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

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Recent polling has been all over the place. If Biden's position is lagging we'll probably have a clearer picture after the next debate. From just a glance on realclearpolitics, there is a **** ton of variability right now.

There is but I don't think the uncertainty bodes well for Biden.

It's pretty much just a fact at this point that Biden's team doesn't want him exposed too much. He is gaffe prone and the more he is out there the more he looks lethargic and just says puzzling **** and doesn't seem on point. Likewise, the trends of the last few debates have been, Biden has a mediocre performance, he falls a bit, then he's out of the spotlight and the polls get back to normal a slow rate. There's a reason they don't want him campaigning all over the place and all over the media. It's not working out for him. His advantage is he came out with a lot of assumptions about electability and started with a lead. Now they want to lean on that lead and keep him out of the way of screwing it up.

Only now Warren and Sanders are starting to make pushes ahead, the backers are starting to warm more towards Warren, etc. Nearly every Democratic candidate is polling well against Trump so the whole "who is the more electable candidate" advantage is mattering less and less because there isn't the fear that Bernie and Warren being left will scare people off, or that Kamala is too new on the scene, or that Buttegieg is too small time, etc. The polls are showing that it's negligible who will have the advantage over Trump. So a lot of the presumptions giving him a great jumping off point, aren't holding.

If he ever finds himself definitively behind, I don't see him fighting his way back up. I feel like his campaign staff knows that too. They know the minute Biden has to go out there and really push the issue, he's going to be worse version of the same old Joe Biden that ran for President before and couldn't do it. Exposure so far for him just hasn't been kinda and it's been hurting him. Once they need him to start running out there, I think he's done. Also once that happens, the confidence a lot of donors had will be shaken.

[Theleviathan]

There is but I don't think the uncertainty bodes well for Biden.

It's pretty much just a fact at this point that Biden's team doesn't want him exposed too much. He is gaffe prone and the more he is out there the more he looks lethargic and just says puzzling **** and doesn't seem on point. Likewise, the trends of the last few debates have been, Biden has a mediocre performance, he falls a bit, then he's out of the spotlight and the polls get back to normal a slow rate. There's a reason they don't want him campaigning all over the place and all over the media. It's not working out for him. His advantage is he came out with a lot of assumptions about electability and started with a lead. Now they want to lean on that lead and keep him out of the way of screwing it up.

Only now Warren and Sanders are starting to make pushes ahead, the backers are starting to warm more towards Warren, etc. Nearly every Democratic candidate is polling well against Trump so the whole "who is the more electable candidate" advantage is mattering less and less because there isn't the fear that Bernie and Warren being left will scare people off, or that Kamala is too new on the scene, or that Buttegieg is too small time, etc. The polls are showing that it's negligible who will have the advantage over Trump. So a lot of the presumptions giving him a great jumping off point, aren't holding.

If he ever finds himself definitively behind, I don't see him fighting his way back up. I feel like his campaign staff knows that too. They know the minute Biden has to go out there and really push the issue, he's going to be worse version of the same old Joe Biden that ran for President before and couldn't do it. Exposure so far for him just hasn't been kinda and it's been hurting him. Once they need him to start running out there, I think he's done. Also once that happens, the confidence a lot of donors had will be shaken.

I would suggest what you hinted at is more likely. When you are the clear leader, there is only one way to go. It may be that they are limiting exposure because they have the high ground moreso than fears about gaffes. (There have certainly been those though as well)

I'm also not confident in those polls head to head with Trump, not at this point at least. I wouldn't be surprised as the field narrows if Trump starts to see some advantages over some of those candidates more than others. And Trump is such a fucking wildcard it makes it even harder.

[worstblogever]

A source from inside Deutsche Bank told Lawrence O'Donnell,

Trump's bank loans from Deutsche Bank

May have been co-signed by

Russian Oligarchs


.... Would solve two puzzles, why Deutsche Bank is giving Trump loans when no other bank would,

and what Trump's relation to Putin is.

Unproven, unverified, but it makes sense.


Deutsche Bank has Trump’s taxes — and loan applications cosigned by Russian oligarchs: report

Trying to wait for it to be confirmed... but I gotta admit, if it is, this puzzle piece would fit rather snugly and neatly.

[Tami]

Trump Campaign: ‘Remind AOC and Democrats That This Is Our Country, Not Theirs’

Last Friday, Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that Republicans oppose electing presidents by a national popular vote because “they *know* they aren’t the majority” and “rely on establishing minority rule for power.”

Her Republican colleague Dan Crenshaw took exception to this tweet; not because the Texas congressman felt his party represented the preferences of a majority of Americans, but rather, because he felt it anti-American to advocate for majority rule.

“Abolishing the electoral college means that politicians will only campaign in (and listen to) urban areas,” Crenshaw replied. “That is not a representative democracy. We live in a republic, which means 51% of the population doesn’t get to boss around the other 49%.”

There are several problems with Crenshaw’s argument. For one thing, it is not true that, absent the Electoral College, politicians would only campaign in urban areas. To state the obvious, not all politicians are presidential candidates, and the Senate and House would still overrepresent rural areas, no matter how the president is elected. What’s more, if Crenshaw’s hypothesis were correct, then no gubernatorial candidate in Texas would ever campaign in rural areas; after all, Texas is an urban-heavy state that elects its governors by popular vote. And yet, statewide candidates in Texas campaign in rural areas. There is no reason to believe that presidential candidates would comport themselves any differently in nationwide, popular-vote elections.

But the biggest problem with Crenshaw’s rebuttal may be this: To the extent that his normative argument has any moral logic, it is that narrowly divided polities should be governed on the basis of consensus rather than majoritarian rule. Fifty-one percent of the population shouldn’t “get to boss around the other 49%” is a reasonable position. But “49 percent should get to boss around the other 51 percent” isn’t. And yet, that is the principle that has informed the Republican Party’s approach to governance throughout the Trump era. The president has not nominated centrist judges to the federal bench, or made any effort to accommodate the preferences of Democratic voters in his major health-care or tax legislation or approach to regulatory policy. And Dan Crenshaw has evinced no concern about this “anti-republican” domination of one half of the country by the other.

And on Tuesday, the Trump campaign proudly affirmed that this is, in fact, the fundamental principle behind its support for the Electoral College. In a fundraising letter, the president’s campaign informed its supporters that “Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dialed up the crazy to a whole new level recently when she called for abolishing the Electoral College” and that “The President is calling on you at this critical time to remind AOC and Democrats that this is our country, not theirs.”

[Gray Lensman]

There is but I don't think the uncertainty bodes well for Biden.

It's pretty much just a fact at this point that Biden's team doesn't want him exposed too much. He is gaffe prone and the more he is out there the more he looks lethargic and just says puzzling **** and doesn't seem on point. Likewise, the trends of the last few debates have been, Biden has a mediocre performance, he falls a bit, then he's out of the spotlight and the polls get back to normal a slow rate. There's a reason they don't want him campaigning all over the place and all over the media. It's not working out for him. His advantage is he came out with a lot of assumptions about electability and started with a lead. Now they want to lean on that lead and keep him out of the way of screwing it up.

Only now Warren and Sanders are starting to make pushes ahead, the backers are starting to warm more towards Warren, etc. Nearly every Democratic candidate is polling well against Trump so the whole "who is the more electable candidate" advantage is mattering less and less because there isn't the fear that Bernie and Warren being left will scare people off, or that Kamala is too new on the scene, or that Buttegieg is too small time, etc. The polls are showing that it's negligible who will have the advantage over Trump. So a lot of the presumptions giving him a great jumping off point, aren't holding.

If he ever finds himself definitively behind, I don't see him fighting his way back up. I feel like his campaign staff knows that too. They know the minute Biden has to go out there and really push the issue, he's going to be worse version of the same old Joe Biden that ran for President before and couldn't do it. Exposure so far for him just hasn't been kinda and it's been hurting him. Once they need him to start running out there, I think he's done. Also once that happens, the confidence a lot of donors had will be shaken.

Warren especially has been making a point to go to rural areas (normally Republican strongholds) and talk about what her plans mean for the audience in front of her. It seems small, but I think it will pay huge dividends in the end.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Alabama’s 5th District, Mo Brooks, the U.S. House Representative from Alabama’s 5th Congressional District. Brooks, a Tea Party Wave beneficiary, has already demonstrated that he doesn't understand how the debt ceiling works and channels the sort of bigotry worthy of the legacy of George Wallace, having stated he is willing to "do anything short of shooting" illegal immigrants to solve the problem, and characterizing Democratic policies as part of a "War on Whites". Brooks is currently one of the most xenophobic opponents of immigration, and on more than one occasion has stated his belief that immigration reform was a plot by Democrats to "dilute the voting power of Americans", and has called for the impeachment of President Obama for his executive orders on immigration. He also has claimed Democrats use "class warfare”, "racial division", and "sexual exploitation" to help them get votes, which is quite the shift in the actual paradigm in this country. On July 8th, 2015: Mo Brooks goes on Yellowhammer Radio, and stated his belief that illegal immigrants have murdered more Americans than the six to seven thousand Americans who have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq so far this century (Hint: That’s insane, and xenophobic, but that’s Mo Brooks for you). Brooks, in an interview not long after the worst mass shooting in U.S. History at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, weighed in by claiming that “the Muslim community, which, if it had its way, would kill every homosexual in the United States of America.” Because there’s no better way to respond to a tragedy by trying to stir up fears against foreigners, right?

With 385 days to go until the 2016 election, Mo Brooks already was talking about impeaching Hillary Clinton for having a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State. A month later, Rep. Brooks, during a Congressional hearing, suggested the United States should arm Ukraine in their conflict with Russia, in the hopes that it would lead the Russians out of Syria. There was agreement from both hawk and dove alike on Capitol Hill that this was a moronic suggestion, and it was nice to see both sides agree that Mo Brooks has terrible ideas.

Much like how in April of 2018, that Rep. Brooks was calling for the National Guard to not just be deployed to the U.S./Mexico border, but they be allowed to use “whatever force necessary” to hunt for border-crossers. Many of whom, of course, are women with children fleeing violence and seeking amnesty, but hey, let’s just give the Guardsmen the green light to gun them down, y’know?

After winning re-election in 2016 with 67% of the vote in a safe conservative district, Mo Brooks was trying to jump from the U.S. House, and supplant Sen. Luther Strange, the man appointed to replace Jeff Sessions by shamed (now former) Alabama Governor Robert Bentley. In July of 2017, Brooks promised that if elected to the U.S. Senate, he would use his position to filibuster by reading the King James Bible until Donald Trump’s proposed border wall (that experts note wouldn’t work) is funded, and then released an ad to promote his bid to get elected to the U.S. Senate that features audio of the attempted assassination of Congressman Steve Scalise (he was there at the time). Both parties criticized him for trying to exploit the shooting, because obviously. Well, against some of the most conservative lunatics Alabama had to offer, Mo Brooks failed to advance out of the GOP Primary, finishing third behind Luther Strange. Of course, Roy Moore finished first so… it’s hard to like anyone involved in that saga. That’s kind of like dodging a bullet to jump into the path of a different bullet.

Anyway, perhaps the biggest moment of utter stupidity from Mo Brooks of late came in May of 2018, when he tried a new strategy for denying climate change as a member of the House Science Committee. When faced with statistics about rising sea levels… you see, Brooks explained the sea levels were only rising because “rocks were falling into the ocean”. If that wasn’t insane enough, Brooks then went on to claim that the Antarctic ice sheet, which is melting rapidly, was somehow GROWING.

“What about the White Cliffs of Dover … and California, where you have the waves crashing against the shorelines, and time and time again you have the cliffs crashing into the sea? All of that displaces water which forces it to rise, does it not?

There are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic.”

[worstblogever]

Anyhow, Mo Brook’s voting record continues to qualify as something so conservative, it can make sane people ill:

• January 27th, 2019: Mo Brooks votes against HJR 30, which was meant to express disapproval of Donald Trump not acting against Russian Federation for attacking our democracy. You see, he’s fine with our nation being sublet to Vladimir Putin.
• January 23rd, 2019: Rep. Brooks voted against HR 648, because he was gleeully enjoying the longest government shutdown in history.
• February 28th, 2019: Mo Brooks votes against HR 1112, a bill which would have required universal background checks on all firearm purchases, and close the gun show loophole.
• March 7th, 2019: Brooks votes against HR 183, a resolution to condemn anti-Semitism as a hateful extension of intolerance.
• March 14th, 2019: Rep. Brooks votes against HJR 46, which sane members of Congress voted for to reject Donald Trump’s “national emergency” regarding the U.S. border and his attempts to reallocate funds for a border wall without Congressional approval.
• March 25th, 2019: Brooks takes to the floor of the House, where he decides it’s a great time to QUOTE HITLER. Yes, that’s right, he complained about investigations into President Trump by Robert Mueller, called Democrats “socialists”, and then compared the Mueller investigation to the “Big Lie” that Hitler talked about in Mein Kampf.
• April 4th, 2019: Mo Brooks is one of 158 Republicans who choose to vote against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• June 4th, 2019: Rep. Brooks votes against the Dreamers Act, because he’s too xenophobic and partisan to care about immigration reform.
• July 12th, 2019: Brooks is one of 12 Republicans who vote against the re-authorization of the Zadroga Act to provide healthcare to 9/11 First Responders.
• July 16th, 2019: Mo Brooks is one of 187 Republicans who vote against a resolution to condemn Donald Trump for his racist statements that four people of color in Congress should “go back where they came from”.

Mo Brooks was re-elected in 2018 with 61% of the vote. He seems unlikely to leave Congress until he drops dead, or decides to go try and get richer on K Street, at this point, because nobody seems willing to challenge him in a primary, and his district has far too much of a party lean for it to flip blue. He will be an embarrassing throwback to a darker time in American history that seems to be trying to make a comeback until he retires or passes away.

[jetengine]

Boris Johnson is a piece of ****.

Mps have just come back from Holiday, well now Boris wants parliament to be suspended for a few weeks to silence the opposition to a No deal brexit

What a fucking joke

[Michael Watkins]

Trump Campaign: ‘Remind AOC and Democrats That This Is Our Country, Not Theirs’

and they wonder why white supremacists groups claim him.

[Michael Watkins]

Trying to wait for it to be confirmed... but I gotta admit, if it is, this puzzle piece would fit rather snugly and neatly.

but why didn't Mueller find this connection? i know that he was focused on collusion. but it would seem relevant.

[worstblogever]

but why didn't Mueller find this connection? i know that he was focused on collusion. but it would seem relevant.

He may have. We only saw a redacted Mueller report, and even the first version of it we saw was butchered for release by William Barr before it hit.

If nothing else, it likely mentioned disclosures from Michael Cohen, and passed things along to the House investigators and SDNY state attorney to pursue them.

[Tami]

Donald Trump Has Worn Us All Out

Donald Trump’s presidency has baffled me, enraged me and above all saddened me, because I’m a stubborn believer in America’s promise, which he mocks and imperils.

But last week his presidency did something to me that it hadn’t done before. It absolutely flattened me.

I woke up Saturday, made my coffee, shuffled to my computer, started to glance at the news and suddenly had to stop. I couldn’t go on. Trump had yet again said something untrue, once more suggested something absurd, contradicted himself, deified himself, claimed martyrdom, blamed Barack Obama, made his billionth threat and hurled his trillionth insult.

That was all clear from the headlines, which were as much as I could take. He had commandeered too many of my thoughts, run roughshod over too many of my emotions, made me question too many articles of faith.

I was sapped — if not quite of the will to live, then of the will to tweet, to Google and to surf the cable channels, where his furious mien and curious mane are ubiquitous. What I was feeling was beyond Trump fatigue and bigger than Trump exhaustion. It was Trump enervation. Trump enfeeblement.

And within it I saw a ray of hope.

Until now it has been unclear to me precisely how Trump ends. His manifestly rotten character hasn’t alienated his supporters, who are all too ready with rationalizations and fluent in trade-offs. They’re also unbothered by many of his missteps, because he has sold those to a cynical electorate as media fables and rivals’ fabrications. He’s so enterprising and assiduous at pointing the finger elsewhere that many voters have lost their bearings. Defeat is victory. Oppressors are liberators. Corruption is caring. Mar-a-Loco is Shangri-La.

But Americans of all persuasions recognize melodrama when it keeps smacking them in the head, and he has manufactured a bruising degree of it. They’re not keen on Washington or politics, so they don’t care for the way in which fevered discussions of both have become so pervasive as to be ambient.

“Even Trump’s Supporters Are Getting Tired of His Daily Drama” was the headline on Jim Geraghty’s Monday column in National Review, which sometimes travels fantastically creative routes to reach the sunny side of Trump. Geraghty wrote that the publication’s editors “are exhausted with presidential tweets, from asking whether Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell or Chinese leader Chairman Xi is the bigger enemy, to ‘hereby ordering’ private companies to look for alternatives to operations in China.”

He linked to a lament by the conservative writer Rod Dreher, who, he noted, “is exhausted from the president behaving like ‘a clown who refuses to meet with the prime minister of Denmark because she won’t sell him Greenland.’”

Notice a theme? Apparently weariness with Trump’s wackiness does something virtually unheard-of in the United States circa 2019: It transcends partisanship.

[Tami]

Glasgow asylum seeker evictions prompt fears of humanitarian crisis

Evicted asylum seekers are sleeping rough on the streets of Glasgow, with campaigners pointing to a sudden acceleration in Serco’s controversial lock-change policy and warning that a long-anticipated humanitarian crisis is imminent.

The private housing provider, which will come to the end of its Home Office contract in Glasgow next month, is accused of breaking its commitment to a phased eviction of 300 refused asylum seekers. The situation had been threatened for a year, attracting widespread condemnation, and remains the subject of legal action.

On Wednesday, judges at the court of session in Edinburgh heard a fast-tracked appeal against the policy, brought by Govan Law Centre, which has so far secured more than 80 interim interdicts preventing individuals having their locks changed. There are fears that a win for Serco will also strike down these temporary legal protections.

Meanwhile, agencies working with asylum seekers in Glasgow said they were expecting an acceleration of evictions in the coming days, with an estimated 50 notices to quit expiring within the next 48 hours, and a further 48 interim interdict applications being heard this week in Glasgow sheriff court. Serco has stated that the promised weekly cap of 30 evictions remains in place.

Sabir Zazai, the chief executive of Scottish Refugee Council, said charities were anticipating mass evictions.

“That is clearly Serco and Home Office policy now,” he said. “While we recognise there are significant restrictions on what a local authority can do legally to help those with no recourse to public funds, in line with the Cosla [Convention of Scottish Local Authorities] national guidance and that of the Glasgow asylum taskforce [convened following last year’s eviction threats], these restrictions are not total and we call on the council to accelerate commitments to provide public premises for short-term, dignified accommodation in a time of genuine crisis.”

Zazai said evictees were surviving through a combination of rough sleeping, staying with friends and attempts to access the 22-bed, men-only Glasgow night shelter, which is the only dedicated accommodation for destitute asylum seekers in the city.

Zazai said: “The stark truth is there is nowhere safe, dignified and appropriate for lock-change victims to go, and Serco and the Home office know that. This needs to change and we need to accelerate our collective efforts now in the city.”

Zazai believes Serco has abandoned earlier commitments to a weekly cap of 30 evictions, as well as a 21-day notice period.

Serco’s managing director for immigration, Julia Rogers, confirmed that the company had reduced the minimum notice period to 14 days, but said this was still double the legally required amount of time.

[jetengine]

Glasgow asylum seeker evictions prompt fears of humanitarian crisis

Its funny because Scotland keeps claiming that when it leaves the UK it'll immediately join the EU....which will include accepting the free movement rights thus increasing immigration

[Tami]

Breaking: Georgia’s Isakson to resign from Senate at end of 2019

Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson said Wednesday he was stepping down from office at the end of 2019 as he struggles with Parkinson’s disease, setting up two elections for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2020.

Isakson, 74, has suffered several falls since announcing he has Parkinson’s, which limits his balance and mobility. He recently spent six days in an inpatient rehabilitation program after being hospitalized in Washington on July 16. And he said this week he had surgery to remove a growth on his kidney.