US politics - When the Barr's so low.

[Fragile Bird]

Reporters on CNN thought it was phony at first.

[davos]

In the past 24 hours we have had the vile incident of Trump trying to force a grieving family meet with the person who had caused their daughter's death, the release of compelling evidence for significant tax fraud by one of Trump's real estate companies, the leak of a letter better Trump and the prime minister of Turkey that displays so much that is wrong with the president, and Trump apparently going into full-on meltdown in front of congressional leaders.   Since the Ukrainian call became public knowledge events have proceeded at an increasing tempo and Trump's behavior has become dramatically more erratic and unhinged.   There is no way for this trend to continue for long.  Yet there is no reasonable way to legally remove the president that has any chance of succeeding.  Impeachment takes too long and there is no way this cabinet is going to attempt a 25th amendment action.   We are in the middle of a constitutional of a scale not seen since the civil war.  The potential for something catastrophic is very real.  

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, davos said:

In the past 24 hours we have had the vile incident of Trump trying to force a grieving family meet with the person who had caused their daughter's death, the release of compelling evidence for significant tax fraud by one of Trump's real estate companies, the leak of a letter better Trump and the prime minister of Turkey that displays so much that is wrong with the president, and Trump apparently going into full-on meltdown in front of congressional leaders. 

Not to mention all the administration officials this week who have ignored the WHO's orders and complied (or will comply) with congressional subpoenas to testify.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Don't forget Giuliani's increasingly perilous situation too. Imagine if he gets arrested and Trump fears he'll flip....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 hours ago, DMC said:

Oh I don't know about that.  I think Biden will almost certainly pick a woman, but looking at potential candidates, seems to me Harris has as good a chance as anybody.  Warren would be the obvious choice, but if I were advising Biden I'm not sure that'd be wise as it just highlights his inability to excite the base.  I'm also not sure he wants to pick a fellow septuagenerian.  Klobuchar would probably be worse received by the left than Harris, and Gillibrand didn't exactly impress either.  Obviously there are other Congresswomen/Governors that didn't run for president and could be good candidates, but I haven't really thought about that yet. 

...Actually a quick skim of the Senators, there's not much there.  Maybe one of the Nevada Senators?  The Tammys (Baldwin, Duckworth) would also each be interesting choices in their own way.  As for governors, admittedly I'm not overly familiar with a lot of them, but seems like the two best potential candidates - Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and Laura Kelly (KS) - literally just took office, so that seems a bit weird.

I'm just assuming he/his team hasn't forgiven her for the attack in the first debate. She was the first to dent him. Maybe he's no so petty, and if that's the case then sure he could pick her.

That said, I completely agree with your breakdown. The only thing I think you missed could be the most interesting possibility: Stacey Abrams. I'm averse to picking someone who lost their first venture into national politics, but if you get past that, she checks off all the boxes except she probably will have more star power than Biden.

[Fragile Bird]

I saw the tail end of an interview with a female member of Congress from Michigan, missed her name, on CNN this morning. She’s been doing town halls in her district and has talked about the impeachment inquiry, and there was footage of her being yelled at by attendees yelling ‘you can’t trust the CIA, you can’t trust intelligence services!’ Since she’s a formed intelligence officer herself, she was pretty angry with that.

I assume that many Trump supporters think that way.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I saw the tail end of an interview with a female member of Congress from Michigan, missed her name, on CNN this morning. She’s been doing town halls in her district and has talked about the impeachment inquiry, and there was footage of her being yelled at by attendees yelling ‘you can’t trust the CIA, you can’t trust intelligence services!’ Since she’s a formed intelligence officer herself, she was pretty angry with that.

I assume that many Trump supporters think that way.

Yo, BIRD!, where ya been? A sitting Senator said on live T.V. that he didn't trust the intel community. Of course a bunch of mouth breathing, know nothing conservatives are going to parrot the same sentiment.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, davos said:

In the past 24 hours we have had the vile incident of Trump trying to force a grieving family meet with the person who had caused their daughter's death, the release of compelling evidence for significant tax fraud by one of Trump's real estate companies, the leak of a letter better Trump and the prime minister of Turkey that displays so much that is wrong with the president, and Trump apparently going into full-on meltdown in front of congressional leaders.   Since the Ukrainian call became public knowledge events have proceeded at an increasing tempo and Trump's behavior has become dramatically more erratic and unhinged.   There is no way for this trend to continue for long.  Yet there is no reasonable way to legally remove the president that has any chance of succeeding.  Impeachment takes too long and there is no way this cabinet is going to attempt a 25th amendment action.   We are in the middle of a constitutional of a scale not seen since the civil war.  The potential for something catastrophic is very real.  

 

More than that he melted down in public, calling Pelosi names and making no sense whatsoever -- Pelosi, speaking of this, is using language that is coming very close to 'nervous breakdown.'

"Pelosi to Trump: "All roads with you lead to Putin"  The House speaker added that Trump was rattled after nearly two-thirds of the House GOP caucus voted to condemn his decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/16/trump-news-today-live-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-impeachment-latest?page=with:block-5da794848f084862358ff773#block-5da794848f084862358ff773

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/revealed-speaker-pelosi-says-she-had-to-stop-white-house-meeting-because-trump-was-too-shaken-by-gop-criticism/

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/democrats-describe-trump-as-melting-down-during-insulting-meeting-on-syria-pullout-71412805634

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-democrats-walk-white-house-syria-meeting-trump/story?

 

[Trebla]

56 minutes ago, Zorral said:

More than that he melted down in public, calling Pelosi names and making no sense whatsoever -- Pelosi, speaking of this, is using language that is coming very close to 'nervous breakdown.'

"Pelosi to Trump: "All roads with you lead to Putin"  The House speaker added that Trump was rattled after nearly two-thirds of the House GOP caucus voted to condemn his decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/16/trump-news-today-live-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-impeachment-latest?page=with:block-5da794848f084862358ff773#block-5da794848f084862358ff773

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/revealed-speaker-pelosi-says-she-had-to-stop-white-house-meeting-because-trump-was-too-shaken-by-gop-criticism/

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/democrats-describe-trump-as-melting-down-during-insulting-meeting-on-syria-pullout-71412805634

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-democrats-walk-white-house-syria-meeting-trump/story?

 

No, no, no...Trump didn't have the meltdown, NANCY did!

The level of projection is breathtaking and the sad part is his followers will 100% believe him.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm just assuming he/his team hasn't forgiven her for the attack in the first debate. She was the first to dent him. Maybe he's no so petty, and if that's the case then sure he could pick her.

Yeah I can't imagine he'd be that petty after 45 years in politics.  Nor his advisors.  But, meh, stranger things have happened I guess.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Stacey Abrams. I'm averse to picking someone who lost their first venture into national politics

Yeah not mentioning her was not an oversight - I think you want someone more qualified when you're 77.

[ThinkerX]

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

A case for Booker from last night.

I know y'all's thoughts on this but still feel like one of the stronger general election candidates is just hiding right there and not getting any love and I feel like I'm on crazy pills.   

check the label on the bottle.

that said, given the front runners ages, there is very high possibility that their choice for VP could become POTUS (doubly true with Sanders).

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, there’s a NYT story about how Peter Navarro, WH trade advisor, has frequently quoted an anti-Chinese expert named Ron Vara in his books.

Turns out Vara doesn’t exist, he’s an anagram of Navarro’s name.

All the best men, working in that there White House place!

I’ve always loathed Navarro.

[Jace, Extat]

18 minutes ago, Triskele said:

A case for Booker from last night.

I know y'all's thoughts on this but still feel like one of the stronger general election candidates is just hiding right there and not getting any love and I feel like I'm on crazy pills.   

I've been fond of the Booker myself, but the strong anti-corporate fever that has gripped the lower orders of the party make him effectively ineffective despite his extraordinary speaking skills. Bernie may ramble in a borderline incoherent manner about shit that ain't never gonna happen, but it makes Josh McLibwitt feel good for ten seconds and that's what's really important.

[Martell Spy]

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, there’s a NYT story about how Peter Navarro, WH trade advisor, has frequently quoted an anti-Chinese expert named Ron Vara in his books.

Turns out Vara doesn’t exist, he’s an anagram of Navarro’s name.

All the best men, working in that there White House place!

I’ve always loathed Navarro.

Pretty sure Trump used an alias a time or two.

[Kalbear]

It's remarkable how completely shitty most Republican candidates are and no one even gives a single fuck about that, but Democratic candidates have to shit gold and cum ice cream. 

Seriously, GWB was a shitty candidate that was proven shittier and then got even more votes in 2004. Trump was one of the worst candidates in living memory for anyone. It kind of completely sucks that the US is so right-leaning that the default is Republican, and a Democrat has to prove that people enjoy things like not dying and not having race wars.

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Can you imagine Booker showing his age?  Can you imagine him being stumped by reporters question or giving cringe-worthy responses that become instant memes?*  Can you imagine him showing even the slightest sign of a lack of stamina?  

I have fond things to say about the three front-runners, but they all also seem so flawed, and I cannot believe that we're trying to save Democracy as we know it with any of the three of them.  I am grasping for an alternative.  I naively thought O'Rourke had potential which he obviously now does not.  I thought Harris seemed formidable too at one point but don't think it's her.  Pete has a lot of strengths and remains intriguing as an unconventional pick, but I see him really failing to catch fire with the Dem base.  

This is part of why the complaints about Booker baffle me.  He's not authentic enough?  Sure, I see that too.  And I"ve made the case that authenticity matters myself.  He's too cozy with wall street and pharma?  Sure, but we're going against Trump right now so that we even get to vote again someday.  

These things are actual flaws, but look at the rest of the candidates we have.  It is very easy to find flaws with all of them from many different angles.  

Booker has so many strengths though.  And he has game and energy and a keen-as-fuck mind.  And we're going against Trump.  And we're going with 70 year olds?  One is clearly in mental decline, another literally just had a heart attack.  

I am not in this post attempting to make even the slightest argument about who my preference is ideologically.  I am having my usual panic about how we're going to war to take out Trump and not feeling good about the generals we're going to war with.  

*everything and everyone's a meme now, I realize

You know how the Roman Empire fell? Not the Western barbarians that Euro-centric scholars fixate upon, but the real one? When the Turks were carving into Anatolia and a crisis was becoming existential, the various power players of the Empire were busy squabbling over who got to be Basilius of the ashes instead of unifying. Eventually foreign intervention was the only viable path to restoration, setting in motion the events that led directly to the end of a fifteen-hundred year old civilization.

All these Senators getting ideas above their station infuriates me. They have such little regard for the public good that they'll squabble and tear at each other for just a moment in the sun, weakening the cause. May the void be kind to Corey Booker, because before I tuned out he showed no inclination for such pettiness. I think Warren is a deceptively weak candidate against Trump, but that just makes everyone ganging up on her worse to me.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I've been fond of the Booker myself, but the strong anti-corporate fever that has gripped the lower orders of the party make him effectively ineffective despite his extraordinary speaking skills. 

I think this is kind of missing the direction of the party.  Booker fails some litmus tests for the left, but so does everybody except Sanders and Warren.  The problem with Booker is rehashing Obama's greatest hits of unity and post-partisanship, which is definitely something the left, and dare I say much of the Democratic Party, does not want to hear right now.  And if they do, they'll just vote for Biden.  At least thus far.

I have to say, @Triskele, that I was somewhat appalled at the post-game coverage of the debate last night on Booker.  He was plainly the best orator out there, and certainly fine on policy, but all the talking heads kept focusing on is he didn't do anything to stand out by sniping at his opponents.  Talk about a vicious cycle. 

Still, there's something about Booker I just don't trust, and the last time I had that feeling for a Democratic presidential candidate it was John Edwards.  So, that's my hangup.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Seriously, GWB was a shitty candidate that was proven shittier and then got even more votes in 2004.

Eh, point well taken, but bad example.  Dubya was a better candidate than Gore in the personable factor - he went on Oprah! - and Kerry was a pretty shitty candidate as well.  Plus there was 9/11 and that war he started in between.  

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think this is kind of missing the direction of the party. 

I know exactly where this party is going. Straight into irrelevance.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I know exactly where this party is going. Straight into irrelevance.

I set em up and you knock em down!

[Darth Richard II]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's remarkable how completely shitty most Republican candidates are and no one even gives a single fuck about that, but Democratic candidates have to shit gold and cum ice cream. 

Seriously, GWB was a shitty candidate that was proven shittier and then got even more votes in 2004. Trump was one of the worst candidates in living memory for anyone. It kind of completely sucks that the US is so right-leaning that the default is Republican, and a Democrat has to prove that people enjoy things like not dying and not having race wars.

Oh please, Americans LOVE race wars.