plan B' on facebook and instagram. Actual facts and provable information is not a requirement. Insinuations and hearsay will suffice. 

[JGP]

Mmn hmn. 

Or likewise stories similar to Tondalao Hall's. 20 years old when her serially abusive boyfriend broke their daughter’s toe, leg, and ribs while diapering her. Their other child was also injured. What happened? They're both arrested. He gets two years for child abuse, she was sentenced to 30 years for 'failure to protect.' 

Like what in the fucking fuck, Oklahoma. America.

EARTH.

What the actual fuck.

[Zorral]

"Pelosi Statement on Trump Administration Refusal to Comply with House Subpoenas

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement when the White House asserted that the Administration will not comply with House Committee subpoenas as part of the impeachment inquiry, making false claims about the Constitution, House rules and House precedent:   "

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/10819-0

Quote

 

“For a while, the President has tried to normalize lawlessness.  Now, he is trying to make lawlessness a virtue.  The American people have already heard the President’s own words – ‘do us a favor, though.’  The President’s actions threaten our national security, violate our Constitution and undermine the integrity of our elections.  The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law.

“This letter is manifestly wrong, and is simply another unlawful attempt to hide the facts of the Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 elections.  Despite the White House’s stonewalling, we see a growing body of evidence that shows that President Trump abused his office and violated his oath to ‘protect, preserve and defend the Constitution.’ 

“The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.  

“Mr. President, you are not above the law.  You will be held accountable.”

 

Here's the letter to which Pelosi has responded to:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/wh-letter-to-pelosi/index.html

As someone said, not me, "This is an 9 page temper tantrum."

As someone who worked with legal dox in one way and another -- it sure has a lot of cites! However most of them are about them Trying to exonerate Themselves already.

What I say is this is not a letter to Pelosi, this is a letter to the base, a letter to Hannity, providing talking points.

There are no legal arguments here.

 

[Martell Spy]

This is actually a decent plan. Unfortunately it is from the man that led the cabal in Congress to get the 2005 bankruptcy bill passed and kick student loan  borrowers in the balls repeatedly. It's a bit like a minimum wage proposal coming from Paul Ryan.

Quote

 

Income-based loan repayment and Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program

Under a simplified income-based repayment program proposed by Biden, those who are making $25,000 or less per year would not owe any payments on their undergraduate federal student loans and would not accrue any interest on those loans. Others would pay 5 percent of their discretionary income over $25,000 toward their loans.

 

How Joe Biden would make community college free and fix student loans
Biden would revamp troubled student loan forgiveness and repayment programs and boost funding for historically black colleges.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/joe-biden-2020-election-community-college-student-loans-plan-041634