Over the past week there has occurred
three things that for me seem to be turning points in some way shape
or form. I will touch on each in no particular order of importance.
As you are aware, or should be aware,
there has been an impeachment trial occurring in the United States
Senate. One might be forgiven if the word “trial” seems a little
overblown in this case. Because it seems there is already a foregone
conclusion. To that end it appears that some are quite willing to
dispense with something that is usually an integral part of a trial,
witnesses. And that to me is a slide away from the rule of law into
something else entirely. Listen to the statement made by one of our
Senators on why he reasons witnesses are not needed.
First off I don't think that admitting
the defendant's guilt is a good reason to deny further witnesses.
Secondly, if the articles of impeachment were written into the
Constitution then I am sure the writer's intent was for them to be a
recourse for removing a President who has shown his willingness to
abuse the powers of his office and undermine the rule of law.
The lack of will by the Republican led
Senate to rein in a President who abuses the office does not bode
well for the continuation of a democratic country.
Moving on we have what appears to be a
burgeoning global viral outbreak, which has sickened thousands,
killed hundreds, and left millions quarantined. China has been put
on lock down with many countries imposing flight bans in an effort to
contain the contagion. The effects are starting to ripple through
the global economy, tanking stock markets along the way, as many
businesses shutdown.
What we will see is whether or not the
global community can handle this in such a way as to minimize the
damage to people and their livelihoods. This should be a wake up
call for China to clean up the incubators of its markets and for
other countries to put in place plans to deal with a true global
pandemic before it happens.
And last, but certainly not least, we
have Brexit. The UK has now officially broken from the EU, leaving a
still divided populace. We may not see for a year what this has
wrought, but I suspect that it will slowly sink in. Good or bad?
The UK is an integral part of the world
community and this will touch not just them but us as well.
Is it any wonder we want to tune out?
A beach sounds good right about now.
Or maybe a Super Bowl party...
68 comments:
"This should be a wake up call for China to clean up the
incubators of its markets…"
Perhaps a more immediate question revolves around the Chinese effort to quarantine an estimated 60 million people (as of Friday). Any chance they can pull that off? Or has this virus already broken out of quarantine? Is it already loosed upon the world?
It's too late. It's already roaming outside China. It was too late after the first flight left Wuhan. From what I've read Chinese authorities tried to sweep it under the rug for too long.
Now it is up to each country to try to manage the outbreak. At least it's only two months until the weather starts to warm up.
It sounds like it's a four way race in Iowa; Biden, Sanders, Warren & Buttigieg.
"It's already roaming outside China."
I was aware of that. From what I'd read it seems to have landed early in Canada, the United States, and France (among western nations). But a breach doesn't necessarily mean the dam has broken; depends on the severity of the breach(s) whether the dam can be saved. However, I suspect you're right about it being too late.
By Sunday the NewYorkTimes was already predicting it to become pandemic. News since Sunday doesn't seem to contradict that assessment.
Also the Chinese are apparently eager to palm off some of the blame onto us, which has helped fuel rumors that it's a way bigger deal than they've been letting on. (By no means the only fuel for such rumors.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It sounds like it's a four way race in Iowa…"
Early returns also suggest that Trump is leading comfortably in the Republican caucuses (also being held tonight).
Early returns also suggest that Trump is leading comfortably in the Republican caucuses (also being held tonight).
lol! Probably the only candidate on the ballot.
It seems that the Democrats tallying app isn't working very well. You would think they would have tested that. Or maybe they did...makes you start to wonder.
"Probably the only candidate on the ballot."
That's true in several states, primarily those which have primaries I believe. However, Trump does have competitors for the Iowa caucuses, nominally at least.
I notice that Lisa Murkowski, one of the few Republicans who might have voted to impeach, has announced that she won't vote for impeachment because the House of Representatives didn't allow Trump's efforts to arrange for foreign meddling in the 2020 vote to succeed.
According to Murkowski, the Democrats should have held off trying to impeach Trump for his attempt to arrange a Ukrainian slander of Joe Biden. They should have allowed that plot to succeed while they remained preoccupied with and distracted by Trump's rear-guard fight in the courts against their investigation of his plot.
I tend to disagree with her analysis.
Susan Collins has decided that the House of Representatives had "the burden" of proving that extorting an ally at war to manufacture a sham "investigation" of his political enemies warranted impeachment.
I tend to disagree with that conclusion as well.
(Some flagrantly bullshit defenses of their coming votes being dreamed up by the Republican Senators. They probably would have been better off not holding out for the opportunity to speechify about why they were going to vote to acquit, and just holding that vote last Friday and havin' done with it quiet like.)
The impeachment exercise is finally over (barring some totally egregious new outrage from Trump) I was ready for them to vote his acquittal on Friday. Now the House can get on with the business of the continuing investigation into Trump's effort to cheat in the 2020 elections. Those investigations were necessarily on hold while the Senate was debating whether to call witnesses or no.
And, it finished out about as well as I could have hoped (might have hoped for Lisa Murkowsi to vote to convict--but I'm quite content with Susan Collins' acquittal vote. Now she gets to defend that during her reëlection campaign.)
It has occurred to me that the Iowa Democratic caucus fuckup has a potential silver lining. It might be impetus needed to drop Iowa from the first-in-time position in the Presidential primary/caucus lineup.
A lot of people got a lot of gripes about Iowa going first based on demographic criteria--too white, too Midwestern, too rural, too "Republican" to put a partisan description to it. However, my complaint is based on the federal ethanol mandate. Ethanol has proven to be an environmental mistake. It's not environmentally friendly, and, in spite of early hopes, time, technology, and a government mandate never did change that.
But Iowa produces a lot of corn for ethanol, so leading politicians who want to be President are reluctant to go up against it when the first thing they have to do is clear the bar in a primary in Iowa.
(We have a somewhat similar problem arising out of the position of Nevada early in the Presidential selection process but I'll get to that later.)
Well, as the Iowa votes trickle in it appears that Buttigieg and Sanders are running almost in a dead tie. Amy did rather well, but probably not good enough. We'll see.
I tuned in and out for the State of the Union speech. I was around to see Trump ignoring Pelosi's hand and Pelosi returning the snub by tearing up his speech. I gotta say that was perfect timing on her part for a photo bomb.
I really didn't listen to too much of his speech. I wasn't really awake enough to want to take in his propaganda.
...might have hoped for Lisa Murkowsi to vote to convict-...
She left that to Mitt Romney. Huh! Someone with integrity in the Republican Party. Will wonders never cease?
"I really didn't listen to too much of his speech."
I was gonna listen to it. I was in the room with the TV and was all ready, listening but not watching. But, I could only put up with maybe 5 minutes of it, 5 minutes max, maybe less. I turned the DVR on and the audio down, and went back to reading. 'Bout an hour and a half later, maybe little less, I decided to try and catch the talking heads' reviews, and went back to the TV just in time to catch them just then starting to talk about it. Of course, the first things they had to talk about were Trump snubbing Pelosi on the handshake (which I had missed in real time 'cause I was listening but not watching) and her tearing up the transcript of his speech afterwards. So, I got to see both of those things pretty much right off once I started paying it any attention.
Also, I did get treated to the Republicans chanting "four more years"--from the House floor--during the State of the Union speech. I was surprised by that. Truly amazing how far they've fallen in only three years.
I still haven't bothered to look at the recording of the speech. Good chance I'll never get 'round to it. That's the plan for now; never get 'round to it; then delete it after a couple of days.
Trump's more recent rants are rather more entertaining anyway. Probably more cause to pay attention to them as well, and they're certainly more entertaining.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Amy did rather well…."
Biden did better. But, of course, the ‛expectations’ game comes into play. Biden was expected to do a lot better, so he's getting long faces from the talking heads, and she's getting a thumbs-up. Something about trajectory and momentum and expectations is how they explain it.
My instincts now tell me that Trump's toast in 2020; almost irrespective of whomever the Democrats choose to head their ticket. Just about any of the current crop of candidates could beat Trump in 2020. (With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure but what an avowed Socialist would scare off enough older voters to give Trump another victory.) It's too early to be confident of November, but my instincts say Trump's in trouble right now.
I think it all comes down to turnout. Trump has played to his ‛base’ relentlessly (which ‛base’ is more clearly a coalition than was the Republican voter ‛base’ in the just recent past--but that's a whole 'nuther subject there). Trump has been relentless in amping up his voters, whether capitalists who're more than happy to bleed the Republic dry, or Bible-thumpers who think they've finally got their own tame heathen to whack the other heathens around, or racist revisionaries. He pisses off their enemies, and they love it. They forgive all kinds of shit 'cause he's bringing grief to those whom they've amped themselves up to hate.
The thing is, they tend to forget that there are more Democrats than Republicans. The coalition of Republicans have only been able win in these last few elections, last couple of decades to be right honest, because they were angrier and so they voted in higher percentages. But, Trump has pissed off their enemies--which makes the dedicated Trumpkins happy, but does not make them more numerous, which is why they're gonna lose in 2020 when the enemy shows up to vote en mass on account of now they're pissed off too.
But, I could only put up with maybe 5 minutes of it, 5 minutes max, maybe less.
Yes, I don't know if it was the droning way he had of speaking or the out right lies, which Pelosi highlighted with her ripping. But whatever it is, I always tune him out now.
Nate Silver's 538 blog has Bernie Sanders "favored" to win the Democratic nomination outright, before the convention. (Or, at least that's how one pundit, writing in TheAtlantic puts it.) In numerical terms it comes down Sanders having a 40% chance of getting the nomination, according to Silver's projections, which means a 60% chance that it'll be somebody else (or nobody at all and they decide on a Democratic champion at a contested convention).¹
I think Silver's model has too little data yet to be making reliable estimates, and Silver himself has made the point repeatedly that predicting primaries accurately is way more difficult than predicting the general election (and, of course, most people missed Trump's general election win last time, including Silver). So we should take this with a grain of salt. Still…. There it is.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Meantime--another Democratic debate tonight. Klobuchar had a good performance. She's still in the running for Veep I think.
Biden's poor performance in the Iowa caucuses seemed to have made an impression on him. He was animated and even agressive at times, unfortunately also sometimes semi-incoherent (not that this is particularly new for Biden, especially when he gets animated and agressive). Buttigieg looked sharp, but usually he does, nothing special about last night except that he took shots from all around the room on account of his good performance in Iowa; but he took the shoots standing and didn't stagger. (Although he's still vulnerable on the lack of cross-racial appeal, and he still had no real answer for that.)
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
¹ For the record, Silver give Klobuchar no shot at all, which will come as no surprise to Klobuchar. And she did turn in one of her better performances tonight. So maybe Silver will wanna take another look at that.
Lee:
"My instincts now tell me that Trump's toast in 2020; almost irrespective of whomever the Democrats choose to head their ticket. Just about any of the current crop of candidates could beat Trump in 2020."
Wait, what?
Are you serious? Those are your instincts? For real?
If I was an American and I wanted Trump out of office I would be seriously worried, almost at the point of feeling hopelessness right about now. I woluld be waiting, hoping and praying for a miracle, some yet unknown leader to come to the rescue in the final hour.
For sure an Obama or a young Bill (not Hillary, but Bill) Clinton could have wiped the floor with the executive Orange Man. But this lot?
1. Biden
He's performing poorly in the start of the primaries and what he needed to be viable was a lead from the get go. Plus the more scrutiny he comes under the more "senior moments" he's bound to have. No way he has the energy to battle Trump in the generals.
2. Warren
That wagon-burning wannabe chieftain is almost as non-likeable as Hillary was. No way she can inspire enough voters. Being not-Trump will go far but not far enough.
3. Buttigieg
Nope. The dems are gonna need the black and the hispanic vote to beat Trump and the brothas' and sistas' aint votin' for no faggot. Sry to say but the coloreds yall need to win ain't near enough PC enough to go along with man-on-man anal leadership. White womyns alone and gonna carry it.
4. Sanders
The one you Lee seem to see as your worst chance is in reality your only chance (as it stands). But probably America is not ready for his full on Socialism and the Democrat machienery that is in reality big business masquerading as SJW:s are not gonna let him win, they probably prefer Trump tbh.
Nope, I think Trump looke like a lock in for another 4 years as it stands today. Something dramatic would have to happen to change that and a new yet unseen opponent would have to emerge. And it's getting a bit late for that to happen.
Lee:
"I think it all comes down to turnout. Trump has played to his ‛base’ relentlessly (which ‛base’ is more clearly a coalition than was the Republican voter ‛base’ in the just recent past--but that's a whole 'nuther subject there). Trump has been relentless in amping up his voters, whether capitalists who're more than happy to bleed the Republic dry, or Bible-thumpers who think they've finally got their own tame heathen to whack the other heathens around, or racist revisionaries. He pisses off their enemies, and they love it. They forgive all kinds of shit 'cause he's bringing grief to those whom they've amped themselves up to hate.
The thing is, they tend to forget that there are more Democrats than Republicans. The coalition of Republicans have only been able win in these last few elections, last couple of decades to be right honest, because they were angrier and so they voted in higher percentages. But, Trump has pissed off their enemies--which makes the dedicated Trumpkins happy, but does not make them more numerous, which is why they're gonna lose in 2020 when the enemy shows up to vote en mass on account of now they're pissed off too."
You're not wrong in anything you're saying here, you just draw the wrong conclusions.
First of all you do not have a voting system where the popular vote matters, it will always come down to a few swing states. So that rich urbanites in NY or progressives in LA hate Trump even more than 4 years ago and show up "en masse" amounts to dogshit.
You need to look at the specific states that swung to Trump the last time around and ask: "are the people in these states really dissatisfied with Trumpism and is there an alternative that any of the Democrat wannabe Preznits that will change their heart and minds - AND is that democrat likeable in their community"?
You really think the coal miners in Ohio or the auto workers in Michigan are gonna go out and just
"jeez this Bad Orange man is just to fat and Orange, I'm gonna vote for this other guy who takes mens penises up his ass or maybe for this woman who is totally white but faked her way into university pretending she was a redskin even though they both promise to undo what bad Orange man actually did do, or at least tried to do, to save my job."
Really? You believe that?
Man, sometimes I wish PeteS was still here........
"First of all you do not have a voting system where the popular
vote matters…"
Your opening premise is erroneous.
There have been 48 Presidential elections since 1830, when the United States shifted to selecting Presidents by the popular vote. (And kept the electoral college in place in the middle of the process anyway.) Prior to 1830 the "electors" were chosen by the state legislatures; from 1830 on they are chosen by popular vote in the state. Out of 48 elections, only four times has the winner of the national popular vote not been the winner in the electoral college. That means that better than 90% of the time the winner of the popular vote is also the electoral college winner. This way too strong a correlation to be accidental. (I'm not gonna run the odds on this, you'll just have to trust me on this one--way too strong a correlation to be accidental.)
The popular vote does matter.
"You really think the coal miners in Ohio or the auto
workers in Michigan are gonna go out and just…"
I think that coal minor or auto worker has a wife, or an ex-wife, who despises Trump and 2.33 voting age children who're looking at a global warming as the oncoming terror of the age. And this time they're gonna vote.
Something dramatic would have to happen to change that and a new yet unseen opponent would have to emerge. And it's getting a bit late for that to happen.
It's only February. We have another 9 months to go until the election. A lot can happen in 9 months.
Yes, Trump has been taking a victory lap because of the acquittal, but it really was a forgone conclusion given the spinelessness of the Republican Senators.
Will he win or lose in November? That is not a forgone conclusion.
Yes, Amy has been looking stronger. I would love to see a Buttigieg/Klobuchar ticket. I would also love to see the American public stand up and vote for intelligent candidates irrespective of their sexual orientation or ethnicity.
Buttigieg being gay may prove a problem for some older voters. This election will come down to younger voters turning out in high numbers. Climate change may be a motivator that is strong enough. I certainly hope so, because it is a very real danger for our future.
"Buttigieg being gay may prove a problem for some older
voters."
Marcus may have a point about the black vote as well.
The stereotype is that blacks will have a problem voting for a gay man, more of a problem with that than whites, and there seems to be some evidence that the stereotype is valid.
If blacks withhold their votes in substantial numbers it could seriously compromise Buttigieg's chances in the general election.
Of course, the black resistance to Buttigieg's candidacy might be the result of them thinking that he doesn't really have a shot at it. Black support for Barack Obama was near non-existent when he first ran against Hillary in 2008. She was way out ahead of him among blacks, notably and specifically she was ahead among blacks in South Carolina, that is, until he won outright in bright white Iowa, and managed to pull a split-decision in equally bright white New Hampshire. After that, after he had proved he could win among white voters black voters pretty much abandoned Hillary to support him, but first he had to show 'em he had a real shot at winning.
So, maybe they'll come around with Buttigieg.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
A Klobuchar/Buttigieg ticket might have been a better, safer bet for the general election.
I saw her tangle with both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in their confirmation hearings. Neither of them gave her enough credit; that was a mistake, both times. Then Kavanaugh tried to intimidate her: Did∙Not∙Work. Gorsuch backed off; Kavanaugh ended up apologizing for making the effort.
She's plenty tough enough. Is Buttigieg tough enough? Maybe.
Besides which, Trump has a noticeable problem dealing with tough women. Ain't something he's good at.
I'm informed that the television audience for Trump's State of the Union speech was the smallest ever for one of Trump's SOTU addresses, down 20% from last year.
He's got his base fired up, but it would seem that increasing numbers of independents have simply tuned him out.
Lee:
”Out of 48 elections, only four times has the winner of the national popular vote not been the winner in the electoral college. That means that better than 90% of the time the winner of the popular vote is also the electoral college winner. This way too strong a correlation to be accidental.”
Yes, but we have with Trump one of those who broke that already. And as you say hes extremely polarising so I wouldnt bet against him winning despite losing the general vote yet again.
Remember, its the opposition that has to make gains compared to last timme around, when Trump was seen as a loser.
Lee:
”The stereotype is that blacks will have a problem voting for a gay man, more of a problem with that than whites, and there seems to be some that the stereotype is valid.
If blacks withhold their votes in substantial numbers it could seriously compromise Buttigieg's chances in the general election.
Of course, the black resistance to Buttigieg's candidacy might be the result of them thinking that he doesn't really have a shot at it. Black support for Barack Obama was near non-existent when he first ran against Hillary in 2008. She was way out ahead of him among blacks, notably and specifically she was ahead among blacks in South Carolina, that is, until he won outright in bright white Iowa, and managed to pull a split-decision in equally bright white New Hampshire. After that, after he had proved he could win among white voters black voters pretty much abandoned Hillary to support him, but first he had to show 'em he had a real shot at winning.”
Faulty reasoning.
That blacks didnt come out for a fellow black but did so when he suddenly appered viable is one thing. For sure you dont mean to say they har negative emotions about a black precident but swung round for tactical reasons. They swung when the seemingly previously impossible became possible. But for something they always would have wanted.
A white gay man aint that.
Apples and oranges.
Say what?
The Justice Department will backtrack on its request that longtime Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone get up to nine years in prison, a senior department official said Tuesday, contradicting its own federal prosecutors in a highly unusual and politically charged move.
Prosecutors from the US Attorney's office in Washington, who are employees of the Justice Department, had said Monday that Stone should be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison after he was convicted on seven charges last year that derived from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, including lying to Congress and witness tampering.
But on Tuesday, the senior official said that that sentencing recommendation, transmitted to a judge and signed off on by the office's top prosecutor, had not been communicated to leadership at the Justice Department.
"The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation," the official told CNN. "The Department believes the recommendation is extreme and excessive and is grossly disproportionate to Stone's offenses."
Hmmm...they say it isn't because of what Trump tweeted regarding the sentence. Maybe, maybe not...
Neither of them gave her enough credit; that was a mistake, both times.
Indeed. I suspect she would stand up better to Trump than people realize.
They swung when the seemingly previously impossible became possible. But for something they always would have wanted.
A white gay man aint that.
It will come down to how much they hate Trump.
"A white gay man aint that."
Perhaps you misunderstood me because of my faulty editing last time. I'll try to fix that sentence, and maybe you'll catch what I was getting at.
"The stereotype is that blacks will have a problem voting for
a gay man, more of a problem with that than whites, and
there seems to be some evidence that the stereotype is valid."
And then I went on to discuss the history of black support in South Carolina for Barack Obama.
What I meant to convey is that the stereotype has not been proven true just because there's "some" evidence to support it. The evidence is actually fairly thin and fairly inconsistent on this question; there's also some evidence seemingly pointing to the stereotype not being true.
Perhaps you find the theory so clearly proven because you so very much want it to be true.
"Apples and oranges."
Neither apples nor oranges. The choice we're discussing is between an admittedly gay President or openly racist President.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It will come down to how much they hate Trump."
Not necessarily only that. I've seen some punditry discussing the issue--most with a bit more evidence behind them than Marcus has favored us with--and it seems there's also some evidence that the younger and more secular blacks aren't put off by Buttigieg's homosexuality as much as older blacks and Bible-thumper blacks. That's pretty much the same as white folks' reactions. (And the Bible-thumper blacks made up most of that 9% of blacks that voted for Trump last time. They were gonna vote for Trump again this time anyway, just like their white Bible-thumper counterparts; so, it's no big deal there.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…they say it isn't because of what Trump tweeted regarding
the sentence."
I didn't know that Trump had tweeted about the sentencing recommendation yet, but I was pretty sure Trump would intervene as soon as I heard of their recommendation. I mean, I saw the headline and my first thought was that Trump would be all over that in short order.
Updating:
All four federal prosecutors resigned "from the case" and two of the four resigned from their employment with the Washington D.C. Federal Prosecutors' Office.
They're voting with their feet. It's a disturbing turn of events. The slide into a dictatorship.
Warren is giving what sounds like a concession speech. A little early, but she is showing class in giving credit to those who are at the moment at the head of the pack in New Hampshire.
At the moment Sanders is in the lead, Buttigieg second and Amy third.
With 80% of the vote counted Sanders has a lead of almost 10% over Buttigieg. Klobuchar is running a respectable third place with about 75% of Sanders' vote. I don't expect their respective positions to change much by the final vote tallies. So, it's win, place, and show; Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar.
Everybody else has to wait another day in another place to pick up any delegates. For Bennet and Yang it'll have to be another year; both have given notice of withdrawal from the race.
Trump is trying to incite the Army to take further disciplinary action to punish Colonel Alexander Vindman for testifying against Trump in response to the subpoena from Congress. Politico
I hope this gets wide publicity. It may be the sort of thing that could spark a hostile reaction among a few of the merely semi-dedicated Trumpkins (and then again, maybe not). But it does at least a chance of knocking a tie-breaker edge of some Republican Senator's vote tally, however remote that chance might be, we need to encourage the chances of that happening.
"…off of some Republican Senator's vote tally…"
Lee:
"Not necessarily only that. I've seen some punditry discussing the issue--most with a bit more evidence behind them than Marcus has favored us with--and it seems there's also some evidence that the younger and more secular blacks aren't put off by Buttigieg's homosexuality as much as older blacks and Bible-thumper blacks. That's pretty much the same as white folks' reactions."
Think about it for a minute. Think what low hanging fruit it would be for a smear campaign.
Construct a couple of messages for robocalls with varying degrees of homophobia in them:
"Are you aware that Pete Buttigieg is an admitted and open homosexual? Do you really want him in charge of your children's school system implementing all sorts of gay policies?"
(no, it doesn't matter whether the President is involved or interested in the school system, the message still works. Gayness preying on your children)
Could go more hardcore:
"Homophilia is a sickness along with necrophilia and paedophilia and was until very recently considered as such. Do we want a homophile as Commander in Chief? What's next?"
Could go biblical:
"God has clearly shown us already what's in store for us if we accept man-on-man sexuality when He rained fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah! Dare not defy God and vote for this sexual deviant!"
Could go light for the ladies:
"What, are we going to have a "First Lifepartner" in the White House now?"
Then you have those (not exactly those ones but better ones) run in different clusters of population, then you beta-test which works and then hammer them relentlessly in the weeks leading to the election.
You KNOW the Trump campaign would do that and more if Pete Buttigieg is the opposing candidate. They will of course have deniability but that doesn't even really matter since they can afford to go low with a message that even resonates with their base.
And that's even before the troll-armies on the Internet are taken into consideration. A gay man with the word "butt" in his last name who looks like Gollum (he's a dead ringer for Martin Freeman who played Gollum)... I mean, come on. That's just too easy to meme.
Look
here
and then
here
and then
here
You will have the entire Internet plastered with memes of candidate Pete as Gollum on a quest to find his Precioussssss. And not his Preciousssss Ring but his Precioussssss cock.
My preciousss
I'm beginning to suspect Swedish fascists might be more homo-fixated than the average American Bible-thumper.
Let's just "bookend" that post, shall we?
"Are you aware that Pete Buttigieg is an admitted and open
homosexual?"
I'm pretty sure that they'll already be fully aware of Buttigieg's homosexuality by the time it comes down to Buttigieg vs Trump (assuming it comes to that). So that robocall is probably just going to make most folks feel insulted. Anybody who's got a problem with Buttigieg being President on account of his homosexuality will already be on alert for the Queer Agenda and Lifestyle Takeover of these United States of We the People in the Righteous Defense of God and Hatred (or however the hell they're gonna try to dress it up) . All Trump will do with that robocall is piss off people who don't much like the open bigotry. He'll just fire up some percentage, however large or small, of the anti-Trumpkins, which is bad for Trump. (Ain't by accident that Trump hasn't gone there yet. Nor will he go there later. And, if I'm wrong on that, if he does make that mistake, it'll still be a mistake.)
*
*
*
"he's a dead ringer for Martin Freeman who played Gollum."
Martin Freeman played The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, not Gollum.
(Stuff in between the bookends is no better. So I'm not gonna bother with goin' over it item by item.)
President willfully undermines judiciary in an attempt to exonerate one of his henchman!!
Screams one headline...
Trial held without witnesses being called!!
Screams another...
President uses taxpayer dollars to fund his golf trips and plump up his resort's income even as he tries to cut Medicare spending
There's more out there...
Trump is trying to incite the Army to take further disciplinary action to punish Colonel Alexander Vindman for testifying against Trump in response to the subpoena from Congress. Politico
I hope this gets wide publicity. It may be the sort of thing that could spark a hostile reaction among a few of the merely semi-dedicated Trumpkins (and then again, maybe not).
There was a state Senator in Utah who tried to initiate a bill to censor Mitt Romney for voting to convict Trump. None of his fellow legislators would take it up. While they are Republicans and conservative, they are not fans of Trump.
Of course, that doesn't mean they have the courage to vote against him. But you never know.
"Of course, that doesn't mean they have the courage to vote
against him."
Of course they won't vote against him. I phrased that poorly. I meant to say that high publicity for Trump's antics will knock some votes off of the tally the Republican Senator gets in the 2020 elections. Phrased it rather poorly for making that point but my attention was split, and it didn't come out like I'd meant it to…. For instance:
I'm thinking of the campaign ads against Susan Collins, repeating over and over where she explained that Trump "has learned" from being impeached, and "He will be much more cautious in the future."
So, how's that been workin' out?
How the hell could she not know who he is by now? Hell, she had to know, everybody knows. Does she think we are the fools here and we're gonna buy that blatantly self-serving BS explanation? Vote for [whomever is not Susan Collins in the race; I believe the favored Democrat is named Sara Gideon].
I've been thinking about Trump's recent blatant abuses of the Department of Justice.
I noticed that when the DoJ denied being influenced by Trump's tweets on the subject of Roger Stone's felony sentencing, Trump immediately went on Twitter to very publicly "Congratulate" AG William Barr personally for "taking charge of" the sentencing phase of the case, with a leading capital letter to attract attention. He wanted everybody to see that; to notice that; to dismiss the DoJ's coy denials that they responded to his needs. He wanted us to know that the denials were bullshit, that the DoJ was his now; that it does his bidding. He wants us to know that.
And the reason he wants us to know? I think he wants his people to begin defending that abuse of power, beginning now; so they're ready for later. I think he's got some election rigging yet to do and he wants his dedicated Trumpkins, and the Republican Senate, already on record in support of Trump's use of the DoJ as his own personal enforcers. He wants them committed, in advance, to support his efforts to rig the upcoming election.
And he's preparing them to support what comes next, in case his efforts to rig the election do not achieve the results he desires. He's only got nine months before the election. He ain't gonna go willingly; election be damned if he loses the election. And he's getting his people ready for that, psychologically prepped for what comes next. And he's only got nine months to get them ready.
So, he's testing his limits now, and preparing his followers to support him in defiance of the currently assumed limits, if necessary.
Roger Stone hasn't been sentenced yet, has he? I think I would have heard. It really is up to the judge to give the final verdict on sentencing. It will be interesting to see what she does.
And he's preparing them to support what comes next, in case his efforts to rig the election do not achieve the results he desires. He's only got nine months before the election. He ain't gonna go willingly; election be damned if he loses the election. And he's getting his people ready for that, psychologically prepped for what comes next. And he's only got nine months to get them ready.
You're not the first one who has speculated on that. It may be a very interesting election this year.
Stone has not yet been sentenced.
Trump will need to push against the boundaries, test the limits, before November. Pardoning Stone will obviously not be enough. I'm thinking one of the places he might find to push the boundaries outward would be to refuse to comply with a Supreme Court order--disclosure of his tax returns perhaps, which might be decided as early as June. There are several cases that might come down against him in June of this year. If not his taxes, he might find some other case suited to pushing his boundaries.
The Federal government has blackballed New York State airports from participating in federal programs to "preapprove" frequent fliers who submit to background checks in advance and get them through the FTSA checkpoints at airports faster. Then comes this:
"New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment
[sic]…"
Trumptweets
Trump wants the State of New York to abandon its investigations of his potential tax fraud while he was a resident there.
House Impeachment "Manager" Adam Schiff warned the Senators that it'd come to this, and quickly, if they acquitted Trump. I don't know that even he expected it this quickly.
For some reason I remembered this when I woke up this morning…
"The Federal government has blackballed New York State airports…"
Lee C. ↑↑
And I think Trump actually had the TSA refuse to allow New York State to sign its people up for the program, so that New Yorkers couldn't participate even if they were flying out of New Jersey.
Anyway, the point was that Trump is now using his office to try to coerce New York State into dropping their ongoing criminal investigations against himself and his various businesses (collectively known as The Trump Organizaion)
Once again: Trump wanted everybody to know that the Justice Department had ignored any concept of independent justice in order to make Trump happy.
"In Azerbaijan, in 2003…Ilham Aliyev, the widely derided
playboy son of the country’s gravely ailing dictator, received
an implausible seventy-seven per cent of the votes. Western
observers condemned the balloting as neither free nor fair,
but the real insight for me came the next day, while I was
flying back to Moscow. On the plane with the Russian
election-observation team, which had seen nothing to object
to, I wondered why Aliyev and his ruling party had seemed to
go for such overkill, such an obviously fake result, rather than
stealing the election with a more credible fifty-five per cent.
One of the Russians laughed at me, saying, in effect, that the
overkill was the point. *** Strength lies in forcing people to
accept the unacceptable. Aliyev, incidentally, remains in
charge to this day."
TheAtlantic
This is the concept of power that Trump understands: Racketeer, mob boss kinda power. That's what he learned dealing with the construction unions in New York City. That's how he understands power to work.
Yes. But mob bosses make mistakes. They are human. Trump will make a mistake, if he hasn't already. At least a mistake that will wake up even those who support him.
Btw, Trump has started to attack Bloomberg just as he did Biden. I suspect he feels Bloomberg to be a real threat to him. One of his jabs has to do with Bloomberg being shorter. I rather liked Bloomberg's response. He just said, "Donald, where I come from height is measured from the neck up.".
He also pointed out the fact that he has made his money himself, whereas Trump used family money, which he eventually ran through.
WashingtonPost:
AG William Barr is apparently embarrassed by Trump having called him on his bluff the other day (about Trump making his job "impossible") and Barr has threatened to quit. So far as the Post knows, he's not been brave enough to take the threat directly to Trump, but has sent it through "people close to" Trump, apparently intending they take it that last step on his behalf.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483189-democrats-worried-about-trumps-growing-strength
Yall gotta still at least be a bit worried now that many say Trump might well win. Last time round they said he couldnt win, it was all but impossible, yet he still won. So now that theyre even saying he could very well win..... what does that tell you?
"Yall gotta still at least be a bit worried now that…Trump
might well win."
Incumbent Presidents usually win. So, yeah, gotta be a concern. Especially given that Trump is in charge of making sure the Russians don't manage to meddle in the election again.
In respect to that problem: Julian Assange's attorneys are claiming today that the Trump administration offered Assange a pardon if he'd say in public that Russia didn't work through Wikileaks last time. Time
(Don't know if there'll be any backup evidence for that claim, or if it'll come down to Assange's word against Trump's.)
Well now, that's an interesting choice. Who do we choose to believe, a sneak who was in bed with Russia or a liar who is in bed with Russia?
Well, according to the Theory of Power advanced during Trump's impeachment trial by Alan Dershowitz, a theory explicitly accepted by a wide swath of Republican Senators and implicitly accepted by the majority of them (although most were too circumspect to adopt it explicitly), this would not constitute an impeachable offense even if it turns out there is corroborating evidence.
Bloomberg managed to get 45 minutes into tonight's debate before the "attack Bloomberg" movement got going good. (Elizabeth Warren managed to get it going.)
Even then it proceeded by fits and starts. Got full-on at times, petered plumb out other times.
With only six of them on stage they were all eager, even desperate, to get themselves some stage time (even Biden seemed animated and aggressive--and he even managed to not wander into incoherence in his animation). It turned out that "attack Bloomberg" didn't sustain most of them, so they were back to their more traditional fights for most of the night.
To quote Garrison Kieller's Lake Wobegon intro--"all of the children were above average" tonight.
Cats fighting. I am of the opinion that sometimes debates are a waste of time as they go over the same thing time and again and fall back on attacking each other. Even Buttigieg got in a few shots at Amy Klobuchar regarding her not knowing the name of the Mexican president. His way of getting back at her earlier attacks on his lack of experience, perhaps.
Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher, often referred to as "The Congressman from Moscow" on account of his affiliation, or at least affinity, with Vladimir Putin, has confirmed that he offered to negotiate a Presidential pardon for Assange in return for Assange's coöperation in rebuffing any claims of role by Russia in getting information to Wikileaks or to Trump associate, Roger Stone, in support of Trump's 2016 election bid. YahooNews
Rohrabacher claims that he did not actually discuss the possibility of a pardon directly with Trump.
"Feb. 20, 2020
Updated 7:01 p.m. ET
"WASHINGTON — Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last
week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get
President Trump re-elected…."
NewYorkTimes
Not surprisingly, Trump has expressed displeasure with the "leak" of this information to congressional oversight committees. He's now in the process of replacing the Director of National Intelligence, who allowed this information to get to Congress, with a loyal political appointee, one who has no experience in the intelligence field, but who has shown the requisite personal loyalty to Trump. (The new Director will serve as an "acting" Director, to avoid subjecting him to a Senate confirmation hearing, at least until after the November elections.)
Honestly, I suspected that the sneak was telling the truth. The liar is by definition not to be trusted with facts.
Btw, I see that Roger Stone was given 40 months in prison. I wonder how long it will take Trump to just pardon him?
According to an article in my paper today it looks like there have been some cracks forming in support for Trump by Evangelicals. Enough so that some have started a campaign to make clear that they can "stay true to their Christian faith" but not vote for Donald Trump.
"I wonder how long it will take Trump to just pardon [Stone]?"
Trump has just today indicated that it could happen soon. Politico
Just a brief example of why the dedicated Trumpkins cannot seem to agree with the rest of the world: FoxNews was trying to explain that: "Roger Stone's sentence proves that AG Barr was right and trial prosecutors were wrong" (That's the headline.) What follows is the argument:
"He [Barr] advocated a term of 36 to 40 months."
FoxNews
This is just flat wrong. Barr did not advocate for a term of 36 to 40 months. That's simply false. The "revised" recommendation that came out of the DoJ after Barr gave the orders to back off on the Stone sentence did not specify any jail term. It merely said that the original recommendation (which complied with federal sentencing guidelines) was excessive and that Stone should not be sentenced to seven to nine years, as the original sentencing recommendation had suggested. Once again, the post-Barr intervention did not specify any recommended jail term, much less one of 36 to 40 months.
They just made that up over at FoxNews.
And the folks who get their news from FoxNews don't know any better.
(The judge in this case is known for lenient sentences by the way--across the board she tends to hand out sentences more lenient than her colleagues on the DC trial bench. Just in case anybody's wondering about where that 40 month jail sentence actually came from.)
Re: John Bolton's book
Trump has weighed in personally on the question of what's "classified" and what's not classified in John Bolton's upcoming book.
According to the WashingtonPost, Trump has declared that all conversations in which Trump himself participated, either as an observer or active participant, and which Bolton either witnessed or participated in, are classified until after the 2020 election, and maybe even until after he (Trump) either resigns, is forced from office, or eventually dies still in office, whenever whichever might occur first.
The "after I leave office" criterion is a fairly novel test for classification of government information, but there it is.
As I mentioned earlier:
"We have an environmental problem arising out of the
position of Nevada early in the Presidential selection process
but I'll get to that later."
Lee C. @ Thu Feb 06, 05:31:00 am ↑↑
Well, now's the time to get to it.
We can't seem to get the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site opened because of Nevada's early position in the Presidential primary process. Politico
And, of course, for years Harry Reid's position as Senate Leader kept Yucca Mountain from being opened and used. He's retired now, but the impact of Nevada's early caucuses are still with us.
The "after I leave office" criterion is a fairly novel test for classification of government information, but there it is.
I have to say that there are a number of things about the Trump administration's way of governing that would be considered novel here in the US. Not so much in places like Russia, though.
Post a Comment