US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Rockstar]

If any contractors are out of a job during the shutdown they could always go to California.

California's bullet train (and biggest boondoggle) is over budget by billions (with no end in sight)


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartanntp

[Platapus]

Now it is being reported that Trump wants the Senate to use the "nuclear option". This man is truly unable to think strategically. All he seems to do is react.

[Buddahaid]

Trump must be the easiest well known person on the planet to goad.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Now it is being reported that Trump wants the Senate to use the "nuclear option". This man is truly unable to think strategically. All he seems to do is react.

What is this "nuclear option" ?

Markus

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

What is this "nuclear option" ?

Markus

The Senate has the authority to establish the rules for how the Senate operates. Currently, there is a requirement for 60 votes (2/3rd majority) to pass the budget. Congress can, if they wish, vote to change the Senate rules to allow a 51 vote (simple majority). This has been dubbed the nuclear option as it is a very drastic act to take.

Two large problems with evoking the Nuclear option

1. When your party loses the majority in the Senate, the opposing party can take advantage of the 51 vote rule and do stuff you don't want.

2. There is a very real fear of what is called "Tyranny of the majority"where very important decisions can be made by a simple majority at the expense or disadvantage of the minority. This can be significant in a society, like the US, where not only are there only two major political parties, but the nation is pretty much split evenly.

There were very good reasons why the Senate required 60 votes for important stuff. It ensured that it would take more than a simple majority and would, for practical purposes, require compromise within the parties in the Senate.

It is a short sighted solution and can have long lasting consequences.

It has been said that Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Good if you are a wolf, not so good if you are a lamb.

[mapuc]

@ Platapus. Thank you for explaining it for me.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Well you know what they say: "what comes around goes around"

Its unfortunate because Trump suggests the "nuclear option" everyone has a coronary over the anticipated end to freedom democracy and the world as we know it.

A little over three (closer to 4 now) years ago, Senator Mitch McConnell stood on the Senate floor and issued a warning to the Democrats who then controlled the majority.

“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this,” McConnell, then the minority leader, told them. “And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

At the urging of Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats had just voted along strict party lines to change the rules of the Senate, deploying what had become known in Washington as “the nuclear option.”

But I do wholeheartedly agree with Senator McConnell's desire not to press the button. But if he did it wouldn't be the first time a party decided to do such a thing. And guess what happened when they did, the sun still came up the next day and people still got on with their lives.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

As far as "dismissal of people with a different political opinion.", well, you have to make up your mind: is arrogance a laudable asset or a damnable liability?

That depends on who said it and what they said and more significantly why they said it.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

It is what I said it is. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. It's talking down to people to get other people to vote for you. I don't care who's doing it is a mistake and bad political strategy. It's certainlly nothing new but I think that it was a factor in Clintons' loss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is to get people to vote for you. The arrogance comes from the fact that they think it's alright to say things like that because of a belief in a moral superiority. And that seems to be prevalent in US politics.

..stands as a very apt description of Trump; so which is it? By your metric, giving arrogance as a major, disqualifying failing, Trump is not long for the Oval Office...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that for Trump, ignorance is a bigger factor than arrogance.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

That depends on who said it and what they said and more significantly why they said it.





It is what I said it is. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. It's talking down to people to get other people to vote for you. I don't care who's doing it is a mistake and bad political strategy. It's certainlly nothing new but I think that it was a factor in Clintons' loss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is to get people to vote for you. The arrogance comes from the fact that they think it's alright to say things like that because of a belief in a moral superiority. And that seems to be prevalent in US politics.



I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that for Trump, ignorance is a bigger factor than arrogance.

A point of clarification:

The post you made included four quotes; the first has my name attached and the last three do not; the fourth is an actual quote from my previous post; the second and third quotes are not mine and you have given no attribution as to the source; the way your post is structured, it gives the appearance the second and third quotes are attributable to myself and they are most definitely not from me and most certainly do not reflect my opinion(s). This gives the additional appearance of an attempt to "pad' your argument by using quotes of dubious attribution in an effort to diminish the original (my) argument. I am hoping your posting was an inadvertent error and not a considered act...

The arrogance was indeed present during the campaign, but it was also indeed present in both parties. What is particularly troubling is the arrogance continues and has been magnified by Trump and his minions, quite often without any factual basis, or, as you put it "ignorance". Ignorance at the Executive Office level is inexcusable on its own, but arrogant ignorance is beyond inexcusable and that is what the Trump administration has embraced...









<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

A point of clarification:

The post you made included four quotes; the first has my name attached and the last three do not; the fourth is an actual quote from my previous post; the second and third quotes are not mine and you have given no attribution as to the source; the way your post is structured, it gives the appearance the second and third quotes are attributable to myself and they are most definitely not from me and most certainly do not reflect my opinion(s). This gives the additional appearance of an attempt to "pad' your argument by using quotes of dubious attribution in an effort to diminish the original (my) argument. I am hoping your posting was an inadvertent error and not a considered act...

I apologize for any misunderstanding there. Certainly not my intention. I would have thought that those quotes and who said them were widely known by anyone following US politics. But you are right, I should have included the proper references.

For the record...

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Sen. Barack Obama April 2008.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Hillary Clinton September 9, 2016.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

I apologize for any misunderstanding there. Certainly not my intention. I would have thought that those quotes and who said them were widely known by anyone following US politics. But you are right, I should have included the proper references.

For the record...

No problems and thanks. I pretty much sussed it was an inadvertence and not deliberate, but I wanted the clarification since others might not, perhaps, be as aware of the sources...







<O>

[em2nought]

Guess who caved?

[Rockstar]

Lost FBI Texts Could Form Basis for Motion to Dismiss in Trump Team Fight Against Russia Probe

by Rachel Stockman & Ronn Blitzer | 10:09 am, January 22nd, 2018

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...-russia-probe/

Months of text messages don’t just accidentally disappear. One past conversation between Strzok and Page indicated that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew there would be no charges filed against Clinton well before that investigation ended. Given the significant evidence of impropriety in the Clinton case, a foregone conclusion of innocence before the FBI wrapped up their investigation looks shady at best. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that after those messages came to light, the DOJ intentionally “lost” those five months’ worth of other messages.

[vienna]

Meh. Trump's lawyers could argue related to the FBI texts, but can they prove the texts went missing intentionally; proof is what courts pretty much insist on, you know, like, evidence...

The main problem Trump, and by extension the GOP, has in trying to make the argument the FBI/Mueller probes are politically motivated is the fact there are three known triggers for the probes; the first was the well-known 'dossier', originally commissioned by GOP opponents to a Trump nomination; the second was the tip from an Australian diplomat to whom Trump campaign advisor Georg Popdopolus drunkenly spilled the beans about the campaign having access to hacked Clinton emails; the third, and the perhaps most damaging to the Trump/GOP claim of political motivation, is the tip given to the FBI by a person in the Trump circle, a tip that came to light when the head of the firm commissioned to gather the data used in the 'dossier' testified the FBI informed him they already had the information he related to the FBI from the Trump insider's tip and met with the Fusion GPS head in order to get corroboration of the insider's tip...

What we have in all this are chains of events running in parallel, three separate sources acting on the old "see something, say something" path of responsible action, not at all acting in concert or in knowledge of each others' disclosures to the FBI; with three separate and distinct sources of expressed concern (one of them being someone within the Trump camp), it would be a dereliction for the FBI to have not launched an investigation. We know who are the persons involved in the Fusion GPS 'dossier', and we know the name of the Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer; it will be interesting to see who the Trump insider is...

As I've said before, there is nothing fully known at this time that ties Trump directly to the whole Russia mess and, if he had just done the smart move and just kept quiet and stayed out of it, he wouldn't be where he is; unless there is a whopping 'smoking gun' related to Trump and Russia, this won't directly cost him his office. However, in a truly 'shoots himself in the rump' Trump move, Trump has left himself open to obstruction of justice charges over the firing of Comey, a decidedly politically motivated action; if it turns out to be true he did take further by personally dictating the memo/statement containing false information and released to the press as an effort to derail further investigation (which really didn't work), then he is very vulnerable to possible action...

A little while back, there were reports Mueller may ask to depose Trump about subjects being covered in Mueller's investigations. At first Trump indicated he would be more than willing to be deposed; then, in true Trump fashion, he began to hem and haw and fudge about doing a deposition; at last reports, it looks like Trump has lost his enthusiasm about meeting with Mueller, particularly under oath. This link is to an article perhaps explaining why Trump and his lawyers have lost their nerve:


Trump Under Oath Is a Different Person --

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...mensch/550073/


From the above:

As The Washington Post noted in a 2016 piece, Trump’s tendency to back off his most obviously fake statements was especially pronounced in a December 2007 deposition. Trump had sued the journalist and author Tim O’Brien, who had written a book saying Trump’s net worth was far less than the billions he claimed. Trump sued O’Brien for libel and defamation. The Post found 30 occasions in that deposition alone where Trump admitted to making false statements.

This being Trump, the acolyte of “truthful hyperbole,” he couldn’t let go entirely. Instead, he found repeated ways to explain his untruths. Why had he claimed to own 50 percent of a business when he only owned 30? Because Trump hadn’t had to put up cash upfront, he said, “the 30 percent equates to much more than 30 percent.” Why had Trump claimed to have been paid $1 million for a speech when, as he acknowledged under oath, he’d actually received $400,000? He had decided that the value to his brand made up another 600 grand.

Was it true that Trump had not received any loans from his father, as he’d told O’Brien? Under oath, he offered a different story: “I think a small amount a long time ago. I think it was like in the $9 million range.” Why had he inflated his net worth? The reason, he said, was that it varied, and just not with the market. “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings,” Trump said.

Trump had an explanation that would telegraph his approach when he later decided to run for president: “I’m no different from a politician running for office. You always want to put the best foot forward.”

Yet at other times, Trump simply conceded he’d been wrong. Faced with a public statement that membership at a golf course had cost $300,000, 50 percent higher than the real figure—as a Trump Organization document stated. “Correct,” Trump said. He also excused errors in a book published under his name, saying, “I read it very quickly,” even though he was credited as author.

Trump’s suit against O’Brien was dismissed.

The rare aptitude for honesty is not the only thing that’s notable about Trump’s demeanor in depositions. In most cases, videos of his appearances are not available. In a suit over Trump University, for example, transcripts of two depositions were released, but Judge Gonzalo Curiel (yes, the one Trump said was biased against him because of his Mexican heritage) blocked the release of the videos. But in the Trump Hotel case, videos were released.

The article brought to mind a lawyer friend and former boss of mine who was assigned a client by his then firm who was 'eccentric', to be kind, and would make wild statements in sworn depositions and then deny the statements and then deny his denials; my friend got so fed up, he requested to be removed from the case, but no one else in the firm wanted to take on the crazy client, so my friend quit the firm (he got a much better position afterward at another firm); it must be a goodly piece of a Dantean Circle of Hell to have a deranged client...








<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...-russia-probe/

Quote:
Months of text messages don’t just accidentally disappear. One past conversation between Strzok and Page indicated that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew there would be no charges filed against Clinton well before that investigation ended. Given the significant evidence of impropriety in the Clinton case, a foregone conclusion of innocence before the FBI wrapped up their investigation looks shady at best. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that after those messages came to light, the DOJ intentionally “lost” those five months’ worth of other messages.

the hypocrisy of it all is so self evident ... What if the President's side, his aides, his family, his election people had the same results of months of text messages missing from the Russian investigation?

I love my country, but someone is doing a cover up and investigating the WH to see if they are involved in a cover up.

I pray the FBI and the Justice department get back to doing the great job they have been known to do.