All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I think Im the opposite. I think if you serve your term as President you deserve to go off and make money and relax or build your library etc. I think trump will be different though he will never get out of the public eye. When hes out he will be tweeting and commenting on every little thing until the day he dies.

Obama has been attacked and maligned and denigrated. If anyone has a right to be speaking out and shutting down every lie spewed its him. So I don't begrudge him going off and doing charity with his foundation or making millions on books and Netflix specials.

After trump I suspect we will long for the days when the ex presidents went off and rarely commented on every little thing.

I’m of the belief that the one thing Trump fears more than anything, moreso than even prison if he ever goes on trial for his misdeeds from the Mueller Report, is being ignored. With his bloated ego, having the world tune him out and forget he exists would be his ultimate nightmare. As for Obama, I keep hoping he writes a memoir where he goes off and unloads on the GOP for all the shit they dumped on him during his time in office, but, that’s unlikely to happen, unlike Trump, he’s way too classy and dignified to lower himself to that sort of thing.

[Tendrin]

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...r-chief-or-not

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/560227...of-immigration

Both of these are more informative than crap from the Washington Examiner about what actually happened under Obama and what's different under Trump.

[InformationGeek]

In unrelated news, the WBE signal was lit!

An Ohio lawmaker who routinely touted his Christian faith and anti-LGBT views has resigned after being caught having sex with a man in his office.

Wes Goodman, who is the Republican state legislator for Ohio, is married to a woman who is assistant director of an annual anti-abortion rally known as March for Life.

The right-wing legislator, who pushed “family values”, was reportedly witnessed having sex with a man inside his office who was not employed by the legislator.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, the observer told Ohio House Chief of Staff Mike Dittoe what had happened on Tuesday afternoon. Mr Dittoe responded by telling House Speaker Republican Cliff Rosenberger who in turn met with Mr Goodman.

The 33-year-old, who has been branded the “conscience of the conservative movement”, resigned for “inappropriate conduct” shortly after the meeting took place.

Mr Goodman, whose Twitter biography describes him as “Christian. American. Conservative. Republican. Husband to @Beth1027”, has regularly claimed "natural marriage" occurs between a man and a woman.

"Healthy, vibrant, thriving, values-driven families are the source of Ohio's proud history and the key to Ohio's future greatness,” reads his campaign website which has now been taken offline.

[Tendrin]

In unrelated news, the WBE signal was lit!

That's from 2017 and was covered by WBE already. I know, there's so much $#@#ery that it's hard to keep track of all the $#$4ery.

[InformationGeek]

That's from 2017 and was covered by WBE already. I know, there's so much $#@#ery that it's hard to keep track of all the $#$4ery.

Oh, okay. It was trending with some people online and looking up the name didn't pop up in WBE's tumblr.

Oh well. Truly it is too hard to keep up with.

[Tendrin]

Oh, okay. It was trending with some people online and looking up the name didn't pop up in WBE's tumblr.

Oh well. Truly it is too hard to keep up with.

Yeah, as happens sometimes. It's crazy.

[worstblogever]

Yeah, I profiled Wes Goodman.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The U.S. Is ‘Headed To Fascism,’ Says Ocasio-Cortez After Tour Of Detention Facilities At Southern Border

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doubled down on her comparisons of the situation at the border to World War II. Of course, that's bound to put a whole lot of conservative and right wing boxers in a bunch. GOOD! The truth always hurts! Meanwhile....

Writer Whose Ancestor Opened First Japanese American Camp: Ocasio-Cortez Is Right

**********

Homeland Security Watchdog Warns Of ‘Severe Overcrowding’ At Migrant Detention Centers

One official at a Border Patrol facility told investigators that the migrant crisis is a “ticking time bomb.” To be honest, I'm genuinely surprised that bomb hasn't already gone off, but when it does, it's going to be hellish.

**********

Trump Blames Liberals For Homelessness In U.S. Cities In Rambling Monologue

Some city residents “have mental problems where they don’t even know they’re living that way,” the president said. “In fact, perhaps they like living that way.” What? WHAT?!?! Jesus H. Christ! Just shut the fuck up, man! You don't make a damn bit of sense!

**********

Evangelical Pastor: Democrats Have Created An ‘Imaginary God’

Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress suggested that Democratic 2020 candidates aren’t talking about the “real God” when they talk about their faith. Well, better that than the Republican faith that looks the other way at kids being locked in cages. Fuck you, Jeffress!

**********

Judge Under Fire For Touting Boy’s ‘Good Family,’ ‘Excellent School’ In Rape Case

In explaining why a teen accused of rape deserved leniency, a New Jersey family court judge said the boy was an Eagle Scout with good college prospects. More importantly, the perp was white, all the more reason for leniency. Fortunately, the state's appellate court reversed the judge's ruling.

[Malvolio]

This one's mixing things up too much.

On the one hand, you are talking about "Our" time.

On the other, the reason for not wasting "Their" time seems to be a solidly "Will be in 'Our' best interest..." reason.

If they don't actively want to undertake a Senate run, how is this a waste of their own time?

Because it won't even accomplish what they want. If they're doing it to get their names out there, does anyone really believe we'll remember Yang or Bullock a year from now. I'm having trouble remembering their first names right now!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Because it won't even accomplish what they want. If they're doing it to get their names out there, does anyone really believe we'll remember Yang or Bullock a year from now. I'm having trouble remembering their first names right now!

And especially the author. Can't recall her name (first or last) at all. For her and Yang, this is the Trump Effect at work as I'm guessing they both thought: "Hey! If some loudmouth reality show carnival barker could run for president, and win, then I can too!" Problem is, they don't have Trump's cachet from having been a household name for decades, nor his devious talent for manipulating people into voting for him. These two schnooks don't have a snowball's chance in hell of going even a fraction as far as he did.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

'Show the world who we are': Trump's 4th of July military show has visitors pumped, but critics slam it as an ego trip

As they strolled along the National Mall Tuesday, visitors to the nation's capital were just learning about the grandiose July 4th celebration that will showcase Army tanks and military flyovers beyond the usual pageantry.

"Awesome," California school teacher and U.S. Air Force veteran Walter De Graaf, 57, said as he stood near the Washington Monument. "Let’s show America who we are. Let's show the world who we are."

“A little extreme," David Havens, 67, a salesperson from Sebastian, Florida, said about the military display. "Not so sure about that."

Trump has yet to deliver his address near the Lincoln Memorial Thursday, but his "Salute to America" already is eliciting strong opinions over whether a president revered by supporters and reviled by opponents was injecting politics in an event above the partisan fray that enjoys national appeal.

"The Pentagon & our great Military Leaders are thrilled to be doing this & showing to the American people, among other things, the strongest and most advanced Military anywhere in the World," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "Incredible Flyovers & biggest ever Fireworks!"

The event is expected to draw ardent Trump backers but there will also be protests, including the burning of a flag and the flying of a "Trump Baby" balloon.

Singer and actress, Bette Midler, a fervent anti-Trumper, tweeted that the president "is only interested in putting tanks on the Mall for his salute to himself."

Trump has been blasted by critics in the past for inappropriately injecting politics in events and places traditionally void of such overtones: a memorial wall for CIA's fallen agents the day after he was inaugurated in 2017, a Boy Scout jamboree later that year, an official visit to Japan in May.

In a letter Tuesday to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, Democratic Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland expressed concern that Thursday's celebration was shaping up to be more of the same, particularly amid reports that the Republican National Committee was in charge of distributing some tickets to the event.

“We are deeply troubled that the president’s involvement at the event will turn the longstanding, non-partisan celebration into a de facto campaign rally conducted at taxpayer expense that will serve to further divide rather than unify the nation," they wrote.

BINGO! And you can bet the mortgage and kid's college fund that Trump's speech will be a moronic rehash of his greatest hits ("MAGA!" "Lock her up!" "Build the wall!"), more spite, venom and hate hurled at his laundry list of enemies and endless boasting about how great he is, blah, blah, blah! As for "Showing the world who we are", only small minded, insecure idiots get into shallow nonsense like that, this in NOT something this country needs to do, people should be smart enough to understand that, sadly, there are those, swept up into overhyped, overblown patriotism that simply don't, and that's troubling.

[kidfresh512]

A Series of President Trump's Campaign Ads on Facebook Are Using Stock Models to Portray Supporters

A series of Facebook video ads for President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign shows what appears to be a young woman strolling on a beach in Florida, a Hispanic man on a city street in Texas and a bearded hipster in a coffee shop in Washington, D.C., all making glowing, voice-over endorsements of the president.

“I could not ask for a better president,” intones the voice during slow-motion footage of the smiling blonde called “Tracey from Florida.” A man labeled on another video as “AJ from Texas”stares into the camera as a voice says, “Although I am a lifelong Democrat, I sincerely believe that a nation must secure its borders.”

There’s just one problem: The people in the videos that ran in the past few months are all actually models in stock video footage produced far from the U.S. in France, Brazil and Turkey, and available to anyone online for a fee. Though the 20-second videos include tiny disclaimers that say “actual testimonial, actor portrayal,” they raise the question why a campaign that can fill arenas with supporters would have to buy stock footage of models. It’s a practice that, under different circumstances, Trump himself would likely blast as “fake news.”

This is a weird one. Like the article points out there are plenty of crazy MAGA types that go to the rallies. Why would you get fake stock photos from international agencies to portray American trump supporters? What happened to America first. Arent there some great hardworking American Maga models who want to be associated with him?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

A Series of President Trump's Campaign Ads on Facebook Are Using Stock Models to Portray Supporters



This is a weird one. Like the article points out there are plenty of crazy MAGA types that go to the rallies. Why would you get fake stock photos from international agencies to portray American trump supporters? What happened to America first. Arent there some great hardworking American Maga models who want to be associated with him?

Perhaps those hardworking American MAGA models don't come cheap enough for Trump who never pays full price for goods and/or services if he can get same for pennies on the dollar. And I hope those folks got ironclad promises on paper for payment, given his decades long penchant for stiffing people and companies that do work for him. Also, I wonder if the Screen Actors Guild will bitch about that work having been sent overseas?

[Mister Mets]

Because it won't even accomplish what they want. If they're doing it to get their names out there, does anyone really believe we'll remember Yang or Bullock a year from now. I'm having trouble remembering their first names right now!

Yang is running mainly to publicize a policy argument, that the United States would be better off if everyone had a universal basic income to cover the absolute essentials. He has relatively pure reasons for running.

It's probably unfair to blame Bullock, since small-state Governors have done well in earlier Democratic presidential primaries. Howard Dean was one of the top candidates in 2004. Bill Clinton became President. He does have a background that can be politically relevant as someone who has won and governed in a state where most of the voters are Republicans.

The people it seems to me have no reason to run are Eric Swallwell (congressional backbencher who has failed to stand out), Marianne Williamson (her sole political experience is finishing fourth in a congressional race), Bill De Blasio (if you're mayor in a major media market and at one percent, there's a probem), and Kirsten Gilibrand (a prominent Senator at one percent in a race where she doesn't really stand out.) There are some candidates (Moulton, Ryan) who might get traction running to the center, if they pick positions that are popular with voters but not expressed by candidates, but they're not making any effort to do so, so there's no point in running for President if you're not offering anything different from someone with more experience.

[Mister Mets]

And that's the root of the whole problem Mets -- you see winning as the only thing that really matters in that regard, which is why you'd rather sit here and argue than directly address just how corrupt and malicious your party is towards those who don't suit it's goals: certainly it's best to be in a position to implement your political policies, but how does that justify allowing for Republican election fraud, the suppression of minority voting rights, and Russian interference in our elections in what is meant to be a democratic system where everyone should have equal say in choosing our elected representatives?

There's no point in trying to reason with someone who sees the rights of minorities and the lives of children in terms of "cost" -- so long as Republican corruption, criminality and outright malicioiusness don't hurt you directly, it's obvious those issues aren't of any real concern to you.

"I haven't suggested that I have no problem with anything Republicans do, although I'm not going to address anything vague."

You haven't addressed it all -- all you do is keep asking hypothetical questions and making biased assumptions about "liberals" instead.

And even if you did, your party wouldn't, so there's no point in discussing it with you.

What policies regarding the rights of minorities and lives of children have no tradeoffs whatsoever. An analysis of it could show that a policy will be worthwhile even if there are costs, but we still have to be able to determine the costs.

I didn't suggest winning is the only thing that matters. I'm just saying that it matters, and that many politicians recognize this although some of them pretend otherwise.

He flat out said charges were not considered because the current DOJ standard says a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

He did not clear the POTUS.

It's really not nuanced or unclear. If he was innocent, Mueller would have said so. He did not.

I can't believe we have to have a hearing that will end with, "If the POTUS was not POTUS, he would be in jail, too," in order to get people to understand and start an impeachment inquiry.

I can't believe we have to have a Congressional hearing and listen to the same talking heads ask, "Yes or no: would Trump have been indicted if he was not POTUS." It's not friggin' middle school and you have to check a box to get an answer.

Trump was not cleared of any crimes, how does that not answer your question? Do people really need their hand held on this?

I swear modern conservationism renders people unable to understand basic language.

The only nuance here is that an ostrich with their head in the sand can see Trump aided interference, which was proven in the redacted report.

And he's doing it again by hiring Cambridge Analytical.

There is a wide spectrum between proving someone guilty and proving someone innocent. There are many situations where we just don't know enough for sure, so even if someone isn't cleared it doesn't mean there's enough evidence to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are two difference approaches Mueller could have taken with the question of indicting Trump. It's possible that he'll testify that he would if he would if Trump weren't President, and thus recommends that Congress impeach. This would seem odd given his press conference about how everything he has to say is in the report, that he prefers not to comment further, and that if he were forced to testify, he wouldn't have anything else to say.

The other possibility is that he didn't look into the question of whether he would indict Trump as a prosecutor because it wasn't within the scope of his task. He didn't consider the question because it's up to Congress to do so.