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

[Malvolio]

Frustrated Trump met with Pence before holiday break

So did Al Gore preside over the vote certification in 2001, when he had just lost (officially, anyway) to George W. Bush?

[Tami]

So did Al Gore preside over the vote certification in 2001, when he had just lost (officially, anyway) to George W. Bush?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Frustrated Trump met with Pence before holiday break

For all his miserable life, Trump was used to getting his way, now that he’s been rebuffed, even dismissed in every way imaginable, he’s lashing out like the spoiled child he’s always been.

Michael Steele was just on The Beat with Ari Melber, joking with Ari and Larry Willmore when he dropped this zinger:

"The only way Trump gets to 270 is if he loses 50 pounds."

Ouch.

Two words: SICK. BURN.

[AnakinFlair]

I repeat: Trump has never experienced a circumstance in which his lackeys see his power over them expiring, and thus never faced a moment where his wants aren't the most important thing in the room. He's flailing, with no idea what to do, other than pardon anybody that a) may prove useful later, or b) might have something damaging to tell an attorney general.

Do you think he's aware of the fact that, by those people accepting those pardons, they can be questioned under oath about the crimes they committed?

[Malvolio]

Imagine losing to someone the way Gore lost to Bush and then have to preside over the official recognition of your loss. That had to be humiliating.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I may be dumb here. But if the Dems control the house how can the Republicans block it. They dont have the numbers to vote it down. Couldnt the Dems pass it with out their votes?

The GOP control the senate, bills need both parts of congress to pass.

[Tami]

Imagine losing to someone the way Gore lost to Bush and then have to preside over the official recognition of your loss. That had to be humiliating.

I think it's a good sign of character that Al Gore did this without any drama or sign of unwillingness to perform this final role of his Vice-Presidency.

[Kirby101]

Imagine losing to someone the way Gore lost to Bush and then have to preside over the official recognition of your loss. That had to be humiliating.

Or shows what a man who has integrity and a belief in his Country is.

[DrNewGod]

Do you think he's aware of the fact that, by those people accepting those pardons, they can be questioned under oath about the crimes they committed?

If he was told, he dismissed it. He lives in his own world. I suspect he believes that he beat "the suckers."

[Mister Mets]

I'm all for believing the woman, but the fact that this is an ex-wife and the story aired on Tucker F'ing Carlson makes me believe this is BS.

It seems irrelevant that the story aired on Tucker Carlson.

He did not make up the footage.

He is pointing out a story about a politician on the other side that makes the politician look bad. That happens. Bad stuff has come out about Republican candidates for office during the election, and progressive columnists are ready to talk about that two weeks before an election.

Honestly, with all due respect to the ex-wife, given that the very second line in this story is that medical examination found no injury, I think reporting on the story at all is just irresponsible rumor-mongering.

I mean, your posting it suggests you think it's somehow newsworthy? Why is it?

It's a serious allegation about a contender in a close and important election. It has not been discussed on this board.

It does not reflect well on the Democratic candidate. The best case scenario is that he had the poor judgment to marry someone who is deeply troubled (IE- willing to lie about him to police.) It is worth noting that she worked on the executive team of Mayor Bottoms of Atlanta, so that would reflect poorly on a rising star in Democratic politics.

I don't think it was a smart idea for him to start driving when she was standing near the car, which is his own version of events.

I have always been interested in how to handle ambiguity, where we'll probably never have all the facts, and how we would expect voters who are wavering between Warnock and Loeffler to weigh this information.

You are talking to someone who thought a State level Democrat wearing a t-shirt was proved the Democratic Party wanted completely open boarders.
So why not have Tucker Carlson as a source for News.

Obviously Loeffer's financial shenanigans don't bother Mets in the least.

I do not believe there is any post in which I said a statewide officeholder wearing a T-shirt indicates the Democratic party universally wanted completely open borders.

It is troubling to suggest that mentioning bad things about one candidate is a proxy for the entire political race.

That said, it does appear the investigation into Loeffler was dropped along the same time as the investigation into Feinstein and others (although Burr's trades seemed more suspect.) Her explanation seemed to be corroborated. She was a wealthy woman who left decisions to financial advisors.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nsider-trading

The Senate ethics panel also dropped the probe into Loeffler.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...077_story.html

[WestPhillyPunisher]

If he was told, he dismissed it. He lives in his own world. I suspect he believes that he beat "the suckers."

That’s my guess as well. I can’t imagine what other flat out villains Trump will pardon next.

[Kirby101]

Loeffler, clean as a whistle

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...-the-pandemic/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kelly-...0-billion-deal

https://www.salon.com/2020/11/28/kel...-long-pattern/

And then there is her property taxes

https://www.***************.com/loef...ax-cut-2020-12

[Adam Allen]

It seems irrelevant that the story aired on Tucker Carlson.

He did not make up the footage.

He is pointing out a story about a politician on the other side that makes the politician look bad. That happens. Bad stuff has come out about Republican candidates for office during the election, and progressive columnists are ready to talk about that two weeks before an election.

It's a serious allegation about a contender in a close and important election. It has not been discussed on this board.

It does not reflect well on the Democratic candidate. The best case scenario is that he had the poor judgment to marry someone who is deeply troubled (IE- willing to lie about him to police.) It is worth noting that she worked on the executive team of Mayor Bottoms of Atlanta, so that would reflect poorly on a rising star in Democratic politics.

I don't think it was a smart idea for him to start driving when she was standing near the car, which is his own version of events.

I have always been interested in how to handle ambiguity, where we'll probably never have all the facts, and how we would expect voters who are wavering between Warnock and Loeffler to weigh this information.

I do not believe there is any post in which I said a statewide officeholder wearing a T-shirt indicates the Democratic party universally wanted completely open borders.

It is troubling to suggest that mentioning bad things about one candidate is a proxy for the entire political race.

That said, it does appear the investigation into Loeffler was dropped along the same time as the investigation into Feinstein and others (although Burr's trades seemed more suspect.) Her explanation seemed to be corroborated. She was a wealthy woman who left decisions to financial advisors.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nsider-trading

The Senate ethics panel also dropped the probe into Loeffler.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...077_story.html

It is not irrelevant that it aired on Tucker Carlson, because the story only makes the candidate look bad because he is reporting the story as if it makes the candidate look bad.

It is not a serious allegation. If her foot had been crushed by a car, it would at least be an allegation.

If there had been any injury. If he had been charged with anything. Then there would be at least a story. As is, this is just sensationalization.

"The best case is that he had the poor judgment to marry someone who is deeply troubled..."

Is she out in the media making this case currently? Because my quick searching here seems to suggest this bodycam footage from March was dredged up and put in the media as if it's a statement she is making to the press, which would be a different matter. That, again, might make it a "serious allegation".

If the story is based entirely on this bodycam footage, I'd again call it irresponsible to spread the story as if it's a statement she meant to make to the voters, and especially for the news sources involved, I'd even consider it unethical ... that is, if you don't have current statements from this woman backing up that she is accusing him of violence or abuse or that people should not vote for him, but instead you have bodycam footage of something she said during an emotionally charged moment, that was in fact a personal and family matter, not a statement she made to the press.

It does not show that he has poor judgment, because he got divorced. It does not show that she is "deeply troubled" if she had a deeply, deeply negative view of him, during the divorce process.

I mean, I have not gotten divorced, but I have seen multiple family members through marriages falling apart, and it can be brutal. I don't know what happened with the car and her foot, I imagine she must have felt like her foot was rolled over, but I also think that if a car rolls over any substantial amount of your foot, you should have some broken bones. I could be wrong about that, I don't know ... but I guess, I also think an accident that leaves no injuries is different from a marriage that includes domestic abuse, which is what this news story is suggesting, and I think you are aware of that.

In answer to the question of the ambiguity, I suppose I don't think there likely are many voters who are wavering between the two. I suppose if someone were wavering at this point, then such a person could probably be influenced by the insinuation of a story like this, which again is why I would consider the story irresponsible to unethical. Because it would seek to influence someone with very poorly researched political opinions.

In any event, I really feel it's more likely a matter of whether a given voter will feel motivated to go out to support one of the other of the candidates. In other words, this story getting out there might discourage some half-hearted Democrats from voting. Which I guess is still a win for the right wing. But, I have never really much believed in the mythological swing voters. At least, not in big enough numbers to really decide matters.

You know, look how the presidential election played out ... I don't think it was really decided by the number people who voted Republican in the last election, who switched to Democrat, this time around. But rather, how many dyed in the wool Dem and Rep voters decided to support the candidate running for "their side".

[Gray Lensman]

Isn't Tucker Carlson the guy who got a defamation suit thrown out based on the argument that he tells so many lies that things he says can't technically be defamation? That makes his show being the venue for revealing anything to the public both relevant and dubious.

[worstblogever]

Isn't Tucker Carlson the guy who got a defamation suit thrown out based on the argument that he tells so many lies that things he says can't technically be defamation? That makes his show being the venue for revealing anything to the public both relevant and dubious.

Yes. And we should disregard any and all things he reports out of hand. And those who cite him as a source, at that.