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

[worstblogever]

Judge orders White House to return Jim Acosta's press pass



This always seemed open and shut to me. We pay for that House he cant just decide to pick only Fox News to have access

Heh! I'm sure that just ruined Trump's weekend! Delightful!

It gets better... The judge that ruled in the case? A Trump appointment.

Looks like Trump is coming even more unhinged.

Trump starting to question Pence's loyalty

Oh, Emperor Dementia von F***stick... did you really think that craven little zealot was ever loyal to anyone but himself and his twisted views on Christianity?

[Gray Lensman]

Unless Pence resigns, or is impeached by Congress, Donny Smallhands is stuck with him.

The only other way I am aware of is to choose someone else during the re-election campaign.

[kidfresh512]

Democrat Stacey Abrams ends candidacy in Georgia governor race, blasts process as discriminatory

Democrat Stacey Abrams on Friday ended her candidacy for governor more than a week after polls closed in Georgia and following an acrimonious battle over ballot-counting.
Abrams, who was running to become the nation's first female African-American governor, said it is clear after the vote count is certified, Republican Brian Kemp will be the state's next governor. However, she refused to formally concede and used her speech to rebuke the process, alleging "systemic disenfranchisement" at the hands of Kemp, who was also the state chief elections administrator.


“Democracy failed in Georgia,” Abrams said of the race, which was marred by allegations of voter roll purging and suppression largely affecting African Americans. "This time the mistakes clearly altered the outcome."
She added, "I will pray for the success of Brian Kemp that he will indeed be a leader for all Georgians."
The speech came moments after Georgia’s interim Secretary of State Robyn Crittenden, the top elections official in the state, certified the election results after a protracted 10-day legal battle.
Kemp led Abrams 50.2 percent to 48.8 percent — or by more than 54,000 votes — with 99 percent of the vote counted.

This was one dirty race. I think she has a very fair point about how gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Kemp running his own election cheated Georgians here

[Joker Venom]

He could constantly tweet about how ugly Pence's wife is and that Pence kept hitting on him until Pence quits to make it stop.

The bad part is, it's actually possible that this scenario could play out just like you described it.

[Joker Venom]

The only other way I am aware of is to choose someone else during the re-election campaign.

Well, yeah, there's that too, but that still means Trump is stuck with Pence until 2021.....IF he gets re-elected. I don't think Pence would resign, and anything Trump could use to try to get Pence impeached, would likely end up with Trump being taken down along with Pence, because, let's face it, Trump isn't nearly as smart as he likes to think he is.

[numberthirty]

It gets better... The judge that ruled in the case? A Trump appointment.

Yep.

BeastieRunner actually mentioned that in post #6728. There's even more too it than the Acosta ruling.

The judge was nominated to the court by - wait for it - Trump.

This man is the best at the self-own.

It gets better!

3 Trump appointed judges ruled unanimously today that Rod Rosenstien is still Mueller's boss and that the investigation is legal. This is the 6th unanimous ruling on both of those. All but 1 came from Trump-appointed judges.

Double self-own!

[Tazirai]

I keep hearing Pelosi is a master political genius. Why would they do this? Do Democrats like losing? Why give up before starting?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2...mpression=true

[Tazirai]

The media should stuck on Kemp running his own election as secretary from the jump. The corporate media will look at Abrams lose without context and not tell or give the facts. They won't look at how close the loss was and the record voter suppression there.

[numberthirty]

I keep hearing Pelosi is a master political genius. Why would they do this? Do Democrats like losing? Why give up before starting?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2...mpression=true

For First Act in Power, Democrats Consider Making Their Own Agenda Impossible to Pass

Yeah...

I guess they might think that one looks good as a headline, but it's rather questionable as an opening move. Never mind the specifics of what I would guess their plan is. Taxes aren't what is putting your average American behind an eight ball.

Also from the article. This is what had me a bit worried. Either someone is really dumb, or it is an intentional move.

All this would be a bit less problematic if the Democratic Party had overcome its allergy to deficit spending (and/or accepted Modern Monetary Theory as its personal truth). But it hasn’t: In addition to forbidding tax increases on the bottom 80 percent, Pelosi has vowed to honor the “pay as you go” rule, which requires the House to fully finance any and all new government spending.

Taken together, these two requirements could make Medicare for All impossible to pass out of the House. It is true that the supermajority rule is specifically worded to bar increases in individual income taxes, as opposed to payroll taxes (the primary funding mechanism for Bernie Sanders’s single-payer bill). But it seems unlikely that this distinction will be honored in practice: As a political matter, it will be difficult to insist that a rule titled “Protect the Middle Class From Tax Increases” does not apply to payroll-tax hikes, given that such hikes increase taxes on the middle class. And if the distinction between income and payroll taxes doesn’t stick, then the super-majority rule would render a whole host of Democratic policies nonviable. For example, Kirsten Gillibrand’s FAMILY Act finances an expansion of paid family and medical leave with a 0.4 percent increase in the payroll tax (split between employees and employers). Her law would make life much easier for many caretakers in the bottom 80 percent, while increasing their tax bills by a near-indiscernible amount. And yet, in the name of helping the middle class, the new Democratic House majority wants to give their Republican colleagues the power to veto such legislation.

[PwrdOn]

This was one dirty race. I think she has a very fair point about how gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Kemp running his own election cheated Georgians here

Kemp barely made any effort to hide his cheating and both he and his supporters are fully aware that they would have gotten stomped in a fair election. Even though Abrams' policies would have largely benefited GOP voters there, a lot of white southerners are just appalled at the mere notion of black rule and will condone any kind of dirty tactics to avoid it. But this is very much just a desperate last hurrah for the Republicans, the whole country is now aware that Georgia is in play which means that the next go around Democrats can start pushing back against the voter suppression earlier in the cycle when there is still a chance to fix the problem while simultaneously redoubling their turnout efforts.

[Tendrin]

Yeah...

I guess they might think that one looks good as a headline, but it's rather questionable as an opening move. Never mind the specifics of what I would guess their plan is. Taxes aren't what is putting your average American behind an eight ball.

Also from the article. This is what had me a bit worried. Either someone is really dumb, or it is an intentional move.

Or you could read, you know, a little further on:

Although Pelosi officially proposed retaining the GOP’s supermajority rule, in restricted form, it is unclear whether the idea originated with her. At present, a group of House Democrats from the caucus’s moderate wing is pushing to oust Pelosi from leadership. Generally speaking, those leading the charge to deny Pelosi the speakership have made opposition to tax hikes a far more prominent part of their political brands than she ever has. And according to the Washington Post, many of the rule changes endorsed by Pelosi had been “ demanded by some members in return for their speaker votes.” Thus, it is neither clear that Pelosi is the driving force behind the supermajority rule, nor that denying her the speakership would prevent its implementation.

Let's wait and see whether or not this comes closer to reality before we hit the panic button, especially given that we're unlikely to be able to pass any such bill anytime soon. The power in the House is in investigating and exposing corruption. We sure as hell aren't passingh Medicare For All with President Donald Trump. :P

[numberthirty]

Or you could read, you know, a little further on:

Although Pelosi officially proposed retaining the GOP’s supermajority rule, in restricted form, it is unclear whether the idea originated with her. At present, a group of House Democrats from the caucus’s moderate wing is pushing to oust Pelosi from leadership. Generally speaking, those leading the charge to deny Pelosi the speakership have made opposition to tax hikes a far more prominent part of their political brands than she ever has. And according to the Washington Post, many of the rule changes endorsed by Pelosi had been “ demanded by some members in return for their speaker votes.” Thus, it is neither clear that Pelosi is the driving force behind the supermajority rule, nor that denying her the speakership would prevent its implementation.

Let's wait and see whether or not this comes closer to reality before we hit the panic button, especially given that we're unlikely to be able to pass any such bill anytime soon. The power in the House is in investigating and exposing corruption. We sure as hell aren't passingh Medicare For All with President Donald Trump. :P

You realize that "Endorse what looks like a "Really Bad"/"Stupid" move in exchange for votes that will make me Speaker Of The House." is an intentional move, right?

Doubly so, when you are someone who has a reputation as someone who gets things done.

[Tendrin]

You realize that "Endorse what looks like a "Really Bad"/"Stupid" move in exchange for votes that will make me Speaker Of The House." is an intentional move, right?

Doubly so, when you are someone who has a reputation as someone who gets things done.

I'll be critical of it if it actually makes it into the rules and remains in effect. It's not exactly likely to have any bearing on anything that matters for the foreseeable future. We're not getting Medicare For All passed in the next two years, but we may get a whole bunch of other things done to which 'tax increases on the middle class' are not going to be part of anyway. Endorsing a bad rule that will have zero impact since the Dems are really unlikely to pass a bill that increases taxes on the middle class anyway for the next two years seems like recognizing what does and doesn't matter.

I mean 'Dems institute a rule that might possibly someday block them from writing a bill that can't actually become law until Donald Trump is not the president and they have the Senate' isn't as good a headline.

[PaulBullion]

So many of Trump's "best people" are just cartoonishly evil:

Trump’s Nominee to Replace Kavanaugh Is a Staunch Defender of Dwarf-Tossing

Dwarf-tossing is an odd cause for a federal judicial nominee to champion. Even weirder, Rao has invoked it repeatedly in her writing to make the case that a misguided focus on human dignity is leading US courts to run afoul of the Constitution in decisions that advance LGBT rights and racial equality. These are areas of the law where, she argues, judges are letting the pernicious influence of international human rights law creep into their jurisprudence at the expense of American exceptionalism and personal freedom.

Tossing little people to own the libs.

[PaulBullion]

Maria Butina, Accused Of Being A Russian Agent, May Be In Talks For Plea Deal