US Politics XII: shutting down Interference until @U2 agrees to pay for a firewall

[dazzledbylight]

Dem Rep Steven Cohen who sits on the Judiciary Committee just made the claim that Barr is prematurely shutting down the Mueller investigation because several avenues (including the foreign banks and laundering) have not yet been concluded. Said the Committee would be prepared to subpoena Mueller if this ends next week.

And it's not even really news, it's just every day reality in the era of Trump.

If so tnere has to be hero leaker, if ?Barr squirrels the report away!

I do believe tbe SDNY will be handling some of the money laundering, Deutche Bank, Manafort, et al stuff. Someone on NPR/WNYC just said this week that it might be the NYSD investigation that will get drumph.

It’s all part of Jesus’ plan. How can their be a rapture if the environment and ecosystems thrive ???

Some right-wing Christians will let Jesus determine when he decides to retirn. Others want to "help it along" by supporting right-wing Israelis who want to (i think) get rid of the Dome of The Rock and replace it with Solomon's 3rd temple which would spark a gigundo Middle-East War, or worse. And of course the jews aren't invited along much of the world; East or West.

Pedophiles. Pedophiles have five friends who are pedophiles.

Ewwww. I know i heard about this guy last year.

So the more i read about this incident the more it screams BS

Me thinks the goal here is:

Fracture the party
Get key Dems off of committees that can investigate the president

Yeah, it could be.

It plays right into Mitch’s playbook.

https://twitter.com/rwpusa/status/1099346788782403585?s=21

Hmmm.... I considerate it a blessing that for a few minutes that i couldn't remember who "Mitch" was. Then i remembered. Blah.

It visually appears as though these children are ages 11-16. Most news articles I’ve seen have said “middle and high school students.”

Given that the organization they’re involved with is independent of their school, I would suspect there’s no reason to believe there isn’t elementary school students in their ranks.

As noted, the video was edited to really highlight Feinstein as sounding like an old out of touch politician (because the organization targets youth involvement).

The notion that these kids are “props of their parents” is ridiculous, as though students at the age of adolescence are incapable of or never have any strong political/social opinions.

Definate looked they ranged from elementary to high school.
Ha, i was demonstrating against the Vietnam War by the time i was 15 in 68.

Good for them! I sure consider Climate Change an emergency. I was doing stuff relating to renewable energy, and anti-nuclear power (weapons, too) around 1979 onward. Fuck Reagan for dismantling Carter's solar panels on the WH roof.

 

[Zephyrpilot]

She looks like an out of touch boob but that video has clearly been edited heavily.

I thought the teacher was sort of rude. It was talking point city on both sides, with the kids as props.

 

[Jerry Dunk]

The Feinstein video was not "edited," beyond the fact that Twitter only allows you to post two minute videos. That happens all the time. The group that posted the Twitter video also posted and linked to the full video. I watched the full video. She does not come off any better. Let's not fall for the same nonsense narrative that let those garbage Covington racists off the hook (other people were yelling so it was fine to be racist!). Using a shorter version of a video does not automatically mean people were misled.

Meanwhile, Sanders has made his first big error since announcing his run for president, calling for Maduro to accept the Elliott Abrams Death Package at the border.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

She doesn’t come off any better but the point was that the videos you see were purely meant to make an example of her and do disregard that it wasn’t just a group of protestors approaching the senator and being told off.

And yes don’t get me started on the Covington kids.

 

[Jerry Dunk]

I think the bigger issue is she is a tremendously wealthy woman who is 85 years old, and has huge amounts of power. And she is refusing to use that power to do what needs to be done, because it is of no consequence to her. No video like this was going to look good for her because she has a bad position on the issue, even if she just dismissively said "Thank you for your interest in the issue, and I'm definitely taking this into consideration!" It was made considerably worse by her getting annoyed at the suggestion she is wrong about something. It was a very Andrew Cuomo-type response. It reminds me, actually of Hillary Clinton dismissively saying "Why don't you run for something?" to the young woman who questioned her about her support of the crime bill in the early 90s. That woman she said that to works for Ilhan Omar, by the way.

Once again, the Democrats have been bamboozled on an issue over the last 10-15 years by the GOP because they let them set the terms of the debate. They made the issue whether or not climate change is real, and at this point plenty of Democrats think all they need to do is state "Climate change is real." And because all they can offer on any issue is verbal support and maybe hinting at incremental changes once they get power back, they are telling frightened children (who have a better grasp of the issue than they do!) that they won their election by a big margin.

Incremental change cannot fix climate change. We're 30-40 years too late to that. The Green New Deal should be the minimum. It is not nearly comprehensive enough, but it is the only legislation out there that grasps how dire the situation has become.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Well you and I belong in the same bin with a few points and I love the way you put it.

(1) the democrats let the GOP set the terms of debate
(2) incremental change cannot fix ______

Really, I’m rather big on both of these things. Especially daring to do something that isn’t “incremental change.” We seem to have lost the ability to challenge the norm. That’s conservatism winning.

 

[namkcuR]

Meanwhile, Sanders has made his first big error since announcing his run for president, calling for Maduro to accept the Elliott Abrams Death Package at the border.

I'm genuinely asking, what's the problem with advocating for sending aid to Venezuela?

 

[Jerry Dunk]

There is a bit of a chicken/egg thing with the issue the Democrats have. The leaders of the party, those elected to office and those behind the scenes operating the controls, are by and large well off. They are a mixture of unwilling/unable to define the real issues. And the attitude has trickled down to many in the party's base. The GOP's overall worldview can be boiled down to "your enemies are the people who are different from you, and it is because of them and only them that you have the issues you have." The response to that SHOULD be "your enemies are the wealthiest people, who are happy to let you squabble among yourselves while they horde more and more of the resources this planet has left." That should be the viewpoint of the Dems and how they define their policies. But through a mixture of it hitting too close to home, and through thinking that the GOP's problem is simply defining an enemy at all, they can't get there.

Politics is about who gets what. It is a fight for resources. The GOP understands that, and uses it to its advantage to do terrible things. The Democrats won't even admit what politics actually is. They're playing two different games, and it's why we are where we are.

 

[Jerry Dunk]

I'm genuinely asking, what's the problem with advocating for sending aid to Venezuela?

Because that is not what is happening. They are accepting aid from other sources, so long as it's not from countries that are openly trying to overthrow their government.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration famously backed, funded, and armed a number of fascist uprisings in an effort to combat communism. These efforts were led by people like Elliott Abrams, who Trump just put in charge of outreach to Venezuela. One of the most common tactics for getting them there was sending trucks with aid that also were stuffed with weapons.

The remarkable thing is that Reagan at least went through the motions to pretend that this was about aid. Trump has openly stated that his goal in Venezuela is to see through this coup and install a new president. Are we suddenly pretending this is about anything other than that? The United States and Brazil are the two countries that have been turned away at the border for a reason.

 

[namkcuR]

Because that is not what is happening. They are accepting aid from other sources, so long as it's not from countries that are openly trying to overthrow their government.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration famously backed, funded, and armed a number of fascist uprisings in an effort to combat communism. These efforts were led by people like Elliott Abrams, who Trump just put in charge of outreach to Venezuela. One of the most common tactics for getting them there was sending trucks with aid that also were stuffed with weapons.

The remarkable thing is that Reagan at least went through the motions to pretend that this was about aid. Trump has openly stated that his goal in Venezuela is to see through this coup and install a new president. Are we suddenly pretending this is about anything other than that? The United States and Brazil are the two countries that have been turned away at the border for a reason.

I understand all that, and I'm well-aware of what Iran-Contra was, but I guess I'm just not understanding what your ultimate position on Venezeula is.

Is that Madura should stay in power?

Is it that Madura is bad but that the U.S. should not be involved in overthrowing him?

Or is it something else?

 

[BEAL]

The AID stuff to Venezuela is nothing more than a precursor to war. Trump wants to go to war so bad, and he and other countries want the oil.

For the domestic issues, has anyone seen an explanation to all the twitter posts i made about why the Green New Deal has literally every progressive idea included in a climate bill ?

This is the same thing with Sanders. He’ll introduce bills that have zero chance at passing because he asks for the kitchen sink.

Start with the plumbing first

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I’m really not following how Trump ‘wants to go to war so bad.’ I doubt Trump wants to go to war. I would imagine he just wants to look good by overthrowing a socialist.

 

[Jerry Dunk]

I understand all that, and I'm well-aware of what Iran-Contra was, but I guess I'm just not understanding what your ultimate position on Venezeula is.

Is that Madura should stay in power?

Is it that Madura is bad but that the U.S. should not be involved in overthrowing him?

Or is it something else?

My starting position is that the United States cannot intervene internationally. Foreign aid is fine, but that is not what this is.

My position on Venezuela is that the details may be different, but it is another case of a variety of forces conspiring against even a whiff of moving towards socialism. Maduro is obviously a flawed president. But regardless of your position on Maduro, there is a reason Guaido's biggest supporters are Trump and Bolsonaro.

For the domestic issues, has anyone seen an explanation to all the twitter posts i made about why the Green New Deal has literally every progressive idea included in a climate bill ?

This is the same thing with Sanders. He’ll introduce bills that have zero chance at passing because he asks for the kitchen sink.

Start with the plumbing first

Incrementalism does not work. Obama was an incrementalist. He "started small" on healthcare with the ACA. And how did that work out?

Incremental change can work on social issues like gay marriage, which ended up getting adopted nationwide quicker than many expected. But for most other issues, it never works. Almost everything Obama "accomplished" during his time in office either had no lasting impact, or was easily rolled back as soon as someone else got in power.

When those changes make no real impact on people's lives, all it looks like to the typical voter is that your plans did not help. The Democrats took over the presidency, senate, and house in 2009, and for most people, nothing changed.

Even if you believe in the notion that the only way forward is compromise and bipartisanship, why the fuck would you ever start at your concession point? Why would you start with the Republicans' healthcare plan? Why would you ever say "I want this, but it cannot be done" and immediately conceding the point to your opponent?

The reason is because they a) don't really want it and b) they would rather be "realistic" than state what they really want appear to "lose" if that is not what ends up happening. They worship technocracy and incrementalism to the point where they do it just for the sake of it, because having ideals and policies you truly believe in and want to fight for is for the cranks like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders.

 

[Irvine511]

I’m really not following how Trump ‘wants to go to war so bad.’ I doubt Trump wants to go to war. I would imagine he just wants to look good by overthrowing a socialist.

Or to continue to use Venezuela as an example of “socialism” to scare the middle — that it’s the AOC/Sanders utopia come to terrible, terrible life.

Trump doesn’t actually want solutions to the problems he has identified. He doesn’t even really want a wall. He wants the fight.

 

[Irvine511]

My starting position is that the United States cannot intervene internationally. Foreign aid is fine, but that is not what this is.



My position on Venezuela is that the details may be different, but it is another case of a variety of forces conspiring against even a whiff of moving towards socialism. Maduro is obviously a flawed president. But regardless of your position on Maduro, there is a reason Guaido's biggest supporters are Trump and Bolsonaro.



Incrementalism does not work. Obama was an incrementalist. He "started small" on healthcare with the ACA. And how did that work out?



Incremental change can work on social issues like gay marriage, which ended up getting adopted nationwide quicker than many expected. But for most other issues, it never works. Almost everything Obama "accomplished" during his time in office either had no lasting impact, or was easily rolled back as soon as someone else got in power.



When those changes make no real impact on people's lives, all it looks like to the typical voter is that your plans did not help. The Democrats took over the presidency, senate, and house in 2009, and for most people, nothing changed.



Even if you believe in the notion that the only way forward is compromise and bipartisanship, why the fuck would you ever start at your concession point? Why would you start with the Republicans' healthcare plan? Why would you ever say "I want this, but it cannot be done" and immediately conceding the point to your opponent?



The reason is because they a) don't really want it and b) they would rather be "realistic" than state what they really want appear to "lose" if that is not what ends up happening. They worship technocracy and incrementalism to the point where they do it just for the sake of it, because having ideals and policies you truly believe in and want to fight for is for the cranks like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders.

Oh, right. You are who I thought you were.

I don’t have that much of a problem with your opinions, although gay marriage and the ACA dramatically improved the quality of my life, and I think the cranks and the actual adults in the room need each other and can wisely work together.

Anyway, this is why I’m a liberal/progressive and not a leftist, and that’s fine. There’s space for all of us, just make sure we’re all pulling the lever for the person with th me D by their name no matter what in November 2020.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Or to continue to use Venezuela as an example of “socialism” to scare the middle — that it’s the AOC/Sanders utopia come to terrible, terrible life.

Trump doesn’t actually want solutions to the problems he has identified. He doesn’t even really want a wall. He wants the fight.

Agreed. I had a lyft driver ranting to me about socialists in Venezuela (he was from Venezuela). What I couldn’t seem to understand was how he was equating what’s going on there to what’s going on here. Like, he genuinely thought that the US would end up like Venezuela if a “socialist” were elected. It’s all fear, and it works well.

 

[Zephyrpilot]

Or to continue to use Venezuela as an example of “socialism” to scare the middle — that it’s the AOC/Sanders utopia come to terrible, terrible life.

Trump doesn’t actually want solutions to the problems he has identified. He doesn’t even really want a wall. He wants the fight.

The “you’ll have to your pets or a zoo animal” cuz Socialism line ..... could be effective if it keeps happening in Venezuela into 2020

 

[Irvine511]

Agreed. I had a lyft driver ranting to me about socialists in Venezuela (he was from Venezuela). What I couldn’t seem to understand was how he was equating what’s going on there to what’s going on here. Like, he genuinely thought that the US would end up like Venezuela if a “socialist” were elected. It’s all fear, and it works well.

Which is Sanders’ central weakness in any genera election.

That, and the mountain of evidence that he likes leftists dictatorships and honeymooned in the Soviet Union.

 

[bono_212]

I'm with Beal, I still don't understand how half the stuff in this Green New Deal has anything to do with climate change. Why is there so much in the one bill?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I would suppose the point of so much being in one bill with the name “new deal” is because it’s supposed to emulate FDR’s New Deal, which was obviously (as you probably already know) a massive economic program centered around numerous things from unemployment to financial reform.

“Green” new deal, I would suppose, is another “new deal” meant to broadly address numerous problems, with an emphasis on doing it in a green fashion (if applicable).

 

[BEAL]

Cause they’re more about their ego than providing any change ?

It’s about being able to yell from the sidelines than give any sort of compromise

While there’s no compromise with the current GOP, the fact that there’s no compromise within your own party is why we are where we are.

It’s my way or the highway.

It has to be incremental change. The US system is too damn complex to just blow up and start from scratch.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Cause they’re more about their ego than providing any change ?

It’s about being able to yell from the sidelines than give any sort of compromise

While there’s no compromise with the current GOP, the fact that there’s no compromise within your own party is why we are where we are.

It’s my way or the highway.

It has to be incremental change. The US system is too damn complex to just blow up and start from scratch.

Broadly put, I disagree with everything in this post. And it’s an absurd piece of unnecessary character assassination to claim it’s about their egos when there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that, and simultaneously a ton of evidence to suggest these people you’re referring to are ideologues who genuinely want to make big changes.

 

[BEAL]

So why put everything that she did into this green new deal other than to say she tried ?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

So why put everything that she did into this green new deal other than to say she tried ?

Did you ignore what I wrote earlier? I’m assuming you know what the “new deal” was and what it contains.

The concept is sweeping legislation and a framework for the future in a “better together” type package.

This post I’m quoting is quite an egregious response. As though there’s no other reason to craft up such legislation “other than to say she tried.”

You’re way smarter than that, so either you’re playing dumb or you think I’m stupid. Your call.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I’m not even endorsing it. I haven’t fully researched it. I just can’t believe that anyone’s immediate response is to dismiss it. It sounds almost scripted to do so. If I’m any measure for the common person, most people probably don’t even care what it entails. It’s just another micro sports team battle from within the Democratic Party, where it’s either that you support Ocasio-Cortez or you don’t. It’s annoying.

 

[Irvine511]

It’s just another micro sports team battle from within the Democratic Party, where it’s either that you support Ocasio-Cortez or you don’t. It’s annoying.

This.

Dont let her become the de facto opponent in 2020. She will lose. She is who Trump wants to run against.

 

[BEAL]

I have no real issue with her. I think she’s smart and very savvy (and i think she’s hot...)

I just don’t get the point of her throwing in everything she did into this bill.

The climate is a big enough deal that MAYBE there could be support for it across the isle (doubtful)

But with all the extra stuff there’s just no way and why defeat yourself from the very beginning ?

 

[bono_212]

Guys, July 4th. HOLD THE DATE

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

And trumpets wonder why the world laughs at Trump....

https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/trade-chief-dumbs-down-contract-082052157.html

 

[womanfish]

This.

Dont let her become the de facto opponent in 2020. She will lose. She is who Trump wants to run against.

There's gonna be a wide range of candidates. I agree, we can't let this get sucked into an AOC represents the party. Trump will play all day off that.

I like Bernie, I like Warren, but to implement every plan they put forth is a bit delusional. I think that a Harris or a Booker, a Castro, possibly Brown or a Biden (depending how he plays it) is going to be the middle road between centric Dem and far left progressive.
Obviously there is a huge pool of people that will vote for a hamster over Trump, but we can't rely on that. I want a mix of aspiration and realism. Klobuchar is too far to the realist side, and Bernie a bit too far on the aspiration side. I'm gonna keep an open mind and see the debates to see who jumps out at me. It's going to be entertaining for sure.