Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

[DaveInSeattle]

Sessions was fired. This 'resignation' crap is a farce.

And if it was up to me, I would start working on a new Voting Rights Act, immediately. Its absolutely insane that states (looking at you Georgia) can get away with the shenanigans like having people stand in line for 4 hours (and only in minority neighborhoods, of course).

[Joe K]

Sessions was fired. This 'resignation' crap is a farce.

And if it was up to me, I would start working on a new Voting Rights Act, immediately. Its absolutely insane that states (looking at you Georgia) can get away with the shenanigans like having people stand in line for 4 hours (and only in minority neighborhoods, of course).

If Trump picks Kobach as the permanent replacement, as has been speculated, he’d be picking perhaps the only possible AG choice that’s worse than Sessions on issues like civil rights and immigration.

[Johnnie]

What? Ok...

[tennbengal]

That will probably be what brings him down.

[mister d]

While I favor an increased minimum wage, the economics aren’t simple and, as was pointed out up thread, are complicated by the pressure that behemoths like Walmart and Amazon place on other businesses.

I don't think the economics are simple by any means, I just think the greater good is served by committing to an hourly increase then figuring out small business versus status quo. And agree that $15 should be more of a simplified talking point than a universal figure. If a liveable wage is really $21 in Seattle and $10 in Somewhere Nebraska, thats fine. OR ... just go UBI and then set a much lower minimum wage and get to the same basic end.



(This is, relative to other massive problems, eminently fixable ... total US income was $16T versus a population of 325MM. That works out to slightly under $50K per person, not per worker. Poverty, as it stands in the US, is a decision, not an inevitability.)

[EdRomero]

So Trump just banned a reporter from the White House and lied about why he did it for asking challenging questions persistently.

[Joe K]

While I favor an increased minimum wage, the economics aren’t simple and, as was pointed out up thread, are complicated by the pressure that behemoths like Walmart and Amazon place on other businesses.

I don't think the economics are simple by any means, I just think the greater good is served by committing to an hourly increase then figuring out small business versus status quo. And agree that $15 should be more of a simplified talking point than a universal figure. If a liveable wage is really $21 in Seattle and $10 in Somewhere Nebraska, thats fine. OR ... just go UBI and then set a much lower minimum wage and get to the same basic end.



(This is, relative to other massive problems, eminently fixable ... total US income was $16T versus a population of 325MM. That works out to slightly under $50K per person, not per worker. Poverty, as it stands in the US, is a decision, not an inevitability.)

I didn’t mean to suggest that you were oversimplifying things. And I agree with you 100% that it’s really important, both morally and politically, to remember that there are a lot more “moms and pops” who are low-wage workers struggling to pay for basic necessities than there are who are business owners.

There’s this weird dynamic where some political consultant did a study years ago finding that Americans aspire to be small business owners and, as a result, the perceived interests of small business owners take on an outsized importance in national politics. One of the most absurd examples of this was Hillary’s “solution” to student loan debt, which would have given special incentives to young entrepreneurs. Anyone starting a business shortly after college likely has a lot more access to capital (in the form of a trust fund, rich family members, etc.) than the vast majority of young people who are struggling with the burden of student loans.

[A_B]

So Trump just banned a reporter from the White House and lied about why he did it for asking challenging questions persistently.

That exchange was nuts.

[bfj]

[DaveInSeattle]

So Trump just banned a reporter from the White House and lied about why he did it for asking challenging questions persistently.

That exchange was nuts.

The responses from the Trump True Believers are incredible. All about how Acosta 'assaulted' that intern. Really? I watched the video. She was trying to grab the microphone out of his hand.

And the whole thing was a set up anyways. Trump didn't have to let him ask a question. What a farce...

[Johnnie]

Ya know, I've been following this political shit closely over the last couple years and at no point was this temporary AG scenario even mentioned. How can it even be a thing? And why didn't it happen like a year ago if it can just be so sudden? I don't get it.

[Pruitt]

Ya know, I've been following this political shit closely over the last couple years and at no point was this temporary AG scenario even mentioned. How can it even be a thing? And why didn't it happen like a year ago if it can just be so sudden? I don't get it.

Didn't some GOP congressmen and senators hint that they'd be upset if Sessions was canned? Ryan is gone. Flake, Corker, McCain and others who offered token resistance are gone.

This may be the first step in Trump 2.0 where he ignores everything that is said to him and does anything that he wants. The talk about a "Saturday Night Massacre" sequel has been bubbling away for over a year now. I think it's getting closer and closer.

[EdRomero]

Ya know, I've been following this political shit closely over the last couple years and at no point was this temporary AG scenario even mentioned. How can it even be a thing? And why didn't it happen like a year ago if it can just be so sudden? I don't get it.

Didn't some GOP congressmen and senators hint that they'd be upset if Sessions was canned? Ryan is gone. Flake, Corker, McCain and others who offered token resistance are gone.

This may be the first step in Trump 2.0 where he ignores everything that is said to him and does anything that he wants. The talk about a "Saturday Night Massacre" sequel has been bubbling away for over a year now. I think it's getting closer and closer.

And there is talk on twitter that Mueller is about to make big moves very soon (the theory being that he knew that this was coming and has a plan for it), so expect more firings, obstructions, and distractions.

[Johnnie]

Mueller has been 10 moves ahead this entire time. And his press person has the best job. Whenever asked a question he states "The special counsel declines to comment."

I think from minute one he's been treating this if it were the hot seat and assembling the Justice League to take the president down. At least that's my hope.

Trump's a cornered animal and he's lashing out.

Edit:

Protest SZN

[Joe K]

Ya know, I've been following this political shit closely over the last couple years and at no point was this temporary AG scenario even mentioned. How can it even be a thing? And why didn't it happen like a year ago if it can just be so sudden? I don't get it.

Didn't some GOP congressmen and senators hint that they'd be upset if Sessions was canned? Ryan is gone. Flake, Corker, McCain and others who offered token resistance are gone.

As long as the next permanent AG is similarly hostile to civil rights, minorities voting and immigration like Sessions, none of those guys will care one bit.

[Johnnie]

[brian]

It was actually InfoWars that doctored it, but the White House took and ran it without verifying it was altered, which is also very bad.

[Johnnie]

Good thread:

[The Sybian]

Ya know, I've been following this political shit closely over the last couple years and at no point was this temporary AG scenario even mentioned. How can it even be a thing? And why didn't it happen like a year ago if it can just be so sudden? I don't get it.

Trump said Sessions was safe through the midterms. Firing Sessions could have sparked some fears of Trump running amok unchecked, leading more people to vote Dem. Also, with GOP House, Trump was protected. Now that Dems are taking the House, Trump needs an AG who will act as his protector. Trump has no concept that the AG isn't his personal counsel.

[brian]

Ya know, I've been following this political shit closely over the last couple years and at no point was this temporary AG scenario even mentioned. How can it even be a thing? And why didn't it happen like a year ago if it can just be so sudden? I don't get it.

Trump said Sessions was safe through the midterms. Firing Sessions could have sparked some fears of Trump running amok unchecked, leading more people to vote Dem. Also, with GOP House, Trump was protected. Now that Dems are taking the House, Trump needs an AG who will act as his protector. Trump has no concept that the AG isn't his personal counsel.

The fucked up thing is that the White House/executive branch does have its own legal staff/protectors. Trump is just such a simpleton/wannabe dictator he doesn't realize the AG is supposed to be walled off from the Executive other than being appointed by POTUS.

[EnochRoot]

Good thread:

It really is well-worth the few minutes to read it.

In one of the tweet’s comment section:

[EnochRoot]

Here’s that thread for the Twitter-challenged:

No one actually believes Jim Acosta did anything wrong.

This is one of those situations where conservatives collectively pretend to believe something they don’t believe.

Pretending to believe something they don’t believe serves multiple purposes.

One, it signals tribal loyalty. Being willing to say blatantly false things shows you put tribe over truth, and that is a critical loyalty test, as anyone who has studied cults can tell you.

Two, they’re trolling. “Triggering the libs” is the meats and potatoes of their political ideology these days (read my book, Troll Nation). Telling blatant lies and watching liberals make themselves crazy insisting on “facts” and “evidence” makes them laugh in delight.

Three, they are trying to push the idea that violence against women isn’t a real problem, but something people only pretend to care about to score points.

How better to seed that idea than only pretending to care to score points?

Fourth, it's about reestablishing Trump's narrative that the media are the "enemy" to be defeated instead of a Fourth Estate necessary to keep democracy healthy. This helps, in turn, fuel the already strong message that democracy is wrong and authoritarianism is right.

Fifth, it's a straight up distraction. Trump wants everyone "debating" a completely obvious video, instead of talking about how he's trying to conceal what is almost certainly very serious crimes by interfering with the Mueller investigation.

You will notice conservatives filing these mentions with insistence that they do, too, believe Acosta did something wrong.

They are, to the last of them, lying.

I block and move on. You should, too. You cannot discourse with people who lie for sport.

One more thought: Watching the ease with which conservatives pretend to believe something they clearly cannot believe — that Acosta did anything wrong — should really be a moment to think about what other beliefs they only pretend to hold. I'd say quite a few!

Trump is accelerating a process that's been going on for decades, where conservatives pretend to believe climate change isn't happening, abortion is murder, evolution is a lie, tax cuts lead to prosperity.

The lies are just getting more blatant as a show of power.

I see the hill some are willing to die on is "no, I swear, the conservatives I know really believe this stupid lie!" To this, I have a couple of rebuttals.

One, it doesn't matter if you are dealing with a liar or someone who has turned himself into a deluded idiot. Either way, they are someone who has decided that truth must be sacrificed for loyalty to Trump and should be abandoned, as they are incapable of reasoned discourse.

Two, I will bet they don't actually believe what you think they do. Here's a piece I wrote two years ago about how a lot of people don't believe what they "believe".

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/26/its-sc ... and-wrong/

The research shows that people who claim to "believe" false things adjust their "belief" on context. If they are in a "trolling the libs" situation, they "believe" Obama is Kenyan. If they think this is a quiz on political knowledge, they admit he was born in Hawaii.

So your conservative friend insists that he "believes" Acosta did a naughty thing. Remember: He knows you're a liberal. He would like to make you crazy. And how faster to do this than to keep saying a dumb, false thing and bait you into arguing with him?

What you should do is simply tell your conservative friend that if he continues to lie and gaslight, you are ending the conversation and, ideally, the friendship. Why are you friends with lying #$%#s anyway?

[Steve of phpBB]

Here's a good Twitter thread, regarding how weak and compromising Nancy Pelosi is(n't):

[The Sybian]

This tweet in response to Huckabee Sanders' Tweet showing InfoWars' doctored video of Acosta accosting the WH intern was fantastic. Unbelievable that the Press Secretary is sticking with her statement that a clearly altered video from InfoWars proves the WH is right in denying a WH correspondent's credentials.

[mister d]

Here's a good Twitter thread, regarding how weak and compromising Nancy Pelosi is(n't):

Is there a summary so I don't have to read that goofy prose?

[Joe K]

Here's a good Twitter thread, regarding how weak and compromising Nancy Pelosi is(n't):

Is there a summary so I don't have to read that goofy prose?

Summary: Thirteen years ago, Pelosi did a good thing — which means she’s a good choice for Speaker of the House in 2019?

Pelosi is better than Schumer but if your best evidence in her favor is something that happened that long ago, it’s not a very persuasive case.

[brian]

Just curious who the white knight (or lady?) in the Dem House caucus is that will finally rid us of the scourge of Nancy Pelosi?

I've not seen any realistic alternatives floated. It's the same old shit with the Democrats. Someone wants a magical unicorn that craps Skittles and bitches and moans all day instead of accepting someone who can do a perfectly fine job and is already the willing target for all of the right's scorn.

And don't think that doesn't matter. Having Nancy Pelosi as a boogeyman for Fox News mongoloids actually works in the Dems favor, if literally nothing else as a reminder to middle-class suburban white women (which is the one demographic that tends to swing elections) that the Republicans hate women.

[Joe K]

Call me ageist, but I generally prefer party leadership that’s younger than 78. I don’t think that’s asking for a “unicorn.” And yes, I’ll feel the same way about Sanders and Biden in they run in 2020.

[Steve of phpBB]

Here's a good Twitter thread, regarding how weak and compromising Nancy Pelosi is(n't):

Is there a summary so I don't have to read that goofy prose?

Summary: Thirteen years ago, Pelosi did a good thing — which means she’s a good choice for Speaker of the House in 2019?

Pelosi is better than Schumer but if your best evidence in her favor is something that happened that long ago, it’s not a very persuasive case.

It isn't that she "did a good thing." It's that she was willing and able to hold firm for Democratic priorities instead of selling out. Since some people apparently think she is unwilling or unable to hold firm toi Democratic priorities instead of selling out, it seems relevant.

Plus, George Bush was a lot more popular when the Social Security issue came up than Trump is.

Legit question - What is the case against Pelosi as a sellout based on? I understand the case against Schumer.

[Steve of phpBB]

Call me ageist, but I generally prefer party leadership that’s younger than 78. I don’t think that’s asking for a “unicorn.” And yes, I’ll feel the same way about Sanders and Biden in they run in 2020.

I agree that age matters for president, but how does it matter for Speaker? Is there any reason to believe she isn't physically or mentally up to it?

[Joe K]

Call me ageist, but I generally prefer party leadership that’s younger than 78. I don’t think that’s asking for a “unicorn.” And yes, I’ll feel the same way about Sanders and Biden in they run in 2020.

I agree that age matters for president, but how does it matter for Speaker? Is there any reason to believe she isn't physically or mentally up to it?

Youth turnout is always important to Democrats performing well in national elections, since younger people tend to trend liberal. For that reason alone, there’s value in having younger party leaders — and yes, Speaker of the House is a party leader, particularly when you don’t control the Presidency or Senate.

[Steve of phpBB]

Call me ageist, but I generally prefer party leadership that’s younger than 78. I don’t think that’s asking for a “unicorn.” And yes, I’ll feel the same way about Sanders and Biden in they run in 2020.

I agree that age matters for president, but how does it matter for Speaker? Is there any reason to believe she isn't physically or mentally up to it?

Youth turnout is always important to Democrats performing well in national elections, since younger people tend to trend liberal. For that reason alone, there’s value in having younger party leaders — and yes, Speaker of the House is a party leader, particularly when you don’t control the Presidency or Senate.

Boy, I dunno. How many casual voters care who the speaker of the house is? Or even know who the speaker is (or what the speaker is)? Someone who replaces Pelosi as speaker would at least be in his or her 40s - is that going to appeal to a 22 year old?

I mean, if Cardi B were named speaker, my daughter and her friends might notice. But otherwise I don't see how any voter who isn't already committed to a party or to voting would make the decision based on the age or hipness of the speaker.

[brian]

If you want to make an argument that the average age of the Dem House caucus is too old, I'm listening but I still don't see a lot of options for a dynamic, younger leader amongst the 230-ish members. At least Pelosi has experience and has been through the battles. Because I don't think it's as easy as some people think trying to keep at least 218 people out of 230 on the same side of any issue, regardless of the job.

And if I'm being petty, I kind of like that elevating her to the job is a middle finger to Trump and the GOP because of how hated she is. I don't mind trolling the fuck out of those shitbags.

[Joe K]

If we’re taking about Pelosi’s effectiveness, I agree she did the right thing in staying strong on Social Security in 2005. But there are a whole bunch of progressive priorities — the environment/energy reform, foreclosure relief, card check/strengthening labor, criminal justice reform, etc. — for which the Dems didn’t do anything significant when they had huge Congressional majorities after the 2008 election. And everyone who was part of their leadership, including Pelosi and Obama, bears some responsibility for that.

[mister d]

It isn't that she "did a good thing." It's that she was willing and able to hold firm for Democratic priorities instead of selling out. Since some people apparently think she is unwilling or unable to hold firm toi Democratic priorities instead of selling out, it seems relevant.

Ok, but the greater point is (1) a looooooot has happened since then, under her and their watch, and (2) "Democratic" priorities have drastically shifted. She is not a pushover like Schumer, but she's part of a leadership whose time has passed.

[Steve of phpBB]

If we’re taking about Pelosi’s effectiveness, I agree she did the right thing in staying strong on Social Security in 2005. But there are a whole bunch of progressive priorities — the environment/energy reform, foreclosure relief, card check/strengthening labor, criminal justice reform, etc. — for which the Dems didn’t do anything significant when they had huge Congressional majorities after the 2008 election. And everyone who was part of their leadership, including Pelosi and Obama, bears some responsibility for that.

That huge majority included 54 Blue Dogs. (Including my own horrible "Dem" representative.) The Dems needed at least 15 of them for a majority. Even with them, she got a stimulus bill through, the ACA, Waxman-Markley, and the Fair Sentencing Act.

Were there 218 votes for the other things?

[EnochRoot]

Good read.

[Pruitt]

Wait! There's more...



Amazing that this fraud occurred under a Republican administration in Florida.

[HaulCitgo]

If we’re taking about Pelosi’s effectiveness, I agree she did the right thing in staying strong on Social Security in 2005. But there are a whole bunch of progressive priorities — the environment/energy reform, foreclosure relief, card check/strengthening labor, criminal justice reform, etc. — for which the Dems didn’t do anything significant when they had huge Congressional majorities after the 2008 election. And everyone who was part of their leadership, including Pelosi and Obama, bears some responsibility for that.

That huge majority included 54 Blue Dogs. (Including my own horrible "Dem" representative.) The Dems needed at least 15 of them for a majority. Even with them, she got a stimulus bill through, the ACA, Waxman-Markley, and the Fair Sentencing Act.

Were there 218 votes for the other things?

That's precisely the job. Can't crack the Red Sox outfield with that average.

[brian]

What a shitshow. Can't wait to hear the millions of cult members/sycophants defending Trump over what appear to be very, very serious not small ball campaign finance lawbreaking.