@TimStone my "someone is pretending to be me" flag has been open for more than 24 hours now which is cool
> The effect of these Republican attacks is that Biden's speeches now start with 1) a few minutes of talk about how he can work with Republicans and 2) a few minutes of how much Republicans hate him. Basically a "I'll forgive em when we win" story. twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1222674697474715654?s=19
> .@VICE has gotten its hands on fare evasion data that the NYPD has fought tooth and nail to hide. Spoiler: enforcement is predominately focused on poor people of color t.co/p8neMFpyeL
@TimStone More like a really stiff breeze in this case. The NWS reported the wind speed was only 37 mph in Calexico yesterday. I mean, it's not nothing (it falls under the Gale category), but you'd expect a wall to be able to withstand something like that easily
> It’s obviously bullshit if Republicans acquit the President based on argument that Democrats didn’t prove that he carried out the scheme. But to acquit him based on the argument that he did it and it doesn’t matter is a betrayal of America and a betrayal of democracy. - @jonfavs
> As you wake up this morning, imagine the rest of the 2020 race given the WH team’s argument a president can do virtually anything to get elected, including accepting information from foreign countries, if the president deems his/her re-election in the national interest.
> The indicted businessman said: "It was surreal then to watch Lindsey Graham up there... he's out there talking about all this stuff, that this is a sham, this should go away, when at the end of the day, he was in the loop just like everyone else." > "He was aware of what was going on, going back to at least 2018, maybe even earlier," Parnas added.
Republicans are just setting up the trifecta of presidential (and then dictatorial) immunity: The President cannot be sued or tried in a legal court, the President cannot be impeached for non-criminal behavior, and then they'll throw in the final leg, "why are you trying to impeach the President for criminal behavior, that's what the courts are for".
@Yuuki Yep. What's so baffling to me is that this is so clearly an argument for an authoritarian dictator... can they not see it? Or is this what they really want? Or is this all just "defending my guy with whatever arguments seem effective at the moment, no matter the logical implication"?
Back to the (one paragraph of the) WSJ article I can see:
> To wit, it isn’t legitimate to toss a President from office because the House thinks otherwise legal acts were done with "corrupt motives."
Of course it is: does the constitution create any legal restrictions on the president's pardon power? No.
Could a president use his pardon power in a corrupt manner, requiring his removal? Absolutely
"If someone were to somehow make my Democratic opponent go away, I promise to pardon them of any federal charges that might result"
That's literally the kind of thing that Dershowitz and the WSJ are saying is not only strictly legal but non-impeachable
Take the NYT; Trump accuses it of being against him all the time; but in retrospect they were FAR harsher on Hillary in the 2016 election, and their incessant coverage of the email stupidity (far after it deserved front-page banners) arguably gave the election to Trump
But no, I'd put "mainstream" news sources (ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, even CNN) solidly in the "neutral" news column
(ignoring their editorial pages)
The problem is that FOX and the right have literally created an alternate (and objectively false) reality; so from that perspective, even truly neutral reporting looks like it is against them
To adapt a quote, "to a Fox News viewer, neutrality looks like liberal bias"
I wouldn't even put MSNBC on the "similar but opposite side" from Fox. Because I think they deal in the world of truth and reality, even though their editorial shows are (admittedly) left-of-center
You'd have to have a 2-d grid, not just a left/right line
on that 2-d grid, the up/down would be "reality/fantasy", and Fox would be way up in the Right/Fantasy corner
MSNBC might be on the left side, but it would be solidly in the "left/reality" quadrant
yep. There is a huge "whatever is happening must be normal" bias even in mainstream reporting.
Even when things are starkly non-normal
Its part of the "both sides" bias, and the "talking heads" factor. "Now that we've talked to astronomer, lets turn to Barry, who believes the stars are painted on a velvet curtain floating in the sky
> Electronic patient records systems used by thousands of doctors were programmed to automatically suggest opioids at treatment, thanks to a secret deal between the software maker and a drug company
@TimStone So how have millennials been destroying other industries like big box stores and book stores by buying stuff online and shipping it if they don't have an address?
> If Senate Republicans use his logic to acquit Trump, it will mark the end of the American system of government, and with it the American way of life as we have known it.
@Unionhawk regarding that: is the repeal a bill of its own, therefore subject to the Senate and a signature by the President? Or is it the opposite; that renewing it requires passing by both houses, therefore the House could block the renewal on their own?
I'm not sure I follow or if I have the right bill up on congress.gov, because that's "Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2019", which provides for a Congressional Gold Medal to merchant mariners of WWII
@Tim So do two or more centrist candidates. I'll vote for who I think would be best; you vote for who you think would be best. As the field narrows, both our choices may be reduced
I need to find the post of like, a bumper sticker that said something like "I recognize that the bourgeois electoral process is a waste of time, and I vote" but that sounds not worth my time when I could just do that
Regarding your original question about Warren: she has a variety of positions and proposals, many of which are considered extremely progressive. Those proposals have received a variety of both praise and criticism; in addition she has been attacked from the right as too progressive, and attacked by some on the left as not progressive enough, and attacked by others because of her gender.
Because of all that I don't think "which camp is she in" is a very well-formed question. But if you insist on an answer, I'd says she's progressive.
I vote because "the ballot process is a sham and my voice doesn't matter in the long run but I put a paper in the box today (or hit some buttons on a digital pad)" sounds better than "the ballot process is a sham and my voice doesn't matter in the long run so I stayed at home on the couch".
I'm not really that cynical about the electoral system just yet (fingers crossed, 2020) but it gets a few chuckles here and there.
Personally I have found Warren extremely impressive in person (well, in video), with the way she listens and interacts at events all over the country, with her thoughtful and empathetic responses, and the surprisingly astute policies that sometimes result from these meetings.
Bernie, eh, I'm just a bit tired of his whole shouty "its about income inequality" answer to every possible question. He's a one-trick pony. Conflict with Iran? Income inequality. Viral outbreak in China? Income inequality. Border wall? Income inequality.
So, I'll vote for him over Trump if it comes to it (I'd vote for a literal turnip over Trump), but he's not my top vote
What irritates me about warren is that it's always "we will eliminate student debt* *up to 50k per person restrictions apply", "medicare for all* *with like an 8 year transition for some reason, also maybe it's actually just a public option I can't really tell exactly how this has shifted".
like just say you're getting rid of half of my debt instead of advertising it as if you're proposing getting rid of the whole 1.6T
which we should do
checks balance remaining ok slightly more than half now
So one of the (many) criticisms of Hillary's 2016 campaign is that she was accused of frequently diving down into the fussy details of a policy proposal rather than giving clear and memorable answers to questions like Trump did (to the extent that he had a coherent message)
So, yeah, there are times when you're going to give a top-line response, and other times when you're going to dig into the fussy details
I've not been very impressed with the nature of the questions that have been asked of her during debates in this regard: they are mostly "gotcha" quesitons, not meaningful ones
The fact that it's just accepted like "oh, well, look, when you get down to brass tacks you have to deviate a bit from what you're telling people" is what fuels my latent mistrust of pretty much anyone who seeks office
In addition, while I do think the details matter, remember we're contrasting two Democratic plans that take slightly different ways to get to a similar end VS the GOP stripping away healthcare altogether
@Unionhawk that's not what I'm saying at all. I think she's been accused of having a top-line that differs from the details, but that is largely not accurate
Because most of these ideas will (in reality) require a more complex plan than a 30-second debate response can give. But she has those plans fleshed out to a much higher level of detail than any other candidate, including Bernie
@BradC I'm literally looking at the website. Page title: "My plan to cancel student loan debt on day one of my presidency". Page contents: "...**up to $50,000 in debt**...". So yes, you could say accused here. I am accusing.
I suppose you could throw an implied "some" in that title
@Unionhawk I'm unclear whether you're saying that she's changed that detail? Or because she can't always include those caveats aloud every time she mentions the policy?
Or whether you don't like a real policy might need caveats like that? (undergraduate loans only, only up to $X, taken out at institutions in the US only, between years Y and Z. ....)
Because any real thought-out policy will need those
Well, that's an argument to make. It's also going to change the ultimate cost of the proposal, which I expect you'll need to come up with a pithy 30-second response to before the next debate
So, you going to also pay off parent plus loans? Took out a few of those for my kids this year.
I mean, I'm not saying that Warren is definitely right and you're definitely wrong; I'm just saying that thinking through all these nitty-gritty details is part of the job.
And in my opinion, I've admired the way that she appears to have done so, in a practical way.
Funny/illustrative moment in the Senate trial
(about 25 minutes ago)
Schiff stands up to answer a question and announces that the DOJ is arguing today in court about the House's subpoenas,
and the judge asks, "so if the House can't come to court to resolve these issues, what is the remedy"
the DOJ answered: "they can impeach him"
That's a clip that will be playing over the next day
well, its not properly threaded, so you'd be better off reading his timeline
I'm still trying to figure out his clarification
> But tweeting Thursday, Dershowitz insisted that he “did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt.”
That's a straw man/wording trick. Of course seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt. What's corrupt is seeking help from an entity that is not legally allowed to influence that election, and using the power of your elected position to obtain that help.
It's a big walk back from "what the President did isn't corrupt" to "a broad category of actions, which includes what the president did, includes some actions that are not corrupt", and the trick is acting like the latter is still a useful argument in defense of the President.
OK, looking at his timeline, I get what he's saying. He's claiming that withholding the money was not in itself an impeachable offense, and as long as Trump plausibly had some valid reason for doing it, it doesn't matter if he also did it to get re-elected.
I think he's trying to establish an equivalence between what Trump did and a politician simply taking actions that the electorate supports because they know that such actions will increase their chances of re-election.
I think Dershowitz is also trying to imply that there's no difference between a corrupt motive and a merely self-interested motive
...therefore, since everyone has some degree of self-interest in everything they do, by that argument everything every politician does is illegal, so you can't use that argument.
@murgatroid99 Right. Any positive outcome in foreign policy (or in domestic policy) could result in positive job-approval ratings or something. That's not at all the same as taking an overt act to get dirt (from a foreign source) for an upcoming election
Plus the fact that witholding the funds was determined to be a violation of law blows the argument out of the water
> Further distorting my argument, Senator Schumer and others are now saying that under my argument, Nixon was not impeachable. Of course he was. He committed numerous crimes: obstruction of justice; witness tampering; destruction of evidence; suborning perjury and more. (MTC)
conveniently ignoring that literally half of the impeachment charges are about Trump doing that
> The obvious truth is that Trump can’t simultaneously be the great leader and manager he says he is and then consistently flay every employee who manifests an independent opinion about something. Trump is either incapable of managing and working with the “best people,” or he is not hiring them. Or maybe it’s a hybrid:
> He has fired or forced the resignation of the best, and the ones who remain have become intimidated sycophants. It’s what you would expect for a man whose temperamental management style is: Nobody else can shine, and whatever I say, even on a whim, is the final word. His tweet about Bolton on Wednesday openly admitted he didn’t listen to the national security adviser.
and he wraps up:
> I, for one, never felt more alive than when the president of the United States called me an “unstable nutjob” on Twitter. His bullying and intimidating methods have frozen many in his party, but when I began receiving them myself, I realized I was finally free. Bolton might learn that speaking the truth is the best method of recovery for Trump Employment Syndrome.
> What Schiff referenced, per @MarshallCohen: "A Justice Department lawyer said Thursday in federal court that the House can impeach a president over ignored subpoenas, a contrast to what lawyers for President Trump are arguing at his trial this week."
It really is! He could throw in a "it's an amazing plane" or something but instead he goes right for the "you actually literally can't see it" every time
Which under normal circumstances would be kind of alarming, it's super weird!
@TimStone Yep. Prior incumbents have always been so careful to keep the two separate. He just doesn't care, and the system doesn't have the teeth to actually hold him to it
@BradC i heard this last night. it's just fucked because that green lights everything a dictator does
so long as the President gets re-elected he can falsely arrest/murder political rivals, manipulate vote counting so that there are no votes to opponents, have guns at people's head when they vote to make sure they vote a certain way
but on the other hand, what is the "national interest", Trump didn't win the popular vote, the electoral collage votes are not truly equal and current polling suggests that the interest of the public is to have Trump removed
@BradC lol, did not got to that point yet in the transcript. but how typical. they say one thing and when the media points out the problem with it they attack the media and try to "clarify"
> President Trump’s border wall likely will require the installation of hundreds of storm gates to prevent flash floods from undermining or knocking it over, gates that must be left open for months every summer during “monsoon season” in the desert, according to U.S. border officials, agents and engineers familiar with the plans.
I mean, I knew there were a hundred different issues with the border wall, I did not know that "well, we have to leave huge storm gates open for much of the year" was one of them.
