Does he think he's writing a telegram?

Because for most, if they were to turn on him, they lose half their base that supports him no matter what. Kiss re-election goodbye.

Better stock up on the Corona's.

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-ne...87f354c74ecb32

I think the elected republicans are worried/suspicious that their whole party has been a lie. “Real republicans” for 30 plus years stood and called for tax cuts, less government intrusion, pro business, banning abortion, protecting guns, and a smattering of moralism largely driven by the wanton ways of the left, which old voters disapproved of.

Now they realize that Trump has tapped into the juicy, seedy underbelly of their working coalition, and realize that much of their support just really comes because it panders to the fears and racism (all the isms, but racism first) of their “base.” Its a hard reality to face, it’s like the audience was never really clapping for you at all.

I know Tarcone and a lot of republicans have a difficult time believing that fear and racism are the driving motivations for a sizable number of conservatives, but this video was the turning point for me beginning to understand what drives the GOP.

First, major props to McCain for setting his political wellbeing aside to try to correct these things. Second, we now have a people steering the GOP that are taking these fears and doing their best to validate them in voters minds. There is no both sides to this issue. You can watch this video and see why we are where we are today.

I'm not a republican and I don't agree with it either. A video like that demonstrates only that there are people who are that misinformed, it says nothing about how widespread the approach is. But basically, fear drives political action regardless of where it comes from and I don't think anyone has a monopoly on it. I do think there are more racists on the right but not by nearly as big a margin as is often suggested, partly because some irrationally define racism in a way that makes it impossible for minorities to be so.

Ultimately all this stuff is way overthinking Trumpism. A lot of people, going back to early in his campaign, have said they supported him while not agreeing with much of what he says. Polls have repeatedly shown this. What Jon said is why:


Pretty much all of our previous presidents going back at least to Clinton were viewed as spineless by a significant number of people. Both parties. In general it seems to me that as a nation we are still terribly misdiagnosing the problem here, which means we don't have much chance of fixing it. Thinking Trumpism is an embrace of racism is missing the point - the issue is actually even worse than that.


It's recent, but I do think if you listen to what at least elected people are saying, they don't actually make this argument - they say rather that Trump hasn't done anything to merit impeachment. The committee investigating Nixon was authorized on a 77-0 vote in the Senate, and the first two of three articles of impeachment against him got significant GOP support in the House Judiciary (over a third in favor). After more tapes were released by court order, it was estimated that more than 80% of both houses, including a majority of Republicans, were going to vote in favor of impeachment. So while there was certainly more resistance from Nixon's own party, it was also more clearly considered their duty to hold the President to account.

Is impeachment a relatively new trend? Was Hoover impeached? Or coolidge? Or any of the other shitty presidents we have had? Or has our country become a big corporation country and the only thing these politicians can do is impeach the other guy?

It's happened more in the modern era, but even most modern presidents aren't impeached. Andrew Jackson was impeached - impeachment isn't about being a 'shitty president'. I'd say you are vastly overstating that perspective, to put it kindly. And I'd also say that constitutionally, far more people of various positions, not just presidents, should be impeached than are. The standards we have for our leaders aren't nearly high enough in some aspects, to our detriment.

"Well, we will be talking, we will be talking. I can say we have among the cleanest climate in the world right now. Our air and water are doing very well,"

The President of the United States, still having no idea what climate means. (never mind the fact that air pollution is on the rise in the US and his administration is hard at work making sure it gets worse)

When I see this video, I always think of Trump watching and saying, "why doesn't this idiot McCain just say what these people want to hear!"

To be fair, air and water have a good deal to do with climate, so maybe he's just being unclear, as his wont.

But yea he's an utter moron so you're probably spot on.

I'm relieved Trump appears to have some vague concept of the "climate" being an issue we should be concerned with. Where you also have Mike Pompeo looking forward to the melting of arctic ice for the availability of new trade routes. And even THAT is kind of a relief, as that's not many left on the right still denying the concept of global warming.

Watched the "Running with Beto" doc. It was enjoyable. Still didn't really see a guy that I think should be president, but a likable guy that is one major job experience from being qualified to me.

Trump is offering to meet with the Iranians with no preconditions.

I'm so old I remember when the GOP savaged Obama for saying something similar.

Wait, are you saying partisan people are.... acting partisan?

Trump denies calling Meghan 'nasty' despite audio recording - BBC News


pathological.

I don't think most of the complaints related to this were partisan. Most of the GOP honestly believed that we shouldn't talk to Iran without some concessions that "prove" seriousness. I'm sure there are many GOP electeds that still hold that believe. My surprise here is more about how the entirety of the GOP so easily and willingly gives away any dignity in order to stay on Trump's good side.

Oh com'on, its not a surprise. It may have been a surprise 6-12 months in but not anymore.

Completely anecdotal evidence with a count of 1, but as an asthmatic, I am much better now than I was around the 90s/00s. But that also changes due to age, etc.

Also being fairly tied into this due to my industry, much of what is being weakened at the federal level is intended to be picked up at the state level. Part of the emissions increase is due in large part to the decrease in vehicle traffic post-2008, also the focus has been in large part on CO2 rather than other pollutants. We look good there, but I still maintain that is a bogeyman as compared to other worse pollutants such as O3, CO, CH4, SO2, NO, etc.

I actually have no doubt the situation in terms of air quality is improved, especially locally. This is the case pretty much across the western industrial nations. But a large part of that is due to much less 'heavy industry' operating now versus back then (with only very cursory search it seems that Dayton qualifies for that development ?). Where i live, the Ruhr Region of germany, this has been the case as well after the steel and coal industry declined.

This comes down again to recognizing climate as an issue that is not necceserily easily noticed 'on the ground'. And i recognize that at the end of the day it is tough to restrict yourself (as a nation), knowing it will only have a fractional impact. But at some point (soon), the western industrial nations have to set the tone and lead by example. Once the first few have gone past the initial pains of the tradition and come out strong (and past transitions show this can be done), that is when you can truly get everybody on board.


Re: CO2 : From what i know of the issue it isn't that CO2 as such is that potent but that there simply is so damn much more of it than everything else (Methane or HFCs, the latter ironically being used in air conditioning and refrigeration and on the rise big time, are much more potent).

So Trump's campaign isn't paying the city of El Paso for his rally. $470k and a month past due. Soon to be a 21% late fee.

Shocking. He's usually so good about paying people what he owes them.

Trunp supposedly drifted to sleep during the Queens speech. LOL

It's so adorable when Republicans pretend they have a spine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/u...o-tariffs.html

The GOP seems to be settling on a Trump Mexico tariffs line:

We don't like tariffs in general, but these Mexico tariffs are different.

Too soon to mean much but still an interesting data point.

Its the economy ...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/polit...ues/index.html

Yet, totally fine borrowing a trillion for the second year in a row to make that happen.



Another prime example of as long as it's fine right now, why worry about that shit I was upset about a few years ago?

This is the kind of ad the Dems need to run, but they won't because big business owns them as well.








Waleed Shahid on Twitter: "I'm not sure why more Democrats don't run some ads like this focused on how ultra-rich Republicans have used racism to divide and conquer the working class.

"Whether it's immigrants, people on benefits...anything to distract us from the real problem."

https://t.co/vAyBKIeIRY"

I'm not sure that partially blaming racism in this country on astroturfing is a good play for Democrats even if it is probably true. It kind of diminishes the issue.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/tech/...fcc/index.html

If the Trump administration can block robocalls then I may actually have to consider liking him.

I can hardly wait for the "No other President could have done such an important task, but me your favorite President in 3,2,1..."

Indeed. And there are many Democrats (including myself) who think that's not entirely true. Most of the ultra-rich Republicans didn't like Trump's blatant appeals to racism and they probably don't even think what they themselves are doing or saying is racist.

It's step towards conflating racism and class, which is something the Sanders folks believe (and Shahid is one) but most other Democrats do not.

I will also point out that the video only talks about using immigrants to divide once while talking about class over and over again - and never says racism. That's Shahid's addition and kind of gaslighting (if that's the proper word) the video for those who don't bother to watch it.

The thing is that this could be used against either party. The dems are just as guilty as the gop. They both want the status quo. The rich come in both flavors and the liberal rich own most of the press.

Everything she said is spot on. This isnt a dem vs. gop. This is big business, big banks, big pharma, big insurance vs. us.

Loved the Ralph Nader quote replied in that thread.

"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations come knocking on their door. That's the only difference."

Well in that case you must be really excited to vote for Warren or Sanders who are talking about breaking up big tech companies and bypass big insurance & pharma by pushing for single payer, right?

More in the Yang camp right now.

Warren is another liar. Tired of those. Especially when pandering to what she thinks the people want.

Sanders is a little too old. Not sure he would survive a 4 year term.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Not sure what that means, but, okay

Uh, Warren has been after the megacorps for years. Nothing she's said has been anything new from what she's said.

I'm slowly starting to shift in her direction when Nevada comes up. I think her policy wonk status will play better in the general than Bernie. Yang remains quietly intriguing.

Other than those 3, it's a meh field for me.

Yang doesnt have the pull or personality Im afraid.

Bernie is a better draw to the younger voters, which is what that commercial plays too. that is the real us v. them crowd.

Warren lost me with her stupid native american crap. She may be the best thing since sliced bread, but I feel she will sway whichever way the wind blows, which is usually in big corps direction.

Just my opinions.

That's one of the most nonsensical leaps in logic I've ever heard.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You can say a lot about Warren but she's been going hard after corporations her whole life.

Its a pretty common one when wanting to downplay a women's ability to lead without pointing to policy, yes?


The "native american thing" she could have handled better, and awhile back I was questioning her ability to win a national election because of it, but that's not her policies or voting record. Honestly though at this point I'm not going to hold the way anyone responds to Trump's ability to bully anyone he wants without any repercussions against them.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

See: Trump.

When you try and sell yourself as something that you are not, I have a hard time trusting you.

So is this a victory for Trump or a loss for human rights or both?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1T62YC

I want to say I was pointing out the video, and just used his tweet as the easiest way to share it. I actually watched the video and really wasn't even paying attention to what his tweet said. Though I will say we can't ignore race, making it just a racial issue is just another way to distract from core issues in our system that needs to be addressed.

Yes, the video is quite good. And I agree with you. Shahid decided to make a point about racism using a video that focused on class... but there are some that want to make racism simply a subset of classism (well because those people think everything is a subset of classism) and use whatever they can to make that point.

Trump has now revolutionized astrodynamics.


I think this is my favorite response:

I feel like Biden has peaked. It's going to be a slow fall now for all the reasons he failed before. He just doesn't bring what is needed.

I think the thing with Warren's liability (the Native American claim) isn't that it's egregious. It's that it is very sticky.

I tend to agree with the many who believe it could definitely doom her were she to be the party nominee - it's too relatable a thing, and we know trump would weaponize it fully. For the legion of voters who are as persuadable as they have shown themselves to be, that's is exactly the sort of thing that really hurts.

I feel like the Dem field is missing the young, rising, clean reputation guy that would just clean up in this field. An Obama-type. Beto hasn't taken off at the national level. Buttigieg is maybe the closest, and he was the first one to come out of nowhere to relevance (and he's still trading equally to Sanders on PredictIt), maybe there will be another.

I haven't looked for a while but Warren always fared the worst against Trump in head to head polls. I don't think she's remotely electable, but, I also know the perils about nominating based on perceived electability.

I saw Michael Bennet speak at a town hall for a few minutes the other day. Seems like a smart, relatively moderate guy who would make a good President and would've been a great candidate 20 years ago. I also had little idea who he was, no idea he was running, and he's not from Florida or a rust belt state so I doubt he'll even be in the VP nominee mix.

Which is insane considering not so long ago Trump claimed his own father was born in Germany.

It never ceases to amaze me the double standards these Trump supporters will accept.

So, Obama was someone who was pretty rare in US electoral politics. A rising star who rocket shipped up to the nomination of his party for President. Trying to find that every election is a fools errand, IMO.

Doesn't "rising star who rocket shipped up to the nomination of his party for President" describe the last three Democrat nominees who actually won in November?

Edit: (or last 4, if you skip the unique circumstances of LBJ's election).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...343_story.html

Max Boot is among those in the most interesting channel of politics right now, I think -- self-proclaimed Republican but now anti-Trump and somewhat homeless on policy.

I wonder if trump claims victory for wiping his own ass in the morning?

Well, he is the greatest Ass wipe to ever hold office, so there is that...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...d-of-democracy

A fairly short discussion on the movement within the right to favor social conservatism over democracy.

It's been interesting following opinions of Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, George Will. At the same time, I feel like they are just screaming into the void.

It's kind of difficult to characterize that for Bill Clinton. He was a multiple term, 10+ year Governor when he ran for President. Jimmy Carter, perhaps, but he was less a rising star and more of a "wait, who?" who won due to post-Watergate strangeness. And Kennedy was a 3 term Congressman and was in his second term as Senator when he ran for President - he had 6 more years in Congress than Elizabeth Warren has right now. And had plenty of national exposure at the time.

I mean one can argue that Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg would all would fit your Obama-like young, rising, clear rep person far better than Kennedy or Clinton when they declared for President.

At the same time, Harris is 54. She'd be 56 and 3 mos. on inauguration day -- older than LBJ, Harding, Nixon, Wilson. Not terribly young, really.

dola: Clinton was 46. And yes, he had been Governor of Arkansas. But...Governor of Arkansas. In the 70s/80s. Not super high profile.

He was Chair of the National Governor's Association (after giving the Democratic Response to Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address). And gave the opening address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention (a speech that famously bombed). And headed the DLC.

He may have had accomplishments, but it's still not like he was super well-known though.

What More Than 40 Years Of Early Primary Polls Tell Us About 2020: Part 1 | FiveThirtyEight

Looking at the '92 primary results, Clinton did a little better early than I remember. I thought it was basically an afterthought for longer. The Dem field was underwhelming because Bush was thought to be unbeatable. But Clinton finished a strong second in New Hampshire and then started rolling and swept the south.

It's hard to tell where Clinton stood in the pecking order earlier than that, because campaigns started so much later back then. He didn't even announce until October 1991. But my recollection is that he was a random guy viewed as having no chance until New Hampshire. (He gave the "comeback kid" speech in New Hampshire). I would categorize him as a rising star who just shot past Tsongas and Harkin once America got to know him.

Edit: That new 538 post has some primary polling info, the version from a few years ago has some more detail. '92 was wacky. The top 9 candidates in the early Dem polls all declined to run. The early frontrunners weren't Tsongas and Harkin, they were Cuomo, Gore, Bentsen, Jackson, and Gephardt, and none of them ran. Clinton was polling at 8% in late 1991, but that was actually the highest in the field relative to his name recognition, which was very low (he was known to only 30% of voters.)

A Brief History of Primary Polling, Part II - The New York Times

So according to those articles, even if you have low numbers at this point, the real test is your poll numbers relative to your name recognition. I'd guess that Buttigieg has the best ratio for that right now.

If he announced he had indeed succeeded in wiping his own ass, I still might not believe it.

it is somewhat childish of me but I'm hoping Xi purposely does not meet with Trump.

Stocks rise; look to extend win streak as China moves to bolster economy - MarketWatch

Exactly this. Clinton didn't run against the big names of the Party (but note that he was still among the highest of the not-rans, as small as that was). Among the runners, he was one of the most well known. H.W.'s 90% approval in 1990 rating scared the Hell out of the big names. Tsongas was polling less than Clinton in the first half of 1991 and Brown didn't even enter until the second half. Clinton probably would have never won if Cuomo, Jackson, and Gephart stayed in (I remembered what a massive shock it was that Cuomo said he wasn't going to run).

It would be akin to Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris not running for 2020 and going "Well no one knew Booker/O'Rourke beforehand".

Clinton wasn't all over the TV, but he was a "Oh yeah, that guy" (though a lot of Republicans remembering his terrible 1998 DNC speech were licking their chops). And remember in 1991 CNN was really the only 24 hour news avenue. The internet wasn't a big source for most people and the vast majority got their news from newspapers and the Nightly News (whichever anchor you preferred).

Jackson would've been particularly problematic because he would've made it much harder for Clinton to roll through the south. That's what happened to Gore in 1988.

Trump pledged that he wouldn't spy on Kim Jong Un the way past presidents have.

Shame on congress for skipping the 9/11 victims fund hearing.

Good for Jon Stewart nailing them.

This country has some serious soul searching to do.

It isn't Congress, it's the GOP. If Dems ran the Senate there wouldn't be a funding problem for this fund.

But I understand why Stewart isn't telling the truth. If this becomes partisan it has almost zero chance of passing the Senate.

What was the purpose of the hearing?

To permanently authroize the 9/11 first responders club. (It's scheduled to expire next year)

The fund is set to expire in 2020, and the special master who runs it previously announced plans to cut payouts by between 50% and 70% to ensure all are paid. The fund paid out $7 billion in damages when it originally operated from 2001 to 2003, was reopened in 2011 and extended for another five years in 2015.

That's what is generally happening with it. From what I gather, today's hearing was before just the House Judiciary Committee and no full vote was scheduled.

Both parties' leaders have expressed that they intend to see this pass and funded. While words are of course only worth so much, it doesn't appear to me that this specific hearing was a necessary step in the process. As an extension of funding seems to have bipartisan support, I would presume it is likely to happen at some point before funding runs out.

Not to blast a party here but Republicans have been the ones holding this up. They were also the ones who filibustered it in 2010. Pretty much every Democrat supports it and has tried to push it through.

Kapernick sat for the anthem to protest "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Rapinoe did stand but stood silent for the match but she did support Kapernick and knelt in matches earlier.

Not going to change any minds here. I assume she has "relented some" by standing and staying quiet so okay with this compromise.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/megan...world-cup-2019

Thousands of people in every sports crowd stand and don't sing the national anthem or put their hands over their hearts. Who gives a shit.

If you are referring specifically to Kapernick's protest, apparently many.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...priate-n904891


And dependent on what race you are.

How Do Americans Feel About The NFL Protests? It Depends On How You Ask. | FiveThirtyEight

I'm not. I'm talking about not singing along or putting your hand over your heart for the national anthem. I think I actually said as much in my post, oddly enough.

Are you like one of those Russian Facebook trolls?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-usa-cost-fix

We know how to greatly reduce lead exposure, we can afford to do it, and we know the benefits from lower childhood blood levels.

So, of course, we have plans to do anything about lead.

Nope, I thought you were responding to my post which was about Kapernick/Rapinoe so that's why I checked first.

I always gauge the content of somebody's character and their beliefs by whether they stand and sing along with their hands over their hearts for the anthem. That, and whether they are pledging their allegiance daily to a symbol of our country. I mean, how much do they love America if they cannot repeat words that somebody told them to repeat to show their love and faith.

Talking head on FOX News just said the reason why Trump has this attitude towards Un is because he wants to stay in his graces because he is close to negotiating a settlement.

Not that there was ever a doubt FOX was Trump news network, but jesus...

The people upset about kneeling also worship a guy who trashed a gold star family, diminished the record of a war hero, and had to have ship covered and crew banned from an appearance because the site of the war heroes on the ship made him angry.

It's all faux-patriotism to cover up for what the issue really is.

House Oversight Committee just voted 24-15 that Barr and Ross should be held in contempt for not providing asked for documents-goes before the full House now. Vote was by party, with only Republican Justin Amash voting with the Democrats.

That thought has NOT not occurred to me.

Just look at his posts and titles of started threads. At least half are about subjects which could very easily cause contention or worry (Middle East, politics, religion, the economy, disasters).

Just incredible. The President says "the FBI Director is wrong" in claiming that a campaign approached by a foreign government should notify authorities. pic.twitter.com/1S8xjoi2EV

— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) June 12, 2019

The President is throwing the doors wide open for foreign meddling. Sure would be nice if the Dems could at least temporarily get their shit together. Hearings with the greatest hits of the Nixon admin just won't cut it.

Don't forget the latest one re: Constance Wu.

That's the final proof. We all know she is secretly Putin's lover. Hail, comrade! How goes the SVR?

Hah. Wait till poll #101 comes out this weekend.

The Office of Special Counsel has recommeded that KellyAnne Conway be fired from her job for repeated violations of the Hatch Act and ignoring all efforts to get her to abide by the Act:


A Federal Watchdog Says Trump Should Fire Kellyanne Conway For Her Political Activity

Law and order party

Sarah Sanders leaving the White House at the end of the month. Boy not a good day for witches in this adminstration huh?

How will they ever find another person to not hold press conferences for months at a time?

She's already been very clear about her feeling on this... saying something to the effect of "well, he's not going to fire me, so end of conversation."

This is a tiny example of the things people talk about when they say "breakdown of norms" and so forth, that sounds like abstract egghead shit that the MAGA crowd couldn't care less about. We have layers on layers of institutions built on the concept that a sitting executive would presumably have the dignity or pride or whatever to take this sort of thing seriously. We just didn't think through the possibility of somebody this shallow and terrible in the office. He's the presidential equivalent of the eggshell plaintiff, to mangle an analogy.

It's weird that the people who use crime as the reason for stronger immigration enforcement also seem to be OK with crime. Almost like it's not really about crime.

We did, we just didn't imagine Congress being complicit.

And the white house has requested that the office rescind their recommendation based on it being biased and partisan. And this will play wonderfully.