US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

[Rippounet]

So... Maybe Sanders thinks he can steal some votes/support from Trump if he's not too much into political correctness since his history (can't really say his record) makes him hard to attack from the left? Sounds like cynical political calculation to me, nothing more nothing less.

In other news:

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/supreme-court-trump-green-cards.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to deny green cards to immigrants who are thought to be likely to make even occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority. The court’s brief order gave no reasons for lifting preliminary injunctions that had blocked the new program. Challenges to the program will continue to move forward in courts around the nation.

The administration announced in August that it would revise the so-called public charge rule, which allows officials to deny permanent legal status, also known as a green card, to immigrants who are likely to need public assistance. In the past, only substantial and sustained monetary help or long-term institutionalization counted, and fewer than 1 percent of applicants were disqualified on public-charge grounds.

The administration’s revised rule broadened the criteria to include “noncash benefits providing for basic needs such as housing or food” used in any 12 months in a 36-month period. Use of two kinds of benefits in a single month counts as two months, and so on.

 

Sounds bad by any standard, objectively comparable to policies implemented by some of the worst far-right governments in Europe.

 

 

[Gertrude]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i don't get the insistence on purity in a candidate's electorate. am thinking that if someone with whom i disagree vehemently on important policy preferences nevertheless supports my preferred candidate, that's unequivocally a good thing, a fortiori when the ultimate opponent is the current president?

Yeah, especially when we've got two major labels and a few minor ones to chose from. How does that accurately represent anyone's beliefs?

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i don't get the insistence on purity in a candidate's electorate. am thinking that if someone with whom i disagree vehemently on important policy preferences nevertheless supports my preferred candidate, that's unequivocally a good thing, a fortiori when the ultimate opponent is the current president?

To be clear, as usual I'm approaching this from a strategic point of view.  Obviously, no one should be insistent on a candidate's electorate being pure in a two party system.  But, to return to the aforementioned Vox piece, this tweet from Ezra Klein was cited:

No, Klein is wrong in this assertion.  Obama DID throw Jeremiah Wright and the long-held association under the bus once the media got ahold of Wright's comments that much of the electorate found objectionable.  Whether you or I think Wright's comments are (nearly) as objectionable as Rogan's is irrelevant (I personally think it's not even close, generally, but I don't recall all of Wright's comments of the top of my head).  The point is politically Obama needed to disassociate himself from Wright, and he rightly did, because Wright's comments mattered a lot to a lot of people.  Just like Rogan's.  

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Yeah, especially when we've got two major labels and a few minor ones to chose from. How does that accurately represent anyone's beliefs?

Put it another way: would you want David Duke to endorse your candidate? Would you be okay with that? Would you be willing to go on David Duke's podcast and talk to him for hours? 

What would that sort of thing appear to endorse? What would that tell you that you are the candidate backed by David Duke?

The problem, @sologdin, as I see it, is not Rogan endorsing Sanders; the problem is that Sanders is implicitly endorsing Rogan without any other nuance. And this, IMO, is the sort of thing Sanders does quite often in his politics - as long as the person is about the class struggle, it doesn't matter if they're anti-abortion, if they're supporting the Assad regime, or if they're simply transphobic islamophobic assholes like Rogan is. 

[Fragile Bird]

I’m not home right now, but just before I left I saw a report on CNN from the reporters who cover the WH (and who get lots of off-the-record info) saying there was a stirring of support from more than expected Republican Senators to hear from at least John Bolton. The story about the book manuscript has done the stirring.

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

 

In the case of a 50-50 tie, yes, Roberts as the presiding officer could break it - he rather clearly has that power.  Would he?  Almost certainly not.  Not only because of his politics but because how he views his role as Chief Justice.  No way he's gonna be the deciding vote on that, so practically speaking, they need 51 votes.  See here (WaPo so paywall/limited clicks warning) for details:

 

If the vote is 50/50, I'd bet that Roberts casts the deciding vote.  The rest of the WaPo article after your quote lays out the reasoning behind the argument that Roberts does have the power, and I'm very skeptical that Roberts would be willing to set the precedent that he doesn't have that power.  He's not a shirking violet, so I very much doubt that he passes on an opportunity to put his thumb on the scale.  I'd guess that he votes to allow witnesses to bolster the legitimacy of the impeachment process. 

A 50/50 vote broken by Roberts might be preferable to McConnell since it allows him to claim that Republicans didn't vote for witnesses, and allows him to pass the blame to Roberts (if Roberts votes to allow witnesses), while then allowing Republican's to call the Biden's as witnesses.  I guarantee that if Bolton is called, the Bidens will also be called, and in this scenario, I think Biden would be hurt a lot more than Trump.  The end game hasn't changed, even if Bolton testifies.  No way Trump is convicted and removed, and it's clear the Republican party doesn't care about the actual facts, so I doubt that this will have a negative impact on Trump at the polls.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

If the vote is 50/50, I'd bet that Roberts casts the deciding vote.  The rest of the WaPo article after your quote lays out the reasoning behind the argument that Roberts does have the power, and I'm very skeptical that Roberts would be willing to set the precedent that he doesn't have that power.

Strongly disagree because inaction has the same effect as casting a vote in the negative.  A motion, any motion, needs a majority to pass.  In the event of a tie, Roberts doesn't have to do anything, he can just let McConnell as Floor Leader dismiss the motion as failing to achieve a majority.  That way, he's doesn't set a precedent and he can't be perceived as putting his thumb on the scale.  I don't think Roberts has any interest in setting a precedent asserting the power of the Chief Justice in an impeachment trial.  His ethos clearly indicates he would indeed balk at such an opportunity because his primary interest is the court's legitimacy, and the best way to maintain legitimacy is to not get involved with political squabbles.  This is not to say I agree with that - I of course agree with the WaPo columnist's argument that Roberts should assert the Justice's role in ensuring a fair trial.  It's just the argument runs counter to Roberts' behavior as Chief Justice.

[IheartIheartTesla]

3 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I'm an independent, so more cache than a Dem, but not tricksy like you suggest.

Ernst's approval ratings have taken a tumble recently, so independents probably have more cache than even Republicans.

[Mudguard]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Strongly disagree because inaction has the same effect as casting a vote in the negative.  A motion, any motion, needs a majority to pass.  In the event of a tie, Roberts doesn't have to do anything, he can just let McConnell as Floor Leader dismiss the motion as failing to achieve a majority.  That way, he's doesn't set a precedent and he can't be perceived as putting his thumb on the scale.  I don't think Roberts has any interest in setting a precedent asserting the power of the Chief Justice in an impeachment trial.  His ethos clearly indicates he would indeed balk at such an opportunity because his primary interest is the court's legitimacy, and the best way to maintain legitimacy is to not get involved with political squabbles.  This is not to say I agree with that - I of course agree with the WaPo columnist's argument that Roberts should assert the Justice's role in ensuring a fair trial.  It's just the argument runs counter to Roberts' behavior as Chief Justice.

Completely disagree.  By not voting, Roberts would be setting the precedent that either the Chief Justice does not have the power to vote or that he shouldn't vote.  Why would he want to give up that power and set that type of precedent?  Do you think he wants his legacy to be one of weakening the Supreme Court and presiding over a sham trial?  For a procedural issue like whether to allow witnesses or not in a trial, he can easily cast his decision as non-political and a matter of fairness and legitimacy.  I find it very hard to believe that he would help facilitate a sham trial if it was in his power to make it seem more fair and legitimate.  Again, the outcome of this trial is predetermined, so why not have witnesses to give the trial a thin veneer of legitimacy?  Roberts has his job for life, so he's not under the same pressures from constituents as Congress.

The only scenario I see him not casting a vote is a 50-50 vote to convict and remove, since a 2/3 majority is needed, which would make Roberts vote moot, and when an issue is moot, the standard practice of the court is to not decide anything.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Also, like I said before, Sanders appeared on Rogan's podcast in August of last year, so that was when all the umbrage should have been taken (appearing on someone's shows means you dont think their views are deal breakers, in my opinion). I do agree that he should have made some clarifying statements or a qualified statement about the endorsement.

Anyway, the R senator stuff is interesting. Maybe there will be some traction on witnesses, but I have become quite a bit cynical and dont hold out much hope.

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

By not voting, Roberts would be setting the precedent that either the Chief Justice does not have the power to vote or that he shouldn't vote.

Not doing something is not setting a precedent.  The Court does not rule on cases all the time because they do not want to set a precedent.

8 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Do you think he wants his legacy to be one of weakening the Supreme Court and presiding over a sham trial?

How does him staying out of the Senate's decisions weaken the power of the SC?  Hell, he's the only member of the SC there.  By doing something, he's going to piss off a lot of people, either way.  And that will negatively impact the court's legitimacy because its legitimacy derives from public opinion.  Now, if he doesn't cast a vote, sure, it's still gonna piss a lot of people off, but it's the least politically controversial option he has.  Again, Roberts' ruling interest here is, as the representative of the court, to make sure it stays out of the political mudslinging as much as possible.  That was literally Rehnquist's stated interest twenty years ago when he presided.  That is going to be the basis for his (non) decision-making.

[Mudguard]

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Also, like I said before, Sanders appeared on Rogan's podcast in August of last year, so that was when all the umbrage should have been taken (appearing on someone's shows means you dont think their views are deal breakers, in my opinion). I do agree that he should have made some clarifying statements or a qualified statement about the endorsement.

Anyway, the R senator stuff is interesting. Maybe there will be some traction on witnesses, but I have become quite a bit cynical and dont hold out much hope.

 

I don't have a problem with a candidate going on Rogan or Fox News to do an interview.  I don't think that means you automatically agree with every view of the interviewer.   There are many legitimate reasons for talking with a person you disagree with, and I don't think it should be necessary to exhaustively review the interviewer's views before doing the interview.  Should Democrats all boycott Fox News and the debates they run because the network puts out views that they disagree with?  

Endorsements are a little different.  As a practical matter, I don't think campaigns have time to exhaustively check the views and background of every one their endorsements, particularly if the endorsement is unsolicited.  That said, if problems with the endorsement are brought to a candidate's attention, then yes, I think they should address the issue.

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Put it another way: would you want David Duke to endorse your candidate? Would you be okay with that? Would you be willing to go on David Duke's podcast and talk to him for hours? 

What would that sort of thing appear to endorse? What would that tell you that you are the candidate backed by David Duke?

The problem, @sologdin, as I see it, is not Rogan endorsing Sanders; the problem is that Sanders is implicitly endorsing Rogan without any other nuance. And this, IMO, is the sort of thing Sanders does quite often in his politics - as long as the person is about the class struggle, it doesn't matter if they're anti-abortion, if they're supporting the Assad regime, or if they're simply transphobic islamophobic assholes like Rogan is. 

As long as the candidate is very fucking clear which opinions of Duke he disagrees with, I don't care if he talks to him or accepts his endorsement. Maybe they agree on strong unions. Maybe they take that time to discuss why they disagree on the KKK. No need to denounce an individual as a whole because of one, or even several points of disagreement - even one as odious as Duke's. Make it clear that you don't endorse those views and won't pursue legislation friendly to them, but accept the points you do agree on.

Yeah, yeah - appearances. Of course it's something you have to take into account in the real world because low-information voters don't do nuance and other people are really hung up on purity nonsense. My stance is it shouldn't matter and that people are getting too twisted up about it. Don't let the imperfect get in the way of the good yada yada.

[Mudguard]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not doing something is not setting a precedent.  The Court does not rule on cases all the time because they do not want to set a precedent.

How does him staying out of the Senate's decisions weaken the power of the SC?  Hell, he's the only member of the SC there.  By doing something, he's going to piss off a lot of people, either way.  And that will negatively impact the court's legitimacy because its legitimacy derives from public opinion.  Now, if he doesn't cast a vote, sure, it's still gonna piss a lot of people off, but it's the least politically controversial option he has.  Again, Roberts' ruling interest here is, as the representative of the court, to make sure it stays out of the political mudslinging as much as possible.  That was literally Rehnquist's stated interest twenty years ago when he presided.  That is going to be the basis for his (non) decision-making.

Going to have to agree to disagree.  I think there's a decent chance that we'll get to find out though.  It sounds like 3 Republican's might vote for witnesses, but getting a fourth seems like a stretch.  I wouldn't mind though if 4+ Republicans vote for witnesses.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

As long as the candidate is very fucking clear which opinions of Duke he disagrees with, I don't care if he talks to him or accepts his endorsement. Maybe they agree on strong unions. Maybe they take that time to discuss why they disagree on the KKK. No need to denounce an individual as a whole because of one, or even several points of disagreement - even one as odious as Duke's. Make it clear that you don't endorse those views and won't pursue legislation friendly to them, but accept the points you do agree on.

Yeah, yeah - appearances. Of course it's something you have to take into account in the real world because low-information voters don't do nuance and other people are really hung up on purity nonsense. My stance is it shouldn't matter and that people are getting too twisted up about it. Don't let the imperfect get in the way of the good yada yada.

Sanders has not done that however, so that is still a problem. And it really isn't purity to ask for human decency. 

[Gertrude]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders has not done that however, so that is still a problem. And it really isn't purity to ask for human decency. 

I agree, Sanders should make a statement, but I don't feel it has to be very strong. Just acknowledge it and move on. You can ask for decency all you want and should do so, I agree. Don't demand it, though.

I honestly don't get how the purity thing works. When people from all across the nation realistically have two choices for party alignment, how do we get everyone to be fully on board at every point? I mean I know you know this isn't realistic, but doesn't berating people for not believing exactly what you do just push them away to either not participate, or in extreme cases, into the arms of the enemy? So Rogan is a transphobe ... so what? Use it as an opportunity for debate and discussion and don't reject him as a whole. Embrace the good and talk about the bad. Don't we want to bring people together rather than divide?

[ThinkerX]

More and more chatter about additional republicans agreeing to vote for additional witnesses.  Starting to think we may see a witness or four on the stand.  So....just how epic would Trumps meltdown be in that case - especially if executive privilege cannot be invoked?

The most common version floating around: basically Romney talking it up and making claims:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-many-republican-votes-are-needed-to-subpoena-bolton-4-3-or-none/ar-BBZnRwP?ocid=msnclassic

 

Mr. Trump explicitly linked his holdup of aid to Ukraine to a push for politically beneficial investigations, Mr. Bolton wrote. On Monday, Mr. Romney told reporters that “it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton,” and Ms. Collins said on Twitter that the reports about Mr. Bolton’s book “strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.”

 

not sure about this Toomey character...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/toomey-discusses-a-one-for-one-witness-deal-in-trump-impeachment-amid-bolton-revelations-officials-say/ar-BBZnTdg?ocid=msnclassic

 

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, according to three Republican officials.

 

Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a “one-for-one” deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump, the officials said.

Toomey has spoken about his idea with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and others, the officials added.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Put it another way: would you want David Duke to endorse your candidate? Would you be okay with that? Would you be willing to go on David Duke's podcast and talk to him for hours? 

What would that sort of thing appear to endorse? What would that tell you that you are the candidate backed by David Duke?

The problem, @sologdin, as I see it, is not Rogan endorsing Sanders; the problem is that Sanders is implicitly endorsing Rogan without any other nuance. And this, IMO, is the sort of thing Sanders does quite often in his politics - as long as the person is about the class struggle, it doesn't matter if they're anti-abortion, if they're supporting the Assad regime, or if they're simply transphobic islamophobic assholes like Rogan is. 

Can we dispense with the idiocy that Joe Rogan is anywhere close to David Duke in terms of extremist views.

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Can we dispense with the idiocy that Joe Rogan is anywhere close to David Duke in terms of extremist views.

^This^

I happen to have been watching a bunch of Neil deGrasse Tyson interviews with Rogan lately, and he's a douchy dudebro who thinks being 'centrist' (which is on the right end of what's acceptable in a normal society) makes him enlightened. He's not a fucking monster. In fact, he's quite relatable. Y'know, the way most comedians are. It almost makes sense that people would enjoy his videos without being rabid Nazis if they just don't click on the Ben Shapiro shit. Because he's funny and relatable. And not wildly condemning people out of hand as equivalent to the head of the Klan.

Just sayin'.

[Gertrude]

Jace, that was a reasoned response, are you ok? Blink twice if you need help.