The Swamp

Georgia’s secretary of state says fellow Republicans are pressuring him to find ways to exclude legal ballots

Death threats too.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:55 pm Georgia’s secretary of state says fellow Republicans are pressuring him to find ways to exclude legal ballots

Death threats too.

How the fuck do you think Majorie Green got elected?

So looks like we can cross “the environment!!!” off the list of reasons Biden was the most progressive ever:

Pruitt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:55 pm Georgia’s secretary of state says fellow Republicans are pressuring him to find ways to exclude legal ballots

Death threats too.

So Sen. Graham is saying he didn't ask the SecOfState to exclude ballots.

But why the fuck is a Senator from South Carolina calling the Sec. of State from Georgia about an election in the first place????

We had the Republican AG from Utah threatening to investigate the election in Nevada. Those Republicans sure are helpful.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:38 pm We had the Republican AG from Utah threatening to investigate the election in Nevada. Those Republicans sure are helpful.

All these people, going through all this shady behavior...for Donald Fucking Trump. I just don't get it.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:36 am

brian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:38 pm We had the Republican AG from Utah threatening to investigate the election in Nevada. Those Republicans sure are helpful.

All these people, going through all this shady behavior...for Donald Fucking Trump. I just don't get it.

I think the answer is in the Russian $ funneled through the NRA to their 2016 campaigns.

Yuuuuuuup. Sometimes the simplest answer (Trump has continued his lifelong pattern of using money to create leverage) is the easiest.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:21 am Yuuuuuuup. Sometimes the simplest answer (Trump has continued his lifelong pattern of using money to create leverage) is the easiest.

Instead of Occam's Razor, it's Trump's Combover.

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:29 pm So looks like we can cross “the environment!!!” off the list of reasons Biden was the most progressive ever:

Biden appoints a up-and-coming young Black congressman to a senior White House post. Someone who grew up in New Orleans, raised by a single mother who was a school teacher, and rose to be the head of the Congressional Black Caucus in his 40s. Someone who represents a district that is sixty percent Black with a median household income of less than $45,000.

So naturally, some privileged white guy on Twitter isn't happy.

Richmond is not being appointed to an environmental position. He's being named Director of Public Outreach, a top advisory and outreach job that as far as I can tell, deals with all kinds of domestic issues.

Is that first paragraph intended to be a block-all shield against criticism of his political policies? Like if someone of my exact demographics had moved in a decade ago, won the seat and then had the same climate history, would my record be fair game? You endlessly touted the environment in your Rally Around Blue Biden posts and all signs to date are pointing to zero meaningful action to reverse the course we're on.

Rudy is now Trump’s main counsel in PA.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:51 am Is that first paragraph intended to be a block-all shield against criticism of his political policies? Like if someone of my exact demographics had moved in a decade ago, won the seat and then had the same climate history, would my record be fair game? You endlessly touted the environment in your Rally Around Blue Biden posts and all signs to date are pointing to zero meaningful action to reverse the course we're on.

"all signs to date". Are you fucking serious?

That first paragraph is intended to provide meaningful information and context. Not everyone is a privileged white guy, and people who aren't privileged white guys might have different priorities than people who are. You and I have the luxury of making climate change a top priority. But lower-income Black people might not have that luxury.

So, yes, if you moved into a lower-income majority-Black district and represented them for ten years, and your record included putting a priority on the issues your constituents cared about and that immediately affected them, yes, that record would be fair game.

It's like with your efforts to downplay the clear choice made by the Black Democratic primary voters in South Carolina and other states. "Why don't those Black people care about what's *really* important?"

I hope you realize you're using "black" as a proxy for "poor" here.

Just spitballing here, but shouldn't we let the guy actually, you know, work a day or two in the job before we start shitting on what he's doing in it. Just an idea.

Of course not? Appointees should be vetted on their records to date not what we project they might do in the future.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:27 am I hope you realize you're using "black" as a proxy for "poor" here.

I don't think so. Poor, medium, or wealthy, Blacks might have different priorities than privileged white guys.

And when I referred to his district as lower-income, it was based on evidence - Census Bureau figures showing that the median household income in his district is about 80 percent of the US average.

This is going to be tough, Steve, because its from a black dude from New Orleans and not a "privileged white" which allows you (a privileged white) to dismiss the criticism out of hand:

Batiste said he’d push a progressive agenda that’s in many ways similar to what Richmond has advocated: a higher federal minimum wage, more investment in affordable housing and expanded health insurance coverage. But Batiste accused Richmond of turning his back on communities exposed to high levels of industrial pollution, especially parts of the River Parishes that critics call Cancer Alley.

He criticized Richmond’s acceptance of campaign contributions from petrochemical firms. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, donors tied to the oil and gas industry have given Richmond almost $100,000 since the last election in 2018.

Sadly I am expecting to see alot of this when results go to get certified



I Don't know what the next step is, but I hope it don't go to the SC of Michigan cause it is Republican. I believe the Canvassers are Repubs too

It sucks, but someone just said the State Canvassers are also 2-2, then it goes to the GOP legislators.. Trump is going to steal Michigan?


State electors were their goal and looks like it's starting to happen.

I still can't believe we live in a. country where every vote matters, but others have to approve it.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:32 pm This is going to be tough, Steve, because its from a black dude from New Orleans and not a "privileged white" which allows you (a privileged white) to dismiss the criticism out of hand:

Batiste said he’d push a progressive agenda that’s in many ways similar to what Richmond has advocated: a higher federal minimum wage, more investment in affordable housing and expanded health insurance coverage. But Batiste accused Richmond of turning his back on communities exposed to high levels of industrial pollution, especially parts of the River Parishes that critics call Cancer Alley.

He criticized Richmond’s acceptance of campaign contributions from petrochemical firms. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, donors tied to the oil and gas industry have given Richmond almost $100,000 since the last election in 2018.

Oh my god, you're right. Someone has criticized a politician!

C'mon. You found a tweet that confirmed your pre-existing beliefs and immediately posted it in here as supposed proof that Biden never really cared about climate change. That turned out to be wrong. Are you saying that you were right about Biden all along, because there's a community activist who has criticized Richmond? An activist who admits that Richmond has, in fact advocated a progressive agenda, including a higher federal minimum wage, more investment in affordable housing, and expanded health insurance coverage?

If Biden doesn’t ban all fossil fuels on Jan. 20, he’s a sellout.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:49 pm If Biden doesn’t ban all fossil fuels on Jan. 20, he’s a sellout.

You got an extra bedroom?

Seems like The Michigan SOS is the next step after State Canvassers... She did say the State did call on her in the past. but wonder if that will change now since they have a GOP Everything outside Gov, SOS, and AG.

Biden won Wayne by 320K votes, but the two racial republicans voted not to accept the results and Monica Palmer even said we will accept them if you throw out Detroit.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:43 pmC'mon. You found a tweet that confirmed your pre-existing beliefs and immediately posted it in here as supposed proof that Biden never really cared about climate change. That turned out to be wrong. Are you saying that you were right about Biden all along, because there's a community activist who has criticized Richmond? An activist who admits that Richmond has, in fact advocated a progressive agenda, including a higher federal minimum wage, more investment in affordable housing, and expanded health insurance coverage?

This seems like two different issues altogether.

Biden: I'm not sure what turned out to be wrong. I'm not sure what you've seen in terms of concrete proposals that makes you think Biden will take serious steps versus just forming research committees. On the flipside, I'd say a vehement denial he's ever been against fracking is probably not the greatest first step in terms of showing one is serious about climate change, atleast not if the other side is major corporations.

Richmond: I think all of those progressive positions are obviously good and he would be without a doubt a massive step up from where we are now. That doesn't wipe away that the largest donor industry of the sitting Rep of "Cancer Alley" is oil & gas. Shouldn't that be a pretty massive red flag in terms of direct conflict between his constituents and his funding and whether its ideology that drives his policy decisions? This feels like something you'd probably agree with me on if he were an R and not a D?

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:52 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:43 pmC'mon. You found a tweet that confirmed your pre-existing beliefs and immediately posted it in here as supposed proof that Biden never really cared about climate change. That turned out to be wrong. Are you saying that you were right about Biden all along, because there's a community activist who has criticized Richmond? An activist who admits that Richmond has, in fact advocated a progressive agenda, including a higher federal minimum wage, more investment in affordable housing, and expanded health insurance coverage?

This seems like two different issues altogether.

Biden: I'm not sure what turned out to be wrong. I'm not sure what you've seen in terms of concrete proposals that makes you think Biden will take serious steps versus just forming research committees. On the flipside, I'd say a vehement denial he's ever been against fracking is probably not the greatest first step in terms of showing one is serious about climate change, atleast not if the other side is major corporations.

Richmond: I think all of those progressive positions are obviously good and he would be without a doubt a massive step up from where we are now. That doesn't wipe away that the largest donor industry of the sitting Rep of "Cancer Alley" is oil & gas. Shouldn't that be a pretty massive red flag in terms of direct conflict between his constituents and his funding and whether its ideology that drives his policy decisions? This feels like something you'd probably agree with me on if he were an R and not a D?

It would appear to me a liaison acts as a go-between for industry and government. It sure sounds like he'd get more accomplished in that role than an AOC-type might.

And how is it off-the-rails to accept political donations from industries that are able to provide some of the precious fewcareer paths to your constituency?

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:52 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:43 pmC'mon. You found a tweet that confirmed your pre-existing beliefs and immediately posted it in here as supposed proof that Biden never really cared about climate change. That turned out to be wrong. Are you saying that you were right about Biden all along, because there's a community activist who has criticized Richmond? An activist who admits that Richmond has, in fact advocated a progressive agenda, including a higher federal minimum wage, more investment in affordable housing, and expanded health insurance coverage?

This seems like two different issues altogether.

Biden: I'm not sure what turned out to be wrong. I'm not sure what you've seen in terms of concrete proposals that makes you think Biden will take serious steps versus just forming research committees. On the flipside, I'd say a vehement denial he's ever been against fracking is probably not the greatest first step in terms of showing one is serious about climate change, atleast not if the other side is major corporations.

Richmond: I think all of those progressive positions are obviously good and he would be without a doubt a massive step up from where we are now. That doesn't wipe away that the largest donor industry of the sitting Rep of "Cancer Alley" is oil & gas. Shouldn't that be a pretty massive red flag in terms of direct conflict between his constituents and his funding and whether its ideology that drives his policy decisions? This feels like something you'd probably agree with me on if he were an R and not a D?

What turned out to be wrong was your pointing to the Richmond appointment as proof that Biden doesn’t care about or plan to do anything about climate change or the environment.

Maybe Biden will do good things on that issue and maybe he won’t. Probably something in between. The jury is still out. But Biden appointing the head of the Congressional Black Caucus to a senior White House post that has little to do with climate change isn’t proof he won’t.

Regarding taking oil money as a red flag, I dunno. He’s in Louisiana. It’s a major industry in his district - probably responsible for a lot of employment for his constituents. But that’s how politics works. Hell, Bernie Sanders has been helped by the NRA in the past. Wayne Fucking LaPierre was telling people to vote for him.

My point isn’t that Richmond is some great progressive hero. I have no idea. My point is that his appointment says nothing about Biden’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Well don't ever say bitching at someone on SM don't work..

psunate77 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:33 pm Well don't ever say bitching at someone on SM don't work..

That news is a relief!

Someone hasn't told Dear Leader:

(Yes, the tweet is technically about 20 minutes before the Velshi tweet, but the news was breaking as this fuckbag was tweeting. And he's even tweeted a few times since. 🤣🤣)

Can't believe I missed this earlier today. This dude is a fucking boss!

WOW, Michigan don't mess around..

This has already started, but Monica Palmer who was one of the ones who declined to verify and is the board of the canvassers has a Ethic hearing already.LOL

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:22 am Can't believe I missed this earlier today. This dude is a fucking boss!

This whole thread is great.. Ned started it, but others followed.

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:29 pm So looks like we can cross “the environment!!!” off the list of reasons Biden was the most progressive ever:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/11/politics ... index.html

I know he's a goal scoring machine, but I don't think Haaland is ready to be Secretary of the Interior. Oh. not that one.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:49 am I know he's a goal scoring machine, but I don't think Haaland is ready to be Secretary of the Interior. Oh. not that one.

Don't know much of her backstory or politics, but that would be an amazing demographic hire.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:25 pmWhat turned out to be wrong was your pointing to the Richmond appointment as proof that Biden doesn’t care about or plan to do anything about climate change or the environment.

Maybe Biden will do good things on that issue and maybe he won’t. Probably something in between. The jury is still out. But Biden appointing the head of the Congressional Black Caucus to a senior White House post that has little to do with climate change isn’t proof he won’t.

One would think if an incoming president were very serious about climate action (aside from fracking, of course), he would have reservations about an appointment who had already been getting hammered back home over related conflicts of interest.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:25 pmRegarding taking oil money as a red flag, I dunno. He’s in Louisiana. It’s a major industry in his district - probably responsible for a lot of employment for his constituents. But that’s how politics works. Hell, Bernie Sanders has been helped by the NRA in the past. Wayne Fucking LaPierre was telling people to vote for him.

It seems like a decent amount of our disagreements can be boiled down to "that's how politics work" versus an expectation of independence and fighting harmful industries rather than being financed by them. In the present world if you lined up every member of congress, I'm sure Richmond is far closer to the far good side than even the middle, but that's still a huge problem. Rather than argue away things I find objectionable as what everyone is doing or the cost of office, I'd rather just say that most members of congress don't live up to a standard I'm comfortable with. Given the state of politics here, I don't think that should be a very controversial stance.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:56 am

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:49 am I know he's a goal scoring machine, but I don't think Haaland is ready to be Secretary of the Interior. Oh. not that one.

Don't know much of her backstory or politics, but that would be an amazing demographic hire.

I actually met her and talked with her for quite a while at a Warren volunteer event here before Super Tuesday. A fair amount of my recent work has involved Indian claims and sovereignty issues, and we talked about a bill she and Warren (and others) had sponsored about living up to treaty obligations. From what I could tell, she certainly seemed intelligent and knowledgeable. And she has administrative experience with one or two tribes. From my experience, tribal governments are the only institutions left that are more "wild west" than the Interior Department.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:12 am

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:29 pm So looks like we can cross “the environment!!!” off the list of reasons Biden was the most progressive ever:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/11/politics ... index.html

One interesting thing about how far Biden can go, especially with the ANWR - you may recall that a few months after Trump took office, he issued a proclamation that purported to severely shrink Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. A whole bunch of Indian tribes and environmental groups filed lawsuits. That case is still pending, but dispositive motions have been fully briefed, so it's waiting for a decision (I don't know if there will be an oral argument or not).

The main issue is whether a President can undo a monument that was created by a proclamation under the Antiquities Act. If the Court rules in favor of the government, Biden can re-create the monuments but they will be subject to being un-recreated the next time a Republican takes office. But if the Court rules for the Plaintiffs, then (i) Biden doesn't need to do anything regarding Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, and (ii) he might have more power to protect ANWR.

FWIW, here's the Antiquities Act as it currently reads. It was amended in 2014 after the uproar about Clinton's designation of the Grand Staircase in 1996.

(a)Presidential Declaration.—
The President may, in the President’s discretion, declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments.
(b)Reservation of Land.—
The President may reserve parcels of land as a part of the national monuments. The limits of the parcels shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:56 am

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:49 am I know he's a goal scoring machine, but I don't think Haaland is ready to be Secretary of the Interior. Oh. not that one.

Don't know much of her backstory or politics, but that would be an amazing demographic hire.

Hey! That's my Rep! She's awesome and would be a fantastic choice.