All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Billy Batson]

So did Bernie.

He did that a few hours ago.

[Tazirai]

He did that a few hours ago.

Exactly, not the day of or after. While Pete gets a poll bump and fund raising bump, and still gets a 3 day media victory lap.

But yeah, Sanders is equivalent... The bias lol.
But if we're skeptical, we're conspiracy theorists, even when you can literally point to it.

[Theleviathan]

Boot edge edge literally got a 3-day 9 point poll bump... boot edge edge didn't lose a thing.

PETE BUTTIGIEG GAINING QUICKLY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AS BERNIE SANDERS STALLS: POLL

The Democratic party and the media has done more to harm elections in the last year, than the "RUSSIANS" did.
Because we are losing faith in our institutions in this country.

IF Boot edge edge had legitimately won the caucus, and the media did not point out the maleficence of the Iowan DP, then YES, Pete would have been a loser.
But there's so much inside baseball **** that happened, you lower turnout.

Then you blame the voters for questioning the process.
Because in REAL TIME, the party fucked up, then tried to call people conspiracy theorists.

The bungling is insane.

This is total fantasy.

[shooshoomanjoe]

He did that a few hours ago.

So what? He's still claiming victory before the final tally is done.

[Superbat]

So what? He's still claiming victory before the final tally is done.

Pete said he won with 0% of the vote reported.

Berine said he won after 97% of the vote reported, NYT predicting him winning and reports showing he has the popular vote in the first and final tallies.

[Theleviathan]

Given the margin of difference there is pretty much only one conclusion: Bernie and Buttigieg won Iowa. Biden lost badly.

I don't know how you interpret the facts in any other rational way.

[aja_christopher]

So now if Trump commits a crime, the FBI has to go through Barr to investigate it.

-------
"Barr directs FBI to get his approval before investigating 2020 presidential candidates: report"

"Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday reportedly released a new set of restrictions covering FBI investigations of political candidates.

The memo, obtained by The New York Times, stated that the Department of Justice has the responsibility to make sure that elections are “free from improper activity or influences." Barr's orders come after Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz found that the FBI's investigation into President Trump's former campaign aide, Carter Paige, was ridden with errors and falsified info.

Under the new guidelines, the FBI must get Barr’s approval before investigating any 2020 presidential candidates or their senior staff, the Times reports.

Agents must first talk with relevant officials and the Justice Department before opening any probe into “illegal contributions, donations or expenditures by foreign nationals to a presidential or congressional campaign.”

According to the newspaper, Barr is the first attorney general to impose such guidelines, though past attorneys general have advised the FBI to use the utmost sensitivity when it comes to political investigations.

Barr has sparked widespread criticism over how he has handled politically charged cases in the past, such as the delivery of the Mueller report to Congress.

Barr has also overseen the federal prosecution of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, business associates of Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, on campaign finance charges. Parnas was central to the now-ended impeachment proceedings, as he repeatedly claimed that he had damning evidence concerning Giuliani and Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Prosecutors in New York are also investigating whether Giuliani broke foreign influence laws while he was in Ukraine on the behalf of the president.

The new Justice Department guidelines will reportedly stay in effect for the 2020 elections and then will be reviewed to see it they should remain in place."

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...stigating-2020

[Robotman]

Given the margin of difference there is pretty much only one conclusion: Bernie and Buttigieg won Iowa. Biden lost badly.

I don't know how you interpret the facts in any other rational way.

Agreed. With the way Iowa handles their primary it’s possible to have more than one “winner.” Buttigieg is getting more of the press because Bernie and Biden were the supposed front runners. Bernie was expected to be near the top. It’s not huge news if a front runner comes out on top. For people who are closely following the race it’s not a shock that Mayor Pete did so well, but for casual observers it’s interesting national news. Either way I see Iowa as a win for both Bernie and Buttigieg and a big loss for Biden.

[Gray Lensman]

Agreed. With the way Iowa handles their primary it’s possible to have more than one “winner.” Buttigieg is getting more of the press because Bernie and Biden were the supposed front runners. Bernie was expected to be near the top. It’s not huge news if a front runner comes out on top. For people who are closely following the race it’s not a shock that Mayor Pete did so well, but for casual observers it’s interesting national news. Either way I see Iowa as a win for both Bernie and Buttigieg and a big loss for Biden.

I read an interesting piece from Slate earlier today. They suggest that the biggest winner from Mayor Pete's run is Bernie. Pete is unlikely to win the overall nomination, but he is taking support both from Biden and Warren, while taking almost nothing from Bernie.

Basically, if you see this primarily as a two person race between Biden and Sanders, then Pete is basically playing the role of Nader/Perot. Things could change, but that's how they see it currently.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Boot edge edge literally got a 3-day 9 point poll bump... boot edge edge didn't lose a thing.

PETE BUTTIGIEG GAINING QUICKLY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AS BERNIE SANDERS STALLS: POLL

The Democratic party and the media has done more to harm elections in the last year, than the "RUSSIANS" did.
Because we are losing faith in our institutions in this country.

IF Boot edge edge had legitimately won the caucus, and the media did not point out the maleficence of the Iowan DP, then YES, Pete would have been a loser.
But there's so much inside baseball **** that happened, you lower turnout.

Then you blame the voters for questioning the process.
Because in REAL TIME, the party fucked up, then tried to call people conspiracy theorists.

The bungling is insane.

This post is filled with ignorance. Russia's impact was vastly more complex and on a larger scale than some incompetence with the Iowa Democratic party. Stop trying to justify going after the Democratic party when you sense weakness. A section of the party did **** up, and there were definitely people who went all in on conspiracy theories when they thought Bernie Sanders wasn't going to win.

Bernie Sanders is doing very well, you should be happy. Caucuses are his strength in campaigning, the real test is primary states and the South.

[4saken1]

I read an interesting piece from Slate earlier today. They suggest that the biggest winner from Mayor Pete's run is Bernie. Pete is unlikely to win the overall nomination, but he is taking support both from Biden and Warren, while taking almost nothing from Bernie.

Basically, if you see this primarily as a two person race between Biden and Sanders, then Pete is basically playing the role of Nader/Perot. Things could change, but that's how they see it currently.

That sounds about right. I think this competition will be less about who runs the best race and more about who drops out, how soon they do so, and who benefits from it.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I read an interesting piece from Slate earlier today. They suggest that the biggest winner from Mayor Pete's run is Bernie. Pete is unlikely to win the overall nomination, but he is taking support both from Biden and Warren, while taking almost nothing from Bernie.

Basically, if you see this primarily as a two person race between Biden and Sanders, then Pete is basically playing the role of Nader/Perot. Things could change, but that's how they see it currently.

This is actually a fair point I thought about. Biden's poor performance is giving people second thoughts and all the donors that were flirting with the idea of an altenrative are probably going to give Pete some backing. A Biden vs Buttigieg war benefits Bernie Sanders right now

[Mister Mets]

America was ready for a woman president four years ago as it is now, but the U.S. electoral college was not ready for a woman president. Some of the swing states didn't want a female president.

If there is a woman I would like to vote for as president of the United States this year, I'd prefer to vote for Tulsi to be president of the United States. Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu Samoan-American, but she is also less politically correct and more moderate than most of her presidential primary rivals. I like some of her positions on universal health care and environment.

Was it that the swing states weren't ready, or that they just didn't like Hillary?

Iowa was perfectly happy voting for Joni Ernst.

Arizona would later have a race between two female members of Congress for the Senate seat.

Consider this. New York, a very blue state, has never had a female governor. The closest we came was when Betsy McCoy Ross, a Republican (!) was Lieutenant Governor. And New York City, a very, very blue city has never had a female mayor. We've had a few female candidates for mayor, but none of them have ever won. So even in one of the bluest cities in one of the bluest states, the misogyny is still strong.

This might not be about misogyny as much as limited opportunities for change.

New York State has had a grand total of 8 Governors since Nelson Rockefeller's election in 1958. Four of them got reelected at least twice.

New York City has had five mayors since 1978. There are people old enough to vote who have only ever lived under two of them.

I'm an American that has lived in Japan for nearly a decade, Lived in England, Germany, Italy, and been to France multiple times. They ALL have had Female PM's, Mayors, heads of state, etc.
There is something DEEP in the substance of America where women are seen as this I love Lucy caricature of "Your lane is making babies and staying in the kitchen."

If you were to tell the average Americn male that women have fought in EVERY SINGLE WAR ever. Their heads explode. The Khamere Rouge King, his personal bodyguard were the best warriors he had, all women.
There's this deep Christian orthodoxy, that is nowhere in the Bible, that says Women must be protected and their purpose is to produce, that's it.

There are going to be multiple factors that might explain the discrepancy.

Prime ministers don't have to win primaries among ordinary voters, so it is a different process (and Nancy Pelosi has been the head of a legislative body twice.)

Part of it is luck. We're not looking at the sample set of all nations, just the ones that had female leaders. France hasn't had a female President. Italy hasn't has a female President or Prime Minister. China hasn't had a female PRC Chairman.

Another factor is that there are limited opportunities to get new Presidents. Since 1993, we've only had four Presidents. At the beginning of that time, there were only two six in the US Senate. Right now, it's 26, but if we assume that just over a quarter is the natural odds a statewide office will be held by a woman, it may take a while.

Pete said he won with 0% of the vote reported.

Berine said he won after 97% of the vote reported, NYT predicting him winning and reports showing he has the popular vote in the first and final tallies.

But there are multiple metrics, partly at the insistence of the Bernie campaign.

Besides Buttigieg's campaign was doomed if he didn't get a massive post-Iowa boost. If it turned out he was a clear second place by every metric, the bump disappears.

[Celgress]

Not really. The point was to follow the dictates fo the Constitution, do what was right, and make it fulluy public and transpaent what Trump did, as well as placing the Republicans in a sitruation where they had to choose between Trump and the rule of law.

Best to have it all out there then to not have it out there, in which case the Dems would be as guilty of a coverup as the Repubs are.

As Burr Redding of the classic HBO TV show Oz once said: "motives are less important than outcome".

WARNING GUN VIOLENCE IN FLASHBACK



The Congressional Dems should have censured Trump instead, using at least one of the articles so he could not be acquitted which we all knew was going to happen. They played a fool's game, a loser's game.

[aja_christopher]

The Congressional Dems should have censured Trump instead, using at least one of the articles so he could not be acquitted which we all knew was going to happen. They played a fool's game, a loser's game.

The Democrats did the right thing -- one can always second guess how it should have been done, but the result was always going to be acquittal under McConnell. What this situation has done is reveal how easily a president can abuse the powers of the executive branch, especially when in tandem with another branch of government.

Realistically speaking, we shouldn't even be in a situation where a president can claim privilege and immunity from almost any investigation or for almost any crime but that's what we are dealing with in Trump, Barr, and -- based on approval rating -- the rest of the Republican party.



The question is whether American voters will do the right thing with the information we've been given.

In that respect, it remains to be seen whether it's a loser's game, since the impetus is on the American public to accept or reject this kind of leadership.