U.S. Politics Vol. 7: A Dream of 2020

1282931333453

Comments

  • Mueller says no collusion. I don’t want the Dems spending all of their political capital (and they would have to) to try and pin obstruction charges when it can be argued now that there may not have even been a crime.
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited March 2019
    To be honest I figured on this. Trump didn’t actually need to collide, the Russians were more than capable of mounting their own operation. Trump and his hangers on could just wink and nod if they wanted to. 
    Flukes
  • I just read the Barr letter. The only thing I’ll pay attention to are the direct quotes from Mueller. The rest is Barr’s evaluation, and his views on presidential culpability are a known. It’s also known that Mueller would adhere to DOJ guidelines about indicting a sitting president. I’ll wait for the whole report, but the committees are just getting started with their investigations, and Mueller has sprinkled investigations around the country like seeds on a windy delta. 
  • “Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base.“

    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million
  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited March 2019
    Meh, here’s my opinion. This whole thing was never going to matter unless Trump literally was recorded on a call committing honest to god treason. The Republicans have moved the goalposts so far on what is allowable behavior by a president that they’ve allowed him to commit multiple actual crimes and get away with scott free because they have a dedicated propaganda machine in the form of Fox News that will always backup their bullshit so no results coming from this investigation would ever have mattered as far as getting Trump impeached except for literally the most extreme outcome. As for this emboldening the Trump base, they were already emboldened, Republican turnout during the midterms was record high, they promptly lost 40 seats. This stuff simply doesn’t matter longterm, if you run a campaign on how Donald Trump is guilty of treason and collusion and he’s a big mean nasty man then you’ll lose because that’s playing in his court. Talk about shit that actually matters to people: getting money out of politics, improving access to healthcare, preventing mass shootings; things that Trump pretended to care about and obviously didn’t. He can bloviate and bluster all he wants but he so obviously doesn’t have the chops when it comes to producing real results that actually affect people and that’s how you beat him, on substance. 
    Dee
  • Now if Donald Trump were an average politician this might be a pretty good result for him, unfortunately (or fortunately) he’s not and in three months he’ll try and pass tax cuts for the super rich or drastically cut health care or do some other kind of stupid shit that’ll rob him of whatever political good will this gives him and things will be back to their usual.
  • And now I shall go back to ignoring the 2020 presidential race until next year, carry on. 
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited March 2019
    CeciliaM said:
    I super enjoy it when Bernie bros are mansplained away ... it's very fun for me

    I hope this isn't aimed at me (in a sincere way, not in any form of indignance. gotta make sure of the distinction when it comes to written text). I was only trying to put up my personal viewpoint and certainly not trying to come off with any air "let me tell you all how it is." My apologies if it came off that way, or if I got carried away and actually started talking that way. I'm not in any position to mansplain or explain much of anything. I'm just a dude who likes having opinions and tries to pick up a thing or two along the way to base them on. Hell, my dog doesn't even respect me. I don't even know how to spell indignance. One of our cats does respect me, but she is an indoor cat without any real outer world experience.
    JoshTheBlackCeciliaM
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited March 2019
    gguenot said:
    Mueller says no collusion. I don’t want the Dems spending all of their political capital (and they would have to) to try and pin obstruction charges when it can be argued now that there may not have even been a crime.
    Barr (the guy hand-picked to run interference for Trump) said there was no collusion. After doing a bit more reading today it sounds like Mueller intended to lay out the case for congress without making a determination. Without the full report it's foolish to make any conclusions based on only information that has been filtered through a Trump political appointee.

    That said for 2020 I do agree that the best strategy is to use what worked in 2018 - run good candidates who are good at conveying the Democratic message that resonates with voters - which isn't just hammering on Trump-Russia. Sure in a head to head race the nominee is going to figure out how to address those issues especially when faced with the questions in a debate, but it shouldn't be the centerpiece of the campaign.

    In terms of how Congress handles things until then, there is only so much Democrats can do with control of just the House, so while they need to try to promote their legislative goals, realistically the one thing they can do is use their committees to hold the administration accountable for a variety of fucked up stuff. It's not like the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice and work with them in an honest way for the next 1.5 years.
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco
    The Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the dick announcing they're essentially blacklisting anyone who even works with a candidate attempting to primary a Dem, even retroactively for anyone who worked with AOC. Way to read the room, geniuses.

    The DCCC’s new “hiring standards,” which, per the National Journal, went out to more than 100 political firms that consult or work on campaigns around the country, say the organization will not contract with or recommend the services of any firm that chooses to work for an incumbent Democrat’s opponent. In other words, if a political firm challenges the status quo at all—like working with Ayanna Pressley or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the 2018 midterms, when they both defeated longtime incumbents—they face a DCCC blacklist.




    JoshTheBlack
  • MrX said:
    gguenot said:
    Mueller says no collusion. I don’t want the Dems spending all of their political capital (and they would have to) to try and pin obstruction charges when it can be argued now that there may not have even been a crime.
    Barr (the guy hand-picked to run interference for Trump) said there was no conclusion. After doing a bit more reading today it sounds like Mueller intended to lay out the case for congress without making a determination. Without the full report it's foolish to make any conclusions based on only information that has been filtered through a Trump political appointee.

    That said for 2020 I do agree that the best strategy is to use what worked in 2018 - run good candidates who are good at conveying the Democratic message that resonates with voters - which isn't just hammering on Trump-Russia. Sure in a head to head race the nominee is going to figure out how to address those issues especially when faced with the questions in a debate, but it shouldn't be the centerpiece of the campaign.

    In terms of how Congress handles things until then, there is only so much Democrats can do with control of just the House, so while they need to try to promote their legislative goals, realistically the one thing they can do is use their committees to hold the administration accountable for a variety of fucked up stuff. It's not like the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice and work with them in an honest way for the next 1.5 years.
    Unless I’m mistaken, I thought there was a footnote quoted from Muellers report regarding collusion. I hope I am mistaken 
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited March 2019
    Travis said:
    CeciliaM said:
    I super enjoy it when Bernie bros are mansplained away ... it's very fun for me

    I hope this isn't aimed at me (in a sincere way, not in any form of indignance. gotta make sure of the distinction when it comes to written text). I was only trying to put up my personal viewpoint and certainly not trying to come off with any air "let me tell you all how it is." My apologies if it came off that way, or if I got carried away and actually started talking that way. I'm not in any position to mansplain or explain much of anything. I'm just a dude who likes having opinions and tries to pick up a thing or two along the way to base them on. Hell, my dog doesn't even respect me. I don't even know how to spell indignance. One of our cats does respect me, but she is an indoor cat without any real outer world experience.
    I'm sure that it was aimed at (in whole or in part) at my post.  My point was that 'Bernie Bro' has become a way of dismissing Sanders and his supporters with a handwave...and it was met with a post that dismissed it with a handwave.  The eye roll gif and accusation of mansplaining (which I did not do) underscored my point that the dismissal is often done in a condescending and belittling way.  As I said, A+ for irony.

    Edit for clarity:  I'm not mad, angry, resentful or upset with @CeciliaM - agreeable people can disagree.  This is one of those cases :)
    TravisKate23Flukes
  • I’m relieved that there wasn’t any active collusion with a hostile foreign power.

    As to the obstruction, that would be a counterproductive thing for the Democrats to pursue as without an underlying crime it doesn’t play as well publically and would feed into a sore-loser-witch-hunt narrative for Trump.

    He’s a bad president in so many different ways. Continue aggressive oversight, keep nailing them on corruption and overstepping with stuff like the census question. Beat him at the ballot box.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited March 2019
    I am enjoying this video as an explanation (in 2016) of the appeal of the Alt Right and why anti-SJWism, anti-feminism infected the skepticism community. Also I think he's an example of what happened with a lot of Bernie Bros... they turned into the Alt-Right.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thliETccJss
    CretanBull
  • What was the underlying criminal conduct at the heart of the obstruction? 
  • tom_g said:
    What was the underlying criminal conduct at the heart of the obstruction? 
    If you read Barr's comment, it's kind of weird.  The basic point is that (I'm paraphrasing in the least kind way out of bitterness!) - Trump was too stupid to obstruct justice in the criminal sense because he was so transparent in his meddling.  The law requires a level of understanding of the law, deception, criminal intent etc.  Barr suggests that Trump is a bumbling idiot who did everything out in the open, which negates the legal threshold required for it to be considered criminal.  I'm not sure if a court will buy that (I think it ignores obvious attempts at obstruction that weren't in the public eye until they became public) but that's the defense that the AG has handed the President on a silver platter.

  • tom_g said:
    What was the underlying criminal conduct at the heart of the obstruction? 
    If there wasn’t any conspiracy, which was Mueller’s finding, then there wasn’t underlying criminal conduct. There doesn’t need to be to be convicted of obstruction of justice, impeding a lawful investigation is illegal regardless of whether there end up being an underlying crime.

    Politically the optics are just horrible though and I don’t think it’s worth fighting the DoJ’s decision not to pursue it.

    As much of Mueller’s report should still be made public as is possible, just for the record and to make sure decisions look legit. That’s just smart oversight.
    Travis
  • Is it possible the obstruction was to conceal the Russian conspiracy and that the obstruction just happened to be good enough to shield themselves from Mueller.
  • tom_g said:
    Is it possible the obstruction was to conceal the Russian conspiracy and that the obstruction just happened to be good enough to shield themselves from Mueller.
    I mean anything is possible, but to think that Trump and his sloppy gang who usually can’t shoot straight and that leaks like a sieve could pull one over on a pro like Mueller is inconceivable to me.
    Travis
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited March 2019
    JaimieT said:
    I am enjoying this video as an explanation (in 2016) of the appeal of the Alt Right and why anti-SJWism, anti-feminism infected the skepticism community. Also I think he's an example of what happened with a lot of Bernie Bros... they turned into the Alt-Right.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thliETccJss
    I may need to preface my comment by saying that I'm offering this reply to clarify my own position and in no way am I talking down to you or explaining things to you that you obviously understand.  I have full respect for your intellect and view you as an equal :)

    We know that this phenomenon existed - Bernie supporters who were so angry at Hillary that they latched on to Trump, and because of them and others who exhibited boorish behaviour that the appropriate term 'Bernie Bro' came into being.  

    My contention is that since its inception, the term is now applied outside of its original intention and has become a way to dismiss Bernie and his supporters in a more blanket way.   That's not what the term was meant to do, that's not how people here have used it, but that is how it is being used in the wider political culture.  It's become a way of tying Sanders and the vast majority of his supporters to a small subset of knuckle-heads who supported him with the intention of being dismissive. Don't address what he says, what his policies are, what he believes, don't show him respect, don't treat him like the frontrunner that the polling shows him to be...just brush him aside with a "whatever bro."
     
  • LordBy said:
    tom_g said:
    Is it possible the obstruction was to conceal the Russian conspiracy and that the obstruction just happened to be good enough to shield themselves from Mueller.
    I mean anything is possible, but to think that Trump and his sloppy gang who usually can’t shoot straight and that leaks like a sieve could pull one over on a pro like Mueller is inconceivable to me.

    Obstruction might be one of the core competencies of Trump and the GOP.
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited March 2019
    Honestly, as much as I know that the Russia stuff has much more gravity (for really good reason, obviously), I think the financial stuff is the best path to nailing him on something (and by nailing him, I don't think he gets indicted as President, most certainly not before the election). I figure the report has to make it to Congress (man, I hope the full report makes it to Congress) and they can at least throw out the "who, whoa, whoa buddy" on this "completely exonerated" nonsense (I assume, plus I thought that I heard that the summary pretty clearly says that it doesn't clear him, it just doesn't pin him either), but if Mueller couldn't pin him I'm not so sure that Congress will and for the first time I fear the "optics" (ugh) of pressing this too much in a post Mueller world.

    Finance and corruption beyond Russia though seems like a pretty nice cave to mine. I mean, if Cohen's documents are legit they already have some nice fraud stuff in play and I'm certain that there is plenty more where that came from.
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited March 2019
    This is an imperfect parallel, but indulge me...

    Imagine if Bernie had won the primary and Hillary lost.  Imagine as things led up to the final vote and it seemed like Bernie was going to win, that there was a perception that the DNC might have helped Bernie win.  Under that scenario, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that some of Hillary's most passionate supporters would be left with a sense of anger and injustice and acted out - some of them to extremes that no one would approve of.  What if Bernie supporters started calling those particular Clinton supporters "Hillary's Harpies", and when people were predictably offended they were told "Hey, we're not calling you a harpie, we're calling them harpies." Would that be satisfying in any way?

    Now imagine if for the next two and half years that any time a Hillary supporter tried to raise an issue it was met with a chorus of "There go Hillary's Harpies again, always squawking about one thing or another."

    Now imagine trying to lay out the problems with the term Hillary's Harpies and the reply to that is a pat on the head and someone saying "there, there little Harpie."

    -----------------------------

    This isn't what has happened here, but it is what I've encountered dozens of times for the last two years so when I see people who I believe are well meaning and well intentioned feeding that dismissive cycle I try to reach out in good faith.

    TravisFlukes
  • Half court shot at the buzzer, nothing but net!

    MarciCeciliaM
  • Travis said:
    Half court shot at the buzzer, nothing but net!

    That looks like a future role calling John Goodman's name!
    TravisCeciliaM
  • @CretanBull Oh damn! Nailed it!!!
    CretanBull
  • gguenot said:
    MrX said:
    gguenot said:
    Mueller says no collusion. I don’t want the Dems spending all of their political capital (and they would have to) to try and pin obstruction charges when it can be argued now that there may not have even been a crime.
    Barr (the guy hand-picked to run interference for Trump) said there was no conclusion. After doing a bit more reading today it sounds like Mueller intended to lay out the case for congress without making a determination. Without the full report it's foolish to make any conclusions based on only information that has been filtered through a Trump political appointee.

    That said for 2020 I do agree that the best strategy is to use what worked in 2018 - run good candidates who are good at conveying the Democratic message that resonates with voters - which isn't just hammering on Trump-Russia. Sure in a head to head race the nominee is going to figure out how to address those issues especially when faced with the questions in a debate, but it shouldn't be the centerpiece of the campaign.

    In terms of how Congress handles things until then, there is only so much Democrats can do with control of just the House, so while they need to try to promote their legislative goals, realistically the one thing they can do is use their committees to hold the administration accountable for a variety of fucked up stuff. It's not like the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice and work with them in an honest way for the next 1.5 years.
    Unless I’m mistaken, I thought there was a footnote quoted from Muellers report regarding collusion. I hope I am mistaken 

    "Barr’s letter quotes Special Counsel Robert Mueller as stating that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Saying that the investigation did not establish that there was collusion is not the same thing as saying that the investigation established that there was no collusion. Two points are worth emphasizing."

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-barr-letter-actually-say-about-collusion
  • You can’t really prove a negative. If Mueller couldn’t find evidence of a conspiracy, then that’s good enough for me. Mueller is one of the best. If he can’t find it, then to go on loooking does start to look like a witch-hunt, even to a reasonable person like me who passionately does not want Trump to be our president.

    There are lots of reasons that Trump should not be President, and a variety of ways in which he is undermining our institutions. The thesis for Trump not being president does not hinge on Russian Collusion.

    Let’s not become like the GOP and their unending Benghazi investigations trying to pin a body on Clinton.
    Travis
  • LordBy said:
    You can’t really prove a negative. If Mueller couldn’t find evidence of a conspiracy, then that’s good enough for me. Mueller is one of the best. If he can’t find it, then to go on loooking does start to look like a witch-hunt, even to a reasonable person like me who passionately does not want Trump to be our president.

    There are lots of reasons that Trump should not be President, and a variety of ways in which he is undermining our institutions. The thesis for Trump not being president does not hinge on Russian Collusion.

    Let’s not become like the GOP and their unending Benghazi investigations trying to pin a body on Clinton.
    I trust Mueller, I don't trust Barr's version of Mueller which is all that we've been told so far...and I'm in the camp of people who said from the beginning that I didn't think Trump colluded. 
This discussion has been closed.