Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Politics Thread

1524525527529530542

Comments

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Also, a MAJOR part of Trump's base is glued to him because of judges. They've now lost two high profile cases on gay rights and immigration in five days. Not the kind of water you need to be taking on when your boat is sinking.

    I'm certain these losses will only convince those people that they need to vote for Trump even harder next time.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,128
    Senator Klobuchar has officially put out a statement taking herself out of consideration for Biden's VP pick and suggests he choose a woman of color instead.

    IMO - this is a good thing for progressives. Klobuchar was perhaps the least progressive serious candidate in consideration for Biden's VP pick (That I'm aware of. A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 843
    Senator Klobuchar has officially put out a statement taking herself out of consideration for Biden's VP pick and suggests he choose a woman of color instead.

    IMO - this is a good thing for progressives. Klobuchar was perhaps the least progressive serious candidate in consideration for Biden's VP pick (That I'm aware of. A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

    Ehh, I don't think it would have swung things in a big way. It's perhaps marginally more important for Biden than previous nominees, given his age. Beyond that, these picks do not make a huge difference.

    Clinton announced the Kaine pick in late July last year, fwiw. If people are wondering about the potential timing of an announcement.

  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 857
    A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

    Wrong African-American woman named Rice. The name being floated is Susan Rice, who was the ambassador to the UN during Obama's first term and the National Security Advisor during Obama's second term. She also had lower-level positions during the Clinton administration, but has never held elected office.
    She's just about the first name the Democrats would pick for foreign policy expertise. On domestic issues ... she's a Democrat, and that's about all people know.

    BallpointManDinoDin
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,128
    edited June 19
    jmerry wrote: »
    A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

    Wrong African-American woman named Rice. The name being floated is Susan Rice, who was the ambassador to the UN during Obama's first term and the National Security Advisor during Obama's second term. She also had lower-level positions during the Clinton administration, but has never held elected office.
    She's just about the first name the Democrats would pick for foreign policy expertise. On domestic issues ... she's a Democrat, and that's about all people know.

    That would make a lot more sense. I wonder if he was just confused about the name or what. There's a bizarro world where I could see an establishment Republican like Condolezzaa being willing to be VP, but it just doesnt really make a ton of sense in most ways.

    DinoDin wrote: »
    Senator Klobuchar has officially put out a statement taking herself out of consideration for Biden's VP pick and suggests he choose a woman of color instead.

    IMO - this is a good thing for progressives. Klobuchar was perhaps the least progressive serious candidate in consideration for Biden's VP pick (That I'm aware of. A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

    Ehh, I don't think it would have swung things in a big way. It's perhaps marginally more important for Biden than previous nominees, given his age. Beyond that, these picks do not make a huge difference.

    Clinton announced the Kaine pick in late July last year, fwiw. If people are wondering about the potential timing of an announcement.

    Thinking about this a bit more, I sortof agree and sortof disagree.

    I agree that the actual VP selection isnt really too big of a deal. A bad pick can be really bad (See Palin, Sarah) - but most other picks are generally going to be conventional choices. That said, there are a few things to consider:

    Biden would be the oldest person elected president if he wins. That inherently makes his VP choice a bit more meaningful.

    Whomever Biden does choose will most likely end up in a stronger position for a future run at being President. After all, the only major reason Biden is the presidential nominee at all right now is because he was Obama's VP.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Trump Administration has lost the DACA case at the Supreme Court 5-4. It's worth noting that much like with the census case, they basically lost because they were too lazy to do the necessary legal work to implement their desired policies. John Roberts doesn't even necessarily agree that Trump doesn't have the right to rescind DACA. He simply does't have any time for the bad faith legal arguments they are using when bringing these cases before the court. Conservatives who ARE against DACA should be aware that a competent Administration could have won this case before this court quite easily. It's just that this one can't because it's a clown show.

    Also, a MAJOR part of Trump's base is glued to him because of judges. They've now lost two high profile cases on gay rights and immigration in five days. Not the kind of water you need to be taking on when your boat is sinking.

    So this DACA decision was like the many rulings you can eeke out of conservative judges when they side with the correct side, they do so very narrowly like they did here where they handed Trump an L only because of procedure. "Your argument sucks but we don't mind what you did".

    When they rule against the correct side - like they did with gerrymandering - they have no problems making sweeping changes to the law. They said no federal court could ever hear a gerrymandering case ever again.

    So with DACA Trump's simply changing his arguments to something he thinks they'll like better and resubmitting his proposal to end DACA.

    jjstraka34
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 19
    jmerry wrote: »
    A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

    Wrong African-American woman named Rice. The name being floated is Susan Rice, who was the ambassador to the UN during Obama's first term and the National Security Advisor during Obama's second term. She also had lower-level positions during the Clinton administration, but has never held elected office.
    She's just about the first name the Democrats would pick for foreign policy expertise. On domestic issues ... she's a Democrat, and that's about all people know.

    That would make a lot more sense. I wonder if he was just confused about the name or what. There's a bizarro world where I could see an establishment Republican like Condolezzaa being willing to be VP, but it just doesnt really make a ton of sense in most ways.

    DinoDin wrote: »
    Senator Klobuchar has officially put out a statement taking herself out of consideration for Biden's VP pick and suggests he choose a woman of color instead.

    IMO - this is a good thing for progressives. Klobuchar was perhaps the least progressive serious candidate in consideration for Biden's VP pick (That I'm aware of. A friend mentioned that Condoleezza Rice's name is floating around. What a shit show that selection would be...)

    Ehh, I don't think it would have swung things in a big way. It's perhaps marginally more important for Biden than previous nominees, given his age. Beyond that, these picks do not make a huge difference.

    Clinton announced the Kaine pick in late July last year, fwiw. If people are wondering about the potential timing of an announcement.

    Thinking about this a bit more, I sortof agree and sortof disagree.

    I agree that the actual VP selection isnt really too big of a deal. A bad pick can be really bad (See Palin, Sarah) - but most other picks are generally going to be conventional choices. That said, there are a few things to consider:

    Biden would be the oldest person elected president if he wins. That inherently makes his VP choice a bit more meaningful.

    Whomever Biden does choose will most likely end up in a stronger position for a future run at being President. After all, the only major reason Biden is the presidential nominee at all right now is because he was Obama's VP.

    The list, in my mind, in order of likelihood of being choosen:

    1.) Kamala Harris (Senator from California)
    2.) Val Demmings (Congresswoman from Florida)
    3.) Keisha Lance Bottoms (Mayor of Atlanta)
    4.) Stacey Abrams (Rightful Governor of Georgia)
    5.) Susan Rice (Obama National Security Advisor)

    Klobuchar was obviously trying to save face, since she had NO realistic chance of being Biden's VP pick after what happened in MPLS and her failure to prosecute the cop who killed George Floyd for previous abuses. It also was a (maybe unintentional) death knell to whatever chances Elizabeth Warren had of getting the spot. Frankly, I don't think Warren is of any more practical use in the VP slot than she is staying in the Senate. She would also be nearing 80 years old in 8 years, and if you're grooming the future of the party, she isn't it either.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    edited June 19
    Trump is telling people (and cops) in Oklahoma to treat any potential protestors roughly.

    So maga chuds and cops in Oklahoma will be on high alert and wanting to inflict violence knowing the president supports this.

    The President's advocating violence. Again.

    ---


    Also:

    Post edited by smeagolheart on
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,090


    17% with independents, throw this election in the trash, it's done for.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,063
    I've seen an "article" going around facebook claiming that liberals have forced Aunt Jemima's likeness to be taken off pancake mix boxes. Apparently, her great grandson is outraged at the disrespect to his family.

    One problem though: Aunt Jemima is a character and was never a real person. Whoops.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    Frankly, I've long been aware that what I've been looking at when I saw boxes of Cream of Wheat or Uncle Ben's (along with Aunt Jemima) that I was staring at a caricature (and likely, in most cases, myth) of a happy house slave. Or even if you want to argue that such relationships with white employers took place in the South AFTER slavery, it was in many cases little more than indentured servitude. I'm shocked it's gone on this long. Side note, the "syrup" barely qualifies as such. It's basically like pouring thick Pepsi on your pancakes.

    As for the polls, I still have PTSD over 2016, and it's hard to take solace in them, but it's getting bad for him, and he only has 120 days to turn it around. Trump is taking a huge risk with this indoor rally of 20,000 people. The media will be able to contact trace any outbreak in the Tulsa area to this rally very, very easily. He better hope it doesn't take place, because he's committing political suicide if it does. I'm starting to wonder if that's what he wants, and he just wants to watch things burn as he goes down. The fact that attendees are signing a health waiver tells me they don't believe it won't be a super-spreader themselves. They absolutely think it will be.

    I fully admit I am concerned about what the recent protests will cause in regards to COVID-19, but the idea of throwing 20,000 people packed like sardines into an indoor arena in a state where cases are going UP, and doing so for little more than entertainment purposes, is madness.

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    WarChiefZekeGrond0ThacoBellsemiticgod
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    Absolutely amazing tidbit about the LGBTQ worker protections Supreme Court case. Apparently, a segregationist Senator inserted the language about "sex" into the Civil Rights Act because he thought it would help sabotage the bill. 55 years later, his stunt results in what we saw last week. Of course he had no intention of it turning out this way, or of knowing that conservative jurisprudence would become obsessed with the concept of "originalism" and reading statutes only as they are written with very little context. But both of those things (his attempted poison pill and the trend of Federalist Society lawyers) resulted in the perfect alchemy to allow this to proceed (though it can be argued Gorsuch wasn't at all necessary on this case).

    Grond0ThacoBellsemiticgod
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,414

    Man, Quaker Oats is dropping the ball on this one. Talk about a massive PR and advertising blitz they can perform if they celebrate her life. They could easily turn this negative branding situation around if they just embrace the person and the myths surrounding her instead of the character.

    WarChiefZekeBalrog99
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    17% with independents, throw this election in the trash, it's done for.

    Those numbers might swing. Trump is lobbying hard to get China, Russia, and Ukraine (and probably more) to interfere in the election and overrule the voters.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    Someone finally called Bill Barr's bluff:


    Barr tried to strong-arm the guy most tied to investigations of Trump, his family and associates in NY by releasing a press release from the DoJ that was meant to scare him out of his position. It didn't work. This further confirms to me that Trump and his inner circle know how bad the polling is. They are trying to shut down any possible legal trouble in advance while he's still in office.:



    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    Grond0ThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,090
    edited June 20
    He can't just refuse to step down since he is subject to removal by the Presidents say so by law, but who am I kidding, laws are for jokes nowadays and norms don't matter. Still blown away by how much things have changed in a decade.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    edited June 20
    He can't just refuse to step down since he is subject to removal by the Presidents say so by law, but who am I kidding, laws are for jokes nowadays and norms don't matter. Still blown away by how much things have changed in a decade.

    Well the president would definitely have a stronger case, but last we checked Barr is merely the president's yes-man toady and not the man himself.

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,414
    He can't just refuse to step down since he is subject to removal by the Presidents say so by law, but who am I kidding, laws are for jokes nowadays and norms don't matter. Still blown away by how much things have changed in a decade.

    How can he not refuse something he didn’t do? He was leaving at his own admission according to Barr not being fired.

    He is also past the 120 day mark, (remember this guy was appointed by Sessions after Trump fires the first one who was investigating his family) hence his appointment by court comment.

    If anything, he can fight this all the way up to the Supreme Court, where by the time they hear it, Trump will (hopefully) be out of office.

    ThacoBell
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 928
    He can't just refuse to step down since he is subject to removal by the Presidents say so by law, but who am I kidding, laws are for jokes nowadays and norms don't matter. Still blown away by how much things have changed in a decade.

    I am pretty sure eyebrows will be raised if the person being investigated were to fire the people investigating him, by dint of his office being superior to theirs.

    It's almost, oh, what's the term? "Corruption of office" and "Watergate" come to mind.

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,303
    edited June 20
    He can't just refuse to step down since he is subject to removal by the Presidents say so by law, but who am I kidding, laws are for jokes nowadays and norms don't matter. Still blown away by how much things have changed in a decade.

    The issue is what is meant by the US code 541 covering the rights of the President in relation to appointments and dismissals of attorneys:
    (a)The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
    (b)Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
    (c)Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.


    Part c) obviously says attorneys are subject to removal by the President, but it's not 100% clear whether part c) refers to all US attorneys or only those appointed under section 541. That lack of clarity is compounded by section 546 which covers vacancies:
    (a)Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office ofUnited States attorney is vacant.
    (b)The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
    (c)A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—
    (1)the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
    (2)the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
    (d)If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

    The relevant section under which Berman is serving is part d) and that says he will serve until the vacancy is filled - which could be taken at face value to mean he can't be fired prior to that.

    I think a court would be highly likely to agree with your interpretation, but there's sufficient room for argument for Berman to take the stance he has.

    ThacoBelljjstraka34
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,063

    Nope, she was based entirely on the "Mammy" stereotype and a Vaudeville performance. The closest you can get is an actor hired well after the character was created for publicity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Jemima

    DinoDin
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    Couple points about what happened with the US Attorney:

    1.) Barr, we now know, clearly lied in his statement, saying Berman was resigning. He said this because he didn't want to have to say he was fired, which is what he will now have to do.

    2.) They want to replace him with Jay Clayton, the head of the SEC. Who has NEVER been a prosecutor.

    3.) It was done after 10pm on Friday night.

    4.) Trump already canned the US Attorney from the SDNY before, and now he is attempting to do so AGAIN.

    None of that is on the level. If it's not nefarious, you tell the truth in your statement. If it's not nefarious, you replace him with someone who is qualified to do the job. If it's not nefarious, you do it daylight hours during the week. And if something nefarious isn't going on, you don't need to keep constantly firing US Attorneys who have jurisdiction over Trump's business interests.

    Grond0ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    edited June 20
    Quickblade wrote: »
    He can't just refuse to step down since he is subject to removal by the Presidents say so by law, but who am I kidding, laws are for jokes nowadays and norms don't matter. Still blown away by how much things have changed in a decade.

    I am pretty sure eyebrows will be raised if the person being investigated were to fire the people investigating him, by dint of his office being superior to theirs.

    It's almost, oh, what's the term? "Corruption of office" and "Watergate" come to mind.

    No eyebrows have been raised. Why's this one guy any different? He's been firing anyone and everyone who opposes him, exactly like a banana republican dictator would do.

    He's been purging the pentagon, at least five inspector generals, and several prosecutors for months since he supposedly learned his lesson according to Susan Collins after being impeached.

    The lesson he learned was Republicans are cowards who won't oppose anything he does.

    5 IGs fired (from a month ago, probably more now)
    https://www.vox.com/2020/5/28/21265799/inspectors-general-trump-linick-atkinson


    Trump loyalty purge roils Pentagon
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/18/pentagon-official-resigns-white-house-nixes-nomination-328552


    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    These people tell on themselves at every opportunity and they don't even know it:


    The same thing happened during the Bush Administration. What you were wearing was enough to have you forcibly removed from an area no matter what your actual behavior was. We aren't even talking about apparel with vulgar language or images. Just words that, despite their disingenuous insistence otherwise, these crowds object to. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. There was a "counter-protest" to a Juneteenth rally yesterday. Which, by definition, is a protest........against ending slavery.

    Here's the video of the cops arresting what appears to be this 50-60 year old woman for "tresspassing". She had a ticket. She was sitting on the ground silently minding her own business. She was not arrested for trespassing. That is evident for anyone to see. She was arrested for the words on her shirt. Period. Full-stop. The cops are Trump's Brown Shirts:


    Before someone comes at me with something like "she was blocking the side-walk", there have literally been people pitching tents and sleeping bags on the sidewalk outside this event for the last 4 fucking days. It's a horseshit argument, so don't bring it up. I hope the city gets sued for everything she can get. THIS is an honest to god free speech issue. But, again, they are telling on themselves. Why is "I can't breathe' an objectionable phrase at a Trump rally unless one of the beliefs of the majority in that crowd is that extrajudicial executions of black people are perfectly fine??

    Edit: COVID-19 situation in Tulsa already out of control before anyone even steps inside:


    Anyone with a modicum of decency or sense of responsibility would now send everyone home and urge them to get tested.

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,689
    edited June 20
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Edit: COVID-19 situation in Tulsa already out of control before anyone even steps inside:


    Anyone with a modicum of decency or sense of responsibility would now send everyone home and urge them to get tested.

    Those six were found because taxpayers are footing the bill for testing before every rally.

    Fraud, waste, and abuse.

    "Per safety protocols, campaign staff are tested for COVID-19 before events," Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign's communications director, said in a statement.

    "Six members of the advance team tested positive OUT OF HUNDREDS OF TESTS PERFORMED, and quarantine procedures were immediately implemented," Murtaugh said

    Anyone that comes near Trump is tested. So he can get his mask off photos and continue to dupe dopes into fighting basic health precautions of wearing a mask.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    The anti-mask bullshit being pushed by Trump (by example) and now Joe Rogan ("masks are for bitches") is just infuriating. They've tied it to this pathologically insecure view of "masculinity" and it's going to kill thousands of people. We can't do this when 30-40% of the population doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

    It isn't just them. I've heard MULTIPLE average callers to radio shows in the last month mention how they think masks make them look "weak". The mask isn't their problem. What they need is about 100 sessions with a psychiatrist.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    Well now this is just farcical. Last night, Bill Barr lies and says someone is resigning when they never did so. Today, he says the President has given him the authority to fire Berman. Then Trump walks to his helicopter and says he has nothing to do with it. Can't be both. In the meantime, Barr is accusing Berman of being the one creating a public spectacle, despite being caught in at least two bald-faced lies in the last 12 hours. This country needs a better class of criminals. This is just embarrassing.

    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,414
    So this is escalating quickly:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/geoffrey-berman-donald-trump-william-barr-fires

    In a letter to Berman on Saturday, Barr said: “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the president to remove you as of today, and he has done so.”

    IMO, that isn’t good enough. Trump should dictate his intentions in writing with his signature to prevent him from claiming “he has nothing to do with this,” like he did on his way to his rally in Tulsa.

    Because that’s all it takes is for Trump to proclaim “he didn’t fire Berman,” and this turning into a convoluted mess of who is now in charge of that office, which would still play beautifully into Trump’s hand.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,583
    edited June 20
    deltago wrote: »
    So this is escalating quickly:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/geoffrey-berman-donald-trump-william-barr-fires

    In a letter to Berman on Saturday, Barr said: “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the president to remove you as of today, and he has done so.”

    IMO, that isn’t good enough. Trump should dictate his intentions in writing with his signature to prevent him from claiming “he has nothing to do with this,” like he did on his way to his rally in Tulsa.

    Because that’s all it takes is for Trump to proclaim “he didn’t fire Berman,” and this turning into a convoluted mess of who is now in charge of that office, which would still play beautifully into Trump’s hand.

    Plausible deniability is what mob bosses rely on. Why rig a jury when you can just fire anyone who comes anywhere near your crimes?? There is nothing these people won't do to hold onto power. The only thing that has prevented a 100% authoritarian takeover is their incompetence. US Attorneys, no less than half a dozen inspectors general, the FBI Director.

    As for this rally, so much for the "million" ticket requests. The outdoor overflow area is literally empty. The entire upper deck portion of the arena is as well. I guess that must be what they mean by "silent majority". They're silent because they don't exist. These people are such sad-sack losers:

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.