Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

The 2020 election might end up being a fight for Trump's freedom.  If he loses, he would no longer be a sitting President and open to whatever charges recommended by either Mueller or any other investigator.    He'll need to win in 2020 to run out the clock on the statute of limitations of his various crimes.  

If we thought Trump said some wacky, messed up shit before, just wait until the 2020 election season.  Deranged plus desperation...  Should be fun. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is happening to Ilhan Omar is one of the saddest non Trump related things to happen in American politics in a while. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jakey Styley said:

What is happening to Ilhan Omar is one of the saddest non Trump related things to happen in American politics in a while. 

Im late to this. The DNC is censuring Omar for her remarks on Israeli Lobbying and money in politics? Or is the censure delivered by the Democrats in the House of Representatives?

Does a censure have teeth - like 3 strikes and you're out?

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, soon said:

Im late to this. The DNC is censuring Omar for her remarks on Israeli Lobbying and money in politics? Or is the censure delivered by the Democrats in the House of Representatives?

Does a censure have teeth - like 3 strikes and you're out?

AIPAC is pissed someone had the balls to call them out, so they're responding by flexing their muscles. I haven't heard the censure is official, just being talked about, but it would come from the House itself most likely. There's a resolution being passed around the House (written by AIPAC's lobbyists, I can guarantee you that) condemning what they believe is antisemitism in Omar's remarks - it's basically a fancy letter and usually doesn't lead to anything actionable, just a statement. And while I agree she perhaps didn't use the best wording to express her point, nothing she said that I've seen was truly antisemitic. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

AIPAC is pissed someone had the balls to call them out, so they're responding by flexing their muscles. I haven't heard the censure is official, just being talked about, but it would come from the House itself most likely. There's a resolution being passed around the House (written by AIPAC's lobbyists, I can guarantee you that) condemning what they believe is antisemitism in Omar's remarks - it's basically a fancy letter and usually doesn't lead to anything actionable, just a statement. And while I agree she perhaps didn't use the best wording to express her point, nothing she said that I've seen was truly antisemitic. 

Thanks. So the resolution would be adopted by both parties? And its rare that the Dems would participate in such a move against one of their own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soon said:

Thanks. So the resolution would be adopted by both parties? And its rare that the Dems would participate in such a move against one of their own?

I don't think it requires a threshold of signatories to "approve" or "pass" the resolution, if that's what you're asking. The resolution exists and now the lobbyists are trying to get as many MoCs to sign it. The more signatures your resolution has, the more powerful the message is, but for this type of resolution there's no "it passed! now we do <insert action here>." There are things Democrats (Pelosi mainly) can to do punish Omar, but those are independent of a resolution or censure. And to answer your question about the censure, no I don't think that leads to any action either. Not sure about repeated censures though.

I would say it's rare but not unheard of. This page shows the similar occurrences in history. I don't recall who/which party initiated the Rangel and Richardson ones (which are the two most recent).

Just shows how powerful the conservative Israel lobby is, they have MoCs normally considered liberal foaming at the mouth to do their bidding.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

:lol: 

 

Quote

Trump Insurance Broker Subpoenaed By New York Regulators

The Trump Organization’s longtime insurance broker is the target of what the New York Timescalls “an expansive subpoena” from New York State regulators, according to “a person briefed on the matter.”

The subpoena appears to be a result of House testimony last week by Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who “indicated … that the Trump Organization inflated the value of its assets to insurance companies” — which potentially could lead to fraud charges.

Aon, one of the world’s largest insurance brokerages, was served a subpoena late Monday, the first step in an investigation of policies involving President Trump’s family business.

“The nine-page subpoena demands a broad range of materials regarding Aon’s business” with Trump, says the Times, “dating back to 2009.”

The Times says the Trump Organization and Aon didn’t respond to requests for comment, and a spokesman for the New York Department of Financial Services declined a similar request.

“It could take the agency’s investigators months to analyze all the information they collect,” the Times says.

https://www.newsandguts.com/trump-insurance-broker-subpoenaed-by-new-york-regulators/?fbclid=IwAR172bHuI2Z_zabeDdqjWAxpsZCau1UZAXz2agZz8XHr6jqOOrT-nRnvR70

 

Edited by Dazey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's this kind of nonsense that I think justifies all the ridicule the GOP receives.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-to-probe-why-epa-stopped-nasa-tracking-toxic-hurricane-harvey-pollution

Along with studying gun violence, it's just mind-blowing that Republican orthodoxy is to simply stick their head up their asses, fearing that they may learn something that runs counter to their assumptions.  

It's almost as if the party's official motto is "fuck knowledge!"  

Similar to the claims about the round of tax cuts they passed two years ago.

https://www.axios.com/federal-deficit-77-year-16fd4460-7ac0-4050-a42d-7d2b442533b0.html

"They'll pay for themselves."  What an absolute joke of political party.  One giant fraud perpetrated against the people they purport to represent and serve.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Trump nixes public report on drone-strike deaths

Trump's uptick in airstrikes is the most understated horrible thing this administration is doing.

Now he doesn't want people to know how many civilians hes killing (and lets be honest, the data is probably already skewed).  

The drone program is one of my biggest critique's of Obama. At least he initiated a precedent of transparency about it. It actually looks like the Trump WH was ignoring the mandate and never published the info anyway, or at least didn't do it regularly, can't find it.

Will Republicans criticize Trump in this regard as they did for Obama? We'll see, but I have my doubts.

Regardless of politics, medium to large scale body count projects are often inaccurate, especially when the means of destruction is explosive - so it's likely any published numbers (regardless of administration) are going to be slightly to drastically erroneous, depending on the war/strike/mission. And I'd assume these reports lean on figuring out how to publish the lowest numbers possible through technicalities and ambiguities.

5 hours ago, downzy said:

It's this kind of nonsense that I think justifies all the ridicule the GOP receives.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-to-probe-why-epa-stopped-nasa-tracking-toxic-hurricane-harvey-pollution

Along with studying gun violence, it's just mind-blowing that Republican orthodoxy is to simply stick their head up their asses, fearing that they may learn something that runs counter to their assumptions.  

It's almost as if the party's official motto is "fuck knowledge!"  

Similar to the claims about the round of tax cuts they passed two years ago.

https://www.axios.com/federal-deficit-77-year-16fd4460-7ac0-4050-a42d-7d2b442533b0.html

"They'll pay for themselves."  What an absolute joke of political party.  One giant fraud perpetrated against the people they purport to represent and serve.  

Out of likes, but yeah. It's pretty indefensible and when conservatives come here they really don't have a valid argument in support of this stuff. :shrugs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/5/2019 at 3:40 PM, soon said:

Thanks. So the resolution would be adopted by both parties? And its rare that the Dems would participate in such a move against one of their own?

I'm actually not 100% what's going on with this, now that I look further into it. I saw an article noting a counter-resolution was introduced to echo the sentiment against anit-Semitism, but to also reinforce having an open dialogue rather than shouting anti-Semitism when someone criticizes Israel. Then I saw the original resolution passed a vote in the House today, though it had been significantly expanded in scope. Resolutions aren't always voted on in Congress, and initially it seemed this one was just a cosponsor race, but it looks like something happened behind the scenes to change that and the scope of what it discussed, and then a full House vote took place. It doesn't really look like it's about Omar anymore. I'm surprised AIPAC capitulated, if that's what happened.

 

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an exercise in political futility. Thank you, U.S Lawmakers, for getting together to sign a paper without any utility reminding us that you think racism is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

I'm actually not 100% what's going on with this, now that I look further into it. I saw an article noting a counter-resolution was introduced to echo the sentiment against anit-Semitism, but to also reinforce having an open dialogue rather than shouting anti-Semitism when someone criticizes Israel. Then I saw the original resolution passed a vote in the House today, though it had been significantly expanded in scope. Resolutions aren't always voted on in Congress, and initially it seemed this one was just a cosponsor race, but it looks like something happened behind the scenes to change that and the scope of what it discussed, and then a full House vote took place. It doesn't really look like it's about Omar anymore. I'm surprised AIPAC capitulated, if that's what happened.

 

Thank for this (Canadas leadership is in crisis so its been overshadowing US politics for the first time in our history, lol, in the Trump era no less!)

Wow, that resolution reads like first year students brainstorming for their campus clubs charter document.

I guess once the thing was in motion the best that could be done to resist was to expand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Trump will win the next election, the democrats have zero presence. And there is less than zero chance Trump ever goes to prison or even court.

Edited by Oldest Goat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwjm9/trump-took-a-selfie-with-the-founder-of-the-day-spa-where-robert-kraft-allegedly-bought-sex-services?utm_medium=vicenewsfacebook&fbclid=IwAR11c4ZYk416VujEVec6Jo3Xf2DxdGJKUqOikkVhSXkMA1v5Y7i0h6qhAOM

The person who owned the "day spas" where Kraft (owner of the Patriots) has a self of her and Trump during the recent Super Bowl party where they cheered on the Patriots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Trump will win the next election, the democrats have zero presence. And there is less than zero chance Trump ever goes to prison or even court.

Trump is not as popular as he was 3 years ago. He still has a devoted base, but polling shows a lot of softer supporters are changing their views on specific issues and Trump's overall appeal. But I agree, the big question will be the Democrats' nominee and how they conduct their campaign. As the herd of candidates thins, we can hopefully get some good preliminary polling data. Ideally the candidate won't endure several scandals (legitimate or not, they affected Hillary's campaign, which was mediocre to begin with) because for whatever reason, Trump can shake off any scandal that comes his way, but Democrats are held to a different standard.

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Trump is not as popular as he was 3 years ago. He still has a devoted base, but polling shows a lot of softer supporters are changing their views on specific issues and the Trump's overall appeal. But I agree, the big question will be the Democrats' nominee and how they conduct their campaign. As the herd of candidates things, we can hopefully get some good preliminary polling data. Ideally the candidate won't endure several scandals (legitimate or not, they affected Hillary's campaign, which was mediocre to begin with) because for whatever reason, Trump can shake off any scandal that comes his way, but Democrats are held to a different standard.

I have basically no faith in the political system. I'm pretty depressed and dismayed in general regarding the world stage.

For argument sake, the sake of the game/pretence though I say to beat Trump the best current candidate is Bernie Sanders, this time backed with full support and not sabotaged.

Edited by Oldest Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I have basically no faith in the political system. I'm pretty depressed and dismayed in general regarding the world stage.

For argument sake, the sake of the game/pretence though I say to beat Trump the best current candidate is Bernie Sanders, this time backed with full support and not sabotaged.

Most recent elections aren't won by winning over voters.  It's about turning out voters.  It's a myth that Trump has widespread appeal. He simply ginned up enthusiasm enough amongst those likely to vote Republican where as Clinton suppressed enthusiasm from those likely to vote Democrat.  There were a lot of people who didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate and sat at home.  

The question in 2020 is who can appeal and energize more people to vote.  I disagree completely that Sanders is the candidate to do that.  He has his base, like Trump, but his appeal amongst more centrist voters is weak.  For the Democrats to win in 2020 they need someone who provides a reasonable alternative to Trump.  I think more centrist candidates like Harris, O'Rourke, Hickenlooper would do significantly better in the general against Trump than Sanders.  Sanders is too much change for too many people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, downzy said:

Most recent elections aren't won by winning over voters.  It's about turning out voters.  It's a myth that Trump has widespread appeal. He simply ginned up enthusiasm enough amongst those likely to vote Republican where as Clinton suppressed enthusiasm from those likely to vote Democrat.  There were a lot of people who didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate and sat at home.  

The question in 2020 is who can appeal and energize more people to vote.  I disagree completely that Sanders is the candidate to do that.  He has his base, like Trump, but his appeal amongst more centrist voters is weak.  For the Democrats to win in 2020 they need someone who provides a reasonable alternative to Trump.  I think more centrist candidates like Harris, O'Rourke, Hickenlooper would do significantly better in the general against Trump than Sanders.  Sanders is too much change for too many people.  

Maybe you're right but none of those names you mentioned have presence like Trump or even Hillary had. They're not winners. Presence is key. It's either Bernie with a reinvigorated/reorganised plan and proper party support - or it's someone yet to be seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I have basically no faith in the political system. I'm pretty depressed and dismayed in general regarding the world stage.

For argument sake, the sake of the game/pretence though I say to beat Trump the best current candidate is Bernie Sanders, this time backed with full support and not sabotaged.

I get bummed about the world stage, too, until I return to history and see what the stage has looked like over the past 2000 years.  And before you say it, I'm referring to current politics/war/economies.  Some things are way better, like medicine.  Some things are look scary, like climate change and extinctions. 

Anyway, I'm willing to consider some of the newer faces in the Democratic field, like Mayor Pete, if he decides to run.   https://www.wthr.com/article/howey-mayor-petes-story-going-nationwide  As @downzy says, it's about energizing voters to turn out.  

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So they have (wrongly) jailed Chelsea Manning again for refusing to testify about Wikileaks. This whole thing should be a much bigger story than it is.

They reopened a case that was closed under Obama due to the precedent it would set if Assange were charged/prosecuted - its a very real attack on the freedom of the press.

Edited by -W.A.R-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.axios.com/trump-budget-border-child-care-72d0af07-13d3-4d25-921e-d52a80a29d3e.html

Trump White House released its budget expectations for 2020.  5% more for the military, a cut of $1.9 trillion from safety net programs over ten years.  Another $8.6 billion for the border wall.  

This is what hollowing out the middle looks like.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A Clinton administration neoliberal strategist writes op ed calling for the neoliberals to pass the torch towards the left. An interesting conversation about the shifting landscape.

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×