US Politics VI

[Gzusfrk]

Hoo boy. Today I learned the 'far left' are centrist Democrats.



It's great to know you're always thinking of me, Irvine.

Well, what is centrist now, used to be far left. Not too difficult to read up on that to verify.

If you don't think that the liberal side of the spectrum has swung further left over the last decade, then we can agree to disagree

 

[BVS]

How about the fact that...........it's difficult for people on the left side of the political spectrum to admit when they are wrong, of if they made a mistake.

THIS is how you try to have an adult conversation?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Well, what is centrist now, used to be far left. Not too difficult to read up on that to verify.

If you don't think that the liberal side of the spectrum has swung further left over the last decade, then we can agree to disagree

Could you give examples of this?

As someone who would be classified as far left but frequently disagrees with liberals/Democrats, your statement is confusing to me.

I can imagine an argument mounted on the basis of liberals supporting certain progressive causes (women's, LGBT rights etc.) but aside from that, no.

 

[nbelcik]

Nick is wrong, the judicial obstruction by the GOP during Obama's presidency was unprecedented and has no analog to anything that Democrats have done.

"Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.

By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed.

More than twice as many vacancies, 107, exist on federal benches than when Bush left office.

In total, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts counts 890 slots for full-time federal judges. Federal district courts have 84 vacancies, and the regional circuit courts of appeal have another 14. The specialized appeals courts for international trade and federal claims have eight vacant seats. The 107th vacancy is the best-known: the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The vacancies reflect a long-term goal of McConnell and other leading Republicans to tilt the court system toward conservatives.

"There was an almost total breakdown of confirmations once the Republicans took control of the Senate," said Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution, who closely tracks federal judges."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-judges-trump-senate-20161231-story.html?outputType=amp

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Nick is wrong

You could have stopped here.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I think it's funny that The Resistance puts the hammer & sickle on their protests signs when they tie Trump to Russia. As if that's Russia. It would be like trying to make a point about Germany and using the swastika.

That's when they're actually not using the NAZI flag instead of the Soviet flag. So Trump's both a NAZI and Communist...don't these guys read history before they make their signs? Or at least, I don't know, crack open a dictionary? Wikipedia? I guess we're just suppose to give them the benefit of doubt that they don't mean anything literally....they're just sayin'. Making matters even more confusing is that when the Russians did use the hammer & sickle, they were communists, and the far left liked them better back then. So now the thing to do is tie Trump, someone they hate, to the hammer & sickle because Russia, even though that's not the Russian flag anymore, but was when the left liked Russia. Or something. Aw, what the hell, let's just make a funny sign.

Anywho, if Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians, or otherwise "colluded" with them to "hack the election", Mueller will get to the bottom of it, everyone can be sure of that.

]

Oh, I have not seen that Trump sign w the Hammer & Sickle!
Wow, you're definitely right that that doesn't make sense. I just looked up the Russian flag, OK, probably seen it on rare occasions (Olympics, for a start).

And like Moonlight said I'm hoping Mueller will get to finish his investigation!

I can't remember, but did you say you were from Belarus? I always wondered how the former USSR republics saw Russia/Russians (aside from Ukrainians who seem largely negative in my experience). I ask mostly out of my own sense of curiosity because I was born in Eastern Europe and in the country of my birth Russia is widely DESPISED, the politicians, the people, the history of hegemony and meddling and repression. I get that sense from some of my friends from other countries in the area, but it varies. For example, parents of my Polish friends seem to uniformly hate the Russians, but the couple of Bulgarians we are friends with are more ambivalent/indifferent.

I'm not sure what "dated notions" means?

The Russians were much more openly antagonistic, towards America and the West during the cold war, in ways too numerous to list...including an aggressive espionage program, nuclear arms race, and decades of invasion and brutal oppression of their neighbours. The Soviets sought to counter and subvert American power every chance they got, including financing and supporting subversive organisations in the US. What they are doing today is nothing new, and indeed much smaller in scale than what they've done in the past. Only the technology has changed.

Yet for decades the left was in sympathy with Moscow, starting with the October revolution, and an aggressive stance towards the Soviets were met with accusations of red baiting. That continued for decades, until it finally couldn't be denied what the Soviets were all about. But even going into the 70's, the lefts stand against Soviet style communism was weak. I mean, all that, and it's homophobia and the 2016 election that finally got the left mad at the Russians? Really? Reagan was widely described a nut for his anti-Soviet stance, but he sounds positively reasonable compared to all the power and influence being ascribed to the Russians by the left today.

So while homophobia among Russians is real, and unfortunate, as is their continued and decades long programs of meddling in our elections, it's a little late in the game for the left to suddenly be shocked about the Russian threat. Just as its a little hypocritical for the right to be dismissing it.

Pretty much agree with this as to the Soviet Union v USA history.

My experience is much the same as yours in terms of how Russians are perceived, at least in the immediate Eastern European neighbouring countries. And frankly for good reason - Russia's hegemony has wrought a lot of evil not just in its backyard but even farther flung Slavic countries like the southern Balkans, where Russian influence has had terrible effects. Which is to say nothing of western meddling when it was expedient.

But I wouldn't describe Russians as "warm" nor really any Slavs (and I am partly one, on my father's side). As people, we are sort of hardened, pragmatic and warm is just about the last adjective I'd use hahaha. Back in the day when I still was going to pursue a PhD in immunology, our principal investigator/lab head hired a Russian PhD fellow (Russian Jew who essentially fled to Israel but didn't feel like he could adapt to the culture) to manage the graduate students. I personally loved him as he was highly intelligent and driven and no-nonsense. You'd get no small talk from him, no chit chat and even after spending months or years with him on a daily basis you always got the sense he had no idea who you were as a person or what you did outside of lab hours nor did he care. BUT he went over like a lead balloon with all the American and Canadian students. They nearly uniformly either hated him or lived in terror of him because there was always this awkward communication gap. They assumed that he was short with them because he was angry, or that he barked out instructions at them because he was rude. I remember thinking, this guy needs some North American sensitivity training but he never bothered me as he was sort of like my Dad or multitude of uncles and I understood his style on that basis. Anyway, when I read your comment about them being warm, I actually LOL'd as he was the first person I thought of!

My dad first gen Ukrainian-American who until a double whammy fairly close together hit him, and made him nastier and meaner over time- was often a very warm, life loving, kind man.

Since he was an only child, we basically hung with our mom's side of the family a big first gen Greek-American family.

 

[dazzledbylight]

What are you trying to say here? I don't understand your post and I don't remember seeing this 'question' of yours. And own up to what? I've never praised/supported Stalin here, nor have I pretended that the Soviet Union was an example of some ideal society.

You seem to have a bone to pick and I'm not entirely sure why.

Talking about Stalin is considered red-baiting? really?

I guess I've never your posts criticizing the SU. I'm on rather intermittently to often but not constantly

More tomorrow battery about to run out on tablet

 

[Nick66]

Nick is wrong, the judicial obstruction by the GOP during Obama's presidency was unprecedented and has no analog to anything that Democrats have done.

"Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.

By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed.

More than twice as many vacancies, 107, exist on federal benches than when Bush left office.

In total, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts counts 890 slots for full-time federal judges. Federal district courts have 84 vacancies, and the regional circuit courts of appeal have another 14. The specialized appeals courts for international trade and federal claims have eight vacant seats. The 107th vacancy is the best-known: the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The vacancies reflect a long-term goal of McConnell and other leading Republicans to tilt the court system toward conservatives.

"There was an almost total breakdown of confirmations once the Republicans took control of the Senate," said Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution, who closely tracks federal judges."

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

Except you're responding to a point I never made. My posts wasn't about who obstructed the most nominees.

I said that Harry Reid ended the filibuster of judicial nominees, and that the time it was unprecedented. Which is all true.

At no time did I say that Republicans hadn't blocked Obama nominees (in fact I said they had), nor did I say that they didn't do it at a rate higher then Dems had....please point out where I said otherwise. All you did was find an article that says something something judicial nominees unprecedented, figured close enough, said "Nick is wrong", copied and pasted and called it a day.

So there's no confusion, here's exactly what I said:

When Democrats controlled the Senate, they did away with the filibuster for all Federal Judges except Supreme Court Justices. This was because Republicans had filibustered a number of Obama nominees...which in turn they feel was tit for tat because Dems had held up Bush nominees (more on that below). At the time, Reid getting rid of the filibuster for Federal Judges was unprecedented.

Which part of that, specifically, is wrong? Yes, the number of judicial appointments Republicans blocked was unprecedented, I never said otherwise. Reid ending the filibuster was also unprecedented, which is the point I actually made. I guess maybe your point is why Reid ended the filibuster, which is a fair topic, but it wasn't what I was discussing. If you want to prove me wrong, show me in the LA Time articles where it say it was Republicans, not Reid, who did away with the judicial filibuster.

I try to be careful about what I post, and don't mind being shown to be wrong when I am, but do try to make sure you're responding to something I actually said when you try to prove me so.

 

[Popmartijn]

Well, what is centrist now, used to be far left. Not too difficult to read up on that to verify.

If you don't think that the liberal side of the spectrum has swung further left over the last decade, then we can agree to disagree

Then we have to agree to disagree as the opposite has happened in the USA. What used to be centrist is now labelled far left. Not too difficult to read up on that to verify.

 

[kiwilad]

I think anyone who believes Hilary Clinton or the current Democratic party are far left, or even 'left', needs to travel outside of America for a spell. Or at least do some reading.
Hilary would be very much standard right in NZ. Bernie was promoting ideas that the NZ right (NZ is very similar politically to Scandinavian countries) consider normal and acceptable.

 

[Nick66]

Yep.

 

[BEAL]

Remember when lying about an affair would get you impeached ?

Guess Bill should have paid her off.

More women are coming out now about affairs with Trump.

Also, Gates is close to plea deal and that’s big because he probably knows as much as Manafort, which may get Manafort to flip.

Bannon spoke with Mueller and answered all his questions. Yet did not answer anything in front of congressional committee. Something tells me he’s got a deal with Mueller too

 

[Nick66]

Remember when lying about an affair would get you impeached ?

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

The same things people are hoping Trump will be impeached on (and no, I'm not suggesting the underlying offences are equal in severity).

 

[PhilsFan]

[TWEET]964518943137419265[/TWEET]

Jason Kander really should primary McCaskill.

 

[Irvine511]

speaking of Russians ...

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump, according to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The indictment says that a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency sought to wage "information warfare" against the United States by using fictitious American personas and social media platforms and other Internet-based media.

By early to mid-2016, the indictment charges, the defendants were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton."

The White House had no immediate comment on the indictments.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

 

[Nick66]

I wonder how many of the people in this indictment are currently in the US?

We already knew the Russians attempted to interfere in the election from the US intelligence services, so in that way this isn't a surprise.

Next up should start providing answers to the big question...whether Trump or anyone in his orbit knowingly conspired with Russians in these activities. If they knowingly did so, they're in big trouble. If they were duped, it will be depend how they were duped, to what extent, and what they were duped into doing. Anyway, this is where the fun begins. We should know soon.

The WH has got to be nervous tonight.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I don't discount the idea that the actual Trump family part of the equation, as opposed to guys like Manafort and Flynn, were too naive to think this was a big deal.

It's entirely possible that they didn't understand the political ramifications, panicked, and obstructed because they were afraid of an investigation into the collusion angle would reveal deeper skeletons in the Trump closet regarding money laundering and other criminal behavior.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Remember when lying about an affair would get you impeached ?

Guess Bill should have paid her off.

More women are coming out now about affairs with Trump.

Also, Gates is close to plea deal and that’s big because he probably knows as much as Manafort, which may get Manafort to flip.

Bannon spoke with Mueller and answered all his questions. Yet did not answer anything in front of congressional committee. Something tells me he’s got a deal with Mueller too

Bill Clinton lied about an affair under oath. He was not impeached for the affair itself.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't discount the idea that the actual Trump family part of the equation, as opposed to guys like Manafort and Flynn, were too naive to think this was a big deal.

It's entirely possible that they didn't understand the political ramifications, panicked, and obstructed because they were afraid of an investigation into the collusion angle would reveal deeper skeletons in the Trump closet regarding money laundering and other criminal behavior.

may they all go down in flames.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

Well, what is centrist now, used to be far left. Not too difficult to read up on that to verify.

If you don't think that the liberal side of the spectrum has swung further left over the last decade, then we can agree to disagree

Then we need to disagree...based on every application of political science and the continuum

Wow...

 

[Nick66]

So yeah, now that I've had a chance to look over this indictment, I have to say that, at the moment, Trump's lawyers have to be reasonably happy. There's no allegation of wrongdoing by anyone in the Trump campaign, or any suggestion that any American knowingly colluded with the Russians. Nor does the indictment allege that the disinformation changed the outcome of the election (though obviously no one can rule that in or out, there's no way of knowing).

When you get right down to it, if you read the indictment itself this is more or less an indictment of (very successful) Russian disinformation trolls.

Of course, it doesn't touch on the other issues Mueller is investigating, like the Trump tower meeting where Trump associates went looking for dirt on HRC, or the DNC hacking. So there's still more to stay tuned on. It does undermine Trump's assertion that the Mueller investigation is a 'hoax', but he can still claim there's no evidence of illegal collusion (thus far).

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

According to an article in the Des Moines Register, the indictment touches on Russians' attempt to discredit the results of my state's caucuses.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...ratives-mueller-indictment-alleges/345940002/

Russian operatives trying to sow discord and distrust during the 2016 presidential campaign bought social media advertisements alleging fraud in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses.

That’s one of the allegations in a blockbuster indictment made public today by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who’s investigating Russian meddling in the election and possible collusion with President Donald Trump’s campaign.

The indictment alleges that an organized group of Russian operatives began promoting a range of allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic Party in the summer of 2016 as the general election race between Trump and Hillary Clinton was heating up.

Among those was an allegation about the caucuses, the first presidential contest of the 2016 nominating process, which Clinton won by a tiny margin over Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders.

“On or about August 4, 2016,” the indictment says, “Defendants and their co-conspirators began purchasing advertisements that promoted a post on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Facebook account 'Stop A.I.' The post alleged that 'Hillary Clinton has already committed voter fraud during the Democrat Iowa Caucus.'”

So that's interesting.

 

[Gzusfrk]

Then we need to disagree...based on every application of political science and the continuum

Wow...

So.......when the basic tenets of the Democratic Party 10-15 years ago were anti-illegal immigrants (Bill and Hillary, and Obama), and anti-gay marriage (Clintons), and now, miraculously, the Clintons, Obama, and the entire Democratic Party are lockstep in favor of both.......that's a pretty far swing left.

If you listen to JFK's speaches about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, economics, he almost sounds like a Republican.

Not too much socialistic principles being put front and center back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's like they are now.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I wouldn't exactly consider supporting something like gay marriage a "far left" position in the first place.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So.......when the basic tenets of the Democratic Party 10-15 years ago were anti-illegal immigrants (Bill and Hillary, and Obama), and anti-gay marriage (Clintons), and now, miraculously, the Clintons, Obama, and the entire Democratic Party are lockstep in favor of both.......that's a pretty far swing left.

If you listen to JFK's speaches about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, economics, he almost sounds like a Republican.

Not too much socialistic principles being put front and center back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's like they are now.

And the Republican party ended slavery, and now they elected a blatant racist.

Looks like people can change!

 

[LuckyNumber7]

So.......when the basic tenets of the Democratic Party 10-15 years ago were anti-illegal immigrants (Bill and Hillary, and Obama), and anti-gay marriage (Clintons), and now, miraculously, the Clintons, Obama, and the entire Democratic Party are lockstep in favor of both.......that's a pretty far swing left.



If you listen to JFK's speaches about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, economics, he almost sounds like a Republican.



Not too much socialistic principles being put front and center back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's like they are now.

Well, I suggest looking into JFK's campaign that got him elected. I you think he sounded republican... well... maybe that's because things didn't go as he'd planned (and that got him elected).

Anyways, what's your point? Democrats were racist and bigoted back then. Republicans are racist and bigoted now. What does the party have to do with it? Who cares about them? Elect people who represent the right values.

 

[BVS]

So.......when the basic tenets of the Democratic Party 10-15 years ago were anti-illegal immigrants (Bill and Hillary, and Obama), and anti-gay marriage (Clintons), and now, miraculously, the Clintons, Obama, and the entire Democratic Party are lockstep in favor of both.......that's a pretty far swing left.



If you listen to JFK's speaches about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, economics, he almost sounds like a Republican.



Not too much socialistic principles being put front and center back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's like they are now.

So, if we stuck with slavery, women not voting, and trickle down we’d all be happy centrists? Brilliant!

 

[Irvine511]

Back to Russia (Russia, Russia!)

New shift in the Trump strategy. From “no collusion” to “why didn’t Obama stop the Russians? It’s not our fault we unexpectedly won, we didn’t think we would either.”

 

[PhilsFan]

So.......when the basic tenets of the Democratic Party 10-15 years ago were anti-illegal immigrants (Bill and Hillary, and Obama), and anti-gay marriage (Clintons), and now, miraculously, the Clintons, Obama, and the entire Democratic Party are lockstep in favor of both.......that's a pretty far swing left.

If you listen to JFK's speaches about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, economics, he almost sounds like a Republican.

Not too much socialistic principles being put front and center back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's like they are now.

The Democratic Party loves the free market, which is a right wing stance.

The Democratic Party loves war, which is a right wing stance.

The Democratic Party doesn't know how it feels about immigration. It's somewhere in the middle. It's certainly willing to give concessions. It's not a leftist stance on immigration.

There is nothing socialist about the Democratic Party. Nothing at all.

 

[Gzusfrk]

And the Republican party ended slavery, and now they elected a blatant racist.

Looks like people can change!

You realize how ridiculous and desperate this flimsy quote sounds.

Strawman 101. So you are comparing the entire Democratic Party "groupthink" blindly changing their views in 10 years, to slavery in 1865 and the election of Donald Trump in 2016.

And of course, if you're not a leftist, then you must love Donald Trump.

Stick to music, sir. You do better there.