All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[worstblogever]

On this date, in both 2014, as well as in 2015, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled Bishop Phil Gingrey, a former OBGYN who was so vehement in his dislike of healthcare reform, that on an episode of Hardball, he advised Tea Partiers to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and bring firearms into the town halls where they were already deliberately making ugly scenes just to disrupt progress. Gingrey also defended former Rep. Todd Akin’s “Legitimate Rape” comments, which is even more sad when you consider his medical background very clearly should have told him that no, in fact, a woman’s body does not “have ways of shutting that whole thing down”. But perhaps his saddest moment as a former doctor came in 2014 when he claimed migrant children from South America were bringing the Ebola Virus across the U.S. Mexico border into the United States, which defies all logic and epidemiology. He failed at getting elected to U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2014, and has gone on to become a K Street lobbyist.


In both 2016, as well as 2017, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profile of the U.S. House Representative from Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District, Trent Kelly, a former District Attorney, who when he was presented with the opportunity to prosecute a hate crime committed against Devin Norman on federal charges, a man who was brutally beaten for being gay in March of 2015. Campaigning solely on his service to his country, Kelly won a terribly crowded GOP Primary against more challengers than can be counted on your fingers, in spite of having almost no stated stances on the issues. And the only thing he did specify is that he would like the 14th Amendment, which normally covers birthright citizenship to also cover “pre-born human beings”. For those needing a translation of what that means, it means that Kelly’s making an end-around attack on Roe v. Wade by having the 14th Amendment declare zygotes and fetuses to be fully functional human beings and not just clumps of cells, so they get the constitutional rights that would make aborting them murder. So it probably will come as little surprise that right around the time Trent Kelly arrived in Washington, D.C., and the Republican Party was s***ting itself in fury over the Center for Medical Progress’ “sting” video of Planned Parenthood, that he signed onto a letter promising he would vote to shut down the government if Planned Parenthood was not defunded, based off of a video that experts have debunked as a fraud. During the controversy over the Trump administration’s “family separation” policy in July of 2018, Rep. Kelly went on record after touring immigrant detention centers that were imprisoning children in cages and deemed those methods “appropriate”.

He is quickly establishing quite the partisan voting record, even for most Bible Belt Republicans:

• February 16th, 2017: Kelly votes for HJR 69, to make it legal for hunters on wildlife reserves to kill several species of hibernating bears or wolves while they’re sleeping. Because… well, the logic really isn’t there as to why, it’s just awful.
• March 16th, 2017: Trent Kelly votes for HR 1181, which would allow veterans deemed mentally incompetent to continue to own firearms, and not have them taken away without a judge's written order. We feel safer already.
• March 28th, 2017: Rep. Kelly votes for SJ Res 34, which allowed internet providers to sell the data information of their customers' internet usage to businesses.
• May 4th, 2017: Kelly votes for the House GOP's healthcare plan, that would kick roughly 24 million people off their health insurance plans, allow up to 28,000 more people to die a year, give $50,000 in tax breaks to millionaires, and would eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions which would include such medical conditions as pregnancy (current or past), post-partum depression, or prior sexual assault. Oh, and a provision in the bill would make sure that Kelly would be allowed to keep his healthcare plan as it exists under the ACA, which would be repealed for the rest of the country. He and his Republican compatriots threw themselves a beer bash to celebrate taking away healthcare from millions and then gloated about it with Donald Trump at a White House press conference, as well.
• June 8th, 2017: Trent Kelly votes for HR 10, the GOP’s attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform, because what the country really needs is to allow the big banks to make the same mistakes that imploded the economy only a decade earlier.
• September 8th, 2017: Rep. Kelly chooses to be one of 90 Republicans in Congress who votes against disaster relief for Hurricane Harvey.
• October 3rd, 2017: Kelly votes for HR 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that would try to create an unconstitutional ban abortion at 20 weeks (even though medical science tells us fetuses do not have the capability to feel pain until 29 weeks).
• December 19th, 2017: Trent Kelly votes for HR 1, the GOP’s $1.7 trillion tax cut to benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations permanently that coincidentally also removes the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and kicks 13 million people off their health insurance.
• February 18th, 2018: Kelly and his fellow Republicans decide that poor big businesses are suffering too much at the hands of the Americans with Disabilities Act too much, and vote for HR 620, which would strip most of the civil rights protections guaranteed by it.

Trent Kelly coasted back into the House with 69% of the vote in the 2016 elections. His district, of course, is extremely conservative, and it will be a tall order for his Democratic challenger, Randy Wadkins, a cancer drug researcher, to do much better. Unless Kelly gets undone by the FEC investigating his illegal campaign fundraising finances of accepting donations larger than the allowed limit, he seems like he’s not going anywhere anytime soon.  

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The Dishonorable Judge Kavanaugh came across as an entitled brat who is enraged over possibly being held accountable for the first time in his life. Or, as exactly the type of person I would look at first over any rape allegation - the guy whose brain can't process being told no because he's never heard it before.

Hmm! Just like the current occupant of the Oval Office. Golly gee whillickers! What are the chances?

[aja_christopher]

Ford's story is the most plausible, but it shouldn't be enough by itself, due to the lack of any corroboration. There has to be some kind of further evidence on a higher level of proof than the testimony of someone who hadn't talked about an incident for decades.

So -- again -- admit that the FBI should do more than a rudimentary one-week "investigation" questioning all potential witnesses before arriving at any (biased and prejudiced) conclusions and likewise admit that the Republicans are hypocrites for blocking evidence while simultaneously demanding proof that Kavanaugh is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

The fact that you can't do that shows that your interest isn't in finding out the truth so much as defending Republican interests -- you know as well as everyone else here that a Supreme Court "judge" that dodges questions and evades the truth at his own hearing can't be trusted to be uphold the standards of the highest court in America.

But he can be trusted to push forward the Republican agenda, which seems to be your primary concern.

[JackDaw]

So -- again -- let the FBI do more than a rudimentary one-week "investigation" questioning all potential witnesses before arriving at any (biased and prejudiced) conclusions and likewise admit that the Republicans are hypocrites for blocking evidence while simultaneously demanding proof that Kavanaugh is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

The fact that you can't do that shows that your interest isn't in finding out the truth so much as defending Republican interests.

Is there really no longstanding arrangements (regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans in charge) whereby all candidates for appointment to Supreme Court go through a series of appropriate security checks beforehand??

It just looks like a complete mess...I wonder how anybody, from either party, can support the overall way the appointment system presently seems to operate.

[aja_christopher]

Is there really no longstanding arrangements (regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans in charge) whereby all candidates for appointment to Supreme Court go through a series of appropriate security checks beforehand??

It just looks like a complete mess...I wonder how anybody, from either party, can support the overall way the appointment system presently seems to operate.

There are standard security checks for anyone who works in the government but I'd assume that there's no way for them to investigate things like perjury, alcoholism and sexual assault without any prior indication that such things might be problematic with regards to the candidate in question -- once these issues were raised by Dr. Ford and others, the FBI was (and will be) able to utilize the information provided to pursue said investigation.

You'll note that there were no such problems with the last Republican nominee (Gorsuch) -- realistically speaking, the Republicans should pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone with a much less questionable background, but as you can see from their election of Trump, questionable backgrounds, evasive maneuverings, blatant partisanship, and sexual assault allegations may be exactly what they are looking for in their candidates.

Conversely, they seem more interested in finding out who "leaked" Dr. Ford's letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault than they do in finding out whether Kavanaugh actually committed said assault.

------
"Christine Blasey Ford hasn't heard from FBI agents investigating Kavanaugh claims, lawyer says"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christi...s-lawyer-says/

Republicans block Democratic bid to subpoena Kavanaugh documents

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...augh-documents

"GOP senators demand probe of Feinstein’s office after Kavanaugh accusations"

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...219281215.html

[JackDaw]

There are standard security checks for anyone who works in the government but I'd assume that there's no way for them to investigate things like perjury, alcoholism and sexual assault without any prior indication that such things might be problematic with regards to the candidate in question -- once these issues were raised by Dr. Ford and others, the FBI was (and will be) able to utilize the information provided to pursue said investigation.

You'll note that there were no such problems with the last Republican nominee (Gorsuch) -- realistically speaking, the Republicans should pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone with a much less questionable background, but as you can see from their election of Trump, questionable backgrounds, evasive maneuverings, blatant partisanship, and sexual assault allegations may be exactly what they are looking for in their candidates.

Conversely, they seem more interested in finding out who "leaked" Dr. Ford's letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault than they do in finding out whether Kavanaugh actually committed said assault.

------
"Christine Blasey Ford hasn't heard from FBI agents investigating Kavanaugh claims, lawyer says"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christi...s-lawyer-says/

Republicans block Democratic bid to subpoena Kavanaugh documents

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...augh-documents

"GOP senators demand probe of Feinstein’s office after Kavanaugh accusations"

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...219281215.html

I suppose...in fairness...the fact that it's know beforehand which person is nominated gives time for anybody with relevant troubling info to come forward.

But even so I surprised there isn't some scrutiny beforehand of person's medical history over last 10 years's day. (Yes..obviously candidate would need to agree to scrutiny by appropriate authority of those details...but if anybody didn't agree, just move onto next candidate.) I'd have also thought it would be sensible to ask each candidate to give specific assurances on oath...and dismissal being near automatic if any of those assurances proved false.

But most obvious move..if large majority of people want to keep most of present appointment system intact..is to go back to the old convention of appointment to Supreme Court require a large majority vote, rather than be carried on a single vote. That way...to be credible a candidate would need the respect of both major parties...which I think should be a minimum requirement for appointment to the Supreme Court.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

You'll note that there were no such problems with the last Republican nominee (Gorsuch) -- realistically speaking, the Republicans should pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone with a much less questionable background, but as you can see from their election of Trump, questionable backgrounds, evasive maneuverings, blatant partisanship, and sexual assault allegations may be exactly what they are looking for in their candidates.

I have no doubt there were lots of highly qualified candidates for the bench who could satisfy the GOP's desire for a conservative judge to break the deadlock on SCOTUS. But they're flat out obsessed with Kavanaugh because he can protect Trump from possible impeachment proceedings, and, right now, that's all they care about, keeping Caramel Caligula safe from prosecution.

Conversely, they seem more interested in finding out who "leaked" Dr. Ford's letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault than they do in finding out whether Kavanaugh actually committed said assault.

------
"Christine Blasey Ford hasn't heard from FBI agents investigating Kavanaugh claims, lawyer says"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christi...s-lawyer-says/

Republicans block Democratic bid to subpoena Kavanaugh documents

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...augh-documents

"GOP senators demand probe of Feinstein’s office after Kavanaugh accusations"

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...219281215.html

Big surprise, right?

[aja_christopher]

I suppose...in fairness...the fact that it's know beforehand which person is nominated gives time for anybody with relevant troubling info to come forward.

And also in fairness, Dr. Ford did try to come forward beforehand but she didn't know how to proceed nor whether she wanted to take on the public scrutiny -- and threats -- associated with taking on the entire Republican party alone.

Let's be real -- this isn't about "fairness" -- this is about the Republicans unethically and oftimes illegally trying to force their agenda on the public at large, regardless of whatever damage it might do to our democratic system as a whole: Kavanaugh is just one more symptom of a much larger problem.

The Russian/Republican election scandal alone proves they don't care about protecting our democracy and serving all citizens the American public so let's not even pretend that things like "fairness" are of concern to them -- when someone is fighting dirty to destroy everything you hold sacred, it can be fatal to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they've done nothing whatsoever to earn it.

It could be that your politics (and politicians) are a lot more rational as a whole -- I can see where this looks like an absolute horrorshow from a distance but one could probably say the same for Republican views on our health care system and gun control policies as well.

------
"Mr. Trump quickly directed the FBI to conduct the probe at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee, writing in a statement that the investigation "must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week." In a tweet Saturday, Mr. Trump wrote, "I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion."

However, officials familiar with the matter said Sunday that the White House has set the parameters of the investigation, which is a limited reopening of the standard background check conducted for judicial nominees."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christi...s-lawyer-says/

[WestPhillyPunisher]

And also in fairness, Dr. Ford did try to come forward beforehand but she didn't know how to proceed nor whether she wanted to take on the public scrutiny -- and threats -- associated with taking on the entire Republican party alone.

Let's be real -- this isn't about "fairness" -- this is about the Republicans unethically and oftimes illegally trying to force their agenda on the public at large, regardless of whatever damage it might do to our democratic system as a whole: Kavanaugh is just one more symptom of a much larger problem.

The Russian/Republican election scandal alone proves they don't care about protecting our democracy and serving all citizens the American public so let's not even pretend that things like "fairness" are of concern to them -- when someone is fighting dirty to destroy everything you hold sacred, it can be fatal to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they've done nothing whatsoever to earn it.

And the kicker is that the knuckleheads who unfailingly support the GOP and their abhorrent policies clearly don't give a shit that they're being screwed six was from Sunday. As long as Republicans are "sticking it to the libs" and putting minorities, gays and uppity women in their place, that's more than good enough for them.

[aja_christopher]

And the kicker is that the knuckleheads who unfailingly support the GOP and their abhorrent policies clearly don't give a shit that they're being screwed six was from Sunday. As long as Republicans are "sticking it to the libs" and putting minorities, gays and uppity women in their place, that's more than good enough for them.

I was going to mention that maybe it's the lack of a powerful bloc of religious conservative voters that makes other political systems so different from that of America -- a lot of the issues mentioned are rooted in certain aspects of "evangelical" religious beliefs (Mike Pence being the perfect example of a politician who caters to said bloc) and so long as they base their vote on maintaining laws that are meant to keep others from living as equals (gay marriage, abortion rights, workplace discrimination, voter suppression, etc), said issues won't likely be resolved any time soon.

Telling that some of the most (allegedly) puritanical American citizens could support such dishonest and openly corrupt individuals (Trump, Bush, King, McConnell, Moore, Arpaio, etc) -- it's almost as if they think rules and laws should only apply to others.

[aja_christopher]

[JCAll]

This is basically me, every day.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

READ: Yale classmate's full statement on Kavanaugh

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, accused him on Sunday of being untruthful in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and making a "blatant mischaracterization" of his drinking while in college. Read his full statement below:

I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of Justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett's social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

Boy, I can't wait to see how Republicans spin THAT, though I have no doubt they'll try. The GOP's gonna fight for Kavanaugh down to the last man. They have no choice, Trump expects them to.

[JackDaw]

Boy, I can't wait to see how Republicans spin THAT, though I have no doubt they'll try. The GOP's gonna fight for Kavanaugh down to the last man. They have no choice, Trump expects them to.

Interesting link, thanks.

One aspect, of whole affair that baffles me is just how sheep-ish and total party allegiance seems to be in USA, compared to UK politics.

We all know that if one wants to get on in politics, then the party line needs to be toe-ed large majority of time. You can’t have dis-unity in face of the opposition, if party is to succeed. And individual politicians most likely get nowhere without party machine behind them.

But there’s always the odd maverick, who couldn’t give a toss about getting on, and will say what they really think on important topics.

Or the odd really ambitious one that believes that by taking a principled stand on a really important issue, he will gain respect that will eventually work to his/ her advantage. (By standing up to a weak existing leader, you will gain the respect of their successor..or even put yourself next in queue for leader next time job becomes vacant.)

In UK...for example..right now there are a significant number of conservative Members of Parliament who clearly oppose Theresa May, and similarly a significant number of Labour MP’s who oppose Jeremy Corbyn.

[Kirby101]

Stories in numerous media outlets showing the FBI is doing it's best to NOT investigate Kavanaugh.