wannabguitarist
Contributor
Wait, you do? Please elaborate.
US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)
- Thread starter mongey
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Wait, you do? Please elaborate.
G_3_3_k_
Probably diddling an Oni
Having grown up in Oklahoma City and currently living in San Antonio, you are correct. The big cities in Texas tend to go left. The rest of the state is RED. Oklahoma doesn't even have that going for it. I've heard far to many of the horror stories about violence towards people who are different. In Oklahoma you'd have kids picking fights with Special Ed. kids.
In this case, they would largely be telling the truth.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Drew
Forum MVP
Nah, just blame the Democrats.
I agree. Trump won in the 2016 primaries by sucking up all the air in the room, and using name recognition to consistently win 30% of the votes in a state which, with 16 other names on the ballot, was a nearly insurmountable lead. After that, a lot of Republicans just held their nose because he wasn't Clinton, but a lot of them also never thought he'd actually win.
Since then the GOP has definitely become the Party of Trump. It's tough to say why, if it's because a lot of Never-Trump Republicans just no longer identify as Republicans (which is consistent with the drop in party ID we've seen) or if it's because the mainstream Republican voters are embracing Trump's policy positions because he's the Republican presdent and because the Democrats are against it.
In both cases but especially in the latter case, suddenly having an option about what the GOP should look like, rather than just accepting it for what it is, could lead to some really interesting dynamics. Basically, I don't think Weld's running is important because he's an especially interesting candidate, I think he's a longshot. Rather, I think it's important because for the first time since the spring of 2016, the GOP voting public has a choice about what sort of party they want to be, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it platform. I think a lot of the hard left continues to exaggerate how realistic Sanders' chances were in 2016 - by historical standards this was never a particularly close primary, with Clinton leading polls roughly 60-40 by the very end - but his polling was in the low-teens at the very beginning, and I think the appeal of simply being an alternative can't be understated.
I said it back when Trump was a longshot in the first primary and it's true now more than ever.
Donald Trump IS the embodiment of the Republican Party for the last 40 years. Everything. A legacy rich baby booming draft dodger, thinks about nobody but himself, exploits every loophole to get out of paying taxes, racist hypocrite, anti-intellectual, the list goes on. Republicans have been for rolling back corporate taxes, corporate regulations, estate taxes, and social safety-nets, lack of compassion for immigrants, "that bill is no good because it's too many pages", "let 'em die", birther movement, anti-'political correctness' etc etc. It's a perfect 1:1
He might have had times he was a little more polite about some of those things, because you have to be modestly progressive or empathetic to be accepted in most wealthy social circles or do business in most corners of this country but the LIFESTYLE that he's lived his entire time on this Earth has been the Republican Ubermensch. THIS is the guy they want to be or the guy they want you to be. Every policy over the last 40 years has been another strike of the chisel to creating this person.
Which I bring up because, well, that's why he outdid the entire rest of the party and why he'll outdo them again. There's nobody that can get behind a podium and argue a point without either 1.) meekly parroting what Trump has already said or LIVED bluntly 2.) arguing to the left of Trump, which gains you no points if you're running in that party.
Donald Trump IS the embodiment of the Republican Party for the last 40 years. Everything. A legacy rich baby booming draft dodger, thinks about nobody but himself, exploits every loophole to get out of paying taxes, racist hypocrite, anti-intellectual, the list goes on. Republicans have been for rolling back corporate taxes, corporate regulations, estate taxes, and social safety-nets, lack of compassion for immigrants, "that bill is no good because it's too many pages", "let 'em die", birther movement, anti-'political correctness' etc etc. It's a perfect 1:1
He might have had times he was a little more polite about some of those things, because you have to be modestly progressive or empathetic to be accepted in most wealthy social circles or do business in most corners of this country but the LIFESTYLE that he's lived his entire time on this Earth has been the Republican Ubermensch. THIS is the guy they want to be or the guy they want you to be. Every policy over the last 40 years has been another strike of the chisel to creating this person.
Which I bring up because, well, that's why he outdid the entire rest of the party and why he'll outdo them again. There's nobody that can get behind a podium and argue a point without either 1.) meekly parroting what Trump has already said or LIVED bluntly 2.) arguing to the left of Trump, which gains you no points if you're running in that party.
Drew
Forum MVP
I think there are definitely elements of the GOP that Trump perfectly represents, but I'd argue he's more truly the embodiment of the Tea Party than he is of the GOP, and I don't think we're yet at the point where the Tea Party and the GOP are a 1:1 overlap. As it is there are a lot of points where Trump breaks from traditional Republican orthodoxy, most notably on the subject of free trade and opposition to tariffs.
I think, either way, we're going to learn a lot about how the GOP sees itself, in the next year or two. I don't think it's as simple as you're saying... But I could also very well be wrong.
I think there are definitely elements of the GOP that Trump perfectly represents, but I'd argue he's more truly the embodiment of the Tea Party than he is of the GOP, and I don't think we're yet at the point where the Tea Party and the GOP are a 1:1 overlap. As it is there are a lot of points where Trump breaks from traditional Republican orthodoxy, most notably on the subject of free trade and opposition to tariffs.
I think, either way, we're going to learn a lot about how the GOP sees itself, in the next year or two. I don't think it's as simple as you're saying... But I could also very well be wrong.
It's still a "do as I say, not as I do" kinda thing. Donald Trump had no problems with Chinese manufacturing or steel, or employing illegals immigrants when he was in the position to benefit from them.
Before this thread gets completely inundated with the Mueller Report stuff, I think it's worth addressing the Barr presser.
To me, it reinforces my thoughts (which I believe I posted in here before?) that Barr's role was less about favoritism toward Trump and more like an establishment mop up job, with some political undertones but primarily to reinforce the notion that the US democratic process is above allowing foreign interference to directly influence our elections. Kind of like the old stories about the WH making sure no pictures of FDR in a wheel-chair got out during WWII. I'm not saying Barr or Mueller fundamentally rewrote history, I think they were just a little more generous about American cooperation throughout the process to the benefit of the US perception abroad moreso than a blind loyalty to Trump.
Anyway, that leads me to the most egregious part of Barr's presser/reading of the report and redaction choices. Barr made clear in his reading of the report that the most valuable part of what the investigation concluded was that the Russian government WAS actively trying to effect the outcome of the 2016 election using illegal hacking.
There are problems with Barr arguing this point and framing it as he did. Firstly, he made clear that a big part of the redactions are going to be about ongoing criminal cases (he mentions Stone and the IRA in particular). The IRA/GRU were the entities that successfully hacked the DNC servers (among others) and weaponized a disinformation campaign, and the only action we get from the DOJ was this warning, indictments in absentia of Russian nationals who will never see the inside of a court room, and then they send the report to Congress with all the stuff pertaining to that case pruned out. So the one thing Barr says is of value in the report is the one thing you can't see, despite the fact they have zero of those people in custody and never will.
Also, a sidenote of the fact his voicing of "no collusion from anyone associated with Trump campaign or anybody in the US" multiple times undermines the credibility of the case against Roger Stone instantly. And probably others.
But getting back to the election hacking thing, keep in mind that the intelligence community has been raising the alarm on Russian hacking (including the Obama admin raising the concern) and Trump has constantly pushed back on that, including saying he took Putin's word that he didn't.
So whether Barr saves Trump from being implicated based on loyalty to him or the nation, he DOES raise the dangers of Russian involvement in our electoral system, only to be constantly undermined by the same person he seeks to protect.
Blah.
To me, it reinforces my thoughts (which I believe I posted in here before?) that Barr's role was less about favoritism toward Trump and more like an establishment mop up job, with some political undertones but primarily to reinforce the notion that the US democratic process is above allowing foreign interference to directly influence our elections. Kind of like the old stories about the WH making sure no pictures of FDR in a wheel-chair got out during WWII. I'm not saying Barr or Mueller fundamentally rewrote history, I think they were just a little more generous about American cooperation throughout the process to the benefit of the US perception abroad moreso than a blind loyalty to Trump.
Anyway, that leads me to the most egregious part of Barr's presser/reading of the report and redaction choices. Barr made clear in his reading of the report that the most valuable part of what the investigation concluded was that the Russian government WAS actively trying to effect the outcome of the 2016 election using illegal hacking.
There are problems with Barr arguing this point and framing it as he did. Firstly, he made clear that a big part of the redactions are going to be about ongoing criminal cases (he mentions Stone and the IRA in particular). The IRA/GRU were the entities that successfully hacked the DNC servers (among others) and weaponized a disinformation campaign, and the only action we get from the DOJ was this warning, indictments in absentia of Russian nationals who will never see the inside of a court room, and then they send the report to Congress with all the stuff pertaining to that case pruned out. So the one thing Barr says is of value in the report is the one thing you can't see, despite the fact they have zero of those people in custody and never will.
Also, a sidenote of the fact his voicing of "no collusion from anyone associated with Trump campaign or anybody in the US" multiple times undermines the credibility of the case against Roger Stone instantly. And probably others.
But getting back to the election hacking thing, keep in mind that the intelligence community has been raising the alarm on Russian hacking (including the Obama admin raising the concern) and Trump has constantly pushed back on that, including saying he took Putin's word that he didn't.
So whether Barr saves Trump from being implicated based on loyalty to him or the nation, he DOES raise the dangers of Russian involvement in our electoral system, only to be constantly undermined by the same person he seeks to protect.
Blah.
Drew
Forum MVP
Well, to start the Mueller report data dump, it's almost exactly as bad for Trump as I've been arguing all along that it would be.
First, Mueller explicitly kicked the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to Congress, not to his supervisors, because he believed he was Constitutionally required to do so. When Barr decided to clear him on his own, he overstepped his Constitutional authority as determined by the DoJ, and considering Barr himself was appointed during the investigation after Trump fired Sessions, this itself may constitute grounds for obstruction:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...HRRg6x1C6321FIL5IUed9BHB18VBOGbfxBDZFMGI9iPZ0
Expect to hear a lot more on this as the case unfolds.
Second, as I suspected, Mueller concluded he could not prove coordination (rather than collusion - this was the formal scope of the inquirty) between Trump and Russia, but that's a FAR cry from saying there was no evidence of coordination, as Trump (and, to an extent, Barr) have argued. Rather, there was rather a lot, and both parties took a number of actions that were clearly in the other's best interest, and took steps to cover up those actions. But, it never got to the point of a smoking gun, where there was evidence of an agreement for a quid pro quo. So, we can't prove the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but there's still plenty of evidence to imply that Trump may not have been working in the country's best interests.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/live-mueller-report-analysis.html
Barr memo notwithstanding, Trump isn't even close to out of the woods here. I think it's unlikely Trump would get impeached for obstruction alone... But, with ten separate clear instances, and with his appointing Barr to head the DoJ just in time to clear him of obstruction in what appears to have been an unconstitutional act, I'd say it's merely unlikely, not impossible.
I mean, Mueller concluded that Trump did in fact fire Comey not for his stated reasons, but because he refused to clear Trump's name. That's pretty major.
First, Mueller explicitly kicked the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to Congress, not to his supervisors, because he believed he was Constitutionally required to do so. When Barr decided to clear him on his own, he overstepped his Constitutional authority as determined by the DoJ, and considering Barr himself was appointed during the investigation after Trump fired Sessions, this itself may constitute grounds for obstruction:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...HRRg6x1C6321FIL5IUed9BHB18VBOGbfxBDZFMGI9iPZ0
Expect to hear a lot more on this as the case unfolds.
Second, as I suspected, Mueller concluded he could not prove coordination (rather than collusion - this was the formal scope of the inquirty) between Trump and Russia, but that's a FAR cry from saying there was no evidence of coordination, as Trump (and, to an extent, Barr) have argued. Rather, there was rather a lot, and both parties took a number of actions that were clearly in the other's best interest, and took steps to cover up those actions. But, it never got to the point of a smoking gun, where there was evidence of an agreement for a quid pro quo. So, we can't prove the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but there's still plenty of evidence to imply that Trump may not have been working in the country's best interests.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/live-mueller-report-analysis.html
Barr memo notwithstanding, Trump isn't even close to out of the woods here. I think it's unlikely Trump would get impeached for obstruction alone... But, with ten separate clear instances, and with his appointing Barr to head the DoJ just in time to clear him of obstruction in what appears to have been an unconstitutional act, I'd say it's merely unlikely, not impossible.
I mean, Mueller concluded that Trump did in fact fire Comey not for his stated reasons, but because he refused to clear Trump's name. That's pretty major.
Haven't had a chance to see much of it yet. It sounds like at the absolute least, even Barr seems to back up the idea that we know pretty reliably that the IRA was trying very hard to interfere with our election. So I'm curious if Trump will come out and condemn them of if he'll stick to "I believe Putin."
G_3_3_k_
Probably diddling an Oni
It certainly doesn't look good for anyone involved.
iamaom
Well-Known Member
Words of an innocent man.
MetalHex
SS.org Regular
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2019
- Messages
- 736
- Reaction score
- 479
1. I want to know what he said "Im fucked." I mean, I know why, but if everything was copasetic, why would he said that?
2. Why did he let Jr walk? Whatever, Trump gets off, but Jr? That douchebag?
2. Why did he let Jr walk? Whatever, Trump gets off, but Jr? That douchebag?
Drew
Forum MVP
Why? Now's when the fun begins. Mueller expected Congress to weigh in on this, remember?
The report indicates tat Trump Jr likely factually violated campaign finance laws by soliciting help from Russia in the famous Trump Tower meeting, but Mueller opted not to prosecute because it wasn't clear that he had intent to do so, or was aware his actions were illegal. I thought ignorance of the law was no defense?
The second best part of the report after the "I'm fucked!" quote was Mueller's conclusion that Trump's efforts to obstruct justice was not more successful than it was because most of his staff refused to follow instructions he gave them.
The second best part of the report after the "I'm fucked!" quote was Mueller's conclusion that Trump's efforts to obstruct justice was not more successful than it was because most of his staff refused to follow instructions he gave them.
Isn't that obstruction right there?
efiltsohg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2019
- Messages
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 1,204
imagine believing that was a true story
So, arrest Jeff Sessions for lying to investigators then?
Spaced Out Ace
Well-Known Member
If we're going to arrest people in Washington DC for every little lie told, the entire city is going to be in a super max prison due to limited size in jails. Then again, I'm sure pest control in the area will be seeing quite a boom in business.
