US Politics: Does the fat man singing count?

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess the one thing going for it is that is actually has a chance of going through. The other option is to wait and hope that the Democrats win both Georgia run offs and can put forward an even better package. A bird in the hand and all that, perhaps? Plus if the Dems do with Georgia they can beef up the package some time after inauguration day. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

55 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Unsurprising, but the timing is very interesting:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/528260-justice-department-investigating-potential-bribery-scheme-to-obtain%3famp

Is there anything that can have teeth though? The bribery part is straightforward, but can't Trump then attempt to pardon himself for accepting the bribes? 

Also, NYT is reporting that Trump has discussed pardons for his three eldest children and Rudy.

18 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Any thoughts on the proposed stimulus package?

I think it is kind of trash to be honest. It is too little and if we're going to be waiving liability protections, we need more and cannot be suckered in by promises of a third stimulus.

You have to accept you're not going to get what you want. Republicans control the Senate and that's that. They should fight for as much as they can get, but they'll be lucky to get even close to half of what they're asking for.

[GrimTuesday]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is there anything that can have teeth though? The bribery part is straightforward, but can't Trump then attempt to pardon himself for accepting the bribes? 

Also, NYT is reporting that Trump has discussed pardons for his three eldest children and Rudy.

You have to accept you're not going to get what you want. Republicans control the Senate and that's that. They should fight for as much as they can get, but they'll be lucky to get even close to half of what they're asking for.

I'm sorry, you can't have guys like Manchin and Collins negotiating these, they're already coming from a position that is to the right of the rest of the party, they have similar interests to the Republicans in terms of propping up corporation and will not fight for the large scale things that we need to use as the starting point for our negotiations. We might not get everything, but you can't start from a weak starting point. We have can block the one thing they want, they can block what we want, and this is a extremely weak package.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think it is kind of trash to be honest.

I'm shocked!  The bipartisan group getting together is a nice first step but their proposal doesn't really matter - and obviously it's way too little (plus if I had to choose I'd rather have another round of direct payments than a $300 unemployment enhancement).  McConnell is unfortunately right that the focus right now should be on at least passing a CR to avoid a shutdown.  Parts of the group's proposal will almost certainly be integrated into that, but any serious stimulus talks are almost certainly on hold until Biden takes office, or at least until after the Georgia elections.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I'm sorry, you can't have guys like Manchin and Collins negotiating these, they're already coming from a position that is to the right of the rest of the party, they have similar interests to the Republicans in terms of propping up corporation and will not fight for the large scale things that we need to use as the starting point for our negotiations. We might not get everything, but you can't start from a weak starting point. We have can block the one thing they want, they can block what we want, and this is a extremely weak package.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that is where they are and everyone knows it. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

39 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Any thoughts on the proposed stimulus package?

I think it is kind of trash to be honest. It is too little and if we're going to be waiving liability protections, we need more and cannot be suckered in by promises of a third stimulus.

You know, it's crazy, Pelosi and Trump were arguing in October about a 2 trillion vs 1 trillion dollar stimulus. Maybe had Pelosi taken Trump's deal, McConnell would have sunk it anyhow, but now a bipartisan effort has come through for less than a trillion, and McConnell sinks it (even with the protections for corporations forcing people to work in dangerous conditions) saying it should be closer to 500 billion. Sure wish we could have seen where that 1 trillion dollar package would have gone.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

44 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

How so? Do mean the decision by the judge to release this information was timed in some way to have a particular effect? Or do you mean the timing of the investigation itself shows a particular target? Not sure what you are seeing here regards timing. 

I agree completely that an attempt to sell pardons for money would fit exactly with what we know about the conduct of this White House. At this point we don't know if the target(s) of the investigation includes Trump himself, but nothing would be surprising about him trying to make money off his office.

Pairing this with the announcement the announcement that they’ve “so far” discovered no evidence of widespread electoral fraud.

[The Anti-Targ]

So priorities for the lame duck period for Trump includes bringing back firing squads for federal capital convictions? Apparently this is an idea that's been mooted to deal with lethal injection drugs being in fairly short supply.

I'm guessing legislation to end federal capital punishment won't pass unless there is a filibuster-proof majority in favour of it in the Senate.

[SFDanny]

42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Pairing this with the announcement the announcement that they’ve “so far” discovered no evidence of widespread electoral fraud.

Ok, but I still don't get it. Sorry, but one is an announcement by AG Barr, and the other is a release by a federal judge. I don't see a obvious connection in the timing of the two things. If I'm missing something obvious, let me know. I sometimes don't see obvious things others do. My kids will verify that fact, but the timing looks to me to pure coincidence. 

I should say, the reason I ask is, in general, I like your posts and your take on things, so I'm probably just asking an annoying question. If so, feel free to ignore my question.

[Fury Resurrected]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I literally steal jokes from West Wing all the time.  Y'all just don't notice.  Usually.

I always notice. But I do it too

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I always notice.

I suspected.  Maintain omerta.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

You know, it's crazy, Pelosi and Trump were arguing in October about a 2 trillion vs 1 trillion dollar stimulus. Maybe had Pelosi taken Trump's deal, McConnell would have sunk it anyhow, but now a bipartisan effort has come through for less than a trillion, and McConnell sinks it (even with the protections for corporations forcing people to work in dangerous conditions) saying it should be closer to 500 billion. Sure wish we could have seen where that 1 trillion dollar package would have gone.

It always seemed like McConnell was going to sink a deal absent Trump browbeating him publicly over it. I still think it's bizarre though that Republicans didn't go for a second direct stimulus package say a month out before the election. Trump would have probably gotten most of the credit, and who knows how that could have changed the electoral results. I don't really see a scenario in which it would have hurt Republicans. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Ok, but I still don't get it. Sorry, but one is an announcement by AG Barr, and the other is a release by a federal judge. I don't see a obvious connection in the timing of the two things. If I'm missing something obvious, let me know. I sometimes don't see obvious things others do. My kids will verify that fact, but the timing looks to me to pure coincidence. 

I should say, the reason I ask is, in general, I like your posts and your take on things, so I'm probably just asking an annoying question. If so, feel free to ignore my question.

It just seems an odd coincidence.  

[The Anti-Targ]

I imagine most anti-Trump people won't say the ends justified the means, but this article points to a survey that seems to indicate one sliver lining in the COVID cloud was Trump losing the election.

https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-how-covid-19-killed-his-hope-of-re-election-new-research-151045

I assume most people here would probably trade 4 more years of Trump for not having a pandemic that has killed millions a disproportionate number of whom were US citizens. Though some might say a second Trump term might have killed more people than COVID-19 will (in the USA) and that could be an interesting debate.

Of course Trump may have lost anyway, but the odds would be against a "normal" 2020 causing Trump fail to get a second term.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I imagine most anti-Trump people won't say the ends justified the means, but this article points to a survey that seems to indicate one sliver lining in the COVID cloud was Trump losing the election.

While I'm not questioning that data in any way, and it's hardly surprising, it's important to note there's a lot of endogeneity in those results.  Those that were already voting against Trump are inherently predisposed to identify covid as one of, or the top, issue.

[Martell Spy]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It always seemed like McConnell was going to sink a deal absent Trump browbeating him publicly over it. I still think it's bizarre though that Republicans didn't go for a second direct stimulus package say a month out before the election. Trump would have probably gotten most of the credit, and who knows how that could have changed the electoral results. I don't really see a scenario in which it would have hurt Republicans. 

They already thought they were losing the election, like a lot of people did. So the next best thing is to block anything remotely generous on stimulus. Make Biden spend valuable time and political capital getting anything passed and then blame him for how meager it is. And everyone gets to pretend they care about the deficit.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

While I'm not questioning that data in any way, and it's hardly surprising, it's important to note there's a lot of endogeneity in those results.  Those that were already voting against Trump are inherently predisposed to identify covid as one of, or the top, issue.

Which is why I equivocated by writing "seems to indicate". My gut tells me COVID ruined trump's chances. As far as I can tell only a significant screw up that can be directly blamed on the President can reliably kill the chances of getting a second term, and COVID-19 was that for Trump. I think if his handling of the pandemic had been seen as competent and at least somewhat effective he would have won a second term easily. Just like the main party in our govt smashed everyone in the election because they were seen has handling the pandemic extremely well.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

My gut tells me COVID ruined trump's chances.

I agree his response to covid almost certainly sealed his fate.  Everything else is a counterfactual so I don't really care to spend much time speculatively gaming out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

They already thought they were losing the election, like a lot of people did. So the next best thing is to block anything remotely generous on stimulus. Make Biden spend valuable time and political capital getting anything passed and then blame him for how meager it is. And everyone gets to pretend they care about the deficit.

Sure that's one way to see it, but I still think Republicans would have benefited from a last minute stimulus check, assuming it arrived in most people's bank accounts before the election. 

[ThinkerX]

hmm...A (accidental) 'good deed by Trump?  That what he's after has had bipartisan support...but I see major downsides here as well.  

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-threatens-to-veto-major-defense-bill-unless-it-repeals-section-230-a-legal-shield-for-tech-giants/ar-BB1bxVWP?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

President Trump on Tuesday threatened to veto an annual defense bill unless Congress repeals the federal law that spares Facebook, Google and other social-media sites from legal liability over their content-moderation decisions.

 

Section 230: The little law that defined how the Internet worksFCC push to rethink legal protections for tech giants marks major turn amid months of political pressure

Section 230 is a decades-old federal law that spares websites from being held liable for their decisions about the posts, photos, videos and other content they take down or leave online. It is considered one of the web’s foundational laws, crafted in large part to facilitate free expression.

Many lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — have sought to repeal Section 230 in recent years to hold tech giants accountable for failing to police a wide array of harmful content, including hate speech and election disinformation. But Trump and his Republican allies have seized on the debate to advance their arguments that Facebook, Google, Twitter and others exhibit political bias against conservatives — a charge for which they have provided little evidence, and one that the companies themselves deny.