US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Again, please tell me what far right stuff I deflected to ? I deflected to stuff that is right, yes, as in correct to prove to you not all news is genuine or true and you shouldn't believe everything your news stations or sites tell you. "It didn't kill me or harm me in any way, so therefore it's safe" is basically what many like you have to say on that. Unfortunate this doesn't apply to those who now have long term auto immune problems, heart problems or died suddenly from clots, heart attacks or turbo cancers or all the other unfortunate things it's caused. The excess deaths prove there's a serious issue being swept under the carpet.

You just completely deflected off of what we're talking about. Once again. Just to bring it back around, why do you insist that Michelle Obama is likely to run for President, against every reasonable person's assessment that she absolutely won't? Because you're hoping for anyone but Biden?

 

[Front242]

You just completely deflected off of what we're talking about. Once again. Just to bring it back around, why do you insist that Michelle Obama is likely to run for President, against every reasonable person's assessment that she absolutely won't? Because you're hoping for anyone but Biden?

Yes to prove a point regarding fake news. While I'm not sure Obama will run, I am sure Biden will quit. No one but Biden or Obama has any chance against Trump.

 

[Moxie]

While I'm not sure Obama will run, I am sure Biden will quit. No one but Biden or Obama has any chance against Trump.

Actually, I disagree with that, as has be discussed in depth above. The presumptive nominees are Biden and Trump, and, no matter the polls, the chances are good that Biden wins that one again. However, if anyone were to run against either of them, I think they would win, because the options are so unpopular. That's why Federberg tells you that Haley wins, if Trump can't run. By the same token, if anyone runs against Trump, besides Biden, they're a shoe-in. Maybe Kamala Harris would have a tougher time, but that's mostly sexist and racist, and not based on record. My point is, everyone is craving an alternative, but they haven't got one.

 

[Front242]

Actually, I disagree with that, as has be discussed in depth above. The presumptive nominees are Biden and Trump, and, no matter the polls, the chances are good that Biden wins that one again. However, if anyone were to run against either of them, I think they would win, because the options are so unpopular. That's why Federberg tells you that Haley wins, if Trump can't run. By the same token, if anyone runs against Trump, besides Biden, they're a shoe-in. Maybe Kamala Harris would have a tougher time, but that's mostly sexist and racist, and not based on record. My point is, everyone is craving an alternative, but they haven't got one.

There's nothing racist about Kamala Harris potentially having a tougher time when most think Michelle Obama would do very well. It's 'cos Kamala Harris isn't very good..

 

[Federberg]

There's nothing racist about Kamala Harris potentially having a tougher time when most think Michelle Obama would do very well. It's 'cos Kamala Harris isn't very good..

I have to agree... Kamala Harris is simply not good. Not a matter of gender or race. Not sure her record in California would stand up to national scrutiny. Tulsi Gabbard eviscerated her last time. Problem for Trump is that people will refuse to vote for him, because it's him, and I think Harris would be effective against him primarily because of the abortion issue. I also think she would be effective against him on law and order. That one would be too tight though! In a primary there's no way she would make it. Whitmer, Newsom or Bashear crush her. Heck I think a lot of folks would be happy to go with Tim Ryan!

 

[Federberg]

per your comments @Front242

 

[Front242]

per your comments @Front242

Honestly nothing I haven't heard or read elsewhere but the thing that may change her mind is knowing that none of the other democrat candidates have any hope of beating Trump who is currently the favourite by a long way. She'd have Barack guiding her all the way and it seems her fixation on the state the country is in with a potential Trump victory looming may be the catalyst needed to change her mind.

 

[Front242]

 

[Federberg]

Honestly nothing I haven't heard or read elsewhere but the thing that may change her mind is knowing that none of the other democrat candidates have any hope of beating Trump who is currently the favourite by a long way. She'd have Barack guiding her all the way and it seems her fixation on the state the country is in with a potential Trump victory looming may be the catalyst needed to change her mind.

lol! As I said... if it happens I'll be the first to own it. But... she's not interested mate. There are obvious reasons why some want to perpetuate this. And as for the odds, as I said before that's a function of money flows. The same useful idiots (not you mate) who give pocket change to the orange fuhrer will be happy to play this game

 

[Front242]

lol! As I said... if it happens I'll be the first to own it. But... she's not interested mate. There are obvious reasons why some want to perpetuate this. And as for the odds, as I said before that's a function of money flows. The same useful idiots (not you mate) who give pocket change to the orange fuhrer will be happy to play this game

Definitely wouldn't call people backing Trump useful idiots. They see very clearly that the talk is very much as I said many times that Biden will drop out. If and likely when he does, Trump is the clear favourite by a long, long way unless someone steps in who will gobble up votes and I just can't see who that someone would be right now. Trump is the bookies favourite anywhere I've checked and it's not even close. That really is the only thing that may swing Michelle Obama to reconsider whether she really hates politics more than she hates Trump.

 

[Moxie]

Is a Special Counsel qualified to make a determination about someone's mental health or memory?

I'm actually fascinated that on the one hand Biden is accused of using the DoJ to his advantage and at the same time he allows a Comey-like report to come out? I'm guessing that Garland isn't going to be AG in Biden's second term...

You definitely called this one in terms of similarity to the Comey report. In both cases, an exoneration, but accompanied by way too much editorializing. (And no, to your above: the Special Counsel is neither qualified to judge such things, nor is it supposed to.) But no amount of complaining about how it was handled will undo the damage. All I can say is that at least it isn't 10 days before the election, as it was in Hilary's case. Hopefully, a healthy economy, stock market, the fact that we didn't get the recession that was widely predicted, and fear of/repugnance for Trump will undo the damage, over time.

For people that are bound to focus on the increases in rents, costs at the grocery stores, etc., I don't know what to say. Those costs don't tend to go down, (except for gas prices.) A LOT of things went up post-pandemic. And if you're not in the markets, it's hard to feel the benefit of a better economy, when you live month-to-month. This is where Democrats must message on their championship of protections for the poor, for Medicare and Medicaid, for food stamps and WIC and unemployment, etc. They should draft legislation to bolster and improve these programs and watch MTG and the MAGAs and Trump go after them.

The Republicans are floundering in a week that they have shown they cannot govern. They got basically everything they wanted in a bill to help sort out the border, then caved because Trump told them he didn't want the border sorted out during Biden's term, because it would be bad for him, politically. And the Republicans caved. The American people are only going to stand for so much political monkey business at the expense of good legislation, and the Democrats must make hay with it.

 

[Moxie]

I think Heather Cox Richardson is interesting and very fair. This is her take on the Report that came out on Biden:

February 9, 2024

Yesterday, Special Counsel Robert Hur, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in January 2023 to investigate President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents before he was president, released his report. It begins: “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

 

[Moxie]

Trump's comments over the weekend about Nato were pretty outrageous.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

On the NATO side of the comments, he clearly doesn't understand how NATO works, or what it does for all of us. If he destabilizes that relationship, it can have economic consequences for the US, aside from all of the obvious political ones.

And, it's pretty rich him insisting on others paying their bills, when he notoriously stiffed loads of different companies, large and small, in Atlantic City. And he was wasn't paying his lawyers, though now it seems his donors and Super Pacs are. If it comes out of his pocket, he doesn't like to pay his bills, or his taxes.

A lot of Republicans are trying to "normalize" his comments: "That's just Trump."

On the "unleashing Putin" side of it...his bromance with Putin will never cease to astonish. Is it merely that he loves a dictator, or does Russia really have something on him? I mean that question seriously. Trump, as the leader of the Republican party, has forced, or anyway facilitated a 180 in the Republican party, on the issue of hard-line militarism, and on Russia. This is the main reason we have a log-jam in Congress, because the New Hard-Right can't support Ukraine, because Trump won't. You don't have to go that many years back to imagine that support for Ukraine would have been an easy bipartisan issue.

Again, why is Trump so in love with Russia?

 

[Moxie]

In the category of "Was this Necessary?":

Super Bowl LVIII Black national anthem performance causes stir on social media

Some NFL fans tuning in to watch Super Bowl LVIII were upset with the Black national anthem being played before the game. It was a part of the NFL's pregame festivities.

www.foxnews.com

As the Super Bowl pre-game rah rah was just beginning, Audra Day came out to perform "Lift Every Voice and Sing." I can tell you it was not announced as "the Black National Anthem." (I tried to post it, but it's blocked by the NFL, but you can google it.)

But there was a lot of push-back from the Right. "There is only ONE National Anthem." Look at the time stamp on the Fox News article...6:44pm EST. Their article was published not that many minutes after she performed, because coverage began at 6pm EST. And it states that there had been social media against just the fact that it would be sung. Matt Gaetz, R-FL, (man who has to look up to see bottom-feeders,) tweeted that he and his wife wouldn't be watching the Super Bowl just because that song would be performed. (I hope they enjoyed the Joe's Stone Crabs and margaritas, anyway.)

I'm not a fan of the fact that US sports feels like it has to come with US anthems and displays of military color guards. But it does. Which politicizes it, especially in these hyper-political times. The NFL has been trying to come off less-right/white of late, and look where this lands us. Conspiracy theories about Taylor and Travis, and right-wingers tuning out on one of the few nights when we all do the same thing. PS: My guess is that most didn't tune out, not even the Gaetz's.

 

[Federberg]

Trump's comments over the weekend about Nato were pretty outrageous.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

On the NATO side of the comments, he clearly doesn't understand how NATO works, or what it does for all of us. If he destabilizes that relationship, it can have economic consequences for the US, aside from all of the obvious political ones.

And, it's pretty rich him insisting on others paying their bills, when he notoriously stiffed loads of different companies, large and small, in Atlantic City. And he was wasn't paying his lawyers, though now it seems his donors and Super Pacs are. If it comes out of his pocket, he doesn't like to pay his bills, or his taxes.

A lot of Republicans are trying to "normalize" his comments: "That's just Trump."

On the "unleashing Putin" side of it...his bromance with Putin will never cease to astonish. Is it merely that he loves a dictator, or does Russia really have something on him? I mean that question seriously. Trump, as the leader of the Republican party, has forced, or anyway facilitated a 180 in the Republican party, on the issue of hard-line militarism, and on Russia. This is the main reason we have a log-jam in Congress, because the New Hard-Right can't support Ukraine, because Trump won't. You don't have to go that many years back to imagine that support for Ukraine would have been an easy bipartisan issue.

Again, why is Trump so in love with Russia?

This is one of my great frustrations with politics. There's so much dumb shit that doesn't get questioned. Here are my two most annoying ones (one of them relates directly to this).

(1) - NATO countries not paying their 'bills'. The orange turd is a moron! The guidance is for countries to spend a certain percentage on their militaries. Some countries don't meet that target. But let's be clear... even if they don't a lot of them still spend more of their military budget on war, rather than military pensions which are included. These countries also fund the US presence in their territories. Let's not pretend that the US would leave for any reason whatsoever. They WANT those outposts. They NEED those outposts for the US's own narrow national interest. There is not a bill. There is not a pot that the allies contribute to. But say shit enough and idiots start to believe!

(2) - the other annoyance is trade tariffs. When you apply a tariff the tariffed country isn't paying. Your own citizens are being taxed! But again... say the lie enough and people believe!

PS, I have to say I agree with Krugman's article in the NYT. Biden's age concerns is starting to look very similar to HRC emails. I won't lie... I still believe Biden wins going away. But my thesis has always been partly founded on the expectation that Trump will dominate the news reels. But that's not the case. The New York fucking Times is doing it again... On the same day that Trump is disavowing NATO, they spent more words talking about Biden's age. @Moxie ... it's your paper. They're trash!

 

[shawnbm]

Well, it is only going to get worse as we head towards November. The report on Pres. Biden will cause some collateral damage, but it is manageable by the Pres.'s team. After all, they have the former Pres. point that he did in self know favors when he said that stupid, asinine thing about NATO and article 5. I have to believe that even his most ardent supporters thought that was outrageous and beyond the point he was trying to make, which is a legitimate point concerning large nations within the group that have not yet paid their full 2% as they have promised for years, including with respect to past administrations in the USA. Indicating that he would encourage this megalomaniac in Putin to ostensibly get a green light to invade a NATO member is so stupid that I really can't put it in words enough. He showed his true colors by invading Crimea back when Obama was in the White House and now during Biden's tenure he flat-out invades another country, Ukraine. He is old KGB and he does not suffer fools likely. He is not a pacifist. If you let him, he will gladly cross a border into Finland or at least do things to make them think they are coming in so as to start something. He will take whatever advantage he can and weakness in the face of a guy like him is the wrong way to go. Trump may have lost the election by what he said there if it is played correctly. But, he will talk around it and talk about how he is so frustrated with NATO and people not pulling their weight and how we always seem to pull more that we should have to in his mind. That is a legitimate question, but the things he says unnerves our allies in the countries that rely on us, more than anyone else, for protection from aggressors like Russia in the NATO area.

As for this national black anthem thing, it appears that this is much ado about nothing. As long as it is not substituted for the actual national anthem, singing it here and there should not be a big deal (although, in perfect candor, I did not hear anyone sing it as I was not tuned in and I do not know the words to it). The Star-Spangled Banner, though, is a great tune and one we should sing with pride in light of the time and the place it was written to commemorate. That war led to liberty for many and their descendants. At any rate, we will see what happens going forward. We can sit back and watch how Biden it was do all sorts of political contortions to satisfy the far left of his party with respect to what is going on in the Gaza Strip. Talk about catering to terrorists and aggressors! It is amazing to me that after years of relatives or entity, comparatively speaking, Hamas does what it does in October of last year and the leftists and radicals of the world have such an in with the media that there are actually more marches in favor of creating a Palestinian statement along the lines of what this terrorist organization wants that in support of the country that was attacked by them out of nowhere. This did not have to happen in the rule really should be that if you do something like what these terrorists did, the punishment to your area and your people who have either put you empower or acquiesced to you being an power should be far worse than what you inflicted without cause initially. It should not be surprising at all that civilian lives are being lost notwithstanding efforts to minimize that because, as we all know, these very radical criminals don't give one damned care for "their people" and that is why they build and have built tunnels under hospitals and mollusks an apartment complex where people live and work and otherwise infiltrate those very areas to hide their munitions and to hide their warriors, as they call them. Where is the outrage by the Muslim world at what that particular group has done to its own people? It won't be forthcoming so I am not even going to wait.

 

[Federberg]

so the Dems get one more seat in Congress after the by-election in NY-3. Yet again there continues to be a preponderance of evidence of a strong underlying Democratic Party support. But I must admit I was watching James Carville on the Bulwark podcast. He seems incredibly pessimistic. His view seems to be more that if the Dems had lost they need to be worried. Rather than any sort of affirmation for them if they win. What a puzzling time.

I confess the Krugman parallel of HRC emails and Biden's age concerns have got me a bit shook. At the end of the day, it remains about the economy and how good people feel in the months going into the election. How much disinformation plays a role in 2024. Trump cannot win, but... Biden can lose!

I do think, there's a significant difference between now and 2016. Trump is the favourite according to the media, versus last time where HRC was seemingly destined to win. I think this is partly panic and partly because it sells. In any case what it does is that it makes it more likely that those inclined to vote for him will be less motivated to do so. And those who think Biden as old and Trump dangerous will be more motivated to vote against Trump. I think it also represents a risk to Trump in another way... he's a narcissist, the more comfortable he becomes about being the putative winner the more likely he is to fantasise about how things will be. The last thing he should be doing is reminding people who he is. The fantasy that things are worse now than when he was President is one of the great cons, and there's no one better than Trump himself to douse voters with the cold water of remembered reality

Lol! Perhaps I'm starting to talk my own book!

 

[Moxie]

^ The Suozzi win was a good one, and I think there is something in there for the Dems to take away. Suozzi is a moderate Democrat, like Joe Biden, lest we forget. He took went at immigration head-on, also pocketbook issues, and he talked a good game on bipartisanship. He attacked his opponent pretty aggressively. And he won by 8+ points, when it was meant to be close. On the other hand, the Republicans ran a very odd candidate, for them. (To start with, she's a Democrat.) The Republicans kept her under pretty close wraps...she refused to debate until last Thursday (6 days after early voting had started.) One thing that may have played a role was the abortion issue. She calls herself "pro-life." (She has 7 children.) But she says/said that she wouldn't support a national ban on abortions or presume to tell other women what choices to make for themselves, or any limitations on their heath care. However, she chose to run on the Conservative Party line, and their platform is much more extreme on abortion, so the message was muddy, at best. Suozzi criticized her position on it repeatedly.

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie ... it's your paper. They're trash!

Yes, in fact, I'm the editor and publisher.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, in fact, I'm the editor and publisher.

lol! You've defended them before. I recall discussion with you regarding them and the HRC email issue. The fact that they're doing it again speaks volumes to me