All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

The guy just started a run for a higher office.

While I kinda get where you are coming from on "Can They Sack Him?...", they can decide to make his time running as a Democrat about as miserable as they can.

As for "Right Thing To Do Morally?..."?

Trump was accused of the same sorts of things. I had no problem with folks calling for him to step down, and think that his party just made itself look worse than it already does by not calling for him to step down.

Back to the Dems...

If you are going to say "Grab 'Em By The..." is disqualifying, you are going to need a pretty good reason why being an accused rapist isn't. So far, I haven't heard anything like a pretty good reason from the party.

In Fairfax's case, two women have independently accused him of sexual assault, and people were aware of the allegations some time before it came out.

A Democratic Congressman was aware of the allegations while insisting that Northam resign.

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-co...ry?id=60898781

Well, another factor that unfortunately has to be considered is the possibility of political opponents manufacturing scandal to try to use your principles against you. Because -- and I am really kind of on an island by myself with the opinion -- I personally think that's what happened with Franken. I think the primary accuser in his case, the one from the stupidly staged picture, was transparently politically motivated, and that beyond her you had Franken trapped by the allegations against him being mostly things that could not be provable one way or another, could easily be interactions that could seem very different just from the perspective of two different individuals, but which he cannot strongly deny without looking like a creep. Ultimately all of it together ended up looking like a "where there's smoke, there's fire" kind of thing, but ultimately I think it's a case where Democrats shot themselves in the foot over principle. And even though Franken was replaced by another Democrat, it's not true to say it's all the same. He had been one of the most consistently progressive senators while he was in office. Nothing against his replacement, I just voted for her in this past election, but she definitely has not been as much of a standard bearer as Franken was ... and, to be clear here, if he is some kind of sexual predator, then of course he should be removed from power, even if that meant a Republican taking his place. My point is that I don't think he actually is a predator.

And the Fairfax thing is difficult, because the allegations against him did seem kind of suspiciously timed for a perfect political storm. I mean, at his point I suppose that I have no choice but to side with the people saying he should step down, and I definitely don't think he should run for governor. But, it is not as if you have the sheer avalanche of accusations against him, that you have against Trump. Sure, on some level, that should not matter -- one actual assault would be enough, and of course we are caught here in the general rule that you want to believe the accuser; it would definitely be a bad look, to suggest that either of them could be not telling the whole truth.

But, I also think there is a degree of practical concern to realistically consider -- do we really want to commit to the standard that any accusation must automatically be taken as true? Clearly that would not be an ideal stance to take, so the question becomes, where exactly do we draw the line? My instinct would be to suggest there cannot be a hard and fast rule, that seeking the capital-T Truth will inevitably mean we need to consider each case individually.

But, again just to be clear, I am going to say I think Fairfax needs to step back. If he is in fact innocent of the accusations made against him, that's an argument better made when he does not stand to gain political power from making it. It would be unfair, if he is innocent, for his political career to be over -- but, in short, there are much worse injustices in the world, than that.

Franken's initial accuser had photographic evidence of his inappropriate behavior.

She didn't make up anything, nor did she call for his resignation.

Replacing Franken might have hurt progressives, but from the party's position, that doesn't matter. Tina Smith was a Democrat in good standing, the former chief of staff of the Governor, and a Lieutenant Governor.

In Fairfax's case, there were at least two claims, both of which predated the blackface controversy that almost elevated him to the governorship.

One allegation of sexual assault during the 2004 DNC reached Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) on January 2018. In this case, a Democratic congressman is vouching for the accuser, Professor Vanessa Tyson.

Another accuser was a classmate of his, making claims that were specific enough that people who were with them at Duke University could note the contradictions.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/04/justi...eged-rape.html

You do have a good point that people have different individual standards here. I personally don't think we should assume that any given allegation is true. But when two women independently accuse him of wrongdoing, providing specific locations and times, and telling others what they've been through before there was a chance this guy would suddenly become Governor, that meets my standard barring some kind of evidence clearing him.

[Mister Mets]

No, I think enough Republicans were disgusted with him to stay home or not cast a vote in that election. That doesn't really make them heroes. Meanwhile, many black women worked very hard to get more minorities registered to vote in that election, yet you don't see them.

The black women who voted in Alabama deserve more than your gratitude

Doug Jones lost his reelection bid by twenty points, so I don't think the black women were enough to get him over the top. Presumably they went for him in November 2020 as well.

Doug Jones would not have had his two and a half years as Senator, if he didn't get any votes from people who typically vote for Republicans when Roy Moore was on the ballot.

[Kirby101]

Is this how you want people to respond to you if you get something wrong?

If I post something so ridiculous and without merit from such a nefarious source and say it shows something that is counter to reality. Yeah, I should get responses like this.

[Kirby101]

Doug Jones lost his reelection bid by twenty points, so I don't think the black women were enough to get him over the top. Presumably they went for him in November 2020 as well.

Doug Jones would not have had his two and a half years as Senator, if he didn't get any votes from people who typically vote for Republicans when Roy Moore was on the ballot.

It is hard to say anything about those two votes. Tupperville got as many votes alone as all those cast in 2017. Jones got 250,000 more than in 2017. So I would say a lot of people stayed home in 2017. Still a child molester lost by only 20,000 votes.

[Tami]

Aides’ Ties to Firms Present Biden With Early Ethics Test

WASHINGTON — One firm helps companies navigate global risks and the political and procedural ins and outs of Washington. The other is an investment fund with a particular interest in military contractors.

But the consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, and the investment fund, Pine Island Capital Partners, call themselves strategic partners and have featured an overlapping roster of politically connected officials — including some of the most prominent names on President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s team and others under consideration for high-ranking posts.

Now the Biden team’s links to these entities are presenting the incoming administration with its first test of transparency and ethics.

The two firms are examples of how former officials leverage their expertise, connections and access on behalf of corporations and other interests, without in some cases disclosing details about their work, including the names of the clients or what they are paid.

This is an issue, but I'd find it hard to believe that the Biden Transition Team hasn't already considered this before rolling out their picks for key positions.

Personally, I don't fault anyone for using their skills and abilities in the private sector after leaving a government position. You can't place these people in suspended animation in the hopes that one day another position in Government will open up.

The question is, can any of this be used against them by the Republicans?

[JackDaw]

[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/us/politics/biden-westexec.html"]

Personally, I don't fault anyone for using their skills and abilities in the private sector after leaving a government position. You can't place these people in suspended animation in the hopes that one day another position in Government will open up.

I don’t think anyone faults anyone for using “their skills and abilities”...the concern is whether some one moving very quickly from the public sector to private sector uses inside knowledge and/or politic contacts to gain an unfair competitive advantage for their new employer.

Sadly I take much less interest in politics than I used to...but certainly in days I did...the norm in UK was to wait for six months before moving from certain public sector jobs to “related” private sector jobs. (E.g. You couldn’t move from a key job in Ministry of Defence immediately to job in a firm seeking military contracts.)

[Farealmer]

So a few days ago, you sourced the Epoch Times.

Today your source is "The Mark Levin Show" and Robert Barnes, who was, I s*** you now, Alex Jones' lawyer.

Can't say I'm taking your case any more seriously.

Seriously, you asked not to be mocked, then you post this after the Epoch Times foolishness. What media are you following to come up with this stuff and then feel it worth posting here?
Whosoever Twitter you are following, I would take a good hard look. It's a little embarrassing that you think that post has any connection to reality.
And yes, it is over.

I will not underestimate anything. Until after the electors have cast their votes I will not take a single state nor a single vote for granted. If that makes me a look like the fool to you two then so be it. But I'd rather be a person mocked for caution then to be careless. Too much is at stake for me.

[Farealmer]

Some additional reading on this subject

Thanks you Tami. There is still some worrying stuff in there but I am trying to be optimistic.

[4saken1]

Katie Hill had a relationship with a 22 year old campaign staffer, and there were leaked photos.

She was probably not going to win reelection in a swing district.

Wasn't your original argument that Democrats only step down in 'safe' districts because there is nothing to lose, though? She had over a year left in office. She could have stayed for the duration of her term!

[Mister Mets]

New York City schools went digital-only a week ago, after the city's COVID positivity rate hit a particular threshold.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...zlq-story.html

De Blasio announced that move last week after the city’s COVID positivity rate hit 3.0%, the threshold the city uses to trigger a schools shutdown.

Since then, the mayor has been questioned several times about his lack of a plan, but until Wednesday he had not clearly articulated any desire for a do-over.

“Honestly, I have to hold myself responsible. The better situation would have been clearly to have that plan all worked through in advance,” de Blasio said at his morning press briefing Wednesday. “We didn’t have a Plan B, and we should have had a Plan B, but I also understand why we didn’t.”

As the city approached the 3% threshold in the run-up to last week’s closure order, it spent “tons” of energy on averting closures and answering questions about the in-person and remote learning models in place for public school kids, Hizzoner continued.

“We had a moving target. We were trying to see if there were measures we could take to avoid ever going past the 3 percent,’ he said. “That’s really where our energy was going.”

Councilman Mark Treyger, the head of the body’s Education Committee, countered that he offered de Blasio’s team a re-opening plan in July, but was ignored.

“He chose not to have an alternate plan,” Treyger said. “They knew. I don’t think this is the best New York City can do. It’s not the best he can do.”

The likelihood of a second wave around November had been known for some months.

[The no face guy]

I will not underestimate anything. Until after the electors have cast their votes I will not take a single state nor a single vote for granted. If that makes me a look like the fool to you two then so be it. But I'd rather be a person mocked for caution then to be careless. Too much is at stake for me.

Again it is the sources that you are presenting that is the problem. Your source, (Alex Jones lawyer, good grief) did provide a link to a primary source legal document, which is good.

The secondary sources you cited, Alex Jones laywer & Mark Levin are not credible secondary sources, because they have been known to tamper with the truth for political reasons.

If you had simply posted this instead, no one would be able to call you out, so again check your sources.

https://abc13.com/pennsylvania-elect...-2020/8254952/

[PwrdOn]

I don’t think anyone faults anyone for using “their skills and abilities”...the concern is whether some one moving very quickly from the public sector to private sector uses inside knowledge and/or politic contacts to gain an unfair competitive advantage for their new employer.

Sadly I take much less interest in politics than I used to...but certainly in days I did...the norm in UK was to wait for six months before moving from certain public sector jobs to “related” private sector jobs. (E.g. You couldn’t move from a key job in Ministry of Defence immediately to job in a firm seeking military contracts.)

The idea of a corrupt and dysfunctional government is kind of self-perpetuating, because as long as people have this impression of all politicians and bureaucrats being these unprincipled scumbags, talented people will avoid taking these jobs and go for better opportunities elsewhere, which leaves them to be filled either by people who are either completely unqualified to do anything else, or completely devoid of morals and use every dirty trick in the book to amass power and influence, or both.

[Mister Mets]

Wasn't your original argument that Democrats only step down in 'safe' districts because there is nothing to lose, though? She had over a year left in office. She could have stayed for the duration of her term!

My argument was that Democrats step down until there's a political cost for their party.

I'm not sure this counts, given that Hill put them in a situation where there were going to be political costs no matter what.

A special election isn't quite the equivalent of a situation where the other party is guaranteed to take over, but it is a possibility. Granted, the other party is more likely to win, when a special election occurs due to some kind of scandal.

There are political calculations that would affect the decisions. Democrats could figure that 1 of 435 congressional seats isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, and they thought 2020 would be an even better election than 2018, so that it would be better for the prospects of holding the seat if Katie Hill were not the incumbent.

The Republican won the special election, and assumed office in May, so the party lost a seat for eight months.

He's leading by about 400 votes from the latest election, which does suggest Democrats came really close to taking back the seat. I'm not sure it would have been better for them if a congressperson who had an affair with a younger subordinate were the incumbent, even if she wouldn't run for a second term.

[Malvolio]

The idea of a corrupt and dysfunctional government is kind of self-perpetuating, because as long as people have this impression of all politicians and bureaucrats being these unprincipled scumbags, talented people will avoid taking these jobs and go for better opportunities elsewhere, which leaves them to be filled either by people who are either completely unqualified to do anything else, or completely devoid of morals and use every dirty trick in the book to amass power and influence, or both.

This is a good point. Ever since Watergate, it's become more and more of a thing for regular non-political people to think of all politicians as crooked. So why would a good moral person want to run for office? Either you get branded as crooked even when you aren't, or merely being around all those crooked politicians corrupts you into being crooked too, in spite of your own good morals.

[Tami]

Meanwhile

Trump moves to strip job protections from White House budget analysts as he races to transform civil service

The outgoing Trump administration is racing to enact the biggest change to the federal civil service in generations, reclassifying career employees at key agencies to strip their job protections and leave them open to being fired before Joe Biden takes office.

The move to pull off an executive order the president issued less than two weeks before Election Day — affecting tens of thousands of people in policy roles — is accelerating at the agency closest to the White House, the Office of Management and Budget.

The budget office sent a list this week of roles identified by its politically appointed leaders to the federal personnel agency for final sign-off. The list comprises 88 percent of its workforce — 425 analysts and other experts who would shift into a new job classification called Schedule F.

The employees would then be vulnerable to dismissal before Trump leaves office if they are considered poor performers or have resisted executing the president’s priorities, effectively turning them into political appointees that come and go with each administration.

The Office of Personnel Management is also rushing to shuffle many of its own roughly 3,500 employees into the new category, a senior administration official said. Other agencies are pulling together lists of policy roles, too — but the budget and personnel offices volunteered to be test cases for the controversial policy, this official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

By fast-tracking a process that gave agencies until Jan. 19 to identify affected jobs, the administration appears to be signaling its intent to leave as big an imprint as possible on a workforce it has long mistrusted. Democrats on Capitol Hill are trying to block the effort.