US Politics XVII: Yes, squid pro row

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, gee, who could've possibly seen this coming:

https://news.yahoo.com/smugglers-reportedly-cutting-holes-trump-135108809.html



It's almost like a wall doesn't solve the problem or something. Who knew?

I just saw this a little while ago. I was like :lmao: (drumph) what an idiot! And the (if i read it right) that the beams -well something about the lower parts' attachment being less enough so that the upper part can be somewhat "swung" for more of an opening. DUMMKOFF!
 
Just reported WaPo


Washington — A lawyer for the whistleblower who reported concerns about the resident's dealings with Ukraine told CBS News he offered to have Republicans on the House Intelligence Community submit questions to his client directly without having to go through the committee's Democratic majority.

Attorney Mark Zaid told CBS News he contacted Representative Devin Nunes, the committee's ranking member, on Saturday to say his client is willing to answer Republicans' questions under oath and penalty of perjury if lawmakers submitted written questions to the whistleblower's legal team. The inspector general of the intelligence community, a Trump appointee, could verify the whistleblower's identity in order to satisfy the committee's minority members while protecting the individual's anonymity


 
Seeing these past few weeks, and especially the new excuses being used by Republicans, I think this is most appropriate.

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.“
-George Orwell, 1984
 
hoo boy...
but ",it aint over, till it's over" St. Yogi Berra - so we shall see.

Some Evangelical groups (besides pat robertson) are upset with trump over his Syria policy.


The House may release more transcripts this week of testimony.
 
:ohmy: :ohmy:


Former President George W. Bush adviser Alan J. Steinberg said this week that President Donald Trump is unlikely to be removed from office by impeachment, predicting that Trump likely will offer to resign in 2019 in exchange for immunity for him and his family.

Via Newsweek:

"Trump will not be removed from office by the constitutional impeachment and removal process," Steinberg wrote in The Star-Ledger. "Instead, the self-professed supreme dealmaker will use his presidency as a bargaining chip with federal and state authorities in 2019, agreeing to leave office in exchange for the relevant authorities not pursuing criminal charges against him, his children or the Trump Organization."

Steinberg noted in the piece that should the House of Representatives impeach Trump, 20 Republican senators would have to break with the president to remove him from office—and that seems very unlikely. Steinberg wrote that the many legal challenges facing Trump—the investigation from special counsel Robert Mueller, the probe from the Southern District of New York as well as inquiries from the attorney general of New York and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—could lead him to leave the White House,
Oh, maaaan, i want him to pay for the misery, PTSD, dimminishment of our country's reputation (we are far from perfect) destruction, and death he has caused!!!!!

OTOH he is such a threat to this country and the World - i want him gone, like 5 years ago! :sad:
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Even if he does that, he and his family still need to be held accountable somehow. We cannot let them squeak by with no consequences yet again.

Even if he were to get some kind of crazy immunity deal on the charges he's facing for the Russia stuff, though, there's plenty of state charges for crimes of his that go back for quite a number of years that he could be nailed on, right? I don't think an immunity deal on the Russia stuff would protect him from that.
 
Couple of thoughts on the primary.

1. Mayor Pete. I've become kind of annoyed with him, but that's beside the point. Can someone give me a solid argument that he has ANY chance to win the general? I think he probably has the health care plan with the widest appeal, that sort of straddles moderate and progressive thought. But the man polled at 0% with African Americans in Indiana. Zero.
The big story is that he is surging in Iowa. Whoopee. He is in single digits in national polls, which just shows how the divide between lily white Iowa and the rest of the country is real.

2. Warren has gotten herself in a pickle. She took a hit in her numbers after she had to try and explain her M4A plan. Took a hit in her numbers in a DEM primary! This will be exponentially worse in a general.
This will be what hurts her most. Sorry for those that are hell bent on "building a movement" and allowing for no moderation of a plan that will at least lead to a single payer system over a substantial period of time.
She already has enough issues with appealing to minority voters. This has handed Trump and Rep attack ads on a platter with hundreds of millions to drown the stupid electorate in.

Biden who I thought lost front runner status a few weeks ago, is now back solidly in the lead nationally, and like I detailed a week ago here, he can do ok, in the first two primaries, and then he is far and away the favorite in the majority of the remaining primary states.
 
Latest Sienna poll:

6 battleground states -
Biden over Trump in 5
Sanders over Trump in 3
Warren over Trump in... none
 
M4A may have polled well in the beginning of the year, but it has become increasingly unpopular, probably because 10 months ago most Americans didn’t understand what it actually meant — expressly banning private insurance plans that compete with the government. That, as it turns out, is actually rather unpopular, and lost Democrats support an expansion of the ACA with the availability of a public option, which is closer to the truest vision of the ACA.

Americans want access to government insurance, but they don’t want to be forced to use it.

Polling on this issue is highly sensitive to how questions are phrased, but the clear trend is that the more Americans learn about what is entailed in a M4A plan, the less popular it becomes.
Of course it's highly sensitive to how it's phrased, that's how the lobby has prevented significant movement on this for so long. And when most of these candidates present their plan, and like Warren's, it's a bunch of shifting around of pools and tax refunds and shit that makes people's eyes gloss over, yes, they do tend to tune it out.

You need to simplify things: you're going to have access to whatever HCPs you want, and you're going to save significant amounts of money doing it. That's a message that is popular and resonates. It's when you wade into the weeds to try to appease interests that it all falls apart.

The problem for many of them is that you can't simplify it to this without killing private insurance, and most candidates want a half-measure where they don't do that. Warren's plan is a great example: she got cute to try to avoid being accused of increasing taxes, and instead just fucked up the plan to make it both impossible for the layman to follow, but also unworkable in practice.
 
Latest Sienna poll:

6 battleground states -
Biden over Trump in 5
Sanders over Trump in 3
Warren over Trump in... none


to add to this, here's the link. it should be concerning.

Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error.

Mr. Trump leads Elizabeth Warren by two points among registered voters, the same margin as his win over Hillary Clinton in these states three years ago.

The poll showed Bernie Sanders deadlocked with the president among registered voters, but trailing among likely voters.

The results suggest that Ms. Warren, who has emerged as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination, might face a number of obstacles in her pursuit of the presidency. The poll supports concerns among some Democrats that her ideology and gender — including the fraught question of “likability” — could hobble her candidacy among a crucial sliver of the electorate. And not only does she underperform her rivals, but the poll also suggests that the race could be close enough for the difference to be decisive.

In national polls, Mr. Trump’s political standing has appeared to be in grave jeopardy. His approval ratings have long been in the low 40s, and he trails Mr. Biden by almost nine points in a national polling average. But as the 2016 race showed, the story in the battleground states can be quite different. Mr. Trump won the election by sweeping Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina — even while losing the national vote by two points.

Democrats would probably need to win three of the six states to win the White House, assuming other states voted as they did in 2016 — an outcome that is not at all assured.

[...]

The poll offers little evidence that any Democrat, including Mr. Biden, has made substantial progress toward winning back the white working-class voters who defected to the president in 2016, at least so far. All the leading Democratic candidates trail in the precincts or counties that voted for Barack Obama and then flipped to Mr. Trump.

As a result, Democrats appear to have made little progress in reclaiming their traditional advantage in the Northern battleground states, despite their sweep there in the 2018 midterms. Respondents in these states said they voted for Democratic congressional candidates by an average of six points, all but identical to their actual winning margins.

Nearly two-thirds of the Trump voters who said they voted for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 say that they’ll back the president against all three named opponents.

Nonetheless, Mr. Biden holds the edge among both registered voters and likely voters, and even among those who cast a ballot in 2016. He has a lead of 55 percent to 22 percent among voters who say they supported minor-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and among those who say they voted but left the 2016 presidential race blank. It comes on top of a slight shift — just two points in Mr. Biden’s favor — among those who say they voted for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump.

Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, lose a sliver of Mrs. Clinton’s vote and make fewer inroads among Mr. Trump’s supporters.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/...-in-battlegrounds.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share


this is what happens when a large group -- whites with no college education -- begin to vote as if they are a minority.
 
The poll supports concerns among some Democrats that her ideology and gender — including the fraught question of “likability” — could hobble her candidacy among a crucial sliver of the electorate.

:sigh:

So Trump can act like a total ass and BE A FUCKING CRIMINAL and that's perfectly okay, people will happily vote for him anyway. But God forbid a woman running for office be anything less than likeable. And the really sad part is, she could be the most "likeable" person on the planet and it still wouldn't be enough for some.

Sexism wins the day once again :|. We're never going to get a female president at this rate, it seems.
 
Last edited:
:sigh:

So Trump can act like a total ass and BE A FUCKING CRIMINAL and that's perfectly okay, people will happily vote for him anyway. But God forbid a woman running for office be anything less than likeable. And the really sad part is, she could be the most "likeable" person on the planet and it still wouldn't be enough for some.

Sexism wins the day once again :|. We're never going to get a woman president at this rate, it seems.

My guess for first woman President is Nikki Haley in 2024, although I would love to see her at the top of the Republican ticket in 2020
 
Oh, and just to add to Mayor Pete's numbers. He is still polling at nearly ZERO percent among African American voters in National polls. A quarter of all Dem votes in 2020 will be African American voters.
He can not be the nominee. And sorry for him, but no one will want to touch him as the VP pick either.
 
Oh, and just to add to Mayor Pete's numbers. He is still polling at nearly ZERO percent among African American voters in National polls. A quarter of all Dem votes in 2020 will be African American voters.
He can not be the nominee. And sorry for him, but no one will want to touch him as the VP pick either.


he still strikes me as easily the most gifted and intelligent of the bunch, especially at communicating, and especially at communicating with older voters. he can also talk Jesus -- like Africa debt-forgiveness era Bono -- so that could make him effective at bridging certain divides, maybe even the gay thing.

but, yes, the african-american thing is concerning. but as everyone has chimed in to say, it is early. and it is.

but it's not too early to realize that there's a big difference between Twitter and reality. and it's also not too early to realize that winning California by 90% doesn't matter if you lose the upper midwest. while i understand the notion of exciting the base, if your base is white progressives, that's not going to get you very far when they're far outnumbered by angry uneducated whites in flat white states that will go R no matter what the left-wing base turnout is, or if you quadruple the turnout in Brooklyn. what will matter is exciting the urban centers in the rust belt states, and keeping the suburbs in the mountain states (NV, AZ, CO).

the electoral college will not take care of itself. it should be smashed like the 18th century artifact it is, as it values land over people, much like the senate does. but until it is, that's the math that matters.
 
I’m glad most of us agree that, for whatever our reasons are, Mayor Pete is a bad choice for the nomination.

Now if only there were a way to convince Mayor Pete of this.
 
So painfully obvious what Trump is doing

Goes to World Series and gets Boo'd, his la la land meets reality and he can't handle it.

Decides that UFC is more of his base, gets boo'd again.

Looks at current sports schedule, sees LSU / Alabama game this weekend......that's the ticket.

I'm glad we are paying for him and the WH (and congress) to attend games to try and please the emperor.
 
EIiaApZXUAECVC7
 



Lmao so basically it’s easy to assume that uneducated white people are Trump’s base, and the only thing that can improve their likelihood of not supporting Trump is that if the candidate is indeed not a woman.

Shit like this that makes me want Clinton to run again, just so we can get more Sacha Baron Cohen’s Who is America content.
 
JFC these fucking horrible, horrible people:

3:30 p.m.: Meadows questions Yovanovitch about the origin of her name

During her nearly 10 hours of testimony, Yovanovitch came under questioning about the origin of her name in an exchange with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.).

“Where did you get that name from?” asked Meadows, referring to Yovanovitch’s nickname, “Masha.”

“Well, despite my posting to Ukraine, I’m actually half-Russian, and it’s a Russian nickname,” Yovanovitch said.

Meadows then completed his round of questioning. “I yield back,” he said.

Yovanovitch’s Russian-speaking family came to the United States from the former Soviet Union by way of Canada. They nick-named her “Masha,” the Russian version of her name, “Marie.”

During an earlier exchange, Yovanovitch clarified that she was not Ukrainian after Meadows mispronounced the name of a Ukrainian member of parliament, Mustafa Nayem.

“How about Nayem, N-a-y-e-m?” asked Meadows. “Does that ring a bell?”

“Mustafa Nayem?” responded Yovanovitch.

“I’m sorry. I’m not Ukrainian,” Meadows said.

“Neither am I,” Yovanovitch responded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...50b79a-fef2-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html
 
Those are a lot of leaps there, ones you’re making not anyone else.



Are you concerned that I’m calling white non college educated voters “uneducated white people”? I mean, college doesn’t make you smart. Not going to college doesn’t make you dumb. Voting for Donald Trump in all likelihood makes you dumb.

Or are you calling the female thing a leap? Because 2016 = Clinton, who, with Warren are a mere +2 worse versus Biden and Sanders. More important in this observation is that uneducated white people are clearly the only demographic whose opinion has not changed of the president, either via a new prospective candidate or through general dislike of him. Every other type of voter has a general Trump-shift (indicating they liked Clinton) except for white college educated voters, who appear to be generally more favored towards Biden.

Unless you’re referring to the comment regarding wanting Clinton to run again, in which case take a joke. I’d love to see Trump loyalists’ heads explode.
 
http://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/wall-street-shuns-chuck-schumer-donation-requests-as-elizabeth-warren-surges.html

Wall Street donors are so worried about Elizabeth Warren that they are snubbing Democrats in 2020 Senate races

The bitter feud between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Wall Street is spilling into Democrats’ efforts to take back the Senate next year.

Some finance executives have recently told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that they are, for the moment, holding back from donating to Democrats running for Senate in 2020 due to their concerns with Warren becoming a front-runner in the race for the party’s presidential nomination, according to people familiar with the conversations. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the private nature of the talks.

The move is intended to put pressure on party leadership and Schumer, who represents New York and has received millions of dollars in donations from Wall Street, to distance themselves from Warren’s economic populism.

These financiers, which include hedge fund managers and private equity executives, are also worried that Warren’s policies, were she to defeat President Donald Trump, could be detrimental to their businesses. They believe Republicans could keep her potential administration in check if the GOP holds onto or expands its Senate majority. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate; Democrats need to flip a net of four seats to take control.

“They feel, rightly or wrongly, attacked. Not just that there will be higher taxes, but that she is running her entire campaign as them being boogeymen,” said a political advisor familiar with the deliberations. “They don’t feel safe going to Trump, they feel disillusioned by Biden and they see this as a tactic to slow her down. They see it as a way to put pressure on the party as a whole to move away from Warren.”

Seems like there could be a sweet spot for someone new to make a splash in the presidential race.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom