Trump Thread

[rory_20_uk]

Trump 101 - attack, attack, attack. Perhaps the Senate will ignore this and restrict things further, but if the fight and air time is over having the sort of powers that his mates in Russia, North Korea and Turkey enjoy everything is in a good place. And of course he can continue to blame the failure to win this "really easy" trade war on everyone else - which is also a trademark.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump 101...I like it. You are certainly correct as to his style Rory. I don't think he understands collaboration at all, simply competition and fall back to compromise if you cannot win outright. Totally one strategy, and not a lot of tactical variation either.

On Trade, in general, Trump hates the fact that we are perennially bleeding cash to the rest of the world, especially China. He thinks our economy is bigger and more necessary to our trading partners then they are to us. To him, that spells power that should be leveraged to get a better deal. All the tariff threats (and so far none have been activated) are to try to force a better more lucrative deal.

I think Trump is underestimating the political angle though. He seems to be viewing this in purely business terms where our economy gives us the leverage and a better capacity to absorb the economic pain of honoring a threat. He believes that our trade partners will therefore blink first. However, they are NOT business people holding political office. They look at the political ramifications FIRST, and I suspect that those ramifications would include, in a number of countries, the following: "Oh, the PM just told Trump to stuff his trade threats up his posterior. Good job!"

[Montmorency]

All the tariff threats (and so far none have been activated) are to try to force a better more lucrative deal.

I don't know what the full spectrum's standing is, but the lynchpins have all gone into effect by now.

US tariffs (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/politics/trump-aluminum-steel-tariffs.html) on steel and aluminum from Canada, Mexico, EU: June 1
Canada's retaliatory tariffs (http://fortune.com/2018/07/01/canadas-import-tariffs-u-s/): July 1
Mexico's retaliatory tariffs (http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5525036&fecha=05/06/2018): June 5
EU retaliatory tariffs (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-slaps-3-4-billion-in-reprisal-tariffs-on-u-s-goods/): June 22
(More to come (https://www.ft.com/content/38388ebe-7d21-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475))

I'm not going to bother looking up the situation vis-a-vis China, but I'm pretty sure at least one round of tariffs has already been implemented on both sides, with more set to go into effect.

This is a serious situation Seamus, not just rhetoric.


Trump and his supporters believe in the ethic of total retaliation, which is the acceptance that you will never be good enough on your own merits, so the best you can do is create chaos and destruction and inflict cruelty and pain on others.

[HopAlongBunny]

This will be beautiful.
Manufacture a crisis (the bigger the better) buy up any "stressed" assets (Don jr. is not in gov't) foment revolution (They are holding Us back/dragging Us down) declare yourself Pope for Life!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know what the full spectrum's standing is, but the lynchpins have all gone into effect by now.

US tariffs (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/politics/trump-aluminum-steel-tariffs.html) on steel and aluminum from Canada, Mexico, EU: June 1
Canada's retaliatory tariffs (http://fortune.com/2018/07/01/canadas-import-tariffs-u-s/): July 1
Mexico's retaliatory tariffs (http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5525036&fecha=05/06/2018): June 5
EU retaliatory tariffs (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-slaps-3-4-billion-in-reprisal-tariffs-on-u-s-goods/): June 22
(More to come (https://www.ft.com/content/38388ebe-7d21-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475))

I'm not going to bother looking up the situation vis-a-vis China, but I'm pretty sure at least one round of tariffs has already been implemented on both sides, with more set to go into effect.

This is a serious situation Seamus, not just rhetoric.


Trump and his supporters believe in the ethic of total retaliation, which is the acceptance that you will never be good enough on your own merits, so the best you can do is create chaos and destruction and inflict cruelty and pain on others.

I have a Comm PhD. I assure you that I believe that rhetoric matters and that it is serious; these tariff disputes will have a significant impact. I hadn't realized we were past the start dates on those yet -- crazy schedule this last month for me.

My basic point is that Trump is assuming we can take the pain better than our "opponents" in these disputes and that they will cave before we do. I am NOT certain he is factoring things correctly in this.

[Pannonian]

This will be beautiful.
Manufacture a crisis (the bigger the better) buy up any "stressed" assets (Don jr. is not in gov't) foment revolution (They are holding Us back/dragging Us down) declare yourself Pope for Life!

Aka disaster capitalism.

[Montmorency]

I have a Comm PhD. I assure you that I believe that rhetoric matters and that it is serious; these tariff disputes will have a significant impact. I hadn't realized we were past the start dates on those yet -- crazy schedule this last month for me.

My basic point is that Trump is assuming we can take the pain better than our "opponents" in these disputes and that they will cave before we do. I am NOT certain he is factoring things correctly in this.

Alright, how about this hypothesis: To the extent Trump or the admin have considered the costs to the US, they think it can be sublimated into an increasingly-authoritarian rhetoric that actually galvanizes the base - even as trade disruption directly impacts large swathes of Trump land.

By now we've seen Trump supporters respond to a different type of logic and discourse, so it may even be a good bet that economic pain will drive them toward Trump, just as his incompetence and vulgarity and the contrition of his enemies have.

[Shaka_Khan]

I don't know if I said it in this forum. When Trump was running for the candidacy, I warned people that tariffs and counter-tariffs were what worsened the Great Depression. This time, the US is isolating itself and will be the most affected. Other countries have each other for trade.

[Montmorency]

Meanwhile, here's (https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/21/america-wont-see-go-without-epic-fight) a nice article from the ultra-right Federalist. The author expounds his fatalist bravado on "not going down without a fight" as America plunges into "socialist abyss". He wants to make the Left feel the pain that the Plains Indians made the American colonizers feel before their ultimate capitulation. Take a few scalps for bragging rights in Hell.


They are not political opponents in the sense that you have a debate with them. These modern-day leftists want you to lose your job. They want to destroy you. How do you think they’re going to treat you when they finally sit in the seat of power for good? So fight them tooth and nail. Make them long for the day when you’re no longer fighting them. Be the Lakota.


So, back to scalping thing. When you make that long trek to the reservation the leftists have set up for you—and make that trek you will—what memories do you want to take with you? When living in the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders and government control over everything in your life, you will want to have been a Lakota. You’ll want to know, to remember, even just cherish the knowledge that, one day, you rode out onto the plains and made them feel pain.

Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran, former congressional candidate in Arizona, and host of "Jesse Kelly Brief." Jesse resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.

You know, reading this shit I get a certain feeling. I feel like violence is justified, like I want to see this man die.

But I don't. I really don't. I'm not constitutionally capable of focused violence. I don't like the thought of genuine, visceral violence. Be it as it may that this is a wargaming/military history forum, but the thought of real violence brings me to tears.

That punch Richard Spencer received way back when, regardless of your abstract position, it's hard to really get worked up about: it was a light jab, nothing more, something to ruffle feathers rather than cause damage. But this other
punch, this is the real thing, the kind of brutality that turns my stomach to look upon. Prior to anything else, my instinct toward such violence is compassion and sorrow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7wHHRbjnsU

Call me a bleeding heart.

And yet, a society of their making has no place for people like me (or even many of 'their own' as history shows), so seeing them in power is intolerable.

I wish I knew a way to convince these people that NO, you do not need to kill or subjugate liberals to militate against some prospective Communist purges, you stupid mother fucker. :bigcry:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alright, how about this hypothesis: To the extent Trump or the admin have considered the costs to the US, they think it can be sublimated into an increasingly-authoritarian rhetoric that actually galvanizes the base - even as trade disruption directly impacts large swathes of Trump land.

By now we've seen Trump supporters respond to a different type of logic and discourse, so it may even be a good bet that economic pain will drive them toward Trump, just as his incompetence and vulgarity and the contrition of his enemies have.

Possibly, very possibly. His core supporters really are close to 'cult of personality' types. And those sections that voted Trump are as, and in many cases are MORE, likely to take the highest pain of whatever tradewar pain we endure.

[Husar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html


Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
[...]
In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The science just isn't in yet.

How do we know that a mother's milk is in anyway better for babies than Nestle sugar/water?

[Pannonian]

The science just isn't in yet.

How do we know that a mother's milk is in anyway better for babies than Nestle sugar/water?

Not all countries are as tightly regulated as western countries.

2008 Chinese milk scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal)

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump and trade.
Well there is one person at least who is roundly cheering Trump's trade policy. Peter Navarro is not a fan of China's economic rise, and sees little (to zero) upside to doing anything to bolster that rise. The policy is to return production to the USA and to keep the American market for American producers. Everyone else is just collateral damage:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-china-trade-war-1.4735828

As the article (above) says: "Maybe if you're willing to stick it out, it's doable over the very long term, but the medium term is miserable," said Jacqueline Best, a political economist at the University of Ottawa.

Of course over the very long-term we're all dead...

[Husar]

Not all countries are as tightly regulated as western countries.

2008 Chinese milk scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal)

Since I'm pretty sure ACIN was being sarcastic, your point is that only tightly regulated mother's milk is truly safe?
Every week comes the breast inspector? :clown:

[Beskar]

Since I'm pretty sure ACIN was being sarcastic, your point is that only tightly regulated mother's milk is truly safe?
Every week comes the breast inspector? :clown:

The FBI need to earn their paychecks somehow.

[Husar]

The FBI need to earn their paychecks somehow.

So the T-Shirts are actually wrong and it's really Female Breast Inspector? :clown:

[Montmorency]

It is known that Donald Trump has for decades largely got his capital financing and credit through Deutsche Bank (and probably from various mafias), whereas other institutions would not lend to him. Long story short, there is good reason to believe whatever has existed of Donald Trump's revenue stream has likely been underwritten by wholesale criminal activity (beyond the petty contractual violations against small contractors).

It has been reported (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html) that retired Justice Anthony Kennedy's son, was in a senior role at Deutsche Bank over years in which he worked closely with Donald Trump and his organization, in roles that held authority over real estate capital. The caveat here is that Kennedy (the son) would not have been responsible for managing the entirety of the bank's relationship with the Trumps.

It has been reported (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement) (as in the above article), that the Trump administration has since Trump's inauguration maneuvered behind the scenes to get a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Moreover, these efforts have had a special focus on Kennedy, whom we should recall was the key swing judge on the bench. The first show was when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, later confirmed, to fill the SCOTUS vacancy: Gorsuch had clerked for Kennedy, and Kennedy was involved (on invitation) in the swearing-in of Gorsuch.

It has been reported (http://thehill.com/regulation/367950-ginsburg-kennedy-hire-law-clerks-for-future-supreme-court-terms) in January that Kennedy had hired interns for his office for October 2018 term. In other words, he was planning to work to at least the end of this year at the beginning of this year. His plans therefore changed, and recently.

But now, it has been reported (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/) that Kennedy was in private negotiations with the Trump administration over his replacement, and when it was decided on current nominee Brett Kavanaugh (who clerked for Kennedy), Kennedy agreed to retire. That would, uh...

If these reports prove true in the end, Kennedy will have proven himself a corrupt mother bucker and a stain on the country. And it probably wouldn't be a conspiracy, or blackmail, or anything - just that elites like Kennedy care far more about their relationships with fellow elites like Trump than they do about civic ideals or the law or human suffering or any such fluff.

[Montmorency]

And to shed some light on who this Kavanaugh (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-is-devoted-to-the-presidency/564764/) character is:


One could imagine, of course, that Kavanaugh’s experience pursuing wrongdoing in the Clinton White House might incline him to a jaundiced view of presidents generally, thus offering a hope that, on the bench, he will be independent of the president who appointed him. But in a 2009 article in Minnesota Law Review, Kavanaugh, by then a life-tenured judge, announced that the independent-counsel investigation in which he served had been a mistake after all: “[T]he nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama Bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots.” He suggested instead that Congress should, by statute, simply provide that a sitting president could neither be sued, indicted, tried, investigated or even questioned by prosecutors while in office. Problem solved.

Goody!

[Husar]

And to shed some light on who this Kavanaugh (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-is-devoted-to-the-presidency/564764/) character is:

Goody!

Sounds like a good choice for Trump! :laugh4:
He won't have to pardon himself if he is immune to the law anyway.

[Strike For The South]

Kavanaugh it is. A pretty standard issue conservative judge, heritage approved. The most salacious thing about him is the Starr report. One can't help but feel that bit of information found its way to the presidents ears. No doubt, anyone who twists the knife in the Clintons is a great guy.

The Ds are kind of in a pickle here. The specter of Garland is going to haunt them for a long time. Kavanaugh is very much qualified. So, Schumer & Co. will have to fight using the turtles tactics. Make no mistake, the turtle will say he never used those tactics. There was some astroturfed oppo last night, complete with all the possible noms on different colored signs. This morning the strikes against him are beginning to coalesce. We will see which one gains the most traction.

The earliest and spiciest protesting had to do with Kavanaugh writing the following: the nation’s chief executive should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Obviously this sticks out like a sore thumb in the "what does Trump get out of nominating this insider" angle of things. No doubt this line of thinking stems from his time working on the Starr report. To be fair to Kavanaugh, in the world of time consuming and distracting, that may take the cake.

In "how things are supposed to work" world, no judge would ever rule on an indictment of a president. The purpose of the impeachment power is to remove then indict. Barring an actual pee tape, no republican or moderate dem congress will do that. However, to be fair to the hopeful justice, this is a question he will never have to answer. It would simply take too long for the case to get to the court. If Mueller unearths enough evidence for indictment the senate repubs will cut Trump loose to avoid that PR nightmare.

The one gaining most traction by some mainstream dems is the supposed swampy quid pro quo Kennedy had in his finally months. Supposedly there meetings and assurances that his guy would be elevated. How very Italian of us. However the dems can't use that because this malignancy runs deep and across the aisle.

Just a personal opinion. I don't think Roe will be overturned. Frankly I think any hypothetical ends in 6-3. I guess one could be worried about death by erosion but that would have been there with Kennedy anyway.

The moral of the story here is YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER FOR GARLAND. ugh.

[Strike For The South]

So using the SC nominee as cover this happened: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396273-trump-pardons-oregon-ranchers-at-center-of-40-day-standoff

Trump is appeasing his white nationalist buddies again. These men are terrorists and should be treated as such. Waco and Ruby ridge echo today.

[Montmorency]

Just a personal opinion. I don't think Roe will be overturned. Frankly I think any hypothetical ends in 6-3. I guess one could be worried about death by erosion but that would have been there with Kennedy anyway.

The moral of the story here is YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER FOR GARLAND. ugh.

I thought the only reliable intersection of Kennedy's vote with the liberal bench was on abortion and gay rights? He functioned a little in the shape of a Blue-Dog Democrat in the Senate. A Doug Jones is worth rather little [n.b. Doug Jones fits well because IIRC he's pro-abortion rights), becomes worth a lot when set against a Roy Moore.

Casey v Planned Parenthood is the ruling we should have our eye on, being as it, while not superseding Roe exactly, did remodel and expand it considerably. So, I agree that it won't be overturned outright, too unpopular and on-the-nose. Republican SOP is death by a thousand cuts, with plausible deniability toward people who aren't paying much attention and don't realize the stakes. After many rulings under the solid 5-4 court, Roe and Casey will still be good law, but really dead letters. Substantively, any state that wants to can effectively reduce legal abortion to ~0.

Think about the fetal-heartbeat limitation in Iowa (?) recently - that's damn near a total ban on abortion, and they'll keep approaching that limit without explicitly meeting the line.


Edit: If I'm wrong and the reactionaries want to be totalitarian about it, they could move to rule somewhere that abortion in general is a human rights or Constitutional violation and so make it vulnerable to criminalization on a FEDERAL level. But that would only reinforce the case for permanently removing the GOP from any position of power. :shrug:

[Strike For The South]

I thought the only reliable intersection of Kennedy's vote with the liberal bench was on abortion and gay rights? He functioned a little in the shape of a Blue-Dog Democrat in the Senate. A Doug Jones is worth rather little [n.b. Doug Jones fits well because IIRC he's pro-abortion rights), becomes worth a lot when set against a Roy Moore.

He had that Guantanamo case too. He sided with liberal wing on a lot of things. Of course, not with the money, but that has more to do with the hellscape in which we currently reside. Doug Jones is very good for the dems because it is Alabama.


Casey v Planned Parenthood is the ruling we should have our eye on, being as it, while not superseding Roe exactly, did remodel and expand it considerably. So, I agree that it won't be overturned outright, too unpopular and on-the-nose. Republican SOP is death by a thousand cuts, with plausible deniability toward people who aren't paying much attention and don't realize the stakes. After many rulings under the solid 5-4 court, Roe and Casey will still be good law, but really dead letters. Substantively, any state that wants to can effectively reduce legal abortion to ~0.

Casey expands Roe because it upholds the right to privacy. From that right, a strict scrutiny can be applied. I don't know how you get rid of Casey without getting rid of Roe. If you can apply a rational basis, there is no right to privacy.


Think about the fetal-heartbeat limitation in Iowa (?) recently - that's damn near a total ban on abortion, and they'll keep approaching that limit without explicitly meeting the line.

This is their best bet and the strategy most serious anti people choose to take. Before the point of viability you need an invasive medical procedure to check for a heartbeat. Surley, one would consider that an undue burden?

Gut feeling, Roberts is not going to gut 50 years worth of upheld precedence. The man is very concerned with the prestige and gravitas of the court. Upholding a bill that works around a constitutional right would be a stain on that. There is a right to privacy, it can not be undone by making the right too burdensome to exercise. Precedence, popular opinion, and expert opinion are all on the side of choice.



Edit: If I'm wrong and the reactionaries want to be totalitarian about it, they could move to rule somewhere that abortion in general is a human rights or Constitutional violation and so make it vulnerable to criminalization on a FEDERAL level. But that would only reinforce the case for permanently removing the GOP from any position of power. :shrug:
Never say never I guess.

[Montmorency]

You're optimistic.

Even in the simplest case, it could be (selectively, mildly) reevaluating the government interest against privacy rights wrt abortion, and already almost any state law or butterfly-effect practice can be licensed. If Ginsburg or Breyer goes, it could be as simple as refusing to hear appeals cases when anti-abortion laws or practices are upheld in lower courts (you need 4 justices for certiorari).

Every conservative SCOTUS nominee (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/28/republicans-are-lying-about-roe-v-wade-trumps-nominee-will-do-the-same/?utm_term=.7283eefade4d), at their Senate interviews, has protested that they will seek to neutrally apply or interpret the law, or else avoided the question, when asked about their attitude on Roe. This despite all of them harshly criticizing Roe earlier in their careers, some calling it incorrectly ruled, some calling for it to be overturned. It's pretty clear they're just tactically evasive.


Antonin Scalia (1986): “I assure you, I have no agenda. I am not going onto the court with a list of things that I want to do. … There are doubtless laws on the books apart from abortion that I might not agree with, that I might think are misguided, perhaps some that I might even think in the largest sense are immoral in the results that they produce. In no way would I let that influence my determination of how they apply.”

Clarence Thomas (1991): “I believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue. … Senator, your question to me was did I debate the contents of Roe v. Wade, the outcome in Roe v. Wade, do I have this day an opinion, a personal opinion on the outcome in Roe v. Wade; and my answer to you is that I do not.”

John G. Roberts Jr. (2005): “Well, beyond that, [Roe v. Wade is] settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.”

Samuel A. Alito Jr. (2006): “That [a document in which he declared that the Constitution provides no right to abortion] was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside the things that you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career and think about legal issues the way a judge thinks about legal issues.”

Neil M. Gorsuch (2017): “I’m not in a position to tell you whether I’d personally like or dislike any precedent. That’s not relevant to my job … Precedent … deserves our respect. And to come in and think that just because I’m new or the latest thing I’d know better than everybody who comes before me would be an act of hubris.”

In contrast, when the liberal justices were asked the same question in their confirmation hearings, they were perfectly forthright, saying that yes, under the Constitution there is a right to abortion and they’d vote to uphold Roe.

As for Robert's respect for precedent, it seems to be more personal and situational than uniform. So far this year he's helped overrule a lot of precedent. He can also take the long road, such as helping this Court gradually strike down key portions of the Civil Rights Act during the course of the Obama admin - "narrow" rulings beget future narrow rulings, until... Maybe it's not a sure thing that Roberts will fall in, but there's plenty of reason to be anxious.

Here's a good article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/10/17551644/brett-kavanaugh-roe-wade-abortion-trump) on these things, on Roberts' resolve, on Kavanaugh and his stances, and on the possible processes for disassembling abortion rights and protections.


Casey expands Roe because it upholds the right to privacy. From that right, a strict scrutiny can be applied. I don't know how you get rid of Casey without getting rid of Roe. If you can apply a rational basis, there is no right to privacy.

Strict scrutiny was Roe, and rational basis is I guess one basic or default court metric in evaluating laws. Casey replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden". Note that Kavanaugh ruled recently, as a federal judge, that an ICE detention center holding a teen immigrant and preventing her from going to get an abortion without first being sponsored by a family would not place an undue burden on her abortion/privacy right. (At least not as extreme as his fellow judge in that panel majority, who later wrote that there is neither a constitutional right to abortion, nor a right of aliens to Constitutional protections. Dayum.)

Now, look at how effective states and courts have already been at degrading the substantive precedent. In the Vox article above,


And “incremental” would still be plenty: Simply overturning the two-year-old Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, for example, would eliminate access in swaths of the country and close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi.

As Litman writes, this could take the form of weakening the standard of review for determining if a regulation is an “undue burden.” In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court ruled that “the ‘undue burden’ standard is more demanding than rational basis review, and requires a state to establish that a law actually furthers its stated purposes,” to quote Litman.

But in a future ruling, the Court could simply require that regulations have a rational basis, and not require the state to prove that they further their stated purposes. That would effectively weaken the right to abortion dramatically to the point of de facto overturning Roe and Casey, because, as Litman says, “when a court applies rational basis review, the law being challenged will almost always be upheld.”

Mississippi recently approved a 15-week abortion ban (already blocked in federal court); Kentucky passed a ban applying to dilation-and-evacuation abortions after 11 weeks and Ohio and South Carolina are weighing “total prohibitions.” Just this past May, Iowa adopted a law banning abortions after fetal heartbeats, which again, usually occur at six weeks of pregnancy.
[...]
The incrementalist 20-week approach has been quite successful, with 21 states adopting them. (Of those, Arizona and Idaho’s bans have been blocked by courts.) Twenty-week bans apply about four weeks before Roe has historically allowed states to ban abortions, enabling a future Supreme Court ruling that effectively weakens Roe.

A conservative circuit court of appeals panel could rogue and decide to disobey Roe and Casey. (This would most likely happen after the post-Kavanaugh Court allows some less dramatic regulations like a 20-week ban to go forward, after which the circuit judges could argue that Roe and Casey no longer apply in the wake of more recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.) And then the Supreme Court would likely be forced to take up the issue.

This is what happened in 2014 to 2015 with same-sex marriage: Circuit courts split on the issue, forcing the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.

That eventuality would bring the possibility of overturning Roe entirely to the Court’s door, and it would have little choice but to hear the case. After that point, all bets are off.

Anyway, you could certainly eliminate, directly or indirectly, enough of Casey that Casey is neutralized, and the rump Roe (Roe's Rump?) has minimal substantive content left. Killing Casey could then leave Roe vegetative, and accomplish the anti-abortion movement's goals, except for that literal goal of overturning the named rulings.

Actually, think about the political implications to the anti-abortion movement, of not fully overruling Casey or Roe. It's becomes a double victory like so: Judicially, it allows states free reign as a matter of fact, AND it keeps the abortion issue alive in the minds of Republican single-issue voters who can later be told that "darned baby-killing Roe still hasn't been defeated yet! Keep voting Republican! They're breaking the spines of 9-month-old babies and drinking the soup whargbargl!". Christ, it would be sick and brilliant. To sum up, not having to say that "Roe is overturned" will help Republicans maintain Republican turnout, while preventing a surge in Democratic turnout. Sheer genius. Hopefully they don't follow this track and shoot themselves in the foot.

[Pannonian]

Are American presidents normally given to telling their British allies which government we should have, and what policies we should follow?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are American presidents normally given to telling their British allies which government we should have, and what policies we should follow?

Normally no. The current occupant has nothing resembling discretion.

[Beskar]

Trump addressing the British public.

https://i.imgur.com/gli9vLL.jpg

[Montmorency]

Today, Mueller shored the investigation up by indicting a dozen Russian GRU officers in connection to election cybercrimes.

One of the more interesting tidbits (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/396915-indictment-russians-tried-to-hack-clinton-around-when-trump-publicly) in the indictment was that


On or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.

Trump infamously made this statement on July 27, 2016:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbfUjotYmUo

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlCdDS6xaCnm0oM/giphy.gif

Ironically, since Clinton's private email was not breached - the implication that everybody around Clinton was getting their emails compromised, except Hillary herself. Cybersecurity!

[Husar]

Trump addressing the British public.

There's a little photo story here (https://www.facebook.com/heuteshow/posts/10155565710790986).

[Pannonian]

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1017856390541598721


What a disrespectful, discourteous, selfish and appalling way to treat a 92-year-old woman. Let alone the Queen of England, who has served this country faithfully for 66 years.

[AE Bravo]

That is absolutely hilarious. Settle down David Lammy.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Are American presidents normally given to telling their British allies which government we should have, and what policies we should follow?

Underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower.

(and more recently: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-brexit-plea/479469/)

[HopAlongBunny]

Pruitt may be gone at the EPA but his legacy will likely last a long time:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-under-siege-behind-the-scenes-at-trumps-troubled-environment-agency/

Transformation baby :stunned:

[rory_20_uk]

That is absolutely hilarious. Settle down David Lammy.

The Press seems to have got very het up about Protocol. And the UK really needs to remember that the protocol was created in the main when the UK was a (if not the) Great Power. People sucked up since they wanted something and now they mainly do it since it is quaint. Yes, most humans would be polite to a nonagenarian because of simple manners, but that is a slightly different issue.

This reminds me of when Europeans interacted with China. China thought that every other country was a mere vassal and eventually were proved otherwise at the point of a gun.

So the UK is leaving the EU. America needs a lot less from us than we need from them. So the President is a selfish, self aggrandising piece of faecal material. Germany, our other usual ally is pretending not to take over Europe, China has no love for us, Japan follows the USA not us any more.

If freedom to make our own destiny is what we want, part of that is our precious sensibilities will not be followed in the same manner they were 100 years ago.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The Press seems to have got very het up about Protocol. And the UK really needs to remember that the protocol was created in the main when the UK was a (if not the) Great Power. People sucked up since they wanted something and now they mainly do it since it is quaint. Yes, most humans would be polite to a nonagenarian because of simple manners, but that is a slightly different issue.

This reminds me of when Europeans interacted with China. China thought that every other country was a mere vassal and eventually were proved otherwise at the point of a gun.

So the UK is leaving the EU. America needs a lot less from us than we need from them. So the President is a selfish, self aggrandising piece of faecal material. Germany, our other usual ally is pretending not to take over Europe, China has no love for us, Japan follows the USA not us any more.

If freedom to make our own destiny is what we want, part of that is our precious sensibilities will not be followed in the same manner they were 100 years ago.

~:smoking:

I never asked for it. And I've always treated people of that age rather more politely than Trump treated QE2. It's basic civility.

[rory_20_uk]

I never asked for it. And I've always treated people of that age rather more politely than Trump treated QE2. It's basic civility.

No you never did, and I never asked to have it taken away from me.

He treated her far better than he has treated most other people - he just sets the bar so low - did people really think he'd accept protocol where he was not the centre of attention? Of course not. He was always going to grandstand in petty ways like being first and keeping her waiting. That is just the type of person he has always been - it would have been newsworthy if he'd been civil.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No you never did, and I never asked to have it taken away from me.

He treated her far better than he has treated most other people - he just sets the bar so low - did people really think he'd accept protocol where he was not the centre of attention? Of course not. He was always going to grandstand in petty ways like being first and keeping her waiting. That is just the type of person he has always been - it would have been newsworthy if he'd been civil.

~:smoking:

Rory has the right of it. Trump used about as much deference with QE2 as he has with any other human being on the planet, and far more than he uses with most. I concur that, in such things, the bar is pretty low for DT.

[Husar]

Now I wonder what would happen if someone did what Fragony suggested, acted unpredictably outside protocol like Trump, and literally kicked him in the balls... :sweatdrop:

I guess a twitter tirade, sanctions and potentially war, but even if it were, say, Macron, Merkel or Putin? I guess we'll never know, but the mind wonders... :creep:

[HopAlongBunny]

Phew!
Well we can all rest easy now.
Both Trump and Putin are absolutely sure there was no Russian interference in the 2016 election:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/trump-putin-meeting-election-meddling-722424

It's nice when two world powers can harmonize and agree with each other.:on_swoon:

[spmetla]

It's such a strange world when the Head of State turns out to be a Benedict Arnold.

Several Congressmen and Senators have voiced their surprise and displeasure and will continue to do nothing to stop this nincompoop. I can only hope that the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate in November so that there can finally be some checks to his nonsense though they'll probably focus just on impeachment and social issues instead of reassuring our allies and trade partners.

[Montmorency]

https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/

Senate

49-51 Republicans currently.

35 seats up. 26 held by Democrats (2 of whom Independent, Sanders and King). It is not mathematically possible for Democrats to win a supermajority, let alone a 2/3 majority, even if they win every race.

Let's take the site's presentation for granted and acknowledge 16 competitive races. Of these, Democrats are defending all but 5 seats. The 5 are: Heller in Nevada, Cruz in Texas, Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Flake in Arizona, and Corker in Tennessee. The latter two are not running for reelection, so seats are fully contested. (Eventually McCain may retire or die, but it probably doesn't make much difference for this cycle.)

Seems like the Democrats would need a historic black/Latino turnout for midterms just to swap numbers with the Republicans.

House

193-236 Republicans currently.

As for the House, someone can probably grub up articles on gerrymandering. According to the same site above, about 100 seats are competitive. However, of those, the vast majority are Republican.


Maybe this site's assumptions skew optimistic for Democrats, but the Cook Political Report (https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings) is more or less similar in its margins. Ultimately, the highest utility of polling is knowing what you have to change, which demands at least the present amount of momentum behind Democrats to have any chance. 5 months...


At any rate Trump cannot be impeached this term. I'm sure his base will also guarantee his nomination in 2020. The only formal option left: Vote out, indict, very publicly clean house.

At least narrow majorities in both chambers, if Democrats obtain them, could be used to control committees, the cycle of bills and investigations, plus nominations and confirmation hearings.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Anything can happen in politics. But the hidden truth that liberals are afraid to admit is that Dem turnout is what will make or break this country. There have always been obstacles, the last 30 years of conservatism has made sure of that.

Whether our country survives Trump or not is up to the ability of the Left to inspire and motivate Americans.

[Montmorency]

Anything can happen in politics. But the hidden truth that liberals are afraid to admit is that Dem turnout is what will make or break this country. There have always been obstacles, the last 30 years of conservatism has made sure of that.

Whether our country survives Trump or not is up to the ability of the Left to inspire and motivate Americans.

A protean platform superior to the Republican one on utilitarian metrics is enough to motivate anyone!

Any voter who reads this (https://www.democrats.org/party-platform) in full is sure to find something they agree with.


EDIT: BTW, Ruskies infiltrated the NRA with money and spies. Legit. No kidding. Look (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1080766/download) it up (https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17577838/maria-butina-indictment-russia-spy-trump).


The affidavit claims that on or around March 24, 2015, Butina emailed a proposal for a project called “Diplomacy.” In it, she stated that a major US political party (clearly the Republicans) would likely win the 2016 election. The problem, she wrote, was that the GOP is “traditionally associated with negative and aggressive foreign policy, particularly with regards to Russia.” Butina wanted to change that, and had an idea for doing so. She wrote that within the GOP, a gun rights organization (obviously the NRA) has a “central place and influence,” saying it funds campaigns and sponsors major conferences like the Conservative Political Action Conference. Butina wrote that she and Torshin had already been building ties to the NRA, and proposed that she wanted to go to “all upcoming major conferences” related to the Republican Party before the 2016 elections.


BUTINA: By your recommendation, I am setting up the groundwork here but I am really in need of mentoring. Or the energy might to towards the wrong direction. Yesterday's dinner showed that American society is broken in relation to Russia. This is now the dividing line of opinions, the crucial one in the election race. [POLITICAL PARTY 1] are for us, [another major U.S. political party] - against - 50/50. Our move here is very important.


BUTINA (to RUSSIAN OFFICIAL): I'm going to sleep. It's 3 am here. I am ready for further orders.

How deep does the rabbit hole go with the American Right?

Hilariously, just before this news dropped Trump tweeted (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018943446583668736) this in reference to his vehement denial of Russian involvement in cyberattacks:


As I said today and many times before, “I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along! #HELSINKI2018

They were told they would cruise the swamp for American gold, fire no guns, shed no tears! God, RICO them all.

[Montmorency]

Guys, petition to moving forward replace all references to "GOP" or "Republican Party" with "[POLITICAL PARTY 1]".~D

[HopAlongBunny]

They were told they would cruise the swamp for American gold, fire no guns, shed no tears! God, RICO them all.


https://youtu.be/UMV34CwNMY0

[AE Bravo]

Rand Paul the most sensible voice in the McCarthyist circus that is the current US political climate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

McCarthyist?

No arguments as to the USA political climate being in "circensus" mode, but how does that adjective apply?

[Montmorency]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/rand-paul-election-meddling-russia-722205
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/rand-paul-trump-putin-russia-725044

It's pretty tiresome, really. Critics can't settle between downplaying the attacks "because America did bad things", and rejecting the reality of any serious attacks. You can't have both.

Rand Paul is wrong to say that cyber-intrusions into elections are common on the world stage. They will be now though, seeing as the return on investment can be so magnificent.

There's no comparison between favoring one side in a contest and actively working to directly alter the electoral process and results.

And he blames Obama for "not doing more". Places no accountability on Republicans for restraining Obama, nor on Republicans in the two years since to DO SOMETHING with their control of government to maintain election integrity. Not a single Republican can be taken seriously in their occasional mild criticism of the President if they will never back up their words with action.

Nor does Paul do anything to meet the case against the very legitimacy of the party, which is in serious question even compartmentalizing its domestic policies.

The strawman of "engaging even our adversaries" is also a crock. Obama engaged with Putin. Simply standing next to a foreign leader is not engagement. (Obama did that too anyway.) Lavishing a foreign leader with praise is not engagement. From the perspective of government, what has Trump done to "engage with" Putin? What does he plan to do? Unilaterally drop sanctions? Now look at Trump's actions on a more personal level, in the context of his campaign's relationship to Russia. People need to do a better job distinguishing fantasy from reality. Talk is good > we should talk to Russia > Trump literally talked, to Russia > Trump good... is a stupid line of reasoning.

I mean, it's one thing if you are a disingenuous political operative, but regular people don't need to make up silly stories divorced from the actual characters and events involved.


By the way, the problem with McCarthy was that he lied for personal gain and ruined people's lives in the process. There were absolutely Soviet spies throughout US government and society at the time. If you plan to use the label "McCarthyist", you are making an empirical claim about someone. Are the Mueller indictments without basis? Is there no good case for Trump and associates being venal scofflaws?

[AE Bravo]

The hyperbole is reaching levels of insanity I didn't think were possible. There have been news anchors in the country likening Russia's alleged interference to terrorism. By the way, I use the term alleged with deliberate purpose. It is alleged as they have still not been brought to trial and proven to have committed the supposed crimes they are accused of. The majority of politicians are neocons and neoliberals committed to the idea of American hegemony abroad. Some are easy to pinpoint, such as McCain, while most are subtle. There are people who buck the Establishment line that you need to be at war with everybody at once. There are people who do not agree that you should reaffirm your hostile Cold War mentality toward Russia. These people are immediately dubbed Putin puppets, traitors, treasonous and all other manner of empty insults. The hypocrisy by the anti-Russian camp is also astounding. America has interfered in tons of elections. While it's true that two wrongs don't make a right, it's also true that most of the people harping about Russia the most are also the people who support election meddling or regime change. These people are not against interference in principle. They are only against the idea of any challenge to American supremacy.

No issue in recent history has ruthlessly enforced conformity and stopped other perspectives than Trump/Russia. If you depart from the consensus view you're ostracized and this mass hysteria is only getting worse.

[Husar]

I actually agree.
Even though I love to watch shows like the Late Show with Colbert, I cringe a little every time they bring up impeachment about the Russia collaboration. Nothing about that has been proven yet and it is simply wishful thinking at this point.
Similarly agree about the meddling abroad while loathing it at home. It's especially sad when people do it from whom you'd expect better because they always preach love and understanding for minorities etc.

[Montmorency]

The hyperbole is reaching levels of insanity I didn't think were possible. There have been news anchors in the country likening Russia's alleged interference to terrorism. By the way, I use the term alleged with deliberate purpose. It is alleged as they have still not been brought to trial and proven to have committed the supposed crimes they are accused of. The majority of politicians are neocons and neoliberals committed to the idea of American hegemony abroad. Some are easy to pinpoint, such as McCain, while most are subtle. There are people who buck the Establishment line that you need to be at war with everybody at once. There are people who do not agree that you should reaffirm your hostile Cold War mentality toward Russia. These people are immediately dubbed Putin puppets, traitors, treasonous and all other manner of empty insults. The hypocrisy by the anti-Russian camp is also astounding. America has interfered in tons of elections. While it's true that two wrongs don't make a right, it's also true that most of the people harping about Russia the most are also the people who support election meddling or regime change. These people are not against interference in principle. They are only against the idea of any challenge to American supremacy.

No issue in recent history has ruthlessly enforced conformity and stopped other perspectives than Trump/Russia. If you depart from the consensus view you're ostracized and this mass hysteria is only getting worse.

Let me be blunt: if you believe that Russian actions don't matter because America this or America that, we'll have that discussion. If you willfully blind yourself to the reality of what occurred or is occurring because you don't like the people who are talking about it, then rational discussion is precluded. Call it "alleged" to be technically accurate, but acknowledge the scope of the circumstantial evidence. Acknowledge that America has never been put on trial for anything it has done, yet we know many of what its distasteful actions have been because reality is not so rigidly formalistic as that.

Apparently all the CIA would need to do to redeem itself in the eyes of people like Intercept commenters for instance, who I was half addressing with my exasperated post above, is to buy up a couple of national press institutions, push propaganda through them while seizing privileged press information on sources, and wrap it all in the name of "free speech".

[Husar]

Let me be blunt: if you believe that Russian actions don't matter because America this or America that, we'll have that discussion. If you willfully blind yourself to the reality of what occurred or is occurring because you don't like the people who are talking about it, then rational discussion is precluded. Call it "alleged" to be technically accurate, but acknowledge the scope of the circumstantial evidence.

I thought we were talking about the alleged cooperation between Trump and Russia, not the Russian fake news publications, but maybe I'm too tired to read correctly.
I'm not aware that any cooperation was proven so far. There are some hints, but I don't think very strong ones.

[Montmorency]

I thought we were talking about the alleged cooperation between Trump and Russia, not the Russian fake news publications, but maybe I'm too tired to read correctly.
I'm not aware that any cooperation was proven so far. There are some hints, but I don't think very strong ones.

We're talking about any of multiple related aspects of Russian efforts in the United States, including, if you read the latest case I linked to above, an apparent effort to buy or compromise national-level Republian politicians. And it is known that Russia funneled millions through the NRA, and it is a serious question of what the NRA leadership did with that money and knowledge as far as donating to Trump's and others' campaigns.

What "hints" are you aware of on Trump-Russia cooperation? Then we can compare to what I'm aware of.

[AE Bravo]

Sounds like a huge part of this is the failure by the US intelligence community to protect 'democracy.' I don't understand why it's shocking that this happened, or the outrage about what Trump didn't do in a banal press conference.

[Montmorency]

Sounds like a huge part of this is the failure by the US intelligence community to protect 'democracy.' I don't understand why it's shocking that it has been penetrated by a competitor who seeks to reciprocate US actions, given the geopolitical reality.

So you would have wanted the CIA/NSA/whoever to use dirty and violent means to "protect democracy"? Wasn't that one of the most distasteful elements of the American Century? Regardless, our government as a whole should have attended to election security domestically much more assiduously. Ideally it would have been resolved in 2001, but we kicked the can down the bucket, and as with the other things we keep finding out the Russians achieved more (https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/RussRptInstlmt1-%20ElecSec%20Findings,Recs2.pdf) than previously thought. (Deadass, if they did modify any voter rolls that would be mildly illegitimate, but the ultimate possible scenario is so dire it can't be discussed in open online spaces.)

It's pioneering unforeseen techniques, up to and including the modification of the election infrastructure through cyber means, and a dystopian level of control over discourse.

The US will probably not have the opportunity to develop these means, which should gratify you. But Russia will continue, as it is doing, to develop them, and this is right up China's alley as well. I hope you like boots stamping on the human face forever!


But let me ask you just this narrow concession, from the narrow perspective of a citizen of the affected country: given what we have learned in the past two years, is it reasonable to desire investigations into our leadership?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... But let me ask you just this narrow concession, from the narrow perspective of a citizen of the affected country: given what we have learned in the past two years, is it reasonable to desire investigations into our leadership?

For myself, I am less concerned with investigating our current leadership (save to determine whether willful collusion occurred) but profoundly interested in securing the mechanics of the election process to prevent tampering by external actors (and minimize tampering by party hacks as well). I do not believe we can entirely prevent, in a free society, some person, nation, or group from attempting to influence and persuade the electorate. I WOULD like to see efforts made to increase the transparency of such suasory efforts and prevent the most egregious efforts by outside actors to damage the electoral process.

[Strike For The South]

Remember kids. Assets don't know they are assets until they are in too deep.

Trumps comments on Montenegro should be the final nail in the coffin. The man knows nothing beyond his vanity and yet can somehow cobble together a coherent, if wrong, statement on the balkans.

yea ok . gif

[rory_20_uk]

For myself, I am less concerned with investigating our current leadership (save to determine whether willful collusion occurred) but profoundly interested in securing the mechanics of the election process to prevent tampering by external actors (and minimize tampering by party hacks as well). I do not believe we can entirely prevent, in a free society, some person, nation, or group from attempting to influence and persuade the electorate. I WOULD like to see efforts made to increase the transparency of such suasory efforts and prevent the most egregious efforts by outside actors to damage the electoral process.

The system in the USA is not fit for purpose.

For the President have a proper plebiscite - and why on earth not? The odd system the USA makes no sense.
Have a proper body undertake voting district boundaries. Ideally at a Federal level but I doubt that would work. And some independent oversight.

And wherever possible remove the whole first past the post approach.

But who would want to fix things when it works so well for the current winners? Make a big noise about external influences to the whole broken edifice and ignore the central issue.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

At least 70 infants have been ordered to appear in immigration court after being separated from their parents. (https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/18/immigrant-separated-families-infant-court-defend-donald-trump-zero-tol/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark)

:uhoh:

At least we all share sentiments on some things, right? Right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztvPsJmIcU

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The system in the USA is not fit for purpose.

For the President have a proper plebiscite - and why on earth not? The odd system the USA makes no sense.
Have a proper body undertake voting district boundaries. Ideally at a Federal level but I doubt that would work. And some independent oversight.

And wherever possible remove the whole first past the post approach.

But who would want to fix things when it works so well for the current winners? Make a big noise about external influences to the whole broken edifice and ignore the central issue.

~:smoking:

The Founders, for good or ill, did NOT want a plebiscite. They viewed that as unrestrained democracy and a virtual assurance of demagoguery. The point of the Electoral College was to restrain this.

As a practical matter, determining the President through a single at large vote might result in a decrease in effective participation, given that so much of the population is congregated in smaller metro areas. The top 50 cities by population represent 50 million persons of our 300 million. Take into account their 'metropolitan areas' and you have almost half the population covered in just these 50 locations. On a practical political level, operatives would tell most candidates to ignore the rest of the country and cater promises, policies etc. to these more populated areas. The potential for a "city mouse trumps country mouse" sea change would be immense.

For whatever flaws it has, the EC system does, at least to some extent, spread the effort candidates must make in reaching the populace with their message (though this too is imperfect). The classic counter argument is, of course, that FPTP systems for ascribing electors to the college is as bad or worse in that candidates can take a small plurality and potentially win an elector rich state with a narrow vote margin that isn't even a majority in the first place. But the system now extent, particularly with two Senators per state being reflected in both Congress and the EC, was designed and still does serve to retain a greater degree of political significance for the smaller polities which make up the union.


Which is not to say that some things could not and should not be improved.

1) FPTP could be improved without discarding the concept by adopting the approach taken by Louisiana. If the winner wins with a majority of the votes cast, it is concluded. If it is only a plurality of the votes cast, they go to a runoff between the two highest vote getters.

2) The EC could be moved to the system currently in use by Maine and Nebraska, with both Electors that reflect the Senate representation going to the overall FPTP winner in the state, while each Congressional district decides its elector based on the votes in that district.

3) The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is, I agree, abominable. There really should be a federal commission that decides these along the longs of the BRAC commission, operating under the aegis of the FEC. This one just plain sucks, and as Rory suggests it needs to be altered.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The EC as originally designed does just as bad a job at representing the rural areas. The number of electors is influenced by the # of representatives, so the EC is in theory skewed against the rural states who don't really matter compared to the likes of CA and NY.

The reason the rural states even matter at this point is because of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. That was the bill that capped the House at 435 members effectively limiting the ratio that populous states have over the least populous states.
This bill was put into place due to Party politics and is actually against the written word of some of the founders themselves, but it worked at the time to screw over one party and no one has touched it since.

All the EC needs as far as reform is to remove this bill and establish a floating cap that prevents the house from going 1,000+ members but giving the bigger states the proper representation they deserve.
I would suggest the Wyoming Rule since it is straightforward and easy to implement. Under the 2010 census the Wyoming Rule would put the House at 545 members.

I cannot stress enough how much this would relieve current tensions in the electoral system:
* EC becomes more aligned with what the founders envisioned.
* Gerrymandering effects are limited since the increase in the number of representatives means a smaller constituency per representative.
* Ability of the political parties to maintain cohesion is reduced. The house would look more like a multi party chamber, close to the current dynamic between the progressives, centrists, moderates, and freedom caucus but amplified.

I don't think the "metropolitian america" argument holds much water. The inner city is very different than the surrounding suburbs. To call America "urban" just because over 50% of people live close to a city is not at all accurate of the rural influences that suburban America has.

[Husar]

All the EC needs as far as reform is to remove this bill and establish a floating cap that prevents the house from going 1,000+ members but giving the bigger states the proper representation they deserve.

The Bundestag has grown to 709 members since the SCOG demanded that representatives of the parties need to be distributed according to the popular vote. Before that, the CDU would go for a lot of direct candidacies to get more representation there than their actual share of the votes would have given them. Now they get the direct candidates and then have to maintain the share on top of that so the total number of representatives grows in an effort to keep the shares intact. I believe the change was a good thing though, because the old system sounds like it can easily be exploited to get a disproportionate representation.

[drone]

Trump's presidency has highlighted the need to repeal the 17th amendment. His control over the base has left him free of oversight from Congress, as he threatens his own party members with primary actions if they disagree with him. Switching back to senatorial selection by the state governments would remove the populist effect from the equation, leaving at least one house of Congress free to oppose the president without fear of reprisal.

At the start of his term, I was 50-50 on whether he was truly under Putin's influence. Now I'm 100% sure he is fully compromised. And if Trump wasn't so stupid and lazy it could have been worse, imagine someone more subtle, and capable of paying attention during security council meetings.

[Gilrandir]

And if Trump wasn't so stupid

http://time.com/5342602/donald-trump-idiot-google/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

Nice point on the Reapp of 1929.

The founders were interested in a House Rep having the potential to really connect with/rep a constituency. The ever-increasing numbers involved with a fixed Congress does change that. A good point.

Not sure it would be enough with the gerrymandering issue, though it would help.

The potential for independents and a viable if smaller third party would be enhanced.



At the outset of the Republic, each congress critter had about 35k worth of constituents to keep track of. With an average household size of 5.5, that meant keeping track of the needs of roughly 6400 households. Retail politics.
Today, a rep has about 709k persons in 272.7k households or thereabouts.

By comparison, the typical UK member of parliament represents a little under 73k persons. Not quite retail, but certainly not cattle-call politics.

[Strike For The South]

At least 70 infants have been ordered to appear in immigration court after being separated from their parents. (https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/18/immigrant-separated-families-infant-court-defend-donald-trump-zero-tol/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark)

:uhoh:

At least we all share sentiments on some things, right? Right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztvPsJmIcU

Just a constant reminder that what we are witnessing is an attempt to create a permanent underclass of semi legal labor. These numbers may seem small but they have an effect of silencing voices. Doubly so when the administration is so public about it. We are witnessing naked intimidation.

[Tuuvi]

It really frustrates me that no one in the mainstream who is opposed to Trump's immigration policies, that I've seen at least, will dare suggest opening up more avenues for people to immigrate legally so they don't feel compelled to cross the border without papers. I don't understand why we have to kowtow to white nationalists who falsely claim "we're not racist, we just want people to respect the law and immigrate legally" and then talk about ending family based immigration and the diversity lottery as soon as they come into power.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It really frustrates me that no one in the mainstream who is opposed to Trump's immigration policies, that I've seen at least, will dare suggest opening up more avenues for people to immigrate legally so they don't feel compelled to cross the border without papers. I don't understand why we have to kowtow to white nationalists who falsely claim "we're not racist, we just want people to respect the law and immigrate legally" and then talk about ending family based immigration and the diversity lottery as soon as they come into power.

While I am avid in my opposition to illegal immigration, and do want a greater degree of border security, and emphatically agree that penalties need to be ramped way up for those industries/companies who employ illegals and encourage illegal workers,

it IS also true that our current immigration numbers/procedures and especially our guest worker programs are in DRAMATIC need of reworking.

[Strike For The South]

NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE

Having Bolton, Israel, and KSA whispering into your ear leads to crazy late night tweets.

I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.

Pretty well true of the vast majority of all human conflicts, Strike, unless you are cynical enough to believe that there are no innocents and that we all deserve to get it in the neck.

[spmetla]

I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.

It would be bloody on both sides' militaries for sure. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ability to hit US bases in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait and Qatar) to include the actual CENTCOM Headquarters.
Iran has so much airspace and such rugged terrain that the air campaign would be more like it was over Kosovo in the 90s than Iraq in the the Gulf War with trees and mountains etc... that mask AAA/SAM.
It would probably get Saudi Arabia involved directly and thereby a much larger and very 'hot' war for the entire region. How it would play out for our Troops in Afghanistan would be an interesting question and how Iraq's pro-Iran government would act would be questionable to say the least. I'd also wonder how Turkey would act, for 2003 they didn't allow the US of their territory to invade Iraq, if they did the same for Iran then the US would be effectively limited to Naval Aviation until it could establish more bases not within striking distance of the Iranian Air Force.

All that aside, I think we were closer to going to war with Iran under George W. than under Trump. Despite his talk about how strong the military is now it's really no better or worse than two years ago, though no longer worrying about budget sequestration.

This is probably just his trying to appear Strong for the whole MAGA thing not to mention distract from the continual fallout from Helsinki showing him as a Russian stooge together with Mueller Probe, Manafort trial, and the Russia/NRA woman.

[AE Bravo]

It would be bloody on both sides' militaries for sure. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ability to hit US bases in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait and Qatar) to include the actual CENTCOM Headquarters.
Iran has spy cells in Kuwait so it's very much possible, but Qatar is where it gets complicated for Iran and some suspect it is partly in its sphere of influence after the Gulf crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pars/North_Dome_Gas-Condensate_field

That, coupled with its isolation from its neighbors are major reasons Iran is unlikely to hurt Qatar in any way.

[rory_20_uk]

Iraq were. bluntly, idiots for even trying to have a stand-up fight with the coalition. Iran would have learnt the lesson and would probably fight as unconventionally as possible, via proxies and moving assets to surrounding countries where possible.

In short, the risk is great and the gain is practically non-existent.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

a few Republicans introduce articles of impeachment on Rosenstein.

Looks like the collapse of our republic is well underway.

[spmetla]

Well hopefully nothing comes of it beyond their trying to use it for gain in primary elections.

The Republic is certainly in danger if the legislative branch refuses to check the excesses of the executive, especially if the executive is allowed to fill the judicial with pliant judges. We haven't reach collapse and there is opportunity for the system to check itself, though it looks like the will to do so just isn't there unless the opposition takes at least the senate or the house.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

a few Republicans introduce articles of impeachment on Rosenstein.

Looks like the collapse of our republic is well underway.


I'd replace republic with GOP.

I do not see an existential threat to the USA. I do see Trump's hardcore third of the GOP breaking with the rest of the party, possibly even forming a true third party. This would leave the Dems (to the extent that they are organized) as the largest organized party.

Or, alternatively, the Trump hardcores opt out of politics altogether.

[rory_20_uk]

First past the post will force pieces together soon enough - better to have some power than none at all.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

That wing of the GOP should form their own party just as the extreme left should too but with the first past the post system there is zero incentive to do so. By being under the big tent it's more useful for them to try and take control of the party than form their own.

That's why I'm a big fan of preferential voting systems. You can vote for your third party or whatever without throwing your vote away, it would mean people could vote for who they actually like instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.

It would allow the extreme of the the Republicans to actually vote for the Libertarian or Whig candidates or form Christian-Nationalist party (Trumpers) without having to distort what the Republican party has been for decades. Same with the Democrats, let it split into a Social-Democrat party and something else. Might actually help voter turnout if people could vote for the the people they want without having it be pointless if that person isn't the leader of a major party not to mention that third party candidates don't get accusing of spoiling the vote for one of the major parties.

[Montmorency]

I disagree with that characterization. It is the full whole of the Republican Party we behold: they own Trumpism to the hilt. Why would the fascists split the party they have sown and reaped? This is exactly the logical progression of what Republicans have been doing for 50 years. They made their choices and, faced with their creation, crossed the Rubicon and departed the realm of legitimate politics.

I have to be aggressive here in refusing to countenance anyone apologizing for the Republican Party ever again. Don't indulge in the (understandable) face-saving exercise of pretending that Trumpism is the mark of an extremist fringe of the party rather than its essence, blood, and avatar. Trump is the perfect Republican.

Enjoy this article - Never Trumpers Will Want to Read This History Lesson (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/14/never-trumpers-will-want-to-read-this-history-lesson-219006) - on the dissolution of the Whig party and the Democrats who acknowledged that their party was irredeemably degenerate before the Slavery question, swallowed their pride, and joined the Republican Party. Based on the representations you have offered in this forum, you should be prepared to transfer into the current Friedmanite (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/opinion/19summers.html)* Democratic Party and pine for the day when progressives and socialists split off into their own party, leaving behind a proper center-right pro-business club.

*Per Larry Summers

IF John Maynard Keynes was the most influential economist of the first half of the 20th century, then Milton Friedman was the most influential economist of the second half.

Not so long ago, we were all Keynesians. (“I am a Keynesian,” Richard Nixon famously said in 1971.) Equally, any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites.

[spmetla]

Just to be clear, I am not a Republican. I always vote based on the individual candidate, as I live in Hawaii, that means a fair number of Democrats. My leanings on the national scale are more toward the Republicans of the early 90s. Voting based along party lines without knowing anything about the individual candidates (besides 1 or 2 of the top candidates)is almost worse than not voting at all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the Dems would start fielding more candidates who were liberal on social issues, but strong on defense and pro economy (JFK, Truman), they could steal my vote from this current GOP. I can debate the social issues, and some of them should go the liberal direction. "My" wing of the GOP still outnumbers the Trump wing. Sadly, the Trumpeteer voice is louder and too many of the rest of the GOP is more worried about pandering for power than standing for classic principled conservatism (lips service at election time does not equal what they deliver).

Trump really has crystalized all of the cynical elements of the Southern Strategy and the Jingoism of Reagan conservatism (but not the substance) along with the protectionist demagoguery of Buchannan. Too much tolerance for fascist insipidities and unthinking racism. Racism of all things, even though it is prima facie a declaration of your own stupidity to seriously count that as relevant (except where racism itself has MADE such a pointless distinction relevant and hurtful).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seamus, 88% of Republicans support the president after all that has been revealed...I'm afraid your wing is no longer relevant.

Count yourself among the never Trumpers, and jump ship. Google some of what David Frum has been writing recently. Conservatives in the United States would rather keep their conservatism than keep their democratic traditions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My leanings on the national scale are more toward the Republicans of the early 90s.

You identify with Newt Gingrich?

[a completely inoffensive name]

you should be prepared to transfer into the current Friedmanite (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/opinion/19summers.html)* Democratic Party and pine for the day when progressives and socialists split off into their own party, leaving behind a proper center-right pro-business club.


Funny enough it was the Clinton's that embraced the Friedmanite 'Third Way' politics which overthrew the New Deal era Dems for control of the party. Why do Republicans hate them again? Oh yea, they stole their polices.

Progressives and socialists won't split off, they are the future of the party. My generation is getting anxious and vindictive against the older generations.

[spmetla]

You identify with Newt Gingrich?

More with Bush Sr.

[Montmorency]

More with Bush Sr.

Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and others overthrew these Northeastern "Rockefeller" Republicans during the struggle over party definition, 1960s-70s-80s. Democrats subsumed their role in an attempt to undercut these new Republicans, later identified with Reagan.

Rockefeller Republicans/Eisenhower Democrats believe(d) in low deficits, limited taxes, capitalist markets and the "level playing field". Goldwater/Friedman/Reagan Republicans, today transitioned to their <anime reference> form as Trump Republicans, believe in high spending hand-in-hand with tax cuts to deliberately weaken the government until it can be Norquisted. Their view on legitimate functions of government is confined to offense (military + security) and upward redistribution through corporate subsidies.

The faction you prefer, which saw a role for noblesse oblige and "classical" conservatism, was historically DOA by the time of Bush Sr.'s presidency.


Seamus, 88% of Republicans support the president after all that has been revealed...I'm afraid your wing is no longer relevant.

Count yourself among the never Trumpers, and jump ship. Google some of what David Frum has been writing recently. Conservatives in the United States would rather keep their conservatism than keep their democratic traditions.


"My" wing of the GOP still outnumbers the Trump wing. Sadly, the Trumpeteer voice is louder and too many of the rest of the GOP is more worried about pandering for power than standing for classic principled conservatism (lips service at election time does not equal what they deliver).

To wit, the redcaps are the 99%.

The very best available interpretation of the Republican Party today as a group is that the majority of its voters simply haven't caught up yet because they don't follow current events at all and maintain party-line voting as their primary heuristic.


If the Dems would start fielding more candidates who were liberal on social issues, but strong on defense and pro economy (JFK, Truman),

...H-Hillary??

[spmetla]

The faction you prefer, which saw a role for noblesse oblige and "classical" conservatism, was historically DOA by the time of Bush Sr.'s presidency.

Fair enough, I can still look to the qualities I prefer though. I also will not vote for the wingbats. I liked McCain but with Palin on the ticket I could not vote for him. Enough of the very proud conservatives within the military circles I know absolutely love Trump and what he says and what they think he's doing and having listened to these guys I know there is nothing that will ever get them to change their mind. I'm sure that Trump could go right out and say that he prefers Russia's authoritarian conservatism and wants to make the US more like Russia and he'd get great support.
The era you point toward is exactly when my grandparents had to stop voting Republican. Their [GOP] shift toward favoring southern whites while the democrats took the torch for being social progressives under Kennedy and Johnson reversed the political landscape.


The very best available interpretation of the Republican Party today as a group is that the majority of its voters simply haven't caught up yet because they don't follow current events at all and maintain party-line voting as their primary heuristic.
The SJW association with the Democrats makes them absolutely unappealing to a lot of Trump supporters. They want to to hate who they hate without being told to feel guilty about it, political correctness be damned. Same with the people that see the Republicans as the bastion of conservatism, they'll never vote for another party so long as the Republicans are anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti immigrant and will vote on the party line every time.


...H-Hillary??
If she wasn't politically toxic with half the country she would have worked (I know she won the popular vote but we don't use that system). Take her policies and have almost any other democrat run with them and they'd probably win. Seeing as she's essentially been running for President since she was first lady she has been far too long in the public eye and is seen as a power hungry expletive. I certainly didn't like her but I'd have preferred her over Trump, I demand at least competence even if I disagree with the policies or individuals.

I wouldn't actually call her strong on defense, she, her husband and Obama were all about the air/drone strike diplomacy. Fine to do a few strikes to make it look like something has happened but never send in ground troops because that's too bloody and messy. She voted for the Iraq war and support the intervention in Libya, that doesn't equal strong on defense, just short sighted.

I think someone like General Clark would do well in a general election for the Democrats over the Republicans in today's environment but he'd have trouble even getting nominated because he's a white male with a military background which means he's not ground breaking enough to excite young democratic voters.

[Montmorency]

Liberals like to think that Trump's behavior wrt Iran, Russia, and North Korea is a dealbreaker for even conservative military service members. My understanding of Trumpism suggests this should impinge only on Independent types who don't mostly vote R. What are you hearing in general on these subjects?


The SJW association with the Democrats makes them absolutely unappealing to a lot of Trump supporters. They want to to hate who they hate without being told to feel guilty about it, political correctness be damned. Same with the people that see the Republicans as the bastion of conservatism, they'll never vote for another party so long as the Republicans are anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti immigrant and will vote on the party line every time.

What I had in mind is, people who might watch a couple hours of cable news per week or listen to half an hour of talk radio every day, otherwise no engagement, who literally do not know what's going on in the world. Such a type would still bear liability for their political choices, but it at least salvages honor compared to the cult members with eyes wide open.

You know the latter...


I don't care what Trump :daisy: up as long as he keeps triggering liberals.

Trump makes me feel good as a Real American.

Maybe his policies will hurt me, but I know I have to make sacrifices for the greater good as long as the government isn't for the bad people.

etc.


If she wasn't politically toxic with half the country she would have worked (I know she won the popular vote but we don't use that system). Take her policies and have almost any other democrat run with them and they'd probably win. Seeing as she's essentially been running for President since she was first lady she has been far too long in the public eye and is seen as a power hungry expletive. I certainly didn't like her but I'd have preferred her over Trump, I demand at least competence even if I disagree with the policies or individuals.

I wouldn't actually call her strong on defense, she, her husband and Obama were all about the air/drone strike diplomacy. Fine to do a few strikes to make it look like something has happened but never send in ground troops because that's too bloody and messy. She voted for the Iraq war and support the intervention in Libya, that doesn't equal strong on defense, just short sighted.

I think someone like General Clark would do well in a general election for the Democrats over the Republicans in today's environment but he'd have trouble even getting nominated because he's a white male with a military background which means he's not ground breaking enough to excite young democratic voters.

Funny you should mention that, because progressives have (at least since last year) been crapping endlessly on the DNC/DCCC for prattling about "identity politics" yet consistently intervening in local primaries to support white (often male) military veterans (or business persons) over women and minorities with more populist platforms.

So Bush wasn't strong on defense? Who is an example? I'll let Seamus speak for himself, but if "strong on defense" means insert ground troops at the drop of a hat (of course I'm framing it that way because it sounds bad to me), didn't Obama do that in numerous countries throughout Africa and Asia, with special forces and training missions? If it's budgetary, lavish defense spending is bipartisan. If it's about being willing to start a major ground war, I don't recall any candidate in either party explicitly calling for the real deal, like explicitly a ground invasion of Syria/Iran or direct strikes against Russian armed forces... You'll have to explain yourselves.

As for Hillary, without revisiting particulars of her career or person I recall polls showing that her favorability was fairly high among the general population between 2010 and 2015; it's more that she was susceptible to the election propaganda machine, partly because it had a generation to really get in motion, and wasn't effective at counteracting its impact.

I don't know what Clark's positions or orientations are. If he's a Kerry or even a Biden type he's no good for the coming cycle. Kerry or Biden don't beat Trumpism.

[spmetla]

So Bush wasn't strong on defense? Who is an example? I'll let Seamus speak for himself, but if "strong on defense" means insert ground troops at the drop of a hat (of course I'm framing it that way because it sounds bad to me), didn't Obama do that in numerous countries throughout Africa and Asia, with special forces and training missions? If it's budgetary, lavish defense spending is bipartisan. If it's about being willing to start a major ground war, I don't recall any candidate in either party explicitly calling for the real deal, like explicitly a ground invasion of Syria/Iran or direct strikes against Russian armed forces... You'll have to explain yourselves.


I can only speak for myself of course but overall Bush was strong on defense, but only in that he stopped the 90s decline. His allowing it a seemingly endless budget with little to no oversight as well as getting us into Iraq which ended up eroding our ability to fight conventional wars has made us qualitatively weaker in peer to near peer fights.
Best example would probably be Bush Sr. Shrink the military from Cold War to peacetime in order to spend that money elsewhere but not to shrink it so much that we're strapped in the event we need to fight a war ( if we needed to fight desert storm again with similar troop numbers it would take nearly our entire active duty army).
I'm actually a proponent for forcing our military to work with a smaller budget. Surely we can get rid of a lot of the Flag positions, research into silly things like exoskeletons and robotic mules, and so on without having to shrink the military. It would require real oversight into acquisitions so we're not paying a half million dollars per vehicle for the the humvee replacement (the JTLV) or the endless boondoggle known as the F-35. A lavish military is the easy cop-out for appearing strong on defense and a typical American method. If it's got a problem throw money at it till it works.
I would say it would require being willing to start a major ground war. The ability and willingness to do so is what makes a deterrence effective. That willingness needs to however be governed by oversight by Congress, a blank check to start wars that aren't emergencies affecting our national security is unconstitutional to say the least. Congress having abdicated its role in war and foreign policy is what has allowed the Trump era to become so dangerous to our international relations and norms.
I don't want a war with Iran or Russia or anything at the moment. However we need to ensure we've got the ability and the will to defend our allies be they South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, NATO, etc.. Obama's pivot to Asia with no additional forces or or increase in military cooperation was seen as toothless as it actually was. TPP was the only achievement and unfortunately he couldn't get Congress to ratify it. All his training missions in Africa are just soft power and the use of SOF is rather limited outside of what they were doing in Syria and Afghanistan.
As for direct strikes on Russia, that'd be extremely dangerous. George W. Bush knew that we when Georgia stupidly went to war with Russia over South Ossetia. The Russians saw also that we were happy to expand NATO to their borders but that war also showed that we were not willing or able to contest them in their 'near abroad'. How do you stop a Russian invasion of Crimea? You'd probably have to be willing to risk WW3 on the matter as Truman did with the Berlin blockade and Kennedy did with the Cuban missile crisis. Right now we'd be unprepared for that type of war and Russia knows it, correcting that weakness would be a good start for actually being strong on defense. Same goes for China, at some point they will contest our defense of Taiwan and a political unwillingness to actually defend that ally will probably let them be abandoned by us. I fear that if the US is in a 'why fight for Danzig' moment that we will take the easy way out and let our allies down. Trump's vocal questioning of why we should defend Montenegro is a fine example of it.


Funny you should mention that, because progressives have (at least since last year) been crapping endlessly on the DNC/DCCC for prattling about "identity politics" yet consistently intervening in local primaries to support white (often male) military veterans (or business persons) over women and minorities with more populist platforms.
It's part of a good turn around (in my mind) so that the Republicans can stop pretending to have ownership of American patriotism. It what's allowed things like the NFL kneeling controversy go from a free speech issue to a patriotism/respect our veterans thing. Also the more populist platforms play well to Democrats but to win general elections in solid republican states will probably require a more moderate approach. This would go more toward the thread on compromise. Going cold turkey into policies usually doesn't fair well, on many issues it's best to ease into them overtime. I don't mean things like abortion or civil rights but things like universal health care and pensions. Drastic change over a short period usually causes strong reactionary movements (like the Tea Party or Trumpism...).


As for Hillary, without revisiting particulars of her career or person I recall polls showing that her favorability was fairly high among the general population between 2010 and 2015; it's more that she was susceptible to the election propaganda machine, partly because it had a generation to really get in motion, and wasn't effective at counteracting its impact.
Susceptible to propaganda equals politically toxic in my explanation. A generation of her being painted a witch doesn't make here a viable candidate in the solid Republican states that hate her.

[Montmorency]

Was there something Bush did that you think Clinton should have, starting in his first 6 months? 9/11 and the War on Terror is what reversed the 90's drawdown.

Well, if you know of a way to create an actual credible deterrent to the worst-case scenarios of Russian invasion of NATO or Chinese invasion of Korea/Japan/SE Asia that doesn't involve stationing hundreds of thousands of troops abroad, that allows keeping the defense budget under half a trillion while funding requisite naval and nuclear renewal, I wouldn't be unhappy to consider myself strong on defense. :creep:


It's part of a good turn around (in my mind) so that the Republicans can stop pretending to have ownership of American patriotism. It what's allowed things like the NFL kneeling controversy go from a free speech issue to a patriotism/respect our veterans thing.

I don't understand, what are you saying about the NFL protests? Anyway, it's not a turnaround, Democrats have been doing it for a long time. Your idea of moderation in red states is exactly the disastrous bet Democrats have played since you were born. Just the opposite is indicated. Democratic policies, including (especially!) the hard-left ones are overwhelmingly popular among the general population including red states. It's hard to convince oneself why Democrats should reject the exceedingly simple and intuitive platform of promising to give people what they want, actually doing it, and doing it well and enduringly. And I repeat, I am referring to the popular policies. If there is dismay at the prospect of the unpopular ones (especially concentrated in hard-left proposals on policing and immigration), in the words of LBJ: "What the hell else is the Presidency for?"

Even the type of firebrand arch-populist leftism epitomized in this frissonating polemic -

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/07/on-frank-brunis-embarrassing-centrism-is-sexy-colu.html


I’m a leftist. Our political platform is simple and straightforward. The public doesn’t have enough money or power. Their money and power were stolen by elites. We will fix this. We will take the power and money and give it back to the public. We will elect politicians who believe in this program. We will oppose the politicians who don’t.

can be expected to attain viability over the current national model.


Susceptible to propaganda equals politically toxic in my explanation. A generation of her being painted a witch doesn't make here a viable candidate in the solid Republican states that hate her.

Very interesting: Clinton's favorability, according to Pew Research, was between 1992 and 2015 (http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/) almost always above 50%; even the 2008 election saw only a minor dip. I don't think many could have predicted, for the right reasons, that her favorability could drop so much so suddenly in 2015 and 2016. Clinton announced her candidacy in April 2015. Look at the favorability plummet (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html) starting exactly a month prior, days after the NYT first reported the existence of the private email server issue. Suggests that Clinton's failure to properly explain the email controversy cost her comparably as much as decades of prior Republican defamation (though this at least served as primer). As much as we might hate to think it, the 2016 election will become one of the most studied in American history.

[AE Bravo]

As you can see they're both the same except one wants a war with Iran while the other wants a war with Russia.

Here's an article about the Russia political narrative: https://www.thenation.com/article/elite-fixation-russiagate/

A poll by The Hill and the HarrisX polling company found 54 percent support for Trump’s now-scuttled plan for a follow-up summit with Putin at the White House. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that Trump’s post-Helsinki approval rating slightly increased to 45 percent.

In a recent Gallup poll on problems facing the country, the “Situation with Russia” was such a marginal concern that it did not even register. While an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that 64 percent believe Trump has not been tough enough on Russia, it also saw a near-even split on whether Putin is a foe or an ally, and 59 percent support for better relations.

Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true. Hacking e-mails and voter databases is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country’s election can never be justified. But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile social-media ads amount to an “attack,” even an “act of war,” are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed.

Oh and so much for being a so-called traitor:

Fixation on the alleged Russian threat does not just obscure our own past. With the attendant suspicion of Trump’s potential subordination to Putin, it is obscuring the reality in front of us. Anyone paying attention to Trump’s actual policies cannot escape the conclusion that his administration “has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era” (Daniel Vajdich of the NATO-funded Atlantic Council), wherein “U.S. policy toward Russia has, if anything, hardened under [Trump’s] watch” (Brookings fellow and former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro). The new Pentagon budget earmarks $6.5 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative—a military program aimed at confronting Russia in Eastern Europe—a 91 percent increase over President Obama’s last year in office. Following Trump’s decision to sell anti-tank missiles to Ukraine—a move Obama resisted—the Pentagon has just announced $200 million in new military assistance. The NATO summit right before Helsinki prompted widespread suspicions that Trump was undermining the transatlantic alliance, possibly at Putin’s behest. All seemed to overlook what Trump actually did: openly criticize Russia’s prized Nord Stream 2 gas project with Germany and badger NATO members to increase military spending. At a post-Helsinki Senate hearing, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo touted Trump’s “massive defense buildup that threatens Vladimir Putin’s regime” and reaffirmed that the United States will never recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty is correct that another Kerry would get beaten by Trumpism. Biden might not, but only if Biden went hard for the unions and manufacturing -- so Monty is probably right about that style of candidate falling short against Trump.


Hillary in 2008 was electable, but eclipsed by someone with more charisma. By 2016 she was much less competitive. The combative reactionary side of the GOP was energized by 8 years of Obama and the endless harangue of the radio-red-meat-righties; Hillary's policy set did not chart any new territory to energize her base; Hillary's charisma was lackluster, especially when the last two Dem Presidents getting on stage before she accepted the nomination were Clinton and Obama (she never was able to work a crowd as either of them did and do); and finally, in our culture at least, women north of age 60 rapidly lose appeal with some voters on physical attractiveness (which should be irrelevant in a President, but voters can be superficial and our culture is still kinder to aging men than to aging women when evaluating physical attractiveness: Hillary was thought to be witchy, Bernie was a "cute-little-old-man" to quote my daughter).

As for strong on Defense, I liked Reagan and Bush 41. Hated Carter. Disliked Clinton (though mostly on force readiness, not deployment). Obama I had mixed feelings about. Bush 43 was too willing to listen to the neo-cons. He was obviously strong on defense, but a bit cavalier even for this right winger. And the neo-con strategy of hemming in Iran by crushing Iraq and Afghanistan had and has more than a few flaws both strategically and tactically.

On the whole, I think too many of our Commanders in chief have committed troops and military material too often, but have generally tried to do so "on the cheap." That approach, imho, has a lot of problems. Sometimes it works, but often it simply kicks the can down the road on actually resolving a situation.

[Montmorency]

As you can see they're both the same except one wants a war with Iran while the other wants a war with Russia.

Here's an article about the Russia political narrative: https://www.thenation.com/article/elite-fixation-russiagate/




Oh and so much for being a so-called traitor:

Nah.

The media has done a bad job explaining Russian actions and relations besides reminding consumers that it exists. Try checking the poll numbers once you control for Republicans.

If, as has become chillingly plausible over time, the Russians modified state voter rolls, we are squarely in the territory of illegitimacy. We are only one step from this revelation, though we can only hope it did not come that far. If vote tallies were modified, anything becomes possible.

Haranguing allies for not meeting perceived obligations to the United States, to no obvious effect that could threaten Russia (quite the opposite) is not an anti-Russian action.

Obama launched the EDI and increased funding to $3 billion over time in office. Republicans' proposed increases across the board in military spending of course would affect this program. If you have evidence Trump personally advocated for funding increases to this specific program, present it. At any rate, the administration's (executive's) input in budgetary details is small compared to the Congress that drafts it.

The fact that Trump's cabinet secretaries and other selected officials constantly contradict him does not reflect well on Trump.

The closest this comes to a point is in the sale of ~200 Javelin missiles and ~40 launchers to Ukraine. If this were flanked with consistent policy aimed at constraining Russia and multiplied by an order of magnitude, we could call it approaching "tough on Russia".


I really hate the misinformation and disingenuous takes on Russia. I understand if one is on the take, or is an outright fascist, but too many have allowed reflexive anti-Americanism to turn their heads to mush.

[AE Bravo]

The only source you've given about this whole meddling affair is from the US Senate, one of the actors who are being accused of throwing up a smokescreen by a large portion of the US public. See there's this core principle called due process in the US and I'm not seeing what's chillingly plausible to you. I get really wary of people acting as if the whole issue is settled. All we have are the words of a few government agencies which lied consistently in the past.

[Montmorency]

The only source you've given about this whole meddling affair is from the US Senate, one of the actors who are being accused of throwing up a smokescreen by a large portion of the US public. See there's this core principle called due process in the US and I'm not seeing what's chillingly plausible to you. I get really wary of people acting as if the whole issue is settled. All we have are the words of a few government agencies which lied consistently in the past.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you be more specific?

The details of the issue are not settled. The contours are. Skepticism in January 2017 was recommended. Skepticism today is self-delusion or contrarian compulsion. I don't know how much you know, so just tell me what you think the facts are.

The presumption of innocence exists only in the courtroom during the course of a criminal trial and nowhere else. Trump has not yet been put through the judicial system, save for his many hundreds of civil suits. Don't worry your head for him; no single person in the world is better placed to receive the full benefits of due process. I'm not advocating for a Yanukovych treatment, far from it. The whole affair must be hashed out in the courts for all to see. Impeachment is a nice idea because -

because let's say you believe in something absurd to make Russia go away. Maybe, for instance, the dozens and dozens of secret (and lied about) meetings and attempts at incognito communication channels by dozens of campaign and administration and GOP members high and low, were actually all because people around Trump just like listening to Russian accents. They find it soothing, perhaps. So soothing they'll lie prodigiously about it and disrupt the workings of the country to get their fix. They'll jet around talking to various Asian and Arab autocrats about business dealings with Russia on the agenda of sharing the amazing Russian accent with the world. Leaving aside that this surreal scenario in itself would potentially be impeachable, let's go ahead and abstractly excise any possible relevance of Russian compromission, policy conduct toward Russia, anything and everything. Trump would still be impeachable a dozen times over for his conduct in office. He would have been impeachable the instant he was sworn in. So you understand why impeachment could be seen as a procedural good in itself. Alas, Trump will never be impeached this coming cycle; it's, as I described earlier in the thread, mathematically unavailable. It will be endured.

But giving Trump his metaphorical day in court is indispensable for the health and sanity of the country. For the sake of the truth. It's non-negotiable, and were the future DOJ, or any succeeding administration or Congress to discard the process in the name of "healing the country", they would do so at the risk of disgracing themselves.


Refresh my IIRC, aren't you a Shiite Arab in the Middle East? Your style of posting has changed so much from previous years you could, along with the name change, be taken for another person.

Disclaimer: You'll hate me for taking this out of context, but here's a dunk courtesy of Mangal Media (http://www.mangalmedia.net/english//why-im-writing-about-white-people-instead-of-a-us-military-war-crime):


Opposing racist narratives and the manipulation of historical truths for one’s own ideological end should be a starting point for any discussion. If the ‘anti-war’ movement cannot face its own racism and Islamophobia, it is not a movement aimed at our wellbeing and dignity. If the bar is this low for the left, then yes – let us be divisive. If this is what is to be accepted by whatever the “antiwar movement” is – then yes! Let us completely destroy it. What use is it to us if these people call themselves “anti-war,” but commit themselves to a dogmatic left-statist position where the crimes of Soviets or modern-day Russia are whitewashed in whataboutisms.

[AE Bravo]

Referring to this document: https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/RussRptInstlmt1-%20ElecSec%20Findings,Recs2.pdf

I’m trying to wrap my head around why one should blame anyone besides the US government first and foremost.

The details of the issue are not settled. The contours are. Skepticism in January 2017 was recommended. Skepticism today is self-delusion or contrarian compulsion. I don't know how much you know, so just tell me what you think the facts are.
How are they settled? Why should crimes levied against a foreign government not call into question the actions of the victim state in this circumstance? If the US wants to make a fuss about its cybersecurity and its sovereignty, it needs to examine itself first before sabotaging international relations. I don't understand how you can say skepticism is self-delusion when the issue is far from being settled.

They find it soothing, perhaps. So soothing they'll lie prodigiously about it and disrupt the workings of the country to get their fix. They'll jet around talking to various Asian and Arab autocrats about business dealings with Russia
Very shady I agree. Hasn’t Israel been doing the same thing? I think America's elites love Israeli accents a little bit more. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

Refresh my IIRC, aren't you a Shiite Arab in the Middle East? Your style of posting has changed so much from previous years you could, along with the name change, be taken for another person.
I don’t know how it has changed (Sunni btw), but I’m not sure how going as far as to call those trying to ease the tensions with Russia fascists, with US funding fascist apartheid regimes and Israel funding fascists in Ukraine. It’s hard to engage someone who starts from a position that Russia is the aggressor when the US acted treacherously and reneged on their agreements with Russia regarding NATO for example: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

[Montmorency]

Once more, you're oscillating between the two questions of 'What happenned, what is happening?' and 'What is the historical and philosophical context?' I've already commented on the latter, you know my opinion, and the weaknesses of your own. I won't bandy any more in scorecarding and whataboutism. My only interest here is underlining "what happened".

Since you raised some of the more recent developments in the hacking investigtion, we can discuss that: efforts to hack or modify the electoral infrastructure, and their Russian origin.

First, the late report is a Senate summary based on the reports of numerous state governments, agencies of the federal government, and independent and contracted investigators. This isn't something a Senate subcommittee extrapolated from original research.


The Committee’s assessments, as well as the assessments of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are based on
self-reporting by the states. DHS has been clear in its representations to the Committee
that the Department did not have perfect insight into these cyber activities. It is possible
that more states were attacked, but the activity was not detected. In light of the technical
challenges associated with cyber forensic analysis, it is also possible that states may have
overlooked some indicators of compromise.

Second, reports on this (I mean about cyber intrusions, not Congressional reports specifically) have been coming out since 2016, accumulating and painting a more profound and disturbing picture of the scope of Russian activities all the time. For example, in mid-2017 various CIA and NSA documents were leaked that provided details on one branch of the attempts to penetrate voting systems in the states, and the responsibility of the GRU in it. (Putin's response was to suggest that independent Russian "patriots" may have conducted cyber operations against the US after all.) Trump and his team were even briefed on the state of investigations before he was inaugurated. This briefing included text, audio, primary source testimony, and corroborating work done by multiple Western governments.

Third, it is already known that Russia has a demonstrated desire and a stated and demonstrated ability to engage in various forms of cyber operations against the United States (among others). Putin finally publicly admitted in the Helsinki summit that "[he] wanted Trump to win." The email hacks, the infrastructure hacks, and the microtargeting/information-war were all distinct but interrelated covert activities, and mutually corroborating. It is far less parsimonious to believe that multiple actors, not cooperating but working in tandem toward the same objective, would engage in discrete and non-overlapping fields of intervention. Mueller's indictments do not (yet) elucidate the state electoral hacks, but I recommend you look through Mueller's Russian indictments as they contain a fair amount of detail in describing and analyzing the process of the information ops and the email hacks, and their Russian provenance.

Fourth, someone is already known to be targeting the 2018 election: Microsoft recently announced spearphishing attempts against several Democratic candidates from domains that had previously been associated with the 2016 operation.

Now here's homework for you. In 2013, the Obama Administration admitted that the United States was directly involved in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Between 1953 and 2013, what evidence was there that the US had any part in this episode, that it wasn't the work of a guy sitting at their desk who weighs 400 lbs?

[AE Bravo]

You have so far labeled those who disagree with you as fascists and anti-American for not having the same faith in faulty intelligence as you do. It’s exactly the sort of elitism the article I linked before highlights in American discourse. The Senate summary is comprised of evidence from authoritative institutions and their overlords, the scriptural foundation a largely fact-free assessment yet the media insists on passing it off as unassailable fact. We agree that there is disinformation alright, just not on the same side.

Of course anything that provides context is dismissed as ‘whataboutism.’ So here’s some more context for you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e69dae10b53f
The story was entirely wrong and was retracted, unlike the stories regarding Russian interference in the French and German elections even after they were discredited. California and Wisconsin election officials denied that the Russians hacked local and state voting systems as well.

As for your reference to the meetings which you called “incognito,” after publication of the story, Erik Prince said he was shown evidence by sources from the intelligence community that his name was unmasked and given to the paper. This was the Seychelles meeting. So what are you referring to exactly with the Russian and Arab autocrats meeting GOP secretly?

There are far more consequential threats to democracy than cyber-interference such as the billionaire interference, loss of voting rights protection, mass incarceration, immigrant scare-mongering, gerrymandering, electoral college, US Senate. This may as well be a campaign by bureaucrats who violated the privacy of American citizens, who are simply butturt over election results they disagreed with. Those who perpetuate this political narrative are their assets.

Second, reports on this (I mean about cyber intrusions, not Congressional reports specifically) have been coming out since 2016, accumulating and painting a more profound and disturbing picture of the scope of Russian activities all the time. For example, in mid-2017 various CIA and NSA documents were leaked that provided details on one branch of the attempts to penetrate voting systems in the states, and the responsibility of the GRU in it. (Putin's response was to suggest that independent Russian "patriots" may have conducted cyber operations against the US after all.)
Hand-picked analysts, the claims of the latter (NSA) made with only 'moderate confidence.' This is creating a misleading impression of unanimity, since only three of the sixteen intelligence agencies contributed to the report.

‘Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.’

Trump and his team were even briefed on the state of investigations before he was inaugurated. This briefing included text, audio, primary source testimony, and corroborating work done by multiple Western governments.
The sort of backchannel diplomacy that routinely happens between one administration and the next. Not a sign of collusion.

Fourth, someone is already known to be targeting the 2018 election: Microsoft recently announced spearphishing attempts against several Democratic candidates from domains that had previously been associated with the 2016 operation.
And the NSA probably knows who, yet hasn't presented the evidence yet. The NSA's ability to trace hacking to its source is a matter of public record.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...But giving Trump his metaphorical day in court is indispensable for the health and sanity of the country. For the sake of the truth. It's non-negotiable, and were the future DOJ, or any succeeding administration or Congress to discard the process in the name of "healing the country", they would do so at the risk of disgracing themselves....

I vividly recall Nixon being ousted in August of 1974 and the drumbeat for his arrest and trial that was bouncing around. Ford's pardon of Nixon was done for the "health and sanity of the country" and it was the correct choice in my opinion. Ford paid the price for his decision, since it did cost him votes in close states that might have turned the electoral college around in 1976. I've always respected him for that choice -- he was not a fool and knew that it would be an albatross in an already tough election context for the Republicans.


The long, drawn-out trial of a recent ex-president is almost superfluous as a punishment for the individual (the public repudiation of their reputation from a resignation is a significant punishment of its own). It smacks of vindictiveness. If anything, such a trial would only serve to shame and belittle people who voted in good faith to support that president. I would assert that that is not a sound move for the mental or political health of a country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have so far labeled those who disagree with you as fascists and anti-American for not having the same faith in faulty intelligence as you do....

Monty can get a bit hyperbolic at times -- something we all succumb to here in the Backroom now and again. But he does better than some at supporting his arguments and explaining his points.

As to the intelligence, the degree to which it can be considered faulty is not knowable at the present time, at least based on the partial information available in the media. Most intelligence analyses are less than 100% correct as they are ALL estimations of intent etc. based on the data available.

Finally, some of the Trump supporters really are "fascists" as we commonly use the term today, and while Trump has decried them publicly, he has often been a bit slow and a bit less vehement in denouncing those white power idiots than he has been in denouncing his political opponents.


NOTE: Fascism is correctly labeled as an authoritarian political structure that emphasizes nationalism and in which the government guides and influences economic decisions while ownership and capital is retained on a private basis. Today, we use it as a pejorative for authoritarian attitudes, particularly those of a racist or hyper-nationalist stripe. USA Aryan Nation and White Power groups really are not fascists in the classic sense, just racist idiots scared to be evaluated on the content of their character because they know deep down they would then have to admit they don't rank as worth much of anything.

[spmetla]

The Senate summary is comprised of evidence from authoritative institutions and their overlords, the scriptural foundation a largely fact-free assessment yet the media insists on passing it off as unassailable fact. We agree that there is disinformation alright, just not on the same side.
Authoritative institutions and their overlords? You mean the FBI and US intelligence agencies I assume? What do you consider a legitimate source then, is it only legitimate if it backs up your predetermined narrative?


There are far more consequential threats to democracy than cyber-interference
Yes, there are and those need to be looked into but that does not mean that cyber interference should be ignored or downplayed. It has the ability to get into tampering actual vote counts for electronic voting, the swaying of opinions by targeted propaganda is dangerous enough in a culture were people don't check the 'facts' they get from facebook or twitter.


The sort of backchannel diplomacy that routinely happens between one administration and the next. Not a sign of collusion.
For a normal administration it would't be. This administration however has all sorts of alleged ties to illicit Russia money, sanctioned individuals, and the President himself has an obvious and undeniable man-crush on Putin (or he's beholden to him). He's only conducted actions such as sanctions against Russia when presented with veto-proof votes by Congress on the bill and even then he protests and says it has “clearly unconstitutional provisions” giving doubt in his intent to carry out the letter of the law.
Seeing as the line has changed from "there is no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime" it seems they are coming to terms with what seems to actually be collusion which will probably end up being potential charges of criminal conspiracy between Russia and US individuals (how high up no one knows for sure yet).

[Pannonian]

Authoritative institutions and their overlords? You mean the FBI and US intelligence agencies I assume? What do you consider a legitimate source then, is it only legitimate if it backs up your predetermined narrative?


Yes, there are and those need to be looked into but that does not mean that cyber interference should be ignored or downplayed. It has the ability to get into tampering actual vote counts for electronic voting, the swaying of opinions by targeted propaganda is dangerous enough in a culture were people don't check the 'facts' they get from facebook or twitter.


Check out the online Brexit Leave campaign. One of the most dangerous aspects of targeted propaganda, backed by data miners like Cambridge Analytica, is that the general public isn't aware what lies are being said. A swing vote is targeted without effective checks, paid for by hostile foreign powers, and you have Russia taking control of your government at negligible cost. I'd imagine it would be worse in the future when China take up the game too.

[Montmorency]

You have so far labeled those who disagree with you as fascists and anti-American for not having the same faith in faulty intelligence as you do. It’s exactly the sort of elitism the article I linked before highlights in American discourse. The Senate summary is comprised of evidence from authoritative institutions and their overlords, the scriptural foundation a largely fact-free assessment yet the media insists on passing it off as unassailable fact. We agree that there is disinformation alright, just not on the same side.

I did not call you a fascist, though pointing out many who promulgate the disinformation (e.g. Assange) are fascists in that they explicitly identify with the Russian political system and see themselves as righteous enemies of the United States as promoter of liberal ideals. I do believe anti-Americanism is the culprit in our case here based on what you've written on the board about American foreign policy and other topics over the years, to the point where objective evaluation of evidence is hindered by motivated reasoning. So what can I take your position as, if not 'The American government always lies, especially as I choose to disregard things inconvenient to me'?

And we come to the conspiracy of thousands across different US states, across countries, branches of government, conspiracy to falsify the case against Trump and paint him in a bad light - all to contradict a conspiracy of individuals, Trump and Putin, individuals whose lives prior to 2016 we have known quite a lot about. Who have lied every step of the way for 2 years, telling dozens of inconsistent stories and gradually walking them back as more and more inculpatory details have come to light. The ones who lie as a political practice on every matter under the sun to an extent unimaginable to most humans. More consonant to believe everyone opposed to them is lying or "butthurt".

Or if this estimation of your mindset is wrong, then what's your argument?


This may as well be a campaign by bureaucrats who violated the privacy of American citizens, who are simply butturt over election results they disagreed with. Those who perpetuate this political narrative are their assets.

*channels Rex Tillerson vicariously* So the conspiracy of thousands it is, then. A shame all these privacy-violating bureaucrats couldn't stop hurting Hillary Clinton if they didn't want Trump to win (also despite being overwhelmingly Republican...). Or, maybe they've lost their minds and are chasing shadows despite their training and experience, and are not so brilliant or sound of judgement as you to conclude otherwise.


Of course anything that provides context is dismissed as ‘whataboutism.’ So here’s some more context for you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e69dae10b53f
The story was entirely wrong and was retracted, unlike the stories regarding Russian interference in the French and German elections even after they were discredited. California and Wisconsin election officials denied that the Russians hacked local and state voting systems as well.

The WaPo story jumped the gun but it was not entirely wrong about the existence of the activity, it was wrong about the scope, purpose and technical aspect of what systems were affected (the business system). A bad job all told but not something that supports complacency about Russia or about cybercrime. As the Post's followup (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-do-not-appear-to-have-targeted-vermont-utility-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/01/02/70c25956-d12c-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.2d70fb5556c4) article explains, the government had embarked on outreach to the various utilities and power companies throughout the country and gave them a broad set of information and benchmarks with which to assess their systems for potential Russian activity that the government could follow up on. The Washington Post got some insider scoop about Vermont's Burlington utility and misinterpreted that one of the government's criteria had been pinged to mean a full-scale attack. Later reports (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-officials-say-russian-government-hackers-have-penetrated-energy-and-nuclear-company-business-networks/2017/07/08/bbfde9a2-638b-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6a030e1f75d0) bear out the Russian interests in American utilities and power generation.

In fact (https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A), with time the government has come to confirm a fairly wide-ranging effort to target power systems throughout the country, at a minimum for espionage. To be fair, North Korea (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/experts-north-korea-targeted-u-s-electric-power-companies-n808996) is reportedly implicated as well here, and Russia surveils utilities throughout the world, not merely America. And to be extra fair, the US has previously gone so far as to conduct a successful attack on industrial controls themselves through Stuxnet. To be extra-extra fair, Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015_Ukraine_power_grid_cyberattack) was recently successful with an attack of similar depth on the Ukrainian power grid.

Perhaps you would also like to bring up the CNN story about Scaramucci's Russian connections published and retracted in 2017? 'Ha!' you would cry, 'journalists were fired over it!' As it so happens, the story turned out to be accurate (https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-russia-scaramucci-dmitriev-meeting-new-details-2018-3). The problem here was of journalistic standards: CNN fired the people involved because they did not follow company procedure in sourcing.

Stories of Russian interference in France (https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/russias-meddling-french-elections-dismissed-gallic-disdain) and Germany (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/10/17/russian-propaganda-germany-effective-think/) were not discredited. Provide strong proof that it could not have been Russia, or that it was someone else; otherwise, that's a lie.

The last quoted sentence is an example of why you make me so frustrated. Why on earth would you type that sentence? Around 20 states so far have reported Russian attempts or successes in penetrating to varying extents their voting framework. Twenty means fewer than 50 FFS. That we know of. To suggest that if 2 states report no evidence of Russian breaches in their own systems, no state was breached, is insultingly dumb.


As for your reference to the meetings which you called “incognito,” after publication of the story, Erik Prince said he was shown evidence by sources from the intelligence community that his name was unmasked and given to the paper. This was the Seychelles meeting. So what are you referring to exactly with the Russian and Arab autocrats meeting GOP secretly?

I think you're mixing together several different people and issues.

So far the evidence of GOP connections to foreign influence with Trump's campaign is much thinner than that for the efforts of campaign agents themselves. However, it is noteworthy because it shows at least some political actors were aware of Russian interference (that is, before email dumps became public) and wanted to use it to their advantage or to assist the Trump campaign. Setting aside the NRA and Erickson (Butina's boyfriend) for now, some of these were:

Nevins (G.O.P. OPERATIVE CONFIRMS ALLEGED RUSSIAN HACKER GAVE HIM 2016 VOTER DATA (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/gop-operative-russian-hacker-gave-him-2016-voter-data))
Smith (GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn (https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851))
Stone (Roger Stone was involved heavily in both the Trump campaign and the party at-large, so I'm going to make the unoriginal prediction that he will be indicted rather soon; there's a huge amount of reporting on his campaign activities, including within Mueller's Russian indictments)

As for the campaign itself, a few names pertaining to the Middle East and its economic interests vis-a-vis the US and Russia:

Prince
Flynn
Kushner
Papadopoulos
McFarlane
McFarland
Nader
Barrack


There are far more consequential threats to democracy than cyber-interference such as the billionaire interference, loss of voting rights protection, mass incarceration, immigrant scare-mongering, gerrymandering, electoral college, US Senate.

All of these really are consequential threats, but I can bring even more to the table: Natural disasters! Climate change! Water scarcity! Mass migration! Pandemics! Cosmic events! How can you be worrying about elections when we're all going to die?

The fact that there are challenges in the world you could enumerate does not obviate the existence or importance of other, additional challenges. They have to be placed against each other and synthesized, not dismissed, to be effectively addressed. Geez, talk about Oppression Olympics.

For that matter, how could one possibly think that the influence of billionaires and elite lobbyists is a threat to free and democratic elections, but oligarchs and autocrats actually concretely capturing a US Presidential campaign IS NOT a problem???? It's a clear bloody manifestation of the underlying sickness!


Hand-picked analysts, the claims of the latter (NSA) made with only 'moderate confidence.' This is creating a misleading impression of unanimity, since only three of the sixteen intelligence agencies contributed to the report.

Most of our "intelligence agencies (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/)" don't participate in international espionage. Their role in the report could not be significant. On confidence, this is what the report said:


We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments.

 We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.

You seem to put trust and significance in the NSA's "moderate" confidence on one item, yet are willing to reject the NSA's high confidence in its supervenient conclusion on which the other relies. This is logically incoherent, a sign of the motivated reasoning I referred to.

This, by the way, was all in January 2017. It is the middle of 2018 now. It's been more than a year and a half. You should have a little more humility.


The sort of backchannel diplomacy that routinely happens between one administration and the next. Not a sign of collusion.

What? I just told you about Trump being briefed on the 2016 election interference, and you change the subject? Anyway, it does not happen routinely in the campaign stage. Nor in the transition stage. The content and context of communications and actions also matter, as we have gone over.


By the way, one more thing I recalled: the public hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-slipped-up-and-revealed-he-was-a-russian-intelligence-officer) was discovered to operate from Moscow, and to be lying about their identity as a native Romanian.


Please stop uncritically repeating Russian and alt-right talking points. I have explained to you before how Russia is a geopolitical sideshow, but situationally its made more serious by Trump and the Russian success in penetrating our system (and the West more generally). If we cannot even begin to resolve the challenges posed by Russia we are certainly not well-placed to deal with anything else. It's OK to prioritize one issue over another in concept, and to lead a vigorous debate over issues and solutions, but just as you wouldn't accept someone becoming a climate denialist because they think global capitalism is the 'real' problem - they can both be problems! - don't think you need to completely reject the existence of facts because you feel like they distract from something else.

I would understand some of the vehemence of your reactions if I presented myself as one of those centrist liberals who believes that Russia is the only problem facing the US, and that if Trump were out of the picture everything could "go back to normal", but you know that I'm not - so why? I'm asking here for some honesty and good faith. If the central position, the one thing that comes before everything else, in your worldview is that America is the root of all evil, and all knowledge must follow from this axiom, it won't be possible.



I vividly recall Nixon being ousted in August of 1974 and the drumbeat for his arrest and trial that was bouncing around. Ford's pardon of Nixon was done for the "health and sanity of the country" and it was the correct choice in my opinion. Ford paid the price for his decision, since it did cost him votes in close states that might have turned the electoral college around in 1976. I've always respected him for that choice -- he was not a fool and knew that it would be an albatross in an already tough election context for the Republicans.


The long, drawn-out trial of a recent ex-president is almost superfluous as a punishment for the individual (the public repudiation of their reputation from a resignation is a significant punishment of its own). It smacks of vindictiveness. If anything, such a trial would only serve to shame and belittle people who voted in good faith to support that president. I would assert that that is not a sound move for the mental or political health of a country.

I've only heard some pretty radical socialists argue that the criminal process should be done away with for its 'vindictiveness'.

I would say that the pardoning of Nixon, and the refusal to hold serious crimes to account in general, is what breeds apathy and disaffection. It's dangerous to blithely promote the legal invincibility of the POTUS, as though the most powerful person in the world needs special allowances and comforts.

I don't give a crap about "punishment". The public needs to know the facts of the matter, and see the actors responsible held liable. This history must not be brushed under the rug for future generations to rediscover, or to fester in the form of a revanchist mythology.

It is important that Trump partisans feel shame(d), because it is a necessary step in the process of de-Trumpifying them, which is a necessary step in bringing them away from a worldview tham demands the exclusion, marginalization, or destruction of their perceived opponents. Otherwise our politics will surely continue to get worse, and blatant, committed demagogues who outright promise the end of our system of government as we know it will be the next development. These won't be socialists.

The severity of offenses matters too. Do you really see NO circumstances in which the sitting OR former POTUS should be subjected to the criminal process for acts during tenure of office?

In all, to the extent that Trump has committed serious offenses, a recommendation to refrain from hashing it out publicly promises to be devastating to our nation. Of course pulling out the barbed arrow is painful. But you can't let it sit and live well that way.


NOTE: Fascism is correctly labeled as an authoritarian political structure that emphasizes nationalism and in which the government guides and influences economic decisions while ownership and capital is retained on a private basis. Today, we use it as a pejorative for authoritarian attitudes, particularly those of a racist or hyper-nationalist stripe. USA Aryan Nation and White Power groups really are not fascists in the classic sense, just racist idiots scared to be evaluated on the content of their character because they know deep down they would then have to admit they don't rank as worth much of anything.

Trump's approach to government, and his affinity to his base, is essentially fascist. Trumpism is fascistic. Don't make the mistake of running Zeno's treadmill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#/media/File:Zeno_Achilles_Paradox.png) when assessing the presence of fascism in contemporary times.

[Montmorency]

Another one I remembered:

IT firm Secureworks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecureWorks) claimed last year to have uncovered a Russian list (https://www.apnews.com/3bca5267d4544508bb523fa0db462cb2) of intended targets of cyber-operations, and attributed its source to the Russian state.

Content

The hackers who disrupted the U.S. presidential election last year had ambitions that stretched across the globe, targeting the emails of Ukrainian officers, Russian opposition figures, U.S. defense contractors and thousands of others of interest to the Kremlin, according to a previously unpublished digital hit list obtained by The Associated Press.

The list provides the most detailed forensic evidence yet of the close alignment between the hackers and the Russian government, exposing an operation that went back years and tried to break into the inboxes of 4,700 Gmail users — from the pope’s representative in Kiev to the punk band Pussy Riot in Moscow. The targets were spread among 116 countries.

“It’s a wish list of who you’d want to target to further Russian interests,” said Keir Giles, director of the Conflict Studies Research Center in Cambridge, England, and one of five outside experts who reviewed the AP’s findings. He said the data was “a master list of individuals whom Russia would like to spy on, embarrass, discredit or silence.”

The AP findings draw on a database of 19,000 malicious links collected by cybersecurity firm Secureworks, dozens of rogue emails, and interviews with more than 100 hacking targets.

Secureworks stumbled upon the data after a hacking group known as Fancy Bear accidentally exposed part of its phishing operation to the internet. The list revealed a direct line between the hackers and the leaks that rocked the presidential contest in its final stages, most notably the private emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The issue of who hacked the Democrats is back in the national spotlight following the revelation Monday that a Donald Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, was briefed early last year that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, including “thousands of emails.”


Secureworks’ list covers the period between March 2015 and May 2016. Most of the identified targets were in the United States, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Syria.

In the United States, which was Russia’s Cold War rival, Fancy Bear tried to pry open at least 573 inboxes belonging to those in the top echelons of the country’s diplomatic and security services: then-Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-NATO Supreme Commander, U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, and one of his predecessors, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark.

The list skewed toward workers for defense contractors such as Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin or senior intelligence figures, prominent Russia watchers and — especially — Democrats. More than 130 party workers, campaign staffers and supporters of the party were targeted, including Podesta and other members of Clinton’s inner circle.

The AP also found a handful of Republican targets.

Podesta, Powell, Breedlove and more than a dozen Democratic targets besides Podesta would soon find their private correspondence dumped to the web. The AP has determined that all had been targeted by Fancy Bear, most of them three to seven months before the leaks.

“They got two years of email,” Powell recently told AP. He said that while he couldn’t know for sure who was responsible, “I always suspected some Russian connection.”

In Ukraine, which is fighting a grinding war against Russia-backed separatists, Fancy Bear attempted to break into at least 545 accounts, including those of President Petro Poroshenko and his son Alexei, half a dozen current and former ministers such as Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and as many as two dozen current and former lawmakers.

The list includes Serhiy Leshchenko, an opposition parliamentarian who helped uncover the off-the-books payments allegedly made to Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — whose indictment was unsealed Monday in Washington.

In Russia, Fancy Bear focused on government opponents and dozens of journalists. Among the targets were oil tycoon-turned-Kremlin foe Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who spent a decade in prison and now lives in exile, and Pussy Riot’s Maria Alekhina. Along with them were 100 more civil society figures, including anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny and his lieutenants.

Evidence

Allegations that Fancy Bear works for Russia aren’t new. But raw data has been hard to come by.

Researchers have been documenting the group’s activities for more than a decade and many have accused it of being an extension of Russia’s intelligence services. The “Fancy Bear” nickname is a none-too-subtle reference to Russia’s national symbol.

In the wake of the 2016 election, U.S. intelligence agencies publicly endorsed the consensus view, saying what American spooks had long alleged privately: Fancy Bear is a creature of the Kremlin.

But the U.S. intelligence community provided little proof, and even media-friendly cybersecurity companies typically publish only summaries of their data.

That makes the Secureworks’ database a key piece of public evidence — all the more remarkable because it’s the result of a careless mistake.

Secureworks effectively stumbled across it when a researcher began working backward from a server tied to one of Fancy Bear’s signature pieces of malicious software.

He found a hyperactive Bitly account that Fancy Bear (which Secureworks calls “Iron Twilight”) was using to sneak thousands of malicious links past Google’s spam filter. Because Fancy Bear forgot to set the account to private, Secureworks spent the next few months hovering over the group’s shoulder, quietly copying down the details of the thousands of emails it was targeting.

The AP obtained the data recently, boiling it down to 4,700 individual email addresses, and then connecting roughly half to account holders. The AP validated the list by running it against a sample of phishing emails obtained from people targeted and comparing it to similar rosters gathered independently by other cybersecurity companies, such as Tokyo-based Trend Micro and the Slovakian firm ESET .

The Secureworks data allowed reporters to determine that more than 95 percent of the malicious links were generated during Moscow office hours — between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday to Friday.

The AP’s findings also track with a report that first brought Fancy Bear to the attention of American voters. In 2016, a cybersecurity company known as CrowdStrike said the Democratic National Committee had been compromised by Russian hackers, including Fancy Bear.

Secureworks’ roster shows Fancy Bear making aggressive attempts to hack into DNC technical staffers’ emails in early April 2016 — exactly when CrowdStrike says the hackers broke in.


Even if only a small fraction of the 4,700 Gmail accounts targeted by Fancy Bear were hacked successfully, the data drawn from them could run into terabytes — easily rivaling the biggest known leaks in journalistic history.

For the hackers to have made sense of that mountain of messages — in English, Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian, Arabic and many other languages — they would have needed a substantial team of analysts and translators. Merely identifying and sorting the targets took six AP reporters eight weeks of work.

The AP’s effort offers “a little feel for how much labor went into this,” said Thomas Rid, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

In response to the AP’s investigation, the DNC issued a statement saying the evidence that Russia had interfered in the election was “irrefutable.”

Rid said the investigation should put to rest any theories like the one then-candidate Donald Trump floated last year that the hacks could be the work of “someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

“The notion that it’s just a lone hacker somewhere is utterly absurd,” Rid said.

But, you know, 99-1 odds they were tricked/paid off by US intelligence. As were all the other firms and analysts and reporters who verified the findings (for thousands of man hours) and confirmed them. Just like how it wasn't Russia who tried to hack Ukraine's elections (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2014/0617/Ukraine-election-narrowly-avoided-wanton-destruction-from-hackers) in 2014, but the CIA all along.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've only heard some pretty radical socialists argue that the criminal process should be done away with for its 'vindictiveness'.

Criminal Process in the United States has always included the use of a Presidential Pardon when that was deemed appropriate. Nor is the type of media-frenzied witch-hunt that a Nixon trial would have generated all that close to what we revere as due criminal process. Your choice to misconstrue my answer as calling for us to do away with criminal process is incorrect and your tone a little insulting.


I would say that the pardoning of Nixon, and the refusal to hold serious crimes to account in general, is what breeds apathy and disaffection. It's dangerous to blithely promote the legal invincibility of the POTUS, as though the most powerful person in the world needs special allowances and comforts.

I heard that argument at the time. There were assertions that only by spelling things out in a lengthy trial, meticulously cataloguing every abuse of power by Nixon and every effort to cover up, obfuscate, or obstruct justice had to be trumpeted to cleanse our system. I understand that concept, but I do not think it would have the "cleansing" effect you suppose. The Impeachment process is there to counter "legal invincibility" in the President. While it has, at times, been mis-used, it did force the resignation of a President who had clearly abused his power in office.


I don't give a crap about "punishment". The public needs to know the facts of the matter, and see the actors responsible held liable. This history must not be brushed under the rug for future generations to rediscover, or to fester in the form of a revanchist mythology.

Watergate and the fall of the Nixon Presidency is one of the most thoroughly covered events in modern history. We know practically day by day who did and said what and to whom. There is more hard information available to the public on this than is available on the Kennedy assassination.

And all it takes to form a revanchist mythology is the desire to do so. Those who believe in the "Stab in the back," or the coverup of aliens at Rosswell, or the moral triumph of the "blood-stained banner" don't let anything like real facts obscure their mythological belief anyway. 2/3 of the students in my classes can name everyone to have been a season judge on The Voice while barely half could name the sitting VPOTUS and fewer than 1 in 5 could name both of Florida's senators. Mostly "the public" just doesn't give a rats ass once the person has been fired unless there are some good T&A pictures to go with it.


It is important that Trump partisans feel shame(d), because it is a necessary step in the process of de-Trumpifying them, which is a necessary step in bringing them away from a worldview tham demands the exclusion, marginalization, or destruction of their perceived opponents. Otherwise our politics will surely continue to get worse, and blatant, committed demagogues who outright promise the end of our system of government as we know it will be the next development. These won't be socialists.

Those inclined toward shame for having supported him now that they see him in action already feel ashamed. Those who don't already will not likely feel that shame as a result of the kind of resignation and trial you envisage. They might drop him in the event of the old 'dead girl or a live boy' standard, but I doubt anything less tawdry would make a dent.

Though when Trump leaves office, they will slowly de-trumpify themselves in the natural course of things.


The severity of offenses matters too. Do you really see NO circumstances in which the sitting OR former POTUS should be subjected to the criminal process for acts during tenure of office?

Proof of treason, gross malfeasance, crimes of violence would all, I believe, be prosecuted as appropriate once the President was impeached of upon leaving office. The problem with too free a use of the legal system against an executive is it can criminalize acts of governance when the biggest problem with those acts of governance is disagreement therewith. One of the reasons Caesar crossed the Rubicon was the virtual certainty that he would have been tried for treason, stripped of his property, and exiled by the Roman Senate.

In the case of Nixon, I believe that removal from office and the subsequent and continuing tarnish of his reputation was enough of an exemplar.


In all, to the extent that Trump has committed serious offenses, a recommendation to refrain from hashing it out publicly promises to be devastating to our nation. Of course pulling out the barbed arrow is painful. But you can't let it sit and live well that way.

See earlier discussion above on refusing to hold accountable


Trump's approach to government, and his affinity to his base, is essentially fascist. Trumpism is fascistic. Don't make the mistake of running Zeno's treadmill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#/media/File:Zeno_Achilles_Paradox.png) when assessing the presence of fascism in contemporary times.

Fascism may be what Trump would like, and I have noted elsewhere that all of the fascist elements in the USA are his adherents whether or not he claims them. I made that point above BEFORE noting, after skipping lines, that the term fascism was altered from its original form and that we now use it as a synonym for jack-booted authoritarian thuggery. So the mere mention of the outdated meaning of the term is me trying to water down the argument against Trump by playing argumentation games? You are overstating things.

You apparently believe Trump to be a clear and present danger to the republic and that tyranny is at hand. Why don't you go and use your first amendment and second amendment rights, convince enough of your friends to join you, and go end the threat.


I'll settle for seeing him leave office on 1/20/2020 EDIT: 1/20/2021. Might even contribute a few bucks to someone who'll best him in both the popular vote AND the electoral college.

[AE Bravo]

I’ve reached my free WP limit, so I’ll reflect on those as soon as it restarts tomorrow. This has been an eye-opening discussion (for me) so far. Although I think there's some miscommunication.

Or if this estimation of your mindset is wrong, then what's your argument?
That the problem isn’t the fact that Trump is a liar, but that he comes from a system whose tradition is to lie to further its interests. Demonization of Russia (or the kindred China demonization) is a convenient means to weaken Trump and externalize evil rather than fixing what is broken internally. In Empire as a Way of Life, William Appleman Williams talks about how “empire turns a culture away from its own life as a society or community” and the “imperial propensity to externalize evil.” Acting like Russia is the only threat when a bigger one is right above you approaches hysteria yes. Outside powers don’t create divisions and mistrust, they may exploit them.

Or, maybe they've lost their minds and are chasing shadows despite their training and experience, and are not so brilliant or sound of judgement as you to conclude otherwise.
And you know more than the Atlantic Council members who say that Trump has been tough on Russia. But anyway.

In fact, with time the government has come to confirm a fairly wide-ranging effort to target power systems throughout the country, at a minimum for espionage. To be fair, North Korea is reportedly implicated as well here, and Russia surveils utilities throughout the world, not merely America. And to be extra fair, the US has previously gone so far as to conduct a successful attack on industrial controls themselves through Stuxnet. To be extra-extra fair, Russia was recently successful with an attack of similar depth on the Ukrainian power grid.
I don’t see how these are good measuring sticks for hacks on election infrastructure.

The news of these actions have unfortunately been equally abused against Russia by the disinformation you claimed was spreading in favor of them, which I was taking issue with the one-sided way you put it. For example, the basis for the January Intelligence Community Assessment was that the Russians had hacked the guidance systems of the Ukrainian artillery, which was contradicted by both the Ukrainian military and the British International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Stories of Russian interference in France and Germany were not discredited. Provide strong proof that it could not have been Russia, or that it was someone else; otherwise, that's a lie.
I don’t understand how you can call this a lie unless there have been drastic changes lately I haven’t heard of. The stories were thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services.

Though if you can present some hard facts that would be great too.

The last quoted sentence is an example of why you make me so frustrated. Why on earth would you type that sentence? Around 20 states so far have reported Russian attempts or successes in penetrating to varying extents their voting framework. Twenty means fewer than 50 FFS. That we know of. To suggest that if 2 states report no evidence of Russian breaches in their own systems, no state was breached, is insultingly dumb.
Yes but did the other states refute it? That would actually be helpful to my ‘motivated reasoning.’

As for the campaign itself, a few names pertaining to the Middle East and its economic interests vis-a-vis the US and Russia:

Prince
Flynn
Kushner
Papadopoulos
McFarlane
McFarland
Nader
Barrack
How is this unusual? I’m absolutely shocked that the US and Russia are negotiating their designs over the middle east. I’m shocked that they brought them to the table after their growing influence there. Come on…

The fact that there are challenges in the world you could enumerate does not obviate the existence or importance of other, additional challenges. They have to be placed against each other and synthesized, not dismissed, to be effectively addressed. Geez, talk about Oppression Olympics.
Fair enough.

For that matter, how could one possibly think that the influence of billionaires and elite lobbyists is a threat to free and democratic elections, but oligarchs and autocrats actually concretely capturing a US Presidential campaign IS NOT a problem???? It's a clear bloody manifestation of the underlying sickness!
No. It exposed the underlying sickness. The dirt was already there.

[Husar]

I'll settle for seeing him leave office on 1/20/2020. Might even contribute a few bucks to someone who'll best him in both the popular vote AND the electoral college.

Interesting... If you really see him leave on 1/20/2020 there's no need for anyone to run against him in the election that takes place on 11/3/2020. :clown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting... If you really see him leave on 1/20/2020 there's no need for anyone to run against him in the election that takes place on 11/3/2020. :clown:

Grrrrrrrr.

1/20/2021. You get so used to thinking in terms of election years, even when you know it works out the other way in practice. Sorry about that.

[Montmorency]

That the problem isn’t the fact that Trump is a liar, but that he comes from a system whose tradition is to lie to further its interests. Demonization of Russia (or the kindred China demonization) is a convenient means to weaken Trump and externalize evil rather than fixing what is broken internally. In Empire as a Way of Life, William Appleman Williams talks about how “empire turns a culture away from its own life as a society or community” and the “imperial propensity to externalize evil.” Acting like Russia is the only threat when a bigger one is right above you approaches hysteria yes. Outside powers don’t create divisions and mistrust, they may exploit them.

And what I want you to understand is that there is no "evil", just problems, both internal and external, besetting the country (some of which are shared with the wider world). If Trump were removed and enough shields raised against Russian influence, then suddenly the priority of the Russia thing would drop. It would have been alleviated to an extent. It would even be possible to approach Russia with intent towards reaching small interim agreements on the way to improving relations.

The fact that elections cannot be free anywhere while plutocrats wield money as speech as power is not a separate problem, it is the 'root and soil' from which Trump and Russian influence have grown. We need to acknowledge these things simultaneously, or we can hardly work on any improvement.

If you want to criticize imperialist neoliberals for not recognizing the bigger picture of American decline and malfeasance, and the global crises affecting all the poor brown people, go ahead. Knock yourself out. Just don't apologize for Russia or try to deny facts just because your opponents uphold them, it invariably looks partisan and in bad faith.

Why the hell shouldn't I spit in the face of some schmuck who, when catching me beset in the street, on my back, receiving fists to the face and knees to the gut, lectures me so glibly, smugly, confidently: 'Hey, my dude, stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself.'

Because that's what it feels like. That's why it angers me. Why do I stay out of creationism debates? That stuff hacks me off too. Those people spew an endless stream of drivel in the hopes of levitating a set of ideas that have been bankrupt for 150 years. But in the end, you shrug. What can you do? Zealots gonna zealot. Evolution, geology, astronomy - all of these will develop just fine without me. They don't, as abstractions, enter into my daily life.

But when you deny lived reality, a reality shared and felt by millions, with political designs, it becomes a very personal insult. Tell me "what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening" and I expect extraordinary evidence, not antagonistic and discredited lies: abuse.

/vent


And you know more than the Atlantic Council members who say that Trump has been tough on Russia. But anyway.

Be careful not to shuck into the position that disables argument against someone with more credentials than you. My point was that you have no basis for your claims, whereas I do for mine.

The people you cited are people with PhDs who read a lot and circulate in certain intellectual spheres. There are many examples of similar people who reject the assertion that 'Trump toughest on Russia EVAR'. Claims therefore have to be evaluated on independent evidence. Meanwhile, the consensus within intelligence and security spheres across the world is clear. Do you have evidence they may not have considered? Keep in mind that I have endeavoured in these posts to demonstrate that all publicly available evidence - that is, beyond whatever may be held in secret by governments - is supportive of the case against Russia.


I don’t see how these are good measuring sticks for hacks on election infrastructure.

The news of these actions have unfortunately been equally abused against Russia by the disinformation you claimed was spreading in favor of them, which I was taking issue with the one-sided way you put it. For example, the basis for the January Intelligence Community Assessment was that the Russians had hacked the guidance systems of the Ukrainian artillery, which was contradicted by both the Ukrainian military and the British International Institute for Strategic Studies.

What do you mean by "measuring stick"? I was using examples to demonstrate that Russia has the will and the wherewithal to conduct hacks of diverse nature, and has done so in the past. I've never heard of any hacking of Ukrainian artillery. What does this have to do with hacking of the Ukrainian electric grid or elections, or hacks elsewhere?


I don’t understand how you can call this a lie unless there have been drastic changes lately I haven’t heard of. The stories were thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services.

Though if you can present some hard facts that would be great too.

I presented some links. You should present some links. I recall that the French and German intelligence services confirmed interference. You suddenly claim otherwise. Moreover, that would be a clear example of motivated reasoning as well, trusting a source (intelligence agencies) when they accord with your beliefs, dismissing them when they contradict.


Yes but did the other states refute it? That would actually be helpful to my ‘motivated reasoning.’

Refute what? I don't follow.


How is this unusual? I’m absolutely shocked that the US and Russia are negotiating their designs over the middle east. I’m shocked that they brought them to the table after their growing influence there. Come on…

Because the US and Russia were not doing so. Private citizens Trump and co were doing so, and at the expense of the United States for personal gain. Unilaterally exercising economic policy negotiations with foreign powers without authority of government is also technically illegal (besides being generally corrupt) under the Logan Act; however we shouldn't put stock in the legalism because the statute has never been properly exercised (since the 18th century) and is likely unenforceable. The more important takeaway is the corruption.

The only examples I know of in US history are similarly unsavory:

1. Nixon's Chennault Affair, in which he negotiated with the South Vietnamese government to delay peace talks with the North to boost Nixon's election campaign. This has been confirmed after the fact, and the best you can say about it is that it probably didn't affect the course of the war (though Nixon certainly did affect the course of the war in office, killing millions...).

2. I'll preface by noting I'm not fully sure this was a bona fide conspiracy: Reagan's October Surprise and the Iranian refusal to release hostages until after the election.

This were and are not "normal", they are sordid and clearly treacherous if not treasonous.




Criminal Process in the United States has always included the use of a Presidential Pardon when that was deemed appropriate. Nor is the type of media-frenzied witch-hunt that a Nixon trial would have generated all that close to what we revere as due criminal process. Your choice to misconstrue my answer as calling for us to do away with criminal process is incorrect and your tone a little insulting.

You misconstrued my construal, which is that the POTUS is somehow vulnerable to not receiving due process, or vulnerable to judicial excesses. The POTUS is not, not in the United States. This isn't yet a banana republic. :P

I was simply explaining that no one in the world could expect to receive a fairer trial.

What we're arguing is an empirical question that doesn't have clear precedents for us to rely on for evidence, except the adjacent examples of the outcomes of the Civil War and WW2.

I believe the country would have healed through the process of litigating Nixon. It would have healed through the process of litigating Reagan, or the process of litigating Bush II.

My premises are:

1. More Trump supporters will change their views the stronger the 'shock' to their vitals. If even 5% more are affected, it will have been worth it. The fascist government of Germany was more thoroughly discredited and publicly examined in the immediate post-war in Germany than in Italy. Italy did not come to grips with its history in the same way as Germany. We see now that Italy has been further along fascist resurgence than other Western European countries, Funnily enough, neither did the United States, which brushed its mirror-image evils under the rug and, in the words of Showtime below, "externalized" evil. You know, America good, Nazis bad - no Nazis in America, no sirree. Same with the Confederacy and Reconstruction. We're STILL plagued by this genealogy today. We've been through this before. It keeps resurfacing. Preferring a peace that is the absence of tension rather than the presence of justice will leave you with neither. It's kicking the can down the road to avoid the work of picking it up and depositing it in a public trash receptacle. Eventually the public park is one teetering mountain of garbage, and you do your best to ignore it until eventually it collapses and cascades and buries you. ...

2. Trumpism is fascist, and persists beyond Trump in person and in time. He's only the current avatar. His merely fading away would leave fascism as strong as ever in America, and he would anyway more likely take up the role of full-time propagandist against the System ("Swamp") unless incarcerated or incapacitated. There will be even worse, and more committed, fascists than Trump along the line, and they will want to harm with malice aforethought rather than with callous negligence. What you took as an overstatement against your semantics was merely me pointing out that Trump doesn't need to have a concrete ideology to be a fascist, and indeed that fascism is not known for its concrete ideology in practice. It's all a kind of theater - sound familiar?

3. The political class takes different lessons than the commoners do. Direct retribution is a lesson they understand much better than the nebulous loss of reputation for a single character.


The problem with too free a use of the legal system against an executive is it can criminalize acts of governance when the biggest problem with those acts of governance is disagreement therewith.

So not all men are equal before the law? The two-track system for the rich and powerful is another one of the diseases corroding society. Crime cannot be expunged merely through wearing some royal or aristocratic privilege. Only the singular power of clemency can (for federal crimes). No one is proposing we try a sitting or former executive for jaywalking. No office should be so sanctified against secular law.

You whisper poisonous words, 'Why do you care so much? Don't make a fuss. Just let it go. Just let it go.' People will not let it go, neither partisans for nor against Trump will let it go. We all want resolution. I think you are making a big mistake; our country's dolors can't be resolved only at the ballot box, and they will not be resolved by 2021. (And nothing will never be solved through "Second Amendment" solutions. Those who propose Second Amendment solutions are just the tyrants we should beware.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe this is what Monty is saying (in a more precise and technical language than me) but here is my HOT TAKE.

Seamus,

The Office of the President of the United States is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership than it is an administrative job, so said FDR (can't find the source of this quote however).

If for no other reason, presidents must be held accountable in the court of law so that the American people may examine for themselves in excruciating detail the character of the men who represent the soul of America 4 years at a time.
We cannot say that we know a candidate by the time he enters office, just as we cannot say we know our co-workers after their job interviews.

If we insist on a presidential wall that codifies "I will do what I can, and let the fallout judge me once I am gone." Then we insist on an American soul of expediency and might makes right. No Republic will survive long with such a tainted culture.

We may be reluctant to allow the potential abuse of the legal system in order that we may pick out the repugnant along with the politically weak...but I think the exercise of the rule of law regardless of the intent of its players is preferable to the creation of a bubble in which law is non-existent.

[AE Bravo]

Montmorency

I agree that Trump's administration is disastrous, that he abuses his power and that his officials are engaged in wholesale widespread corruption. I am also of the opinion that his predecessors Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton all contributed to the current problems in the country. Going even further back, I feel that the massive expansion of the military, corrupt campaign finance laws (or lack thereof) and aggregation of power to the executive branch have resulted in an unrepresentative government which acts purely for specific interests. This precedes Trump's presidency, but he has contributed to it as well. He is responsible for his part, but not responsible for everything. To me he is more of a symptom than the root problem.

That's all I have to say. That's my hot take however shitty you think it is.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I feel that the massive expansion of the military, corrupt campaign finance laws (or lack thereof) and aggregation of power to the executive branch have resulted in an unrepresentative government which acts purely for specific interests


To me he is more of a symptom than the root problem

While I don't disagree with anything you've stated, I don't feel that the root of the problem sits at the top. Instead, I believe the problem lies with the American people themselves.

I understand that societies must evolve, and each new generation will have different goals and ideas. When I look around at what we've become, I feel nothing but utter disgust and a fear that a day of reckoning is in the not-too-distant future. Society (at least here in the US) has become fat and lazy. Everyone wants what they want, and they want it right now. Push a few buttons on your phone and things magically appear on your doorstep. Push more buttons to talk to friends (rather than speak in person). Hard work? In my profession (building trades), young folks want to get paid for just showing up (if they even do that).

This laziness has led to, IMHO, a very lackadaisical attitude towards our leadership. As long as those leaders don't mess with cell phone plans, keep the price of fuel down, pander to all our selfish interests, and keep interest rates low, anything else they do will be tolerated.

Our infrastructure (which was mostly put into place after WWII) is falling apart, our school and health care systems are failing badly, the number of homeless people continues to grow by leaps and bounds, but people are more concerned about their next Facebook post, or Tweeting out some utter nonsense just to put their name out there, rather than being concerned about the growing number of problems facing society.

At either end of the spectrum, we have a Congress whose dictionary doesn't contain the word 'compromise', and children who don't understand the meaning of the word 'no'.

That a complete moron like Trump got elected President, doesn't surprise me in a society where people don't pay attention to the world around them, but are too busy mashing buttons on their smart-phone.

Until Americans get their heads out of their asses, their eyes off their cell-phones, and start paying attention to what's happening around them, there will continue to be more Trump's and all the other idiots on Capital Hill getting elected.

Sooner or later, these deficits will come due, and the people of the US will wake up to a very different day than they are used to, and they aren't going to like it one bit:embarassed:

It's not American leaders who are the root problem.....it's the American people.


Btw, I haven't posted in a thread concerning politics in a very long time, but I have strong feelings concerning our society here in the US, and just thought to add my 2cents:shrug:

[Montmorency]

Maybe this is what Monty is saying (in a more precise and technical language than me) but here is my HOT TAKE.

Seamus,

The Office of the President of the United States is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership than it is an administrative job, so said FDR (can't find the source of this quote however).

If for no other reason, presidents must be held accountable in the court of law so that the American people may examine for themselves in excruciating detail the character of the men who represent the soul of America 4 years at a time.
We cannot say that we know a candidate by the time he enters office, just as we cannot say we know our co-workers after their job interviews.

If we insist on a presidential wall that codifies "I will do what I can, and let the fallout judge me once I am gone." Then we insist on an American soul of expediency and might makes right. No Republic will survive long with such a tainted culture.

We may be reluctant to allow the potential abuse of the legal system in order that we may pick out the repugnant along with the politically weak...but I think the exercise of the rule of law regardless of the intent of its players is preferable to the creation of a bubble in which law is non-existent.

That's parallel, but I was focusing on the implications at the grassroots. So here's this big, vague (for most), all-consuming story of Trump and his connections to all sorts of shadiness and criminality. It gets so bad that he finishes his first term in disgrace. Maybe he is impeached. Maybe he resigns. Maybe he loses the 2020 election by a significant margin. But then... nothing happens. The mainstream forgets the story, only digging it up when Trump gets back in the news for some shenanigans or rowdy rallies. He was right, Trump rages, that the system was rigged against him, that the deep state had nothing on him, the globalists and coastal elites just wanted to get him out of the way before he could MAGA.

And his supporters would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

And his detractors would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

Shouldn't heinous allegations receive their due process? Isn't this a profound corruption of the system, that the palm greasers can find no palm they are unwilling to grease if it unburdens themselves of accountability and scrutiny?

And they would all of them be right. What kind of country puts itself through a crisis and aggressively blockades its mind against learning from it, for the sake of cossetting establishment pretense?

There are more people in the United States who fervently support or oppose Donald Trump than there are people who are apathetic, fence sitters, or materially unaffected regardless of who occupies the office or the seats of power. Polite society wants to sit back and hope we let it go? Because they feel more comfortable that way? Do they hope most of us will have our spirits crushed and sink back into apathy rather than civic engagement? Navel gazing. There needs to be resolution, or the trauma remains open, an undrained hematoma in the body politic. Don't roll the dice on thrombosis, treat the injury.


Montmorency

I agree that Trump's administration is disastrous, that he abuses his power and that his officials are engaged in wholesale widespread corruption. I am also of the opinion that his predecessors Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton all contributed to the current problems in the country. Going even further back, I feel that the massive expansion of the military, corrupt campaign finance laws (or lack thereof) and aggregation of power to the executive branch have resulted in an unrepresentative government which acts purely for specific interests. This precedes Trump's presidency, but he has contributed to it as well. He is responsible for his part, but not responsible for everything. To me he is more of a symptom than the root problem.

That's all I have to say. That's my hot take however shitty you think it is.

I am agreeable to everything you wrote. I've said as much to you and with others for a while now. This was never the object of controversy.

Let me apologize for any hard feelings lately. Please read the following analogy without any insinuation: A lot of Arabs deny the Holocaust. I'm not saying you do, but that many do. Why do they do it? One commonly cited reason is that they see it wielded in defense of the state of Israel and its policies, like a 'get-out-of-jail-free card'. Basically, these individuals are so angered by the behavior of Israel or of "Zionism" that they defensively reject what they consider to be one of Zionism's most potent propaganda tools. And it's obvious isn't it, that if the Holocaust were a hoax, that would make the defense of Israel much more tenuous and much more perverse? So in a sense it's understandable that anti-Israel Arabs would be internally and socially motivated to deny the Holocaust, to deprive their opponents of that authority and leverage.

The problem is two-fold. Concretely, the existence of the Holocaust is an indisputable historical fact and its denial reflects poorly on the denier. Abstractly, facts should not be twisted or disregarded on the basis of ideology or motivation. It is possible to believe that one thing is true without excusing or encouraging another tangentially associated. You can oppose Israeli policies without denying the Holocaust, and in fact properly contextualizing the Holocaust may even strengthen one's position with respect to Israel. As some Israeli once said, "Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Jews."

The lesson here is not that denying something of the Russia or Trump allegations is as bad as denying the Holocaust - after all the Holocaust is better-documented and witnessed than even the moon landings - but that the impulse comes from a similar place of mistrust and animosity. It's a misguided and unhelpful impulse. If one has faith in their worldview, it should be able to robustly incorporate new information, even if that may superficially or temporarily bolster 'the other side'.


As a palate cleanser, here is some stuff about Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who has worked himself into a close second place for winning the Michigan Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Abdul is a Muslim, a medical doctor, an assistant professor, a successful public health administrator, and a vocal progressive. His experience has enabled him to develop a detailed manifesto for launching universal healthcare in Michigan (https://abdulformichigan.com/sites/default/files/MichCareDoc_6.13_v1.pdf), among other progressive priorities. Of course the central party is against him.

The primary is on August 7. (https://theintercept.com/2018/08/03/abdul-el-sayed-bernie-sanders-michigan/)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPxkdfWI1gE
(There are more views on other platforms)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsaklDcWO9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlrOf0gJdWg

[Montmorency]

Maybe this is what Monty is saying (in a more precise and technical language than me) but here is my HOT TAKE.

Seamus,

The Office of the President of the United States is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership than it is an administrative job, so said FDR (can't find the source of this quote however).

If for no other reason, presidents must be held accountable in the court of law so that the American people may examine for themselves in excruciating detail the character of the men who represent the soul of America 4 years at a time.
We cannot say that we know a candidate by the time he enters office, just as we cannot say we know our co-workers after their job interviews.

If we insist on a presidential wall that codifies "I will do what I can, and let the fallout judge me once I am gone." Then we insist on an American soul of expediency and might makes right. No Republic will survive long with such a tainted culture.

We may be reluctant to allow the potential abuse of the legal system in order that we may pick out the repugnant along with the politically weak...but I think the exercise of the rule of law regardless of the intent of its players is preferable to the creation of a bubble in which law is non-existent.

You go to far, however, in calling my language precise and technical.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You go to far, however, in calling my language precise and technical.

Well, let's put it this way. You have a better vocabulary than I do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And his supporters would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

And his detractors would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

Shouldn't heinous allegations receive their due process? Isn't this a profound corruption of the system, that the palm greasers can find no palm they are unwilling to grease if it unburdens themselves of accountability and scrutiny?


We need to look at the case made by Ford on why he pardoned Nixon.




Ladies and gentlemen:
I have come to a decision which I felt I should tell you and all of my fellow American citizens, as soon as I was certain in my own mind and in my own conscience that it is the right thing to do.
I have learned already in this office that the difficult decisions always come to this desk. I must admit that many of them do not look at all the same as the hypothetical questions that I have answered freely and perhaps too fast on previous occasions.
My customary policy is to try and get all the facts and to consider the opinions of my countrymen and to take counsel with my most valued friends. But these seldom agree, and in the end, the decision is mine. To procrastinate, to agonize, and to wait for a more favorable turn of events that may never come or more compelling external pressures that may as well be wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts and a weak and potentially dangerous course for a President to follow.
I have promised to uphold the Constitution, to do what is right as God gives me to see the right, and to do the very best that I can for America.
I have asked your help and your prayers, not only when I became President but many times since. The Constitution is the supreme law of our land and it governs our actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which govern our consciences, are superior to it.
As we are a nation under God, so I am sworn to uphold our laws with the help of God. And I have sought such guidance and searched my own conscience with special diligence to determine the right thing for me to do with respect to my predecessor in this place, Richard Nixon, and his loyal wife and family.
Theirs is an American tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.
There are no historic or legal precedents to which I can turn in this matter, none that precisely fit the circumstances of a private citizen who has resigned the Presidency of the United States. But it is common knowledge that serious allegations and accusations hang like a sword over our former President's head, threatening his health as he tries to reshape his life, a great part of which was spent in the service of this country and by the mandate of its people.
After years of bitter controversy and divisive national debate, I have been advised, and I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States under governing decisions of the Supreme Court.
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
In the end, the courts might well hold that Richard Nixon had been denied due process, and the verdict of history would even be more inconclusive with respect to those charges arising out of the period of his Presidency, of which I am presently aware.
But it is not the ultimate fate of Richard Nixon that most concerns me, though surely it deeply troubles every decent and every compassionate person. My concern is the immediate future of this great country.
In this, I dare not depend upon my personal sympathy as a longtime friend of the former President, nor my professional judgment as a lawyer, and I do not.
As President, my primary concern must always be the greatest good of all the people of the United States whose servant I am. As a man, my first consideration is to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.
My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right. I do believe that right makes might and that if I am wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference. I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as President but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy.
Finally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to suffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a great and good nation, can do together to make his goal of peace come true.
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
President Gerald R. Ford - September 8, 1974




Would we find resolution in what could be half a decade of legal battles? Could we say at the end that it was in any way a proper exercise in the rule of law?

Ford is essentially telling the American people that by closing off any option to prosecute there is nothing to get agitated over, the war has ended and there is nothing anyone can do. He was right though.

Let me ask you a question Monty. Do you believe that America has in any way gotten closure from the OJ Simpson trial?

[Montmorency]

We need to look at the case made by Ford on why he pardoned Nixon.



Would we find resolution in what could be half a decade of legal battles? Could we say at the end that it was in any way a proper exercise in the rule of law?

Ford is essentially telling the American people that by closing off any option to prosecute there is nothing to get agitated over, the war has ended and there is nothing anyone can do. He was right though.





"[D]omestic tranquility." I doubt many decisions in the name of it have been farsighted as opposed to self-interested by political actors in their own time. (Andrew Johnson, FDR's internment camps, "too big to fail".) Was Richard Nixon a warlord whose further persecution (sic) would unleash his sectarian militias to rampage throughout the country? If we had so alarming a concern, it would be a defining statement of national fragility. If we had not, then we should ask what's really going on.

There is a direct genealogy from Nixon (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/10/30/nixons-fateful-reversal/91e1ce61-e7e4-4c66-a76a-af2c55f1327e/?utm_term=.6a98114cef79) ordering his White House tapes destroyed and promising pardons - "total pardon" - to all his close aides and officials - and the Trump virulence. There is a direct genealogy not just between sick tactics but whole sick administrations. The possibility of having mitigated this with decisive judiciousness and lucid reforms is nothing to sneer at.

Leaders need to know by heart that there will be consequences to approaching governance as though malfeasance justifies "keeping [them] in this fucking office" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/26/counting-on-a-pardon-donald-trumps-allies-shouldnt-hold-their-breath/?utm_term=.41d3c0db4e65).

They need to know scapegoating and self-preservation will go badly for them.


With time running out, Haldeman requested pardons for everyone involved. Nixon’s lawyers were opposed. “If the president grants this pardon, he will be insuring his own trial,” one lawyer said. “He will be forcing it. The public has to have a head, and if the president takes the heads away, the public will have his.”

Ford and Nixon were good friends? Ford preferred the clean stroke of instant pardon to a national inquest dogging his presidency? Ford's patrician blandishments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/12/28/closing-the-chapter-on-watergate-wasnt-done-lightly/a10a19c2-5a80-4806-9048-216a90dc0dd7/?utm_term=.3bba9038f405[/url]) quickly lose their patina of nobility and statesmanship.


The new president had misjudged the mood of the country. Rather than sympathy, the public and the media voiced outrage at the pardon. It seemed to be totally on Nixon's terms -- early, complete and without acknowledgment that he had committed crimes or even impeachable offenses. Suspicions about a deal surfaced almost immediately. Ford agreed to testify about his decision before a House subcommittee. His staff went to work preparing his statement.

Twenty-three years later, on Sept. 22, 1997, in a suite at the Waldorf Towers in New York, I asked Ford whether he thought Haig had offered him a deal.

"Well, I guess I was naive," Ford said. "I was naive that anybody would offer a deal, because all my political life people never came to me, 'I'm going to give you a political donation, I expect something in return.' People never came to me that way, because they knew damn well I wouldn't be a part of it. So when Al Haig comes with those six terms, I just didn't visualize him as one making a proposition to make a deal. It never went through my mind."

I continued to press Ford. Did he agree, when all the facts and conclusions were examined now, decades later, that Haig had offered a deal?

"I would agree," Ford said, "because after talking to Hartmann, Marsh and Harlow, I wanted the record clear that I did not agree to consummate. . . . So that it has to be very clear that, yes, on paper, without action it was a deal, but it never became a deal because I never accepted."

I do acknowledge it is a delicate issue. The inquisition into Richard Nixon could not be allowed to exist as a singular event, it would have to apply just as well to all actors from that point on. It would be a radical application of law that probably has not existed anywhere, and as many leftists argue cannot exist - because Law is not impartial in the end. It would have been a rocky transition to the new legal order, in which favor and priority by virtue of connections, wealth, power, or position would be minimized. It is fair to say as well that applying the strict scrutiny ephemerally and then returning to the status ante quo would be more damaging in the short term, for having tantalized the People the way.

It is worth imagining. What would it look like carried over today? It would mean levying fines or probation or something like that against Hillary Clinton for ignoring proper procedures. Beyond Clinton, it would mean doing the same to the innumerables in DC who are guilty of the same, a collective smack on the bottom. This approach is inherently more trustworthy and less partisan. Of course it hinders the discretion of politicians and prosecutors. If that turned out to be an improvement, would we be surprised? To see candidates for national offices burdened with minor convictions would be appropriately humbling.

There was about a quarter of the population that never accepted the necessity or legitimacy of Nixon's impeachment/resignation. We can expect something like that with Trump in amplitude but more intense, besides the presently-unknown numbers on both sides who are increasingly prepared to disregard final election results in the future. My opinion is airing laundry compels one to smell the roses.

But there's no such thing as "what if", so I only speculate from negative outcomes and not positive ones. At least, the only positive ones I know of have been the various third-world "truth and reconciliation" initiatives, the impact of which I don't really know.



Let me ask you a question Monty. Do you believe that America has in any way gotten closure from the OJ Simpson trial?

Unfortunately, I never bothered to learn much about the OJ trial. I filed it away as a "celebrity thing". I know that it was a significant event to a lot of people, but I don't know specifics. Even if I didn't know the first about it, I would be able to infer it was in large part a racial issue. What I know actually lends itself toward my stance. I read a piece on The Root within the last year that referred in passing to the OJ trial, couching it as something celebratory for black people not because many of them believed OJ was innocent, but because it gladdened them to see one of their own cheating the Law for once. Where is your rule of law now, conservatives? Reap what you sow. Reap what you sow. :shrug:


A conscience-based politics cares less for political expediency than for moral truth. - Marianne Williamson

[spmetla]

The guilty charges against Manafort and guilty plea by Cohen in which he implicated Trump should definitely create some new tensions in Washington.

The worst hour of Donald Trump's presidency just happened
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-donald-trump/index.html

Manafort guilty verdicts will put new pressure on him to cooperate with Mueller’s Russia probe
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/21/manafort-guilty-verdicts-will-put-new-pressure-on-him-to-cooperate-with-mueller-s-russia-probe.html

Turley on Cohen Plea Deal: Trump Could Be 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator' on Campaign Finance Violation
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/21/jonathan-turley-michael-cohen-case-trump-might-be-unindicted-co-conspirator-campaign

I'm really curious into what the next few days will bring, Trump was already in lash out mode from the Omaraposa book, the continuing security clearance revokal backlash. He doesn't seem to take bad news well and together with Guliani are certainly moving the goalposts for his 'innocence' on a daily basis. Will he do pardons? Fire more people?
The snowball effect of everything happening will run right into the election cycle and no doubt have a massive effect on state and local politics.

[rory_20_uk]

Frankly, I don't think anything will happen:

He'll fight any attempt at an interview every step of the way - probably for years.
Congress will do nothing that might hurt themselves. So even if there could be a successful impeachment, many will fear the backlash of the voters - who already follow the "deep state" narrative so the more evidence there is the more they believe it.
Democrats have a small window to have a candidate that stands for something before 2020 else the D man will be back and after another 4 years he'll be too old to bother standing trial.

Whether other members of the Clan start to feel the heat and then if we enter the murky world of "I'll pardon my lot, resign and get my own pardon on the way out" might be a possibility.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Frankly, I don't think anything will happen:

He'll fight any attempt at an interview every step of the way - probably for years.
Congress will do nothing that might hurt themselves. So even if there could be a successful impeachment, many will fear the backlash of the voters - who already follow the "deep state" narrative so the more evidence there is the more they believe it.
Democrats have a small window to have a candidate that stands for something before 2020 else the D man will be back and after another 4 years he'll be too old to bother standing trial.

Whether other members of the Clan start to feel the heat and then if we enter the murky world of "I'll pardon my lot, resign and get my own pardon on the way out" might be a possibility.

~:smoking:

The problem with resignation - the external, non-emotional or psychological problem - is that Trump will be vulnerable to prompt indictment upon resignation.

Why has he spent all of 2018 running a political communications campaign to undermine the courts and law enforcement in the public eye? Because he has no formal alternative short of despotism.

His top priority is to last until 2020 and win reelection, or to have a loyalist Republican win the 2020 election.

Where have we seen this before? Wolf. Ears.

[rory_20_uk]

The problem with resignation - the external, non-emotional or psychological problem - is that Trump will be vulnerable to prompt indictment upon resignation.

Why has he spent all of 2018 running a political communications campaign to undermine the courts and law enforcement in the public eye? Because he has no formal alternative short of despotism.

His top priority is to last until 2020 and win reelection, or to have a loyalist Republican win the 2020 election.

Where have we seen this before? Wolf. Ears.

Hence he'd only do it if he had either pardoned himself or got Pence to do it for him. Can he do that? Who knows? No one thought it would ever be done.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

[rory_20_uk]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

He's nothing if not self centred. Doing this might even force Congress to do something - and they're pretty much the only ones who could. It is in essence an admission they have something to share.

So better to continue to call everyone else a liar and give Congress the room to obfuscate.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

Legally possible, but given current public information that would REALLY look like using the pardon to obstruct justice (because, however 'legal,' that's what it would be). That COULD get him impeached. Impeachment does not require that Trump will have committed a crime, only that he have been involved in some "misdemeanor" that clearly represents an abuse of power. Nixon was never indicted for anything.


It will be interesting to see just how direct the 'at the direction" link between Cohen's campaign illegalities and POTUS are. Obviously, there is now a publicly visible reason for further inquiry.

[Montmorency]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

Not really.

1. Accepting a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt, and the pardoned individual may thereupon be subpoenaed to provide testimony under oath, where refusal would subject them to further criminal liability unless they can make a good case that the testimony would put the pardonee at risk of self-incrimination of crimes beyond those pardoned (5th Amendment).

2. It is widely assumed that some possible charges are being held back in these cases in order to shield prosecutors' hands and, in the event of a federal pardon, permit states to prosecute equivalent charges where applicable without fear of running afoul of the double jeopardy proscription.

Umlaut

[Husar]

Legally possible, but given current public information that would REALLY look like using the pardon to obstruct justice (because, however 'legal,' that's what it would be). That COULD get him impeached. Impeachment does not require that Trump will have committed a crime, only that he have been involved in some "misdemeanor" that clearly represents an abuse of power. Nixon was never indicted for anything.

I'm not sure about his voters or the Republican part of congress (since these two groups just manage to turn everything around for themselves by putting "deep state", "socialism" or whatever into a sentence), but I guess if congress turns democrat during the midterms, you have a very good point.

Also appreciate the other answers, and yes, the Umlaut is there on purpose. :bow: ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not really.

1. Accepting a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt, and the pardoned individual may thereupon be subpoenaed to provide testimony under oath, where refusal would subject them to further criminal liability unless they can make a good case that the testimony would put the pardonee at risk of self-incrimination of crimes beyond those pardoned (5th Amendment).

2. It is widely assumed that some possible charges are being held back in these cases in order to shield prosecutors' hands and, in the event of a federal pardon, permit states to prosecute equivalent charges where applicable without fear of running afoul of the double jeopardy proscription.

Umlaut

These are good points. Depending on the wording/scope of the pardon, the pardonee WOULD still be subject to criminal prosecution for other crimes and/or perjury that occurred after the dates covered in the pardon. Few pardons are written in "carte blanche" wording and such a carte blanche wording would intensify the political backlash even more.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not sure about his voters or the Republican part of congress (since these two groups just manage to turn everything around for themselves by putting "deep state", "socialism" or whatever into a sentence), but I guess if congress turns democrat during the midterms, you have a very good point.

Also appreciate the other answers, and yes, the Umlaut is there on purpose. :bow: ~D

The current mix in the HoR and Senate are not all Trump fans by any means. To date, Trump has held a significant wedge of the GOP electorate. If that erodes, or if the public opinion in the rest of society ramps up strongly against Trump, then those who are less than happy with his leadership of the party get a lot of political cover to act against him.

So far, Trump's core group has proven impervious to criticism of Trump. That may change now that there is actual evidence that cannot reasonably be spun as partisan attack.

[Husar]

So far, Trump's core group has proven impervious to criticism of Trump. That may change now that there is actual evidence that cannot reasonably be spun as partisan attack.

Well, that's assuming all the spin so far was actually reasonable... :creep:

[spmetla]

The current mix in the HoR and Senate are not all Trump fans by any means. To date, Trump has held a significant wedge of the GOP electorate. If that erodes, or if the public opinion in the rest of society ramps up strongly against Trump, then those who are less than happy with his leadership of the party get a lot of political cover to act against him.

So far, Trump's core group has proven impervious to criticism of Trump. That may change now that there is actual evidence that cannot reasonably be spun as partisan attack.

What worries me is that his significant wedge will not budge in their opinion. I'm sure you've also talked to die hard Trump supporters that don't care what the president does legally or illegally so long as he pushes MAGA, harsh immigration rules, and appears to support US manufacturing. All that don't support Trump are RINOs or 'Never Trumpers' and therefore party of the "deep state" they oppose. The tribalism of US politics at the moment certainly has made this wing of the Republicans see anyone that doesn't support their man as the lib-tard enemy.

Sadly it will take the mid-term elections to change things and as its been pointed out it is unlikely that the Democrats will take over and begin to check the President's excesses or start impeachment proceedings.


1. Accepting a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt, and the pardoned individual may thereupon be subpoenaed to provide testimony under oath, where refusal would subject them to further criminal liability unless they can make a good case that the testimony would put the pardonee at risk of self-incrimination of crimes beyond those pardoned (5th Amendment).
It would be interesting to see that happen. In the case of Manafort I don't see how they would force him to make a testimony, he's weaseled out of admitting anything and in the case of a pardon would probably be re-hired by Trump so they can try and put him and his testimony under the blanket of executive privilege or an NDA (like in the Omarosa getting offered that re-election campaign position).

[Montmorency]

It would be interesting to see that happen. In the case of Manafort I don't see how they would force him to make a testimony, he's weaseled out of admitting anything and in the case of a pardon would probably be re-hired by Trump so they can try and put him and his testimony under the blanket of executive privilege or an NDA (like in the Omarosa getting offered that re-election campaign position).

It would very likely be an obvious contrived abusive privilege claim, and its strength would then depend on the willingness of a judge to call the admin's bluff. Not necessarily difficult, hopefully less so as time goes on.

Reporting I've seen, not bothering to look up an example, said that Trump universally uses terrible legal documentation in his private business (Exhibit A: Stormy Daniels & David Dennison) and his NDAs are all copy-pasted or something. Worst :daisy: attorneys.

You can't use NDAs to shield criminal activity, certainly not to shield past crimes in the furtherance of continuing crimes. Max-tier corruption, and it just wouldn't hold up under a second's scrutiny.

More particularly - and I'm surprised you didn't know this as a public servant government mooch - NDAs (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-nda/trump-ndas-cant-silence-ex-white-house-officials-legal-experts-idUSKBN1GV2UT) are largely unconstitutional and illegal (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/can-trump-use-ndas-stop-white-house-staffers-omarosa-criticizing-ncna900706) in federal government work. Classified information is a separate system, content-based and non person-based. Like many of the EULAs you see floating around: unenforceable.

[Montmorency]

It's unspeakably funny how malignant and incompetent this administration is.

Facing down a formidable enemy feels valorous. Everything related to Trump is squalid.

[drone]

The State of New York is going to take down his family, foundation, and company, his pardon power means nothing with state-level charges. Trump was all happy when Schneidermann went down, but he got Underwood as a prize. :laugh4:

[Montmorency]

One more obvious impediment in pardoning Manafort: pardoning your co-conspirator would be obstruction of justice. On the other hand, obstruction of justice is Trump's primary play. Add it to the other hundred charges.


Here are two pessimistic articles detailing why Trump committing campaign finance violations is not nearly enough to bring him down:

1. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanours that threaten the integrity of our way of life and our system of government. Relatively petty violations, even those classified as felonies like these blackmail payoffs (no word on whether blackmailability in itself is impeachable) do not quite rise to that level. At least, not alone. However, evoked in conjunction with all the other articles of impeachment Trump is accumulating, it could be supplementary.

https://impeachableoffenses.net/2018/08/22/impeachment-for-concealing-the-mistresses-not-now-maybe-later/


Second, therefore an impeachment on grounds of corrupting the electorate would have to be based on behavior so far outside the elastic norms of modern political conduct that it both demonstrated the successful candidate’s contempt for the democratic process and put the fair operation of democracy at risk.

Mistress-payoff election violations are too inconsequential (and too obvious a parallel to the Clinton debacle). To figure at all in a serious impeachment case, those payoffs would have to be part of a larger pattern of illegal or plainly illegitimate conduct designed to give the candidate an unfair advantage or to deceive the electorate. Better yet, they should be part of a pattern of conduct that does not merely give advantage to a candidate, but places him under an obligation to some person or entity or foreign power whose interests are inimical to the United States. In short, all the stuff that Robert Mueller is looking into.


2. Thousands of rich fuckers get away with this type all the time. Trump, Manafort, Cohen, none of them would be at risk if they had just lost the damned election. The Trump administration's operation reminds us of how badly we have tended to handle white-collar crime, especially since 9/11 and the Enron blowback led to deep cuts in Justice Department funding for pursuing financial crimes. Why invest massive resources in constructing difficult documentary cases and making powerful enemies in the meantime, when you could be "tough on crime", "tough on drugs", "tough on terrorism" instead?

Recall that some of Manafort's fraud was first uncovered by a citizen investigator looking through publicly-available docs and filings. The wealthy are that blatant about it.

In an era when Citizens United has licensed unlimited shady plutocratic kabuki, Trump discharging 6-figure payouts seems like an almost quaint violation, like something from the 1920s. (Actually, a lot of things seem like the 1920s these days...)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-indictment-impeachment-michael-cohen-campaign-finance-violations.html


On Tuesday, Michael Cohen told a federal court that he had committed multiple campaign finance violations at Donald Trump’s behest. Such testimony would be more than enough to secure a felony indictment against Trump — if all Americans were actually equal before the law.

In post–Citizens United America, “campaign finance regulations” are something close to a contradiction in terms. When billionaires and corporations can pour unlimited, anonymous money into partisan political messaging and organization (so long as they don’t advertise their coordination with political candidates), it makes little difference whether donors honor the remaining limits on direct contributions. The public has an interest in limiting concentrated capital’s influence on elections; it has little interest in ensuring that concentrated capital follows a set of arbitrary rules whilst exercising nigh-unlimited (at least, in legal terms) influence over elections. Separately, the fact that Cohen’s plea deal substantiates the allegation that Trump committed adultery with multiple porn stars tells the “moral majority” nothing that it did not already know.

The second answer is that the norm against letting powerful Americans escape culpability for crimes — solely because they are powerful — has been dead for several decades now. In fact, at this point, holding Trump accountable for his crimes would actually constitute a violation of our nation’s political norms.

Didn't I tell you about Nixon? :wink:


In the summer of 1968, as biographer John A. Farrell has demonstrated, Republican nominee Richard Nixon and his aides actively sabotaged efforts by Lyndon Johnson’s administration to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War. They got away with it, prolonging a war that wound up killing more than a million people in the process. It’s barely even on the list of Nixonian wrongdoing that people remember. Henry Kissinger was at the time a Johnson adviser leaking information for Nixon to use in his efforts. Today he remains a broadly respected elder statesman, even in Democratic administrations.



It wasn’t even two decades later that the next Republican administration conspired with a foreign government, namely Iran’s. This time, the actions weren’t just horrendously immoral but illegal as well; elongating the Vietnam War was, alas, not a crime, but funding the Contras with Iranian arms deal money was. So was lying to Congress about it. Fourteen members of Reagan’s administration were indicted, and 11 were convicted.



It didn’t matter. Before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned six people involved, all high-ranking policy officials like Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, and CIA covert ops director Clair George…Abrams, whose far worse transgressions in the Reagan years involved his support for El Salvador’s brutal military dictatorship and his efforts to cover up the El Mozote massacre, worked as a senior National Security Council official for the entirety of the George W. Bush administration.


Neither Trump’s hush payments to Stormy Daniels — nor his hypothetical complicity with Russia’s cyber-attack on the DNC — got hundreds of thousands of people killed. Nor did they involve secretly arming right-wing militias whose affinity for butchering civilians had already alienated the U.S. Congress, or abetting the cover-up of historic war crimes in El Salvador. Without question, if the president colluded with Russian intervention in the 2016 election, then he is guilty of undermining the integrity of American democracy for political gain. But so were Nixon and Reagan. And the latter’s assault on both rule of law and democratic integrity in the U.S. weren’t lost on his contemporaries. In 1991 The New Yorker’s Mark Danner wrote the following elegy for the American republic:

Perhaps the most disquieting legacy of Iran-Contra, in which extremely serious political crimes were exposed and then left largely unexorcised, is a kind of pervasive moral lassitude, in which charges that the integrity of the 1980 Presidential election was compromised with the help of the Iranian government evoke an almost bored reaction. It now appears that the charges will be left to linger, unanswered and uninvestigated, because no one with any power sees it to be in his personal political interest to confront them. The dictum that we live in a nation of laws can also be understood ironically-that ours has become a nation only of laws. For laws without the will to enforce them and confront the consequences remain simply words on paper.

Trump’s immediate Republican predecessor reaffirmed Danner’s insight, by overseeing the systematic violation of both domestic and international laws against military torture — while Trump’s immediate Democratic predecessor did so by refusing to bring any of that criminal conspiracy’s masterminds to justice.

This culture of elite impunity has not been confined to the political realm. America’s economic elites avail themselves of its benefits even more routinely. The 2008 financial crisis revealed myriad acts of financial and foreclosure fraud — almost none of which was criminally prosecuted. Barack Obama’s Justice Department explicitly endorsed the principle that some individuals and institutions are simply too economically powerful to be bound by criminal law, when it decided not to prosecute HSBC for laundering hundreds of millions in drug money.

Meanwhile, America’s garden-variety plutocrats escape punishment for white-collar crimes on a daily basis, and pay only a small fraction of the taxes that they owe Uncle Sam. Our government has responded to this well-known phenomenon by spending orders of magnitude more on punishing misdemeanor immigration offenses than policing white-collar felonies, and making international cooperation on combating tax havens one of its lowest diplomatic priorities (far below, say, making life-saving pharmaceuticals more expensive for people in the developed world).

[a completely inoffensive name]

RIP McCain

[a completely inoffensive name]

And so with him, perhaps more than figuratively, dies American Conservatism as we knew it in the Twentieth Century. A major loss for this country and a painful reminder of the ideological contrasts in vogue in the Twenty First.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And so with him, perhaps more than figuratively, dies American Conservatism as we knew it in the Twentieth Century. A major loss for this country and a painful reminder of the ideological contrasts in vogue in the Twenty First.

Perhaps so, though I hope you are wrong.

Far too much of conservatism in the USA is too rabid these days. Sen. McCain was to my lights a darn good conservative. I did, on occasion, disagree with him but I cannot recall ever viewing him with disrespect. Glad I got to shake his hand once, back when he was a new senator.

[Montmorency]

Overheard from a Trump fan:

'Small business owners are going to hate Trump because he just forced Mexico to pay its workers a minimum wage of $16, which will attract all the Latin American immigrant labor to Mexico and drive wage inflation in the United States. Trump is for the common people!'


Of course, none of that is remotely true.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Florida Dems just nominated a Sanders-policy-type chap (not on all issues, but on most) to be their gubernatorial candidate.

[Strike For The South]

And so with him, perhaps more than figuratively, dies American Conservatism as we knew it in the Twentieth Century. A major loss for this country and a painful reminder of the ideological contrasts in vogue in the Twenty First.

I mean I would be happy with getting rid of forever war and replacing it with health care.

In the state of Arizona your medical debt goes through your estate and then gets passed to your next of kin. Brain cancer is expensive.

I won't speak ill of the man but it is absolutely unconscionable that this is the best thing we can come up with.

[Strike For The South]

The grandstanding around McCains death has lead me to some reflecting.

How much does a persons political intersect with their personal? McCain was a cornerstone in post cold war American foreign policy. This foreign policy has wrought some serious and lasting horrors in the globe. As much as blame can be assigned, how much of it goes to him? The people that voted for him? The citizenry at large? The solider who enacted the violence? The person who opposed but did nothing to stop it?

I am not surprised by the hagiography, it happens to everyone save the most heinous among us. Sainthood happens shortly after death. I am not sure it means anything beyond a courtesy. Don't give your opponents something to harp on, no need to create your own problem. Perhaps the most self centered may see an opportunity. Others may simply pay their respects as politeness, not able to conjure feeling on way or another.

The attacks on him really don't move my meter any either. There are plenty of people and reasons to not like him. It would be a pointless masturbation for these people to hide the feelings they had simply because he is no longer drawing breath. Speak your truth and all that. Of course these people have their own blood soaked hereos and ideas, it is just a different blood. Tribalism, politics and all that.

Maybe it is the inexorable condition of man that in a world fueled by power, justice can be enacted but never fully realized? Or perhaps a limited vision justice can be realized but only at the expense of other limited justices?

What really separates John McCain from anyone else? What makes him worthy of praise? Perhaps more frightening, with the institutions we have in place, did John McCain matter all that much? Or was he simply just another cog? Perhaps the most frightening, with the violence needed to tear down these institutions, will we ever break free of them?

[Husar]

Did he not stop the GOP from dismantling the ACA when the vote hinged on him or something like that?
I guess he did both good and bad and sometimes people also change a little or a little bit more over time.
Sometimes even to the better. Maybe the later McCain was a better and wiser man than the early one?
I don't really know, I'm just thinking out loud.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I mean I would be happy with getting rid of forever war and replacing it with health care.

In the state of Arizona your medical debt goes through your estate and then gets passed to your next of kin. Brain cancer is expensive.

I won't speak ill of the man but it is absolutely unconscionable that this is the best thing we can come up with.

Sometimes you are not respecting the man because of his results, but because of the way he played the game. No matter how you summarize his life, he played with heart and he played with conviction. Do you believe a theoretical 6 term Sen. Ted Cruz would elicit the same reaction?

[Strike For The South]

Sometimes you are not respecting the man because of his results, but because of the way he played the game. No matter how you summarize his life, he played with heart and he played with conviction. Do you believe a theoretical 6 term Sen. Ted Cruz would elicit the same reaction?

I mean it's a game if your house isn't getting thousands of pounds of ordinance on it. I don't really have a hot take on him dying other than the over-the-topness of it all further normalizes an American policy based on brute force.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/mccain-support-war-716416/

[Montmorency]

I mean it's a game if your house isn't getting thousands of pounds of ordinance on it. I don't really have a hot take on him dying other than the over-the-topness of it all further normalizes an American policy based on brute force.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/mccain-support-war-716416/

Hot takes are disrespectful to the departed. Cold takes are acceptable. (Wait for the body to get cold in the grave.)



Anyway, following my habit of posting only the funniest Trump tidbits, here is another book (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html?) published in the vein of 'Trump as mad tyrant despised and derided by his underlings':


Many of the feuds and daily clashes have been well documented, but the picture painted by Trump's confidants, senior staff and Cabinet officials reveal that many of them see an even more alarming situation — worse than previously known or understood. Woodward offers a devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides — both current and former Trump administration officials — grew exasperated with the President and increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.

Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports. Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a fucking liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special counsel Robert Mueller.

"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."

Then resign, John Kelly you deportacious opportunist piece of crap.


After Trump's Charlottesville, Virginia, controversy, in which he failed to condemn white supremacists, Cohn tried to resign but was instead dressed down by Trump and accused of "treason."

Kelly, who is Trump's current chief of staff, told Cohn afterward, according to notes Cohn made of the exchange: "If that was me, I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times."

THEN RESIGN


The book opens with a dramatic scene. Former chief economic adviser Gary Cohn saw a draft letter he considered dangerous to national security on the Oval Office desk.

The letter would have withdrawn the US from a critical trade agreement with South Korea. Trump's aides feared the fallout could jeopardize a top-secret national security program: the ability to detect a North Korean missile launch within just seven seconds.
Woodward reports Cohn was "appalled" that Trump might sign the letter. "I stole it off his desk," Cohn told an associate. "I wouldn't let him see it. He's never going to see that document. Got to protect the country."

Cohn was not alone. Former staff secretary Rob Porter worked with Cohn and used the same tactic on multiple occasions, Woodward writes. In addition to literally stealing or hiding documents from Trump's desk, they sought to stall and delay decisions or distract Trump from orders they thought would endanger national security.

This is what they call "Mickey Mouse bullshit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzUfUzCt9jk)".


"A third of my job was trying to react to some of the really dangerous ideas that he had and try to give him reasons to believe that maybe they weren't such good ideas," said Porter, who as staff secretary handled the flow of presidential papers until he quit amid domestic violence allegations. He and others acted with the acquiescence of former chief of staff Reince Priebus, Woodward reports.

Woodward describes repeated attempts to bypass Trump as "no less than an administrative coup d'état."

The deep state is coming from inside the Oval Office (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkcGm-pWwsQ)!


In one revelatory anecdote, Woodward describes a scene in the White House residence. Trump's lawyer, convinced the President would perjure himself, put Trump through a test — a practice interview for the one he might have with Mueller. Trump failed, according to Dowd, but the President still insisted he should testify.

Woodward writes that Dowd saw the "full nightmare" of a potential Mueller interview, and felt Trump acted like an "aggrieved Shakespearean king."

21087


Then, in an even more remarkable move, Dowd and Trump's current personal attorney Jay Sekulowwent to Mueller's office and re-enacted the mock interview. Their goal: to argue that Trump couldn't possibly testify because he was incapable of telling the truth.
"He just made something up. That's his nature," Dowd said to Mueller.

A man whose nature leaves him literally incapable of telling the truth should be institutionalized, not elevated to high office.


Despite Dowd's efforts, Trump continued to insist he could testify. "I think the President of the United States cannot be seen taking the fifth," Trump said.
Dowd's argument was stark: "There's no way you can get through these. ... Don't testify. It's either that or an orange jump suit."
What he couldn't say to Trump, according to Woodward, was what Dowd believed to be true: "You're a fucking liar."

Look, this is a fount to be sure. Enough quotes for now, there's too much. Here's a recording (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/04/transcript-phone-call-between-president-trump-journalist-bob-woodward/?ICID=ref_fark&noredirect=on&utm_content=link&utm_medium=website&utm_source=fark&utm_term=.9f565c5b926d#annotations:15315818) of Woodward complaining to Trump about being stonewalled in trying to get an interview with him.


"This guy is mentally retarded," Trump said of Sessions. "He's this dumb southerner," Trump told Porter, mocking Sessions by feigning a southern accent.

Ok, I can't even :laugh4:



Woodward's book relies on hundreds of hours of taped interviews and dozens of sources in Trump's inner circle, as well as documents, files, diaries and memos, including a note handwritten by Trump himself.

It's one thing for a sleazy operator like Michael Wolff to schmooze his way into Trump's inner circle, but apparently these schmucks let legendary Nixon-era muckraker Bob Woodward in just as deep! Contemporaneous with or AFTER the Wolff debacle unfolded. Oy. Puts the massive incompetence of the sequel-trilogy First Order into new perspective.


BTW, of course the White House has been attacking the book and its author (Woodward). Yet check out this Donald Trump tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/307582196196188160) from 2013:


Only the Obama WH can get away with attacking Bob Woodward.

4:04 PM - Mar 1, 2013

I lol. I die. I lol again.

[Montmorency]

Anonymous White House "senior official" publishes op-ed describing "heroic" collective sub-rosa effort in the executive branch to neutralize Trump's derangement and malice by misdirecting and subverting his will.

They considered engaging the 25th Amendment provisions at some point(s) but have decided that they don't want a "constitutional crisis" on their hands. :freak:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

I urge everyone to read this piece and see how it leaves you feeling. It isn't long.


President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

Since the release of the op-ed, "The phrase “The sleeper cells have awoken (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-sleeper-cells-have-awoken-trump-and-aides-shaken-by-resistance-op-ed/2018/09/05/ecdf423c-b14b-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?)” circulated on text messages among aides and outside allies.

“It’s like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house,” said one former White House official in close contact with former co-workers."



:daisy: Republican appointed officials are publicly bragging about having orchestrated a semi-soft coup against the unfit and illegitimate President of the United States - of their own party! - all in the name of maintaining his place in office to give cover to furthering their ridiculously-destructive agenda - and are asking to be congratulated for it.

The Republican Party may prove to be the greatest existential threat ever to confront the country. God damn them all.

There is only one epithet in all the ancestral language strong enough to impute the filth of being in Trump and his calamitous cacotopic cabal:



nithing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C4%AB%C3%BE).


Let it be heard.


https://i.imgur.com/cpNNX2a.png

The Senate won't decide his fate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0r4jNhG9Z4) :mean:

[Husar]

That article basically says that top officials in the administration haven't lost track of neoliberal policies and are continuously working to correct the president whenever he actually threatens the dictatorship of the "markets". :creep:

[Montmorency]

That article basically says that top officials in the administration haven't lost track of neoliberal policies and are continuously working to correct the president whenever he actually threatens the dictatorship of the "markets". :creep:

The President doesn't do much to threaten the dictatorship of the markets, his willy-nilly tariffs and other economic policies at worst make one set of rich people a bit poorer and another set (including his friends and family) a little richer.

These people don't oppose Trump's agenda so much as his presentation and extreme incompetence as a person. So they subvert our institutions in order to make Trump more secure, you see that? More secure. So that they can keep playing in the halls of power. Even as they admit Trump is unfit and a threat. And to top it all off they haven't even been good at it, Trump having purged his admin of key opponents and thrown off his fetters throughout 2018.

[Husar]

The President doesn't do much to threaten the dictatorship of the markets, his willy-nilly tariffs and other economic policies at worst make one set of rich people a bit poorer and another set (including his friends and family) a little richer.

These people don't oppose Trump's agenda so much as his presentation and extreme incompetence as a person. So they subvert our institutions in order to make Trump more secure, you see that? More secure. So that they can keep playing in the halls of power. Even as they admit Trump is unfit and a threat. And to top it all off they haven't even been good at it, Trump having purged his admin of key opponents and thrown off his fetters throughout 2018.

I wasn't saying he's a socialist, just that the article is only really reassuring if you share the ideals of these people who essentially take power into their own hands. It's even worse than what I think I said when he announced his cabinet, he's giving the lobbyists government power.

It's like the government is run by rogue ministers with corporate interests and whoever slimebag wrote that is trying to sell it as a great idea and asking people to join their efforts...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Montmorency: Loved the sig picture


As to staff undermining the President in some areas:


Some of this happens, I suspect, in all Presidencies. An administration is not a monolith with one person issuing commands from on high. At a minimum, no single person could make that many decisions in a single day on so many subjects. I do not know if I would label it a "soft coup."


In the case of this administration, efforts to tone down some of the inanity would only be beneficial. And I suspect that this particular POTUS needs significantly more "editing" than most.

[drone]

Anonymous White House "senior official" publishes op-ed describing "heroic" collective sub-rosa effort in the executive branch to neutralize Trump's derangement and malice by misdirecting and subverting his will.

They considered engaging the 25th Amendment provisions at some point(s) but have decided that they don't want a "constitutional crisis" on their hands. :freak:

It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis", it's in the :daisy: Constitution. They just know they wouldn't get the 2/3rds vote from Congress when Trump objects.

As for the rest, it's establishment Republicans trying to do damage control and riding it out while getting as much through before the inevitable collapse. Once the Democrats get subpoena power, the resulting scandals and convictions could very well end the GOP as a party.

[Montmorency]

Montmorency: Loved the sig picture


As to staff undermining the President in some areas:


Some of this happens, I suspect, in all Presidencies. An administration is not a monolith with one person issuing commands from on high. At a minimum, no single person could make that many decisions in a single day on so many subjects. I do not know if I would label it a "soft coup."


In the case of this administration, efforts to tone down some of the inanity would only be beneficial. And I suspect that this particular POTUS needs significantly more "editing" than most.

I called it semi-soft, because they basically failed (tariffs, Trump's demands to be acceded despotic stature, compatriots getting fired...)

The gloating and grandstanding over sedition is new, and grating. It would have been sufficient to collapse a government in some eras (now it's the opposite).

Thanks.


I wasn't saying he's a socialist, just that the article is only really reassuring if you share the ideals of these people who essentially take power into their own hands. It's even worse than what I think I said when he announced his cabinet, he's giving the lobbyists government power.

It's like the government is run by rogue ministers with corporate interests and whoever slimebag wrote that is trying to sell it as a great idea and asking people to join their efforts...

Yes, and what drone said. They're cowardly opportunists who want to be met coming off the sinking ship with job offers and book deals.

"I Am Willing (https://twitter.com/poniewozik/status/1037427973182418944) to Sacrifice Anything to Protect Our Democracy, Up to But Not Including Losing an Election or Giving Up Literally Any Policy That I Support: A Hero's Story"

But let me break down what these "steady-state" people are doing:

1. We subvert the elected authority and the norms of American government, because the President is a dangerous idiot.
2. The President is also subverting the norms of American government in a fascist direction, because that's his personality and because it's his only strategy for political survival. America is in crisis.
3. However, the 25th Amendment, mass resignations, testimony before Congress, are all out of the question because that would mean a "constitutional crisis" (and our jobs).
4. We can't do much in fact, nor do we really want to rock the boat while looting and/or gutting the government, but sometimes we can steal papers off the President's desk! And he won't even notice!
5. Actually, it turns out we need Trump's base to stay in power so we'll let him turn America into Hungary or Turkey if it means tax cuts and federal judge appointments.
6. bla bla unity, freedom, Murica, bla bla. We left a two-star Yelp review on the White House! Praise us for our heroism.

Basically, 'we can't leave Trump because that would mean abandoning all the parts of his agenda that we like': they are the conservative German elites of the early 1930s, the smug daisies.

[rory_20_uk]

Even if all those who disagreed resigned, there would be enough that remained to continue the process. I'm sure that there is a mass of self-interest going on here, but given that the staff do not have the power to change what is going on, all they can do is wait until either Congress grow some balls or his handpicked sycophants in the Cabinet do (unlikely - they've already sold out as far as they can);else the Electorate. Donald has the power to do a large amount of damage before the Constitutional changes are made.

Even with the op-ed, a lot of Donald's limited attention is going to be on rooting out the traitor, rather than bombing other countries, starting other trade wars or flexing other unilateral powers that the President enjoys.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Even if all those who disagreed resigned, there would be enough that remained to continue the process. I'm sure that there is a mass of self-interest going on here, but given that the staff do not have the power to change what is going on, all they can do is wait until either Congress grow some balls or his handpicked sycophants in the Cabinet do (unlikely - they've already sold out as far as they can);else the Electorate. Donald has the power to do a large amount of damage before the Constitutional changes are made.

Even with the op-ed, a lot of Donald's limited attention is going to be on rooting out the traitor, rather than bombing other countries, starting other trade wars or flexing other unilateral powers that the President enjoys.

~:smoking:

You're saying that public defiance will have a weaker effect than stirring the pot and sabotage. I disagree. You also don't consider the ethical dimension.


If there were an effective "resistance" within the White House, giving up the game through an op-ed in a national paper of record would seem to be counterproductive.

The op-ed author(s) can immediately be dismissed as unserious because of the contradictions in the text and meta-text. One can't believe that a given elected leader is a danger to the country and claim to be working against them, while also claiming "[w]e want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous." Dissonance, or more likely hypocrisy. If one truly believes that "President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic", how can you justify shoring up the administration from within? That was their stated goal and alleged accomplishment. No matter how many good qualities such a person attributes to a Trump administration, he has spoken to and of its discredit, discredit he ought to be bound to admit irredeemable if sedition is the legitimate response.

In developing a non-partisan remedy the ethical option is to take a public and collective stance to force the issue. Then the onus is visibly on the legislators to act. We don't have the "vote of no confidence" in America, but mass resignation of high officials is a step in that direction.

These people certainly can't claim the virtue of righteous disobedience while still actively carrying out the functions of this administration. 'Sure, I'm still killing and raping for Islamic State, but think about that one child I spared. What we as Muslims need now is to overcome al-Bagdadi's divisive rhetoric and find the strength to shed the labels.'

Trump's limited attention would be a lot more limited if these #resistance quit their jobs. This White House would find it difficult to fill the vacancies, and has from the start been notoriously understaffed (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/after-500-days-dozens-of-white-house-jobs-remain-unfilled.html). Public recriminations would further deplete the pool of potential replacements. It's not like I'm asking for the open disobedience of mid-grade civil servants here, of which there are many thousands. We're speaking of political appointees.

And the final point: everyone knew who Donald Trump was. Whoever signed up to work for him in the first place is almost certainly a reprobate. Whoever is still working for him must be. Not even the public mass resignation would expiate them. But what we've got instead is of no account.


EDIT: In the interest of comity, let me emphasize that I agree with you that the fate of the republic doesn't ride on someone's resignation. I'm just saying they're worthless pieces of crap for not doing at least this much, and heinous pieces of crap for their ostentatious arrogance and smugness and duplicity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You cant call invoking the 25th a Constitutional Crisis when you are literally following the Constitution.

[rory_20_uk]

What on earth does Ethics have with politics in the USA? Equally, public defiance is brutally put down in the USA. Neither will work - you're currently incarcerating children, arguing whether gerrymandering is OK at state level and not to mention pardoning a sheriff who was guilty of in essence being a racist. Police shooting minorities... the list just trudges on.

The White Would find people to do the work. There are always people to do ethically dubious things (look at all the things the USA is currently doing...) and this is no different. And the new lot might want a trade war with China / to nuke North Korea / abolish NATO. Or just not care.

The White House will start to even more closely resemble Game of Thrones with intrigue and this will take up a lot of effort. Many more things will get forgotten since this issue is a lot more important than the boring bits of running a country.

People knew what Donald was. Many think he's a way to get the Judges they want for the next few decades, as well as the tax cuts. That is the "win". And everything else he says has to be blocked, which will be achieved in part by this.

If you're wrestling in a sewer, no one is going to come out smelling of roses.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

What to do when Trump tweets: an instruction

https://www.facebook.com/wapodeptofsatire/videos/287945655365405/

[Strike For The South]

That article should be soon for what it is, pre-emptive rehabilitation. They want to come back in 2020 saying "wow he was crazy, wasn't he" while we have no healthcare, no roads, and an even bigger incarceration machine. The GOP should be seen for what it is, a reactionary foundation that holds up what is essentially a Russian style oligarchy. They are going to keep pushing fear until everything is monetized and the mass of humanity below them can't complain because they are worked to the bone. Trump is merely the culture wars proverbial Id.

There is no reason to vote for anyone with an R next to their name if you value a cohesive society.

[Montmorency]

What on earth does Ethics have with politics in the USA? Equally, public defiance is brutally put down in the USA. Neither will work - you're currently incarcerating children, arguing whether gerrymandering is OK at state level and not to mention pardoning a sheriff who was guilty of in essence being a racist. Police shooting minorities... the list just trudges on.

The White Would find people to do the work. There are always people to do ethically dubious things (look at all the things the USA is currently doing...) and this is no different. And the new lot might want a trade war with China / to nuke North Korea / abolish NATO. Or just not care.

The White House will start to even more closely resemble Game of Thrones with intrigue and this will take up a lot of effort. Many more things will get forgotten since this issue is a lot more important than the boring bits of running a country.

People knew what Donald was. Many think he's a way to get the Judges they want for the next few decades, as well as the tax cuts. That is the "win". And everything else he says has to be blocked, which will be achieved in part by this.

If you're wrestling in a sewer, no one is going to come out smelling of roses.

~:smoking:

Good points on American malfeasance, but we're not quite in banana republic territory yet, so a mass resignation of Washington yuppies and well-connected millionaires/billionaires would not be "brutally put down". That's the stage for the legendary "Second Amendment solution".

Let's put it this way: Stephen Miller is essentially a Trump loyalist in that he is a full fascist who wants to implement ethnic cleansing and won't let go no matter what. What would happen if all the party/establishment loyalists were replaced with more Millers?

I'm telling you there would not be much difference. Only a veneer of respectability separates the Millers and the Kellys. Sessions, with respect to immigration and drugs and law enforcement, has always been more a Miller. I don't see that the White House would suddenly be able to do more damage than it has already been doing either. A harmful edict does not have to be "competently" put together or implemented to damage many lives. We've seen it time and again.

Moreover there are more Kellys than Millers out there, and most of the Kellys don't want to be anywhere near the White House, all the less with a public stand on the record. Again, hence why the White House has never managed to fill so many hundreds of positions. Clearly there are not always people available. And many positions would have to be filled with Congressional approval, which will become more difficult to secure the more naked the antagonism. Especially Cabinet roles.


Can we agree on one thing, that everyone "wresting in [the] sewer" would best be sealed in there permanently?

The only one I'm unsure about yet is Mattis, but time will tell his story.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That article should be soon for what it is, pre-emptive rehabilitation. They want to come back in 2020 saying "wow he was crazy, wasn't he" while we have no healthcare, no roads, and an even bigger incarceration machine. The GOP should be seen for what it is, a reactionary foundation that holds up what is essentially a Russian style oligarchy. They are going to keep pushing fear until everything is monetized and the mass of humanity below them can't complain because they are worked to the bone. Trump is merely the culture wars proverbial Id.

There is no reason to vote for anyone with an R next to their name if you value a cohesive society.

Agreed. And if you were ever curious on how they plan to maintain this vision of america, look up the Liberty Amendments.

[Xiahou]

It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis", it's in the :daisy: Constitution. They just know they wouldn't get the 2/3rds vote from Congress when Trump objects.
The 25th amendment option is a fantasy on multiple levels...
First, as you say, it ultimately would fall to Congress to decide and they would never declare him incapacitated.
Second, on the merits, it's difficult to rationalize in what way he's incapacitated. Like him or not, his fitness is in no way different that what it was when he was elected by the people. He's not incapacitated. Declaring him incapacitated would be overturning an election, nothing less.
Third, removing Trump would leave Pence as President. I'd view this as an improvement- but it would satisfy few of Trump's detractors. Aside from Trump's verbal diarrhea, little would be likely to change (policy-wise certainly) under President Pence.

[Montmorency]

As mentioned much earlier in the thread, the 25th Amendment is more difficult to engage than the impeachment process. You need 2/3 of both chambers, while impeachment requires 2/3 only of the Senate (with the simple majority of the House).

If, as established, even impeachment is impossible this term... one reason the 25th Amendment was mooted only early on may be that it took little time to realize that no Republican Congressperson would ever vote against their President.

More importantly, they have different purposes. Impeachment reflects personal and chronic culpability in some way, while the 25th reflects an episodic or unanticipated change in status.


The office-holder is a :daisy: criminal tinpot idiot piece of :daisy: with probable intellectual, emotional, and personality deficits? Impeachment.

The office-holder looked upon the Mountains of Madness from Air Force One and can't stop screaming? 25th Amendment.

Even if by some stretch the 25th Amendment criteria ("unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office") could arguably have been met from the outset, there is no scenario in which it is either preferred or available over impeachment in the case of Trump.


Xiahou - Pence was elected on the same ticket as Trump, so in no way could the application of any Constitutional process of removal be construed to "overturn" the results of an election. If Pence is proved dirty in his own right, well, that's called a healthy immune response.

[a completely inoffensive name]

25th Amendment is supposed to be used for times such as when Reagan was shot. It just codifies what was already practiced. The president is 'OOO' and we are letting you know the Vice President is in charge now.

Although personally I don't see why it can't be applied here. You are losing sight of the big picture if you believe that incapacitated is defined by the disability of motor functions.

An entire cabinet and the VP rebelling against their President is a big enough act that Congress cannot blindly support POTUS as the act itself shows the extreme lack of trust in the individual which would completely undermine the public's trust in the administration. The average citizen won't be swayed by Paul "it's just politics, support your president" Ryan. It wouldn't be a constitutional crisis, but certainly a crisis of confidence with blowback.

Think of a theoretical Presidential "madman" who (while fully cognizant) blindly wants to start launching nukes in a first strike to trigger a nuclear apocalypse when there is no clear external threat posing the country. I don't think anyone can argue that pointless nuclear self-destruction has been or ever will be the 'will of the people'. Election be damned, the cabinet should invoke the 25th when humanity (as we know it) is on the line. So with the extreme case illustrated, the argument shouldn't be "the 25th can't be applied to these types of cases" the argument what is the line that we will draw for these types of cases and have we gone over that line.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Section 4, which is the only one wherein the President may be declared incapable without her consent, would require the VP and a majority of the cabinet to accede to the President being defined as incapable of executing the office and submitting this declaration to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The sitting President would then, in all likelihood, respond that such a declaration was inaccurate, whereupon Congress, by 2/3 vote in both houses, would have to support the declaration of incapacity in order to relieve the President from executive function as President.

This clause was put in, more or less, to prevent a repeat of the Edith Wilson scenario (It has been alleged that Wilson did far more than act as a de-facto White House Chief of Staff during some phases of Wilson's post-stroke recovery and that she was actively making decisions for a President who was not functional).

Invoking the 25th against the will of a sitting President would be virtually impossible, in practice, save where the incapacity was manifestly obvious to a degree where no party supporter could afford to "vote party," in the face of public opinion about the issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Invoking the 25th against the will of a sitting President would be virtually impossible, in practice, save where the incapacity was manifestly obvious to a degree where no party supporter could afford to "vote party," in the face of public opinion about the issue.

So where is this line?

[Montmorency]

25th Amendment is supposed to be used for times such as when Reagan was shot. It just codifies what was already practiced. The president is 'OOO' and we are letting you know the Vice President is in charge now.

Although personally I don't see why it can't be applied here. You are losing sight of the big picture if you believe that incapacitated is defined by the disability of motor functions.

An entire cabinet and the VP rebelling against their President is a big enough act that Congress cannot blindly support POTUS as the act itself shows the extreme lack of trust in the individual which would completely undermine the public's trust in the administration. The average citizen won't be swayed by Paul "it's just politics, support your president" Ryan. It wouldn't be a constitutional crisis, but certainly a crisis of confidence with blowback.

Think of a theoretical Presidential "madman" who (while fully cognizant) blindly wants to start launching nukes in a first strike to trigger a nuclear apocalypse when there is no clear external threat posing the country. I don't think anyone can argue that pointless nuclear self-destruction has been or ever will be the 'will of the people'. Election be damned, the cabinet should invoke the 25th when humanity (as we know it) is on the line. So with the extreme case illustrated, the argument shouldn't be "the 25th can't be applied to these types of cases" the argument what is the line that we will draw for these types of cases and have we gone over that line.

That's exactly what impeachment is for. In abstract. The united front of the Cabinet and VP would be a kick in the ass to get Congress moving on impeachment.

If Trump nuked Cincinnati tomorrow for "no reason", that would be facially impeachable. (Well, at that point maybe other things should be done, but we can't discuss those.)

Even from a purely consequentialist perspective, impeachment is always easier than 25th Amendment, so you always go with impeachment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So where is this line?

That's the whole issue, really. I think a President who had a severe stroke but refused to invoke the 25th during rehabilitation would have it invoked for her. Clear and obvious signs of mental illness would get treated the same.

Yet anything short of the blatantly obvious would be arguable, and a 2/3 in both houses is NOT easily or frequently achieved if the issue is at all contentious.

[Montmorency]

Here's a more concise (rough) proposition:

A = 25th amendment condition
B = impeachment condition
if A ⊂ B, impeach
iff A /⊂ B, 25th amendment

With Trump or the scenarios raised here, criteria for impeachment are already met. Let's say there is some (i.e. considerable) debate over whether these carry over to meet the criteria of the 25th Amendment.

Let's say we conclude they do. When both impeachment or the 25th are indicated, you always activate impeachment because impeachment supersedes the 25th both procedurally and in purpose.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here's a more concise (rough) proposition:

A = 25th amendment condition
B = impeachment condition
if A ⊂ B, impeach
iff A /⊂ B, 25th amendment

With Trump or the scenarios raised here, criteria for impeachment are already met. Let's say there is some (i.e. considerable) debate over whether these carry over to meet the criteria of the 25th Amendment.

Let's say we conclude they do. When both impeachment or the 25th are indicated, you always activate impeachment because impeachment supersedes the 25th both procedurally and in purpose.

While you and I differ as to whether either threshold has been reached (I used to scoff at the likelihood, I no longer scoff at the possibility), I agree completely with your order of preference as denoted in your table.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's exactly what impeachment is for. In abstract. The united front of the Cabinet and VP would be a kick in the ass to get Congress moving on impeachment.

If Trump nuked Cincinnati tomorrow for "no reason", that would be facially impeachable. (Well, at that point maybe other things should be done, but we can't discuss those.)

Even from a purely consequentialist perspective, impeachment is always easier than 25th Amendment, so you always go with impeachment.

Impeachment in this tribal environment will ultimately be considered usurpation of political power and not because of the systematic destruction of the Senate rules/conduct under McConnell.
Republicans will not consider impeachment by a Democratic Congress legitimate.

Now that some Democrats have gotten a taste of scorched earth tactics, it will spread and we will see further destabilization once the young progressives get into power.
I have no doubt that if this apparent rapist Kavenaugh gets pushed through, there will be a 12 to 15 person SCOTUS packed by the Democrats.

[Montmorency]

Which would you rather live in? Single-party Republican America, or single-party Democratic America torn between 3 or 4 factions?

Don't pack courts until you can guarantee in the long-term that Republicans will not regain the federal government, or you'll end up redeeming your sins (http://russian7.ru/post/iskupit-vinu-krovyu-kak-voevali-ugol/) against the Motherland through blood.

It's a pure fantasy anyway until the Vichy Democrats lose enough power.

[Hooahguy]

Impeachment in this tribal environment will ultimately be considered usurpation of political power and not because of the systematic destruction of the Senate rules/conduct under McConnell.
Republicans will not consider impeachment by a Democratic Congress legitimate.

Now that some Democrats have gotten a taste of scorched earth tactics, it will spread and we will see further destabilization once the young progressives get into power.
I have no doubt that if this apparent rapist Kavenaugh gets pushed through, there will be a 12 to 15 person SCOTUS packed by the Democrats.

Agreed. I recently read the book "How Democracies Die" and they made a compelling point for why the Democrats should not keep breaking congressional norms once they get back in power. But the problem is, since its obvious that the GOP has no qualms breaking the norms to retain power, why should the Democrats play nice? After 6 years of obstruction the Democrats have no reason to work with the other side of the aisle. I mean, besides maintaining our Democratic Norms but lets face it, its going to take a huge shift in our political culture to get us back to both sides working with each other again.

[Strike For The South]

I see no reason to vote for the GOP ever, in any capacity. At this point I can not fathom why anyone would, barring millionaire status.

[Montmorency]

Donald Trump is a chode (https://kotaku.com/stormy-daniels-says-donald-trump-has-a-dick-like-the-m-1829130895).


He knows he has an unusual penis. It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool…

I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart...

It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.

I assure you there is no other Trump content worth posting.

[Xiahou]

Agreed. I recently read the book "How Democracies Die" and they made a compelling point for why the Democrats should not keep breaking congressional norms once they get back in power. But the problem is, since its obvious that the GOP has no qualms breaking the norms to retain power, why should the Democrats play nice? After 6 years of obstruction the Democrats have no reason to work with the other side of the aisle. I mean, besides maintaining our Democratic Norms but lets face it, its going to take a huge shift in our political culture to get us back to both sides working with each other again.
And I hear the same thing from the other side almost daily. "We had to elect Trump, because we needed a fighter! McCain and Romney were too soft and that's why they lost! We can't play nice and lose to Democrats that fight dirty!".. and so on. Thus we slowly circle the drain. Each side excuses bad behavior in their own tribe because they have to stand up to the real or imagined dirty tricks of the other.

OTOH, when I think things are getting worse than ever I just remember things like this. :laugh4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

[Shaka_Khan]

When a president got impeached or left office early, it usually happened quickly. I think Trump will finish his term.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The only President to have left office early is Nixon, by resignation, nearly halfway into his second term of office. He would likely have been impeached and convicted had he not.

Clinton was impeached during the middle of his 2nd term, but won the vote easily in the Senate.

Johnson was impeached during the last year of the term he was completing for the assassinated Lincoln. He won a narrow vote in the Senate to avoid removal from office.

The only other President's to leave office early have done so as a result of fatal illness or assassination.


History does not support your belief in impeachments occurring quickly within an administration. You may well still be correct that he finishes his term, but not because impeachments happen quickly or not at all. Impeachment moves fairly slowly and with good reason.

[Beskar]

It’s a bit late for anyone not to have figured this out yet, but the skeleton key to understanding American conservatism is this: At bottom, it lacks absolutely any moral or ideological underpinning beyond the reactionary protection of moneyed white men—of their station, their wealth and power, and their egos. Its supposed ideas and abstractions are just a framework for spasmodic lashing-out against anything that can be interpreted as a threat to rich white dudes. It likes supply-side economics because the supply side is made of rich white dudes. It likes tax cuts because the taxes are mostly cut for rich white dudes. It likes cops and soldiers because cops and soldiers uphold a social order with rich white dudes at the top. It likes “traditional family values” because social, economic, and sexual dominion over women are the most traditional family values of all. It likes “Make America Great Again” because rich white dudes used to roll through society and over everyone else with even greater impunity than they do now. All of these things are just proxies for reiterating, over and over and over, forever, the power and security and primacy of rich white dudes.
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett-kavanaugh-is-a-man-the-right-can-get-behind-1829225731

[Idaho]

No comment on the world leaders collectively laughing at trump's UN speech?

[rory_20_uk]

Does it really need one?

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

No comment on the world leaders collectively laughing at trump's UN speech?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/25/trump-laughingstock-un-general-assembly

Though fox news cut all the laughing out when they tweeted clips, really clipping them short.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gack. I just watched most of the press conference.

I am now longing for the vocal clarity of Dubya. :wall::wall::wall:

[Xiahou]

Gack. I just watched most of the press conference.

I am now longing for the vocal clarity of Dubya. :wall::wall::wall:

The famous Billy Madison "no points (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0)" scene comes to mind. :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I heard one of the reporters mislabeling Trump's discussion of the women making allegations against Kavanaugh as a condemnation of all women and attacking the victims. Trump was rambling, semi-coherent, and trying to hedge all of his statements just like Bill Clinton (though in no way as glibly).

Who needs that level of sleazy and shoddy reporting. Just put up a two minute clip of Trump himself. Trump does NOT need the services of spun media coverage to come out looking like a jackhole. He's got that down.

[Montmorency]

I heard one of the reporters mislabeling Trump's discussion of the women making allegations against Kavanaugh as a condemnation of all women and attacking the victims. Trump was rambling, semi-coherent, and trying to hedge all of his statements just like Bill Clinton (though in no way as glibly).

Who needs that level of sleazy and shoddy reporting. Just put up a two minute clip of Trump himself. Trump does NOT need the services of spun media coverage to come out looking like a jackhole. He's got that down.

Mm, Trump has gone after Ford for sure, the others I'm not aware of (yet).

In this press conference? Dunno what your reporter claimed. The conference is 14K words (!) transcribed, and I don't want to watch Trump speak too often, but skimming Trump accused his own accusers of being paid plants. Somehow more remarkably he stated


It doesn’t mean they had to report it, because in some instances, people keep it quiet. It’s a very tough situation for a woman. There’s no question about it. And in some cases, they do report it. Frankly, had they reported it, it would have been pretty amazing, wouldn’t it? But I guess they didn’t. And that’s okay. I’m not saying they had to report it. Because it’s a very personal thing. It’s a very big problem. There’s no question about it. Go ahead.

Perspicaciously explaining why a woman might not report, contradicting his own tweet


I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”

and 1 of the like 3 defense plays Republicans have for Kavanaugh.

Jesus fuck what is with this guy, it's like all reality is a maelstrom of the Billy Madison clip and Hades gifs. All the gifs, really.

Anyway, if this is all Trump getting cold feet about Kavanaugh there is actually a chance the Republicans will replace him with someone less of a dirtbag. They can still fasttrack a nominee before 2019, so no problem for them, right? No need to confirm seemingly the worst available candidate as a naked show of contemptuous power. Maybe the optimists will be right about this one.

[Strike For The South]

That press conference was brutal. I suppose that is what happens when all the GOP handlers are ousted and the enormity of the job has crashed down upon him.

The Kavanaugh stuff is mind blowing. He has seemingly totally rejected everything. Him and Ford apparently live in two separate realities. No story out of this presidency has laid bare the two realities people seem to be cordoning themselves off in.

On some level I think this is deliberate by Kavanaugh et al. Cop to the drinking or any number of things that are literally laid out in his best friends book and Ford becomes that much more believable. Instead you stake out a position that is totally opposite, have your people at the Federalist and NRO nit pick her statement for any inconsistencies, and people become so swamped with information they throw up their hands and say I don't know.

That's how you win in a information war when you are wrong. You don't have to convince people you are right. You have to confuse them enough in that little bit time between their job and their chores that they check the news.

I would hope this liar gets jettisoned. Because he is at very least that. We will know more today.

[Strike For The South]

Well this is a disaster in real time. Maybe a good thing will happen today.

[Csargo]

That press conference was brutal. I suppose that is what happens when all the GOP handlers are ousted and the enormity of the job has crashed down upon him.

The Kavanaugh stuff is mind blowing. He has seemingly totally rejected everything. Him and Ford apparently live in two separate realities. No story out of this presidency has laid bare the two realities people seem to be cordoning themselves off in.

On some level I think this is deliberate by Kavanaugh et al. Cop to the drinking or any number of things that are literally laid out in his best friends book and Ford becomes that much more believable. Instead you stake out a position that is totally opposite, have your people at the Federalist and NRO nit pick her statement for any inconsistencies, and people become so swamped with information they throw up their hands and say I don't know.

That's how you win in a information war when you are wrong. You don't have to convince people you are right. You have to confuse them enough in that little bit time between their job and their chores that they check the news.

I would hope this liar gets jettisoned. Because he is at very least that. We will know more today.

It's a bit ridiculous that this guy is still even being considered at this point in my mind. After numerous allegations have been put forward, he should have been taken out of consideration. At the very least, he is as SFTS described a liar, and at worst just a terrible human being. A person like that has no place on the Supreme Court.

[Montmorency]

The 6-figure debts maintained for many years, the disappearing debts as of this year, the extremely bizarre excuses for the debts, the lifelong career as a partisan operator, the multiple perjuries or conscious sub-perjury dissemblage, being a lecherous sot as confirmed by many witnesses and friends, lying about being a lecherous sot, submitting that he was a virgin as a canard, coordinating with the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and the White House to push a doppelganger narrative... and I'm sure I'm missing a lot, beyond, obviously, the direct allegations of assault and misconduct. Claims which he has denied categorically, yesterday I hear in written testimony on penalty of felony.

All because Kennedy wanted him as a replacement and because Trump appears to believe he will rule in his favor on investigative or separation of powers matters. This is astronomical-tier corruption on the level of embezzling tens of millions from the government, at least. This is the type of thing many believed could only happen in a banana republic, or Russia. A truck has to be driven over Kavanaugh at this point, or else there is admitted no limit to the capacity for power to erase truth.

I've been listening to the hearing since 10 AM. Prosecutor Mitchell seems nice, at least. Striking that no Republicans other than Grassley seem to have addressed Ford.

[Strike For The South]

The 6-figure debts maintained for many years, the disappearing debts as of this year, the extremely bizarre excuses for the debts

I had forgotten about the baseball tickets.


I've been listening to the hearing since 10 AM. Prosecutor Mitchell seems nice, at least. Striking that no Republicans other than Grassley seem to have addressed Ford.

Perhaps smart enough knowing they can't ask anything relevant?

[drone]

I can't imagine why the Republicans are still pushing him through. Their goal is to pack the court with conservatives, but putting Kavanaugh up will jeopardize this. His testimony through the entire conformation process has been sprinkled with lies, and every step the Republicans take to get this done just pisses off the Democrats more and more. The Senate election map is already not kind to the GOP in 2020 (even without the inevitable pissed off women voters), and with a few years of digging the press, or the Dems with subpoena power, can definitely unearth enough facts to prove the he perjured himself to the Senate during these hearings, either about the sexual assaults or other issues. If he gets on SCOTUS, I foresee a Democratic Congress impeaching him after 2020, when they can confirm either a liberal or moderate (if Trump manages to hold on, go forbid) to replace him. The Democrats will not forget this or Merrick Garland.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mm, Trump has gone after Ford for sure, the others I'm not aware of (yet).

In this press conference? Dunno what your reporter claimed. The conference is 14K words (!) transcribed, and I don't want to watch Trump speak too often, but skimming Trump accused his own accusers of being paid plants. Somehow more remarkably he stated



Perspicaciously explaining why a woman might not report, contradicting his own tweet



and 1 of the like 3 defense plays Republicans have for Kavanaugh.

Jesus fuck what is with this guy, it's like all reality is a maelstrom of the Billy Madison clip and Hades gifs. All the gifs, really.

Anyway, if this is all Trump getting cold feet about Kavanaugh there is actually a chance the Republicans will replace him with someone less of a dirtbag. They can still fasttrack a nominee before 2019, so no problem for them, right? No need to confirm seemingly the worst available candidate as a naked show of contemptuous power. Maybe the optimists will be right about this one.

Like I said. Quote any three minutes of the Trump press conference and no MSNBC reporter would have to impart the negative spin they so love to use. Just quote him, look at the camera and remark. "Chris, I don't think I need to add a thing."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is such a train wreck that Avenatti -- an archetypally sleazy ambulance chaser -- is coming off professionally in comparison to our head of state. Gack.

[Beskar]

Trump bragging about Canada sucks and turned them down.
Canada responds: "No meeting was requested".

He is a bare-faced liar who might as well be living in another plane of existence.

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/SsEPhv6.png

Exhausting.

I heard a couple of Republican women phone in, and their takes (paraphrasing):

1. I was almost raped by three guys on the side of a road, but they were chased off by passersby. I think Ford is not credible because she was only "almost" raped, so she should have got over it by now just like I did.

2. I and my daughter are victims who have overcome. I think Ford is credible but I think Kavanaugh is credible too, and I don't understand why Ford is doing this. Does she think it's to prevent Kavanaugh from further victimizing women through his judicial work? I just don't get it!

Strange people. :shrug:


Other observations:

The prosecutor was chosen to soften the Republican presence and questioning. I think successfully. Cleverly chosen. Watched Kavanaugh only intermittently, did she have a heel turn?

If Kavanaugh falls the viscous ensuing relief and joy will immobilize almost any scrutiny against the replacement nominee. They can probably get 20 Democrats voting for him or her at that point.

From everything I've seen of Kavanaugh, he doesn't sound like what I'd think a judge would sound like. He always talks like a seasoned politician. His rhetoric is that of political gamesmanship, the campaign rally, the scandal presser.

Kavanaugh repeatedly lying that Ford's named witnesses (i.e. present at the party) have refuted her recollection his most egregious of the day. Ted Cruz boosting it for his part.



I can't imagine why the Republicans are still pushing him through.

Power is doing something just because you can, to prove that you can and will. We see it so often in action films, where the big bad randomly cuts down one of their henchman in front of the hero and no one even blinks. Same idea. Kavanaugh, please go down like the 80's movie villain you are.

(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)


Like I said. Quote any three minutes of the Trump press conference and no MSNBC reporter would have to impart the negative spin they so love to use. Just quote him, look at the camera and remark. "Chris, I don't think I need to add a thing."

Bad advice, that's why his supporters love him. "He tells it like it is!"


This is such a train wreck that Avenatti -- an archetypally sleazy ambulance chaser -- is coming off professionally in comparison to our head of state. Gack.

He's rather more high-powered than that. I would say he's an archetypical hotshot lawyer in the public imagination. Apparently he's consciously mirroring Trump and Giuliani, if only because the media love to give Trump and Giuliani screen time. He's been pretty successful at it. Also, you should take everything he does seriously in the context of his (teased) 2020 presidential run. Insofar as his lawyering is aggressive and successful, he will use it to plump himself.

[drone]

Power is doing something just because you can, to prove that you can and will. We see it so often in action films, where the big bad randomly cuts down one of their henchman in front of the hero and no one even blinks. Same idea. Kavanaugh, please go down like the 80's movie villain you are.

(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Their compatriots in the lower house would probably prefer they drop this lying sot, it might keep them from losing over 40 seats in a few weeks. In normal times, the GOP would be picking up a few seats in the Senate this cycle, but now they will be lucky to keep their current advantage. I have a feeling Pence will be spending a lot of time at the Capitol next term...

[a completely inoffensive name]

They will put him in. People still don't understand the stakes here.

They dont care about public opinion, they obfuscate to the degree that is needed to disorient the public and proceed to cement themselves institutionally for another 40 years, at any means necessary.

This is the end of our current iteration of institutions as designed post WW2.

From Revolution to Civil War to existential threat to...idk what to even call this sudden lack of dignity.

[Montmorency]

They will put him in. People still don't understand the stakes here.

They dont care about public opinion, they obfuscate to the degree that is needed to disorient the public and proceed to cement themselves institutionally for another 40 years, at any means necessary.

This is the end of our current iteration of institutions as designed post WW2.

From Revolution to Civil War to existential threat to...idk what to even call this sudden lack of dignity.

You're probably right. Arguably Kavanaugh would have been pulled already if that were the play. But it really depends on the behind-the-scenes details of Kavanaugh's nomination. How will Trump be swayed, and does it matter? Is Kavanaugh a bought man from the outset? Does the national GOP expect to pre-empt Democrats the opportunity to pack the courts by future elections?

But basically this -


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Their compatriots in the lower house would probably prefer they drop this lying sot, it might keep them from losing over 40 seats in a few weeks. In normal times, the GOP would be picking up a few seats in the Senate this cycle, but now they will be lucky to keep their current advantage. I have a feeling Pence will be spending a lot of time at the Capitol next term...

- would be irrelevant if the Republicans have privately moved fully beyond the concept of normal electoral politics.

I mean, I sure hope the optimists are right. It delays the timetable for the collapse of civil society by a year or so.

We need more time for the Democratic Party to realize they're responsible for prosecuting a war.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We need more time for the Democratic Party to realize they're responsible for prosecuting a war.

I hate to say this but they won't realize the magnitude of this ongoing political war until it is too late. God forbid RBG falls ill and Trump replaces her with another Federalist shill...

Then we are going to be in for potential large scale riots when, not if, the last four decades of liberal progress vanishes in half a decade under activist conservative judges.

[Montmorency]

So Sen. Flake flaked on his opposition to Kavanaugh. On the basis of a verbal "gentlemen's and women's" agreement with Sen. Grassley for a 1-week FBI investigation before the full vote on the floor.

Obvious cake-having-eating rubbish. Flake was literally the only person holding up the confirmation. There's nothing stopping a vote forthwith.

99% probability: Every Republican votes to confirm.
90% probability: At least 1 Democrat joins to confirm.


@ACIN

Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States):


Gamble v. United States is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are considered to be "separate sovereigns".

But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy... :sweatdrop:

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy. :mean:


Csargo

Did you watch any of Kavanaugh in yesterday's hearing? If so, how would you evaluate him were you in a match of Mafia?

[Csargo]

So Sen. Flake flaked on his opposition to Kavanaugh. On the basis of a verbal "gentlemen's and women's" agreement with Sen. Grassley for a 1-week FBI investigation before the full vote on the floor.

Obvious cake-having-eating rubbish. Flake was literally the only person holding up the confirmation. There's nothing stopping a vote forthwith.

99% probability: Every Republican votes to confirm.
90% probability: At least 1 Democrat joins to confirm.


@ACIN

Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States):



But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy... :sweatdrop:

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy. :mean:


Csargo

Did you watch any of Kavanaugh in yesterday's hearing? If so, how would you evaluate him were you in a match of Mafia?

No, I only got to watch Dr. Ford's testimony unfortunately, because I had to go to class before Kavanaugh was questioned and couldn't continue watching. Hopefully, I'll get to do so today at some point if I can get to it.

I don't understand why it was left to the Senate committee to determine the validity of this woman's statements instead of trained professionals doing so. A proper investigation, interviews, etc. would have been the proper course of action from my perspective. I would have imagined that would be in the power of Senate members to request/order, or am I wrong in that assumption?

[Montmorency]

No, I only got to watch Dr. Ford's testimony unfortunately, because I had to go to class before Kavanaugh was questioned and couldn't continue watching. Hopefully, I'll get to do so today at some point if I can get to it.

In fact, let me edit this out of courtesy: conduct of final scum in D5 of Representative Democracy


I don't understand why it was left to the Senate committee to determine the validity of this woman's statements instead of trained professionals doing so. A proper investigation, interviews, etc. would have been the proper course of action from my perspective. I would have imagined that would be in the power of Senate members to request/order, or am I wrong in that assumption?

Because they wanted to limit testimony. Imagine there was a third person in the room with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Wouldn't it have been more comfortable for Democrats not to have the third person subpoenaed?

Trump would have to approve any FBI investigation.

Speak of the devil, he just did (https://www.axios.com/trump-approves-fbi-investigation-in-to-kavanaugh-8f0c1dc4-12fe-48d7-85e3-b7b813e73e73.html). :shocked:

[a completely inoffensive name]

@ACIN

Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States):



But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy... :sweatdrop:

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy. :mean:


Not sure why SCOTUS took up this case. Isn't the separate sovereign doctrine really just saying that the federal government and state are two different parties? Double jeopardy is in place to prevent the government from re-trials as punishment or brute force their way into winning. This does not seem to be the case here, he will at most face two trials for this crime.

In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified specifically to give states sovereign immunity, so how could we not interpret the constitution in its federalized structure as promoting separate sovereign doctrine?

[Montmorency]

Not sure why SCOTUS took up this case. Isn't the separate sovereign doctrine really just saying that the federal government and state are two different parties? Double jeopardy is in place to prevent the government from re-trials as punishment or brute force their way into winning. This does not seem to be the case here, he will at most face two trials for this crime.

In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified specifically to give states sovereign immunity, so how could we not interpret the constitution in its federalized structure as promoting separate sovereign doctrine?

5th Amendment:


[...] nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb


In 1969 the double jeopardy proscription was incorporated to the states.

If there is no double jeopardy for federal crimes, and no double jeopardy for state crimes, and the latter follows from the former (setting aside that most state constitutions already included some version of this), then substantive dual trial for the same offense (e.g. falsifying tax returns) once under state court and once under federal seems to be unconstitutional. The "dual sovereignty" loophole would truly be a loophole if it refers to a specious sovereignty that hardly exists even on paper, if there was no precedent for it in the originating English law, and if the actual text of the amendment to the Constitution says nothing about states or sovereigns.

I use the example of tax crime because the underlying offense is literally identical. Much of the information the taxpayer includes in their local, state, and federal returns is overlapping. Indeed, if your state or municipality wants more information from you they will often ask for your federal returns. I believe in some states it is required by default. Unless if for some reason you lie on only one set of returns, but you would be caught instantly, so in practice tax laws are violated simultaneously.

The 11th Amendment has little relevance as it pertains to the immunity of states from civil suit by individuals outside that state, not criminal prosecution of individuals by a state.

Even the ACLU and Cato are tag-teaming (https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/its-time-close-loophole-constitutions-double-jeopardy-rule) to have the exception struck down.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN is correct as to the implications of the 11th amendment vis-à-vis sovereignty. Though the strict use of the amendment is limited, it rests on the basis that the states are sovereign entities of themselves -- united and subordinate to the federal union for specific delineated purposes but not inherently subordinate in all matters to the federal union -- which was the original understanding common among the majority of the founders.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?

Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?

Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.

[Montmorency]

ACIN is correct as to the implications of the 11th amendment vis-à-vis sovereignty. Though the strict use of the amendment is limited, it rests on the basis that the states are sovereign entities of themselves -- united and subordinate to the federal union for specific delineated purposes but not inherently subordinate in all matters to the federal union -- which was the original understanding common among the majority of the founders.

What does it mean for state sovereignty that the 5th Amendment has been incorporated to the states, as have many other amendments been? What does it mean for "dual sovereignty" if this doctrine was established prior to incorporation of federal Constitution to states, including the critical 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection clause? What does it mean for the concept of jurisdiction that it is possible to commit a federal offense in any state or territory of the United States, but not vice versa? What does it mean if the ACLU is correct that the old common law of Britain had no exception for "separate sovereigns" despite Britain being a union of kingdoms? That states have sovereignty to enact and enforce their own laws distinct from the federal government does not obviate the question of the 5th Amendment, which refers to rights of individuals and not states. The question we've suddenly begun debating is merely the following:

Is it consistent with the Double Jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution for a defendant to be punished separately in state and federal court on a single equivalent charge for a single aspect of a single act or event?


When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?

Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?

Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.

You're talking about something entirely different here: counts of a single crime. I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the Double Jeopardy clause. Double jeopardy is when a defendant is charged, tried, and or convicted and sentenced doubly. Doubly here means "for the same underlying act". For example, if it were the case that "murder" were a federal offense as well as a state one, it would be possible for a defendant to a single murder charge to stand in state court, be found not guilty of murder, then consecutively stand in federal court. Why would this not violate the 5th Amendment? This lawyer (https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/) baldly asserts that just such a case of state murder vs. federal murder may be consecutively prosecuted because "[d]ouble jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time", yet in the situation described we see that the jurisdictions are overlapping, not discrete. In fact I struggle to think of a situation where jurisdictions do not overlap, except Washington DC, US territories, and overseas military establishments.

A single-domain example (https://www.clearwatercriminallawyer.net/double-jeopardy-defense-florida-drug-crime-cases/) of how the courts have ruled on double jeopardy would be on the distinction between drug possession and "possession with intent to sell". I don't know how widespread this is, but in Florida convictions involving both were struck down as contrary to the Double Jeopardy clause. Because the underlying offense - possession - is the same for both charges.

AFAIK almost all drug offenses can be both state and federal. As noted above, the federal jurisdiction stretches completely over all states. It really does appear contrary to the 5th Amendment if the state can try you for possession, punish you, and then the federal government can turn around and try you for that exact same possession.

Here's the Cato amicus (https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Gamble_v_United_States_Cert_Amicus_Final.pdf) to look through, and a joint one with the ACLU (https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Gamble-Merits-Brief-FINAL.pdf).

ACIN, I fear you may be advancing a 19th-century concept of "states' rights" that is no longer valid (and arguably never was), one that was also used by SCOTUS (e.g. Lochner) to negate the federal government's enforcement of the 14th Amendment (except on behalf of business).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While Trump is touting this as the best agreement since sliced bread :rolleyes:, it would appear that the newly reworked deal on North American trade (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/business/trump-nafta-usmca-differences.html) has made improvements for the American economy without unduly harming our neighbors. Of course, it could still backfire with automakers sending all the manufacturing to high-education low wage sties like China etc.

[Montmorency]

Nafta required automakers to produce 62.5 percent of a vehicle’s content in North America to qualify for zero tariffs. The new agreement raises that threshold, over time, to 75 percent.

A real breakthrough!


For the first time, the new agreement also mandates that an escalating percentage of parts for any tariff-free vehicle — topping out at 40 percent in 2023 — must come from a so-called “high wage” factory. The agreement says those factories must pay a minimum of $16 an hour in average salaries for production workers.

Doesn't sound like this would benefit many on the continent, if the factories just leave the continent. Why not rules that actually rein in big business?


Perhaps the biggest sticking point in negotiations over the last month was the issue of Canada’s protection of its dairy market, including limits on imported dairy products from the United States and government support that gives Canadian products an advantage on international markets against American ones.

“Dairy was a deal breaker,” Mr. Trump said on Monday.

The new agreement gives the United States victories on both fronts. It gradually opens the Canadian market to more exported American dairy products, including “fluid milk, cream, butter, skim milk powder, cheese and other dairy products.” Canada agreed to eliminate a program that helps Canadian sellers of certain milk products, at home and abroad.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/canadian-dairy-farmers-fume-new-us-trade-deal-too-costly-to-industry.html

Removal of the dairy Class 7 in Canada, which was only created after Trump's inauguration, and covers the following products: milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula. Access to 3.6% of the Canadian dairy market. About as much as TPP would have granted.


The TPP deal gives access to 3.25 percent of Canada's dairy industry while the new USMCA deal provides the U.S. with about 3.6 percent of total Canadian milk production under a tariff-free quota.
[...]
"The Canadian government actually has given [the Americans] less than what I expected that they would give," said Leblond. "I expected something a bit above 5 percent, and at some point I heard the Americans were asking for 15 percent. So in the end the deal is at 3.6 percent. I see that as a win for Canada."


This is the great re-negotiation?

It's pretty much just NAFTA with a new name and worse bilateral relations in the long-term. Will this even be approved by Congress, let alone Canada and Mexico?



Among the small-but-significant items in the new agreement are a measure to push Mexico to make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions, steps to allow American financial services companies better access to Canadian and Mexican markets and a provision to extend the intellectual property protections of American pharmaceutical companies selling prescription drugs in Canada.

Without looking deeper, the first sounds good, second sounds neutral, and the third has always been overwhelmingly bad. The US-driven international copyright/patent/trademark regime needs to come down.

[Montmorency]

Lol

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/26220/trump-s-foreign-policy-has-evolved-like-his-business-it-s-all-branding

"But [Trump] has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up."


Trump’s sales pitch notwithstanding, it’s more of a NAFTA rebrand than a brand new deal. Moreover, as Kimberly Ann Elliot pointed out in her WPR column yesterday, the terms of the updated agreement closely resemble those of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the multilateral trade pact, negotiated by the Obama administration with 11 other countries, that Trump withdrew from as one of his first official acts as president. In other words, Trump just slapped his name on the façade of an edifice someone else built and claimed credit for it.

The same is true of his claim following the NATO summit in May that his tough line on allies’ defense spending got them “to substantially up their commitment . . . at levels that they’ve never thought of before.” It is certainly possible that Trump’s animosity toward the alliance caused some member states to either accelerate their spending increases or else tailor their declarative policy to fit Trump’s preferences. But the target of budgeting 2 percent of GDP toward defense spending emerged during the George W. Bush administration; the agreement to set a deadline for reaching the target was an achievement of the Obama administration; and the increased defense spending that Trump took credit for had already begun in response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.

A similar dynamic was at work when Trump and European Commission President Jean-Clause Juncker agreed in late July to set aside threats of damaging automobile tariffs and instead open negotiations for a wide-ranging trade pact between the U.S. and the European Union. Although the jury is still out on the ultimate outcome of those talks, they have already been compared to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that the Obama administration was negotiating with the EU, which was suspended when Trump took office.

It’s likewise still too early to tell if Trump’s diplomatic engagement with North Korea will pay any meaningful dividends in terms of dismantling the North’s nuclear arsenal. But if the expectations of the expert community are any guide, here, too, Trump has followed the same playbook, threatening nuclear war before essentially endorsing the Obama administration’s failed policy of “strategic patience,” rebranded as a love story featuring himself and a nuclear-armed Kim Jong Un.

What are the implications of Trump’s penchant for creating crises, then claiming exaggerated credit for resolving them on terms that closely resemble the status quo ante? Domestically, to his opponents’ chagrin, it could help him solidify support among his base, as well as among softer supporters who were swayed by his often misleading rhetoric but had begun to question his tactics. The outcome of the midterm congressional elections a little more than a month from now will offer a clear indication of whether voters are ready to swallow another dose of Trump’s snake oil in 2020.

Internationally, the implications are both reassuring and worrisome—reassuring because fears that Trump is set to upend and remake the international order might end up being overblown. Trump has introduced an enormous amount of uncertainty to international affairs and damaged U.S. ties with allies in ways that could prove to be lasting. But he has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up.

That means that the other major crises on Trump’s docket, rather than escalating, might end up being defused in a similar fashion. Certainly China will try to wind down its own trade war with the U.S. by offering enough superficial concessions to allow Trump to declare victory and come home. Iran, too, might begin to see the appeal of pursuing a Trump-rebranded nuclear accord that differs only marginally from the one he withdrew from in May.

[...]

It’s possible that the U.S. might have benefited from the approach that fueled Trump’s rise in the early years of his public life. A brash risk-taker who questioned sacred cows and challenged conventional wisdoms might have reinvigorated U.S. foreign policy in the face of a rising China and resurgent Russia. Instead, the later Trump has prevailed, promising much, delivering little and making sure his name is featured prominently on the marquee.



Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.

...

Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lol...Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.
Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.

Use real-estate salesmen? Telemarketer from hell? Most whores are more ethical?

Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not trying to defend him, but when was the last politician who didn't claim victory at all costs? Nixon's Cambodia farce to George W's "Mission Accomplished"?

Democracies force politicians into these short term grabs for publicity, and unsurprisingly those best at it do the best. Many countries are only insulated from this by the ability of the political parties to restrict choice using various mechanisms. Open primaries gave Trump a chance in a way that just can't happen in (for example) the UK. We can only have as a leader whoever has managed to climb to the top of one of the two greasy poles.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

I'm not trying to defend him, but when was the last politician who didn't claim victory at all costs? Nixon's Cambodia farce to George W's "Mission Accomplished"?

Democracies force politicians into these short term grabs for publicity, and unsurprisingly those best at it do the best. Many countries are only insulated from this by the ability of the political parties to restrict choice using various mechanisms. Open primaries gave Trump a chance in a way that just can't happen in (for example) the UK. We can only have as a leader whoever has managed to climb to the top of one of the two greasy poles.

~:smoking:

It is typical for politicians to take credit for perceived positive indicators and disclaim perceived negative indicators, but the Trump formula is:

1. Manufacture a political crisis internally motivated by expansive and antagonistic rhetoric
2. Undermine his own government and country with seemingly no coherent goal other than self-aggrandizement before his followers
3. Cease further aggravations and declare the degraded status quo a revolutionary victory

That's, you know... stupid-Orwellian. 'We've always been at war with Oceania. In fact, I just single-handedly defeated the foul Oceanians! Also, all praise to our new allies in the fight against Oceania: Sea World.'

I'm sure Trump can't be the only leader in world history to have acted according to the formula I ventured, but I can't think of any examples. Got any?

Mugabe's Zimbabwe? :shrug:

[Xiahou]

Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.
We both know the Democrats won't put up a centrist. They've been sprinting left ever since Bernie nearly took the nomination out from under Hillary. Socialism is cool now- it's what all the kids are talking about.

Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad. The biggest thing I'd criticize him* for is not doing more to reign in spending, but sadly I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.

*I refer to Trump's policies, but of course, I mean his administration's policies. I don't really think he personally has much interest in any policy specifics beyond a couple hobby horses.

[Montmorency]

So the "FBI investigation" into Kavanaugh was a canard that didn't interview anyone or collect any information. It was all a cover. Looks like they were astute who estimated that Republicans wouldn't ride Kavanaugh to the brink just to pull back at the final moment.

My fixed and final prediction: Kavanaugh confirmed 51-49 - all Republicans confirm except Murkowski; all Democrats reject except Manchin.


We both know the Democrats won't put up a centrist. They've been sprinting left ever since Bernie nearly took the nomination out from under Hillary. Socialism is cool now- it's what all the kids are talking about.

At this point, Avenatti (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kiwkzgyzgztmrq1/WhatIBelieve.pdf?dl=0) would be a centrist candidate. The only socialist/New Dealer with a ghost of a chance at winning the Democratic nomination in 2020 is Sanders himself.


1What I BelieveMichael Avenatti, August 27, 2018Climate Change and the Environment. Climate change is an urgent threat. I believe America should be a leader in taking bold steps to tackle climate change, includingrejoining the Paris Agreement, investing heavily in renewable energy, reducing oil consumption, and setting more ambitious targets for cutting carbon pollution. I believe that America should be the world’s leader in clean energy.Child Care.In most states, child care is as expensive as tuition at a typical 4 yearcollege and evenrent. Childcareis so expensivethatmany families simply cannot afford it, leaving millions of women unable to participate in the workforce. Around half of Americans live in child care deserts, places with severe undersupply of licensed childcare options., which hurts working families. I believe in supporting working mothers and their families. I support expandingsubsidies and tax credits for child care for low and middle-income families.College Affordability. The cost of collegeand secondaryis soaring. No young person in America should have to forego education because it is too expensive. I believe we need to make college and secondary education more affordable for all Americans and reduce the crippling debt load (with exorbitant interest rates) that is trapping millions of young peoplefrom starting their lives and careers.Criminal Justice Reform.Our criminal justice systemurgently needs reform. Mass incarcaration has put millions of Americans behind bars for nonviolent offences,with many more waiting months and years in jail just awaiting trial. African American men are disproportionately impacted, facing higher rates of being stopped on the street and being charged with crimes. African Americans and whites uses drugs at similar rates, but African Americans are imprisoned at a level six times that of whites. I believe we should reform mandatory minimum sentencing, end racial profiling, and ease re-entry by investing in job programs. Also, no American should sit in jail for the crime of being poor; we need to end cash bail. Education. I believe that teachers shouldn’t have to work two or three jobs just to pay their bills -we must provide more financial benefits to our teachers. I believe that a kid’s zip code shouldn’t determine their futureand that every child deserves a quality educationstarting from an early age.Foreign Relations. We need to restore America’s place in the world and reassure our allies that America stands with them. I fully back NATO and our long-standing alliances, which we must now repair. We must also negotiate denuclearization agreements with North Korea and Iran. I believe we cannot choose Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence officials who put their lives on the line to keep our country safe. We should forcefully call out Russia as a serious threat to our democracy and
2make it clear that we do not serve at the hand of Vladimir Putin. We must impose severe consequences, not lip-service, for Russia’s meddling in the 2016 elections and ensure that it never happens again. Gun Control. Parents should not be afraid to send their children to school for fear they may be shot and killed. We cannot allow mass school shootings to continue in America. I repeat –We cannot allow mass school shootings to continue in America. I support sensible gun control, including background checks and bans on assault weapons and bump stocks. I believe gun manufacturers should be held to the same civil liability standards as other product manufacturers in the United States.Immigration. I believe in a strong, efficient and human border. We need an immigration policy that secures our borders while ending the separation and destruction of families at the border, and that stays true to our history of welcoming those who seek a better life, like my great grandfather Agostino. We should provide DREAMers, who contribute so much to this country, with a path to citizenship. We should not construct a wall on the southern border -it’s a waste of money better spent on a real infrastructure plan. We should not eliminate ICE but we must change the way ICE carries out enforcement.Infrastructure.America’s crumbling infrastructure makes it harder for us to get to work, to get home to our families, to stay competitive. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives American infrastructure just a D+ grade –just above failing –dueto a dire lack of investment and delayed maintenance. I believe in a real infrastructure package to build highways, airports, bridgesand dams that make our country more competitive, while putting hard working Americans to work in good paying jobs. My detailed plan will be called the “Real Deal.”Jobs. I believe we need an economic plan that delivers good quality jobs for American workers, not billions for billionaires and wealthy corporations. Real wages have gone down under Trump, costs are rising, and many American workers haven’t seen a raise in years. It is not enough just to lower the unemployment rate. Creating qualityjobs is even more important than increasing the quantityof jobs. For too long, hard working Americans have not earned the pay, benefits or stability that they deserve. Marijuana. Current marijuana regulation and enforcement disproportionately impacts Black and Latino communities. It also costs the federal government too much money for the little it accomplishes. I believe the federal government should decriminalize marijuana at the federal leveland the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 should be amended to eliminate the inclusion of cannabis and marijuana from Schedule I. Medicare for All. The price of health insurance plans and essential drugs have been rising uncontrollably, squeezing already tight budgets and putting enormous strain on families. The average
3price of health insurance plans for a family of four rises $100 every month, whilethe cost of the top brand name drugs more than doubled between 2008 and 2014. I believe every American deserves affordable, quality health care. I support the expansion of a Medicare plan for all Americans that covers everyone including those with pre-existing conditions. Individuals should be able to purchase additional coverage if they so choose. We cannot abandon millions of Americans who face serious, devastating consequences from nothaving health coverage.Military Spendingand Veterans. We must ensure that the men and women that place their lives at risk to keep us safe have the latest technology and weapons at their disposal to accomplish their missions. We also need a military that remains flexible and ready to act in an ever-changing world with divergent types of conflict. I believe we need to do far more to take care of our veterans after they serve our country. This starts, but not ends, with providing them with adequate health care and mental health programs. To this end, the VA Mission Act must be implemented in a way that benefits veterans –not private companies looking to get rich at the expense of veterans.Money in Politics. Money is the root of all evil in politics. We need to pass meaningful campaign finance reform that corrects the Citizens Uniteddecision. If I choose to run for office, I will not take any corporate PAC money. I believe all candidates for president in 2020 should refund allcorporate PAC money they have received since January 1, 2016 if they are sincere about campaign finance reform, otherwise it is all talk designed to deceive voters.Paid Family Leave. Our country’s policies are failing to provide basic security to American families.25% of American mothers return to work just 10 days after giving birth. I believe we should enact a paid family leave plan that covers women and men who are caring for a new child, a family member with a serious medical condition, or a personal health issues. We need to ensure that providing critical care to our loved ones doesn’t prevent Americans from paying their bills. Race, Discrimination and LGBT Rights. America deserves a president who is a uniter not a divider, who moves us forward not backwards, and wholeads an inclusive, diverse government that protects allAmericans from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. I believe our laws must protect against discrimination and that Americansshould always be empowered to fight to protect theirrights in court. We must guarantee that the Supreme Court’s prior decisions protecting those in the minority are never overturned.Role of the Cabinet. I believe aPresident’s cabinet should be comprised of experts in their field, not underqualified political stooges. Cabinet members should be listened to, consulted on a regular basis and relied upon to help lead the United States. Supreme Court. Never again can westand by andallow a Supreme Court seat to be stolen from the Americanpeopleas in 2016. Period. The stakes in2020 are clear: if Democrats lose, Trump will usher in a 7-2 Court that will turn back progress from the last fifty years and dramatically change life
4in America as we presently know it. FOR DECADES.I believe theseriousness of this cannot be overstated. It is critical that the Democratic nominee for President have a full understanding of the Supreme Court and be able to win. Taxes.The Trump tax plan is a terrible deal for American workers. While thelargestcompanies savebillions of dollarsin taxes each year, the average American blue-collar worker has seen an additional $5 in their paycheck. The tax cuts will add nearly $2 trillion to the national debt for our kids to deal with, while leaving no lasting benefits. Corporations are spending theirwindfall on their shareholders, not their employees. I believe in a real deal tax plan to put more money back into the pockets of hard working Americans -not a rigged plan that just benefits the rich and powerful. Trade. For too long, America has entered into trade deals that prioritize corporations and disadvantage American workers, shutter factories, and ship jobs overseas. I believe we need to be aggressive in dealing with countries that have gamed the system -but smart about how we fight back to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm on American workers and farmers. Especially when it comes to this issue, we must think ahead and play chess, not Tic-Tac-Toe. Unions. I fully back unions. I believe that all workers should have the right to organize and bargain collectively to improve pay, benefits and safety. Women’s Health and Opportunity. I support a woman’s right to choose. Full stop. We must ensure that Roe v. Wadeis neveroverturned and restore full federal funding to Planned Parenthood. I believe that the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution should be ratified and that women and men doing the same work deserve to take home the same pay. I support the expansion of legal protections for workers against rampant sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
1



Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad.

Well, yes. Trump is the Republican Party, and the party is Trump.


I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.


Anyone who has been waiting on the Republican Party to cut spending any time in the past few generations has already bought all the bridges they could ever need.

[Montmorency]

Kavanaugh confirmed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Vote


On October 5, the Senate voted 51-49 for cloture, advancing the nomination to a final floor vote on October 6. The vote was almost entirely along party lines, with Democrat Joe Manchin voting yes and Republican Lisa Murkowski voting no.[109][110]


My fixed and final prediction: Kavanaugh confirmed 51-49 - all Republicans confirm except Murkowski; all Democrats reject except Manchin.

:daisy: YOU

:daisy: YOU

I GOT IT RIGHT :smug: :smug: :smug:

But it came down to Manchin, the D - West Virginia Senator, to cast the deciding vote? When one Republican Senator was absent and could not vote? Manchin ostensibly values a few more years in office above a permanent degradation of the SCOTUS such that the radicals can cement their case for its effective dissolution as an institution?

Can we process the Blue Dogs for glue yet?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The final tally was clearly well known by leadership in advance, or a certain Senator's daughter's wedding would have been delayed a few hours.

You did, Monty, more or less precisely predict the final vote.

[Montmorency]

The final tally was clearly well known by leadership in advance, or a certain Senator's daughter's wedding would have been delayed a few hours.

You did, Monty, more or less precisely predict the final vote.

Murkowski "paired" with that Senator (voted Present), and Manchin and Collins had declared within the past day, so the outcome was known by Friday afternoon.

Well, it was a remedial prediction in truth.

I posted before Manchin declared for Kavanaugh, but it was at the very endgame after the FBI investigation came out and Flake and Collins made their dispositive noises. If you then have every article on the subject noting separately that Manchin is the expected swing Democrat, and that Murkowski is the most precarious Republican, it doesn't take uncommon erudition to sum 1 and 1 together.

It does always feel great to make the right call, though.

https://gph.to/2yop8HM

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Murkowski "paired" with that Senator (voted Present), and Manchin and Collins had declared within the past day, so the outcome was known by Friday afternoon.

Well, it was a remedial prediction in truth....

There is a small part of me that wishes that the vote had come down to a 50-50, and then Pence then voted "No."

NOT because of any great qualms I have with Kavanaugh as a jurist (had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected, but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far). But because it would have split the GOP in half and wrecked its current form. I am increasingly of a mind that that must be (in some form) a needful step to moving towards a better conservative party for the USA.

[Montmorency]

There is a small part of me that wishes that the vote had come down to a 50-50, and then Pence then voted "No."

NOT because of any great qualms I have with Kavanaugh as a jurist (had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected, but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far). But because it would have split the GOP in half and wrecked its current form. I am increasingly of a mind that that must be (in some form) a needful step to moving towards a better conservative party for the USA.

Wild story.


had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected,

I have some problems with this.

1. If anything short of Kavanaugh personally declaring "Yes, I was an '80s prep villain all my life, and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling liberals!" could have sunk his nomination, it would have been because Manchin or Flake would have changed their vote (i.e. it would have been 49-50). And not really Collins, with her speech she indicated her position was fixed from the beginning.
2. As long as we're referring to legal standards, the integrity of the nominee is what must be demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt", not the opposite. If every single accuser and corroborating witness against him were Soros-paid liars, Kavanaugh still would not have been fit. Somehow the Republicans convinced a swathe of the country that lifetime positions of power should be held to lower scrutiny than a security guard or McDonalds shift manager.
3. Kavanaugh's own statements and behavior, as well as the platoon of character witnesses and affiants, are all consistent with a characterization of Kavanaugh as an aggressive sex pest.


EDIT:
but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far

By the way, you claim to be libertarian-leaning. Kavanaugh's record favors a very weak 4th (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-confirmation-fourth-amendment/) and 5th (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-kavanaugh-police-illegal-searches-miranda-20180715-story.html) Amendments (https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/), among other things (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/06/brett-kavanaugh-really-thinks-219159).

[Montmorency]

Apropos, another nail in the coffin of the theory of judicial "impartiality": justices pay considerable attention to popular moods and concern themselves with managing the public perception of the court's legitimacy.

Example courtesy of Obama's picks (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/06/supreme-courts-elena-kagan-sonia-sotomayor-avoid-partisan-politics.html).

Remember "a switch in time saved nine?"

[Gilrandir]

Being far from well-versed in this Kavanugh to-do I can't but say I'm shocked to see people (not here but at rallies in Wasnigton) denouncing him ONLY NOW for what he (allegedly) did 30 odd years ago. Like it hasn't botherd them to a slightest degree for thirty years and when he got a big appointment it suddenly became a problem. Where's your integrity, folks?

[rory_20_uk]

Being far from well-versed in this Kavanugh to-do I can't but say I'm shocked to see people (not here but at rallies in Wasnigton) denouncing him ONLY NOW for what he (allegedly) did 30 odd years ago. Like it hasn't botherd them to a slightest degree for thirty years and when he got a big appointment it suddenly became a problem. Where's your integrity, folks?

I imagine in many cases they didn't know about it. How would they? I don't think he was on a register was he?

In cases where the woman is truly a victim odds are they'll not get justice since getting evidence is nigh on impossible and they'll in many cases suffer as much as the other party: the next person they meet and want to have a relationship with would certainly take this into account, as would their employer and so on and so forth. So with the gains so low and downsides so high, best to not bother. When the ration shifts - there is probably more reason to speak out. Leaving aside the whole sexual assault charge, he seems to have willfully lied about many things in the Senate hearing and that should be enough to get him disqualified: if one is a Doctor and fails to report a traffic offence that can be enough to get one struck off and I'd like to think that the standards are even higher for the Supreme Court. But of course they're not.

Is there a shortage of white, conservative judges? Surely not! So bin this lying sot and choose the next misogynist racist and give him a black robe to go along with his white one.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rory summarizes this nicely as to the victims in such situations. Some repress memories from a horrific experience and remember them much later. Others choose to set it aside and move forward rather than carrying a "label" on them thereafter. This was particularly true for those raised in the 20th century rather than the 21st as the era was far less open and effective in discussing all forms of sexual harassment.

I should note that Kavanagh has not been accused of any racist orientation. The accusations were regarding sexual harassment and attempted rape, mostly connected with drunkenness. Kavanagh vehemently denies same. No clear corroboration was brought forward during the somewhat abbreviated investigation.

Many assume Justice Kavanagh is lying and was a sot. Many others assume that this was a last minute smear campaign to derail the nomination and make Trump look bade.

It is possible that both viewpoints are correct.

[Gilrandir]

So with the gains so low and downsides so high, best to not bother. When the ration shifts - there is probably more reason to speak out.
~:smoking:

This is what I meant: the key words are "gains", "reason" and "ration", not "offense", "feelings", "hurt". And that is why I don't think much of charges voiced thirty years after the alleged crime.

[rory_20_uk]

This is what I meant: the key words are "gains", "reason" and "ration", not "offense", "feelings", "hurt". And that is why I don't think much of charges voiced thirty years after the alleged crime.

And clearly not high enough to criminally convict. Possibly not at the civil level. Might be enough to sack. And easily enough to not promote to a job for life.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

No clear corroboration was brought forward during the somewhat abbreviated investigation.

The Republicans were absolutely devious. Trump had the authority to manage the FBI investigation, which he at first played up to create cover - but instead of suppressing it himself he merely assigned direct control of it to the Senate Republicans themselves. It's a stroke of evil genius for its misdirection. So the investigation could not corroborate anything, because they were directed not to investigate or interview potential corroborating leads! Numerous individuals came forward to report corroborating accounts to the FBI, potentially dozens asking to be interviewed, and all were stonewalled. This is also a chilling signal of the admin's capacity to effect political control over national law enforcement...

Remember all the takes from Christmastime about how America's "institutional guardrails" had held up fairly well so far? LOL

Now, the accusations themselves were fairly corroborated given what has been reported to the public, unless you use "corroboration" as a term of art meaning a level of evidence that would convince Buzz Aldrin that the moon landings were a hoax.


Many assume Justice Kavanagh is lying and was a sot. Many others assume that this was a last minute smear campaign to derail the nomination and make Trump look bade.

It is possible that both viewpoints are correct.

It is objectively true that Kavanaugh told lies under oath. Now, if one wanted to value them as permissible "little white lies", that would be a moral and political contention that could only be resolved through the wielding of power. But a lie is a lie.

"Smear campaign" implies false allegations cooked up ahead of time. In fact (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566), communications were uncovered indicating Kavanaugh and co were trying to get their stories straight about anticipated allegations as early as July. Something he misled the committee about, I remind you, when he said he became aware of the substance at the same time as the public did. The simplest explanation is exactly that Ford was hesitant to go forward with the charge, Feinstein honored her wishes, someone with access to the material became impatient and leaked it, and - as is usually the case with sexual crimes - once one cat was out of the bag the rest began pouring forth. The fact that Democrats made at least some effort to seize the developing narrative is not only rational, it's fully appropriate from an institutional point of view.

Though Trump appeared to acknowledge the allegations at first, more recently he has been pushing the conspiracy narrative and decrying them as wholly fabricated, personally attacking Ford over and over, in his rallies, to the media, on Twitter:


You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob, and that's what they've become. Democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.

That's right, the (illegitimate) president of the (illegitimate) ruling party just declared his opposition illegitimate enemies of the state. CAN WE ADMIT THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL CONFLICT AND RESPOND IN TURN SOON




This is what I meant: the key words are "gains", "reason" and "ration", not "offense", "feelings", "hurt". And that is why I don't think much of charges voiced thirty years after the alleged crime.

Gilrandir, you are applying a nonsensical standard. You're a smart guy. Try to think of why a person in a position of weakness and vulnerability might not want to stake their "lives, fortune, and sacred honor" on the tiny chance of retribution or justice. Have you ever encountered any misconduct or malfeasance in government or your profession? Did you report this immediately to authorities? Did you pursue the issue relentlessly if it was not speedily resolved to your satisfaction? If not, would your integrity somehow come into question?

If things were so straightforward corruption would not preoccupy political economy, as it would be outed at every instance. Now apply that to sexual assault, and you realize your question serves as its own answer.

https://i.imgur.com/blYwLni.png

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty, is it worth your life to shoot the fellow now, or should we allow the electoral and/or removal process to proceed? I am happy with the latter two choices.

Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause. The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

This must stop, or we are in for a long series of Trumps, each one 'trumping' the last in hyperbolic vitriol and furthering our collective addiction to outrage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ISP hiccough. Please excuse the double post. Mods feel free to delete.

[Gilrandir]

And clearly not high enough to criminally convict. Possibly not at the civil level. Might be enough to sack. And easily enough to not promote to a job for life.

~:smoking:

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?




Try to think of why a person in a position of weakness and vulnerability might not want to stake their "lives, fortune, and sacred honor" on the tiny chance of retribution or justice.


So now the alleged victims are not in the position of weakness and vulnerability because they are thirty years older? Or because they found someone who will turn their weakness into strength and vulnerability into impunity? The someone who didn't care two, five, seven years ago and now he does?



Have you ever encountered any misconduct or malfeasance in government or your profession? Did you report this immediately to authorities? Did you pursue the issue relentlessly if it was not speedily resolved to your satisfaction? If not, would your integrity somehow come into question?


If I didn't do it back then I don't see why I should do it now. Otherwise it will look very much like concealing a crime aka complicity.



If things were so straightforward corruption would not preoccupy political economy, as it would be outed at every instance. Now apply that to sexual assault, and you realize your question serves as its own answer.


I'm the last person to take Kava's side in this story. I can readily believe that he must have done all the things he is charged with. Yet I don't buy that if something surfaces after decades of silence just at the right (or wrong, for the alleged perpetrator) moment it happens just because victims have finally plucked up their hearts and made a step.

[Husar]

Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause. The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

[rory_20_uk]

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

~:smoking:

All appointments to the federal bench in the USA are life appointments. All require Senate confirmation.

None, save for the SCOTUS, gets much play in our media except for pieces covering how many bench slots are unfilled and the political infighting which prevents/slows appointments to those vacancies. Please note that slowing/refusing to confirm judges has been a tactic of the party not holding the White House for decades now and both parties have been ridiculous on this matter. The judge nominees themselves are rarely discussed at any length by the media except those nominees for SCOTUS. The Senate GOP leadership's inane refusal to allow a vote on Obama's last SCOTUS appointment for most of a year until his term ended is only the most publicized example of this mis-management.

Justice Kavanagh would have filled out the forms used by the FBI in conducting background checks (such as are used to establish security clearances). He would certainly have been asked to report having been convicted for any felonious behavior. I am not sure if he would have been asked something along the lines of "have you ever committed...even if you have not been prosecuted for same" type questions. Questions akin to this do show up on security clearance questionnaires, but I am not sure if the same holds true for background checks for appointees. If such questions were asked and he responded in the negative, and if he had done such an act, that would be perjury. Montmorency says he has already perjured himself, but I am not sure if he is going off FOIA material or media material in asserting that.

[Strike For The South]

I was wrong.
Monty was right.
Remember kids, Vote Democrat until the trumpets sound, Kingdom come, and we all go home.

Cronyn had a particularly reprehensible tweet. Something along the lines of "might not be beers for Brett but Bubbly for Brett". I want nothing to do with that or a justice who (at the very least) is a lair and conspiracy theorist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/08/the-dark-side-of-american-conservatism-has-taken-over/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dafdca453526

Pretty much this. Although I would hesitate to call my crazy belief that everyone should have medicine as "center right". However, in the past, Some of the more moderate GOP candidates would appeal to me. That can no longer be the case.

[Montmorency]

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?



So now the alleged victims are not in the position of weakness and vulnerability because they are thirty years older? Or because they found someone who will turn their weakness into strength and vulnerability into impunity? The someone who didn't care two, five, seven years ago and now he does?



If I didn't do it back then I don't see why I should do it now. Otherwise it will look very much like concealing a crime aka complicity.



I'm the last person to take Kava's side in this story. I can readily believe that he must have done all the things he is charged with. Yet I don't buy that if something surfaces after decades of silence just at the right (or wrong, for the alleged perpetrator) moment it happens just because victims have finally plucked up their hearts and made a step.

No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.

The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?

Let's imagine (I'm not saying this ever happened) that you sexually assaulted a girl in gymnasium. Let's say, 15 years later, you are approved to the position of teacher or professor at some school somewhere. Is this woman whom you assaulted half a lifetime ago supposed to be stalking you, ready to pounce and lay down large amounts of her own time and money in trying to prevent you from getting a job? To put her reputation on the line, to be labeled as a troublemaker in her own circles? A thousand men could assault a thousand women, and this kind of scenario would play out maybe once. The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny. The costs for the accuser are higher, but so are the costs of not speaking up and allowing a predator into office. These deliberations are always very difficult, and you have to see how culture plays a role. Before a few decades ago, adultery would have been seen as far worse than any number of rapes so long as the victims were "loose women", so coming out until historically recently would have been madness irrespective of the strength of the claims. Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.

Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.


If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post. Anyway, a Clinton administration would be better for the country and its people in almost every way, unless you take a wildcard Zizek approach and speculate that the world needs a tragic shock to awaken popular internationalism. Well, we'll get to find out over the next decade if a few years of international fascism on 5 continents can be easily overturned.

[Montmorency]

Montmorency says he has already perjured himself, but I am not sure if he is going off FOIA material or media material in asserting that.

Shammo, I've given multiple examples of Kavanaugh lying under oath, demonstrably so. And for a foul purpose, with conscience of wrong-doing not a benign or "white" one.

If you want more, here are ten-thousand words on "how we know Kavanaugh is lying (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying)" - and it's hardly the half of it!


Monty, is it worth your life to shoot the fellow now, or should we allow the electoral and/or removal process to proceed? I am happy with the latter two choices.

Not sure what this is referring to. I have never advocated violence against the President. He must be afforded due process in the last word.


Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause.

I agree. That's what has been said and repeated here and everywhere for over a year. Trumpism without Trump will find many depths of depravity to plumb, is what I'm alerting you to. A nightmare on the American continent.


The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

This must stop, or we are in for a long series of Trumps, each one 'trumping' the last in hyperbolic vitriol and furthering our collective addiction to outrage.

It's really just the Republicans. Mainstream Democrats have not consistently worked to erode institutions and rule of law to build minoritarian power, have not committed to a platform of ecstatic cruelty and malice against perceived enemies over the improvement of the common weal, have not rejected electoral and normative politics in favor of eliminationist and civil war rhetoric. That's Republicans, not Democrats. 10 years ago it was the militias, the best-selling conservative authors, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. Now it's Fox News, the Federalist, Breitbart, Red State websites (along with numerous others), the Republican Congress, and the White House itself. The Republican Party is at war with most of the country, and they want it their way or the helicopter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights).


https://i.imgur.com/h8loMj1.jpg


This is not fringe, this is mainstream. It's worthy of another thread, but the Republican Party is perhaps history's single most remarkable exemplar of a vanguard-radical project, of the sort pioneered by Lenin.

Americans have been coddled by the mass media to the point that many are not able to independently conceive of the possibility that two organizations or movements may have fundamental qualitative differences between them.


Republican voters love Trump because they see him putting the hurt on liberals, queers, minorities, etc. Any economic damages or gains they take (mostly damages) due to his policies are beside the point; there are likely few limits on what they will sacrifice to see "the elites" burn, even as the real elites (billionaires) are spared. Trump works so well precisely because he can short-circuit politics and get to the emotional core of what apolitical Republican voters want. If this is the most important thing in their lives, then the only ethical option is to subdue them with a minimum of coercion. We can try to identify the reasonable and attempt to reason with them, but only a hidebound liberal or a bleeding-heart socialist could believe in the force of pure reason in the light of contemporary and world history. To the contrary, force shits on reason's back.

Don't make the mistake of allowing presentist complacency to blind you to the momentum of history now; we have not crashed yet, but we can see how the train is moving and where it is moving to. Lest you be inclined to judge my posts as ill-considered or developed out of distemperate passion rather than cold appraisal, let me remind you: In less than a decade within the liberal consensus the inconceivable transformed into the laughable and impossible moved into the preposterous became the merely improbable - until it had, in the pomp and the silence, suddenly arrived like the masque of Red Death. The long 20th century is over. It ended in 2016. This one is just beginning. I don't know if the future holds socialism, but barbarism is to be expected.

We know that civilizations can collapse: they have collapsed before.

[Husar]

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post.

He was wondering whether Trump was a symptom or a cause and I said he might well be both. The Clinton addition was just because I anticipated certain answers and thought about the alternatives.

The Pinochet shirt is terrible btw.

[Gilrandir]

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

~:smoking:

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?


No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.


How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?



The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?


1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.



The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny.


Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?



Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.


You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.



Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.


So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

[rory_20_uk]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

~:smoking:

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

Fair enough. I on the other hand refer judges to be not to perjure themselves in their assessment for the role.

The charges appeared right at the point it was televised he was being considered. Surely more interesting is the FBI were prevented from investigating? Ascertaining the truth and all that?

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?



How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?



1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.



Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?



You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.

So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh)? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Yes. The threshold - again, the threshold for an individual publicly coming out, putting themselves on the line to block the accused perpetrator - is and has always been very high. In recent years, the threshold may have been reduced with cultural change, though even this will affect younger women more intensely than older ones. And yes, the position of Supreme Court justice is almost as important as Prime Minister of most European countries.

More generally, if you haven't noticed, when sexual assault allegations come at against political figures, they often do so when these figures are attempting to elevate their office. The reasons for this should be obvious: the stakes are higher, and the allegations are more visible and more likely to be acted upon (for example, a politician is unlikely to be investigated if you as a victim go to the police to report it quietly). In the end, victims as a group usually just want to move on with their lives. They're not interested in fighting a war, in almost all cases, unless provoked or afforded a unique opportunity. So people who do receive allegations of this type will tend to be influential, rich, high-level in politics and industry - again, because the stakes are higher. And the victims are more likely to be educated professionals anyway, which potentially affords an impetus and advantage.

And in all this, I'd like you to keep the timeline in mind: The allegations were kept undisclosed for weeks because the accuser contacted her representatives with it and explicitly asked them not to publicize it. Ford only revealed herself once the material was leaked. Because Ford understood what she would have to endure if identified, what she will now have to endure for the rest of her working life. And the subsequent accusations were submitted largely because of Ford's example. The metaphors are obvious: a breaking dam, forging a trail... You can expect that there were more (there are always more) who did not come forward because they believed it to be futile (they were correct), or because their fear and discomfort of going under public scrutiny was too great.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.


Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

~:smoking:

If you had someone interviewing for a job, and you pointed out some unsavory things you had heard about their past, and they started crying and screaming about how this is all a conspiracy to smear their perfect name, that they like beer, they LIKE beer, but so does everyone and they were always paragons of virtue and virgins until late at life, lying about basic details of their lives and exaggerating others, sneering at or evading your questions and mocking you for them, basically demanding the job as an entitlement -

a normal interviewer would tell them something like, "Get out of here or I'm calling the cops." This is what I mean when I say Kavanaugh was held to a lower standard than a security guard or fast food manager.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDumWOjmQfI

[Gilrandir]

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh)? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?


Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.



Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.


My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

[Montmorency]

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.



My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

Gilrandir, I'm not sure I quite understand you. It should be obvious that in a political context sexual assault allegations will always have a political valence. This is by definition almost. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise, unless there were some robust law enforcement/investigative mechanism to automatically investigate every possible angle with non-political expertise, and all political groups have the utmost faith in these.

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

Questioning the (assumed) victim on their motives defies reason. Humans make odd choices all the time when it comes to emotional trauma, and my brain certainly can't justify judging a woman for waiting three decades to speak out when I still wake up from nightmares of myself forgetting a final (test), and I've been out of college for years!

[Gilrandir]

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

I'm well into All the kings men by R.P.Warren. Reading it and having seeing how things are done in Ukraine I tend to believe that politicians interested in the issue are always alert for misconducts of any persons liable for a big appointment and are absolutely indifferent to those misconducts if a big appointment never comes. And if this appointment is going to happen/has just happened they are likely to call a Jack Burden and ask him to find all he can on a Judge Irwin (see the mentioned book). So "generated" is too strong a word, but dug out and fanned out of proportions is what I guess is happenning in such cases. The ultimate purpose of such people in the issue under discussion would be to topple Trump (or at least to hurt him as much as possible). So their aims seemed to chime with the victims' coming out. One could argue if it was started by victims and then carried on by political actors or vice versa, but it really doesn't matter much (to me anyway).


Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.


If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

[Husar]

Blablabla, if all the time spent bickering over assumptions had been spent on a proper investigation...

[Beskar]

Max Boot on why his own party, the Republicans need to burn to the ground so Conversativism in America can be saved from white nationalist trash that hijacked his party.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/destroy-the-republican-party-max-boot-calls-for-a-clean-start/
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17955400/max-boot-trump-conservatism-gop-goldwater

[a completely inoffensive name]

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

Not if that person is the victim.