All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Brazile wrote that she was hurt that Clinton never called her, after losing in a historical upset to Trump.

Tells you all you need to know about her empathy skills and her ego.

Shouldn't it have been the other way around, Donna? The more I hear from Brazile, the more I despise that harridan.

[SquirrelMan]

Apparently, the guy who assaulted Rand Paul was his neighbor, and they have been having an "ongoing feud."

I can't see a pleasant guy like Randall not getting along with his neighbors, can you?

[mojotastic]

Apparently, the guy who assaulted Rand Paul was his neighbor, and they have been having an "ongoing feud."

I can't see a pleasant guy like Randall not getting along with his neighbors, can you?

Paul probably violated his NAP and stole one of his recreational nukes.

[SquirrelMan]

Paul probably violated his NAP and stole one of his recreational nukes.

[SquirrelMan]

Wow... check out Uma Thurman when she was asked about the sexual assault revelations in the news recently. Gave me goose bumps.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/926835766738567169

[Gray Lensman]

Well a big part of that is because Cory Booker knows that he's not really favored by the Progressive wing and when 2020 roles around and he takes his shot at the title, he's likely going to be dealing with a surge of resistance against him. Kristen Gillibrand has the same issues.

I think the compromise candidate would probably be Harris at this point of people the establishment likes and the progressives might stomach. Aside from that if I was in charge of the Democratic Party I put Elizabeth Warren against Trump. She's a better politician than nearly everyone in the party and would feast on Trump in debates. And the progressives love her and the establishment is used to her being a pillar within the party in a way Sanders wasn't. She's kind of the easy win in my books. On the otherside of the coin, maybe go Biden. He's an Obama guy and the progressives don't hate him.

I tend to get scared with any talk that involves Gillibrand/Booker/Sanders and even Harris too an extent because I can just see the resistance already on either side.

Gillibrand has one thing going for her - no one in the Senate has opposed Trump more often. Last I checked, she was the only person to vote against every single Trump appointee - something even progressive darlings like Sanders and Warren couldn't say.

[mojotastic]

Dont come to a politics thread without knowing the libertarian principles.

Next you are going to tell me you dont know about the sex slaves trade.

[Mister Mets]

The more I hear from Brazile, the more she disgusts me as she sold her party down the river to promote a book few will read beyond her family and friends and will quickly end up in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart.

My impression is that she thinks this an analysis of why Hillary lost will help the Democratic party.

Oh, look. Another story about the Clintons that unravels and is proven to be bull rapidly. I'm shocked. The Brazille quote 30 posted was all the proof anybody needed that the lady is delusional, self-serving, or worse.

Seriously, did she actually think the DNC chair had that kind of power? I mean, really? Wow. What a bunch of malarkey.

It's not that the DNC Chair has that kind of power, but if a DNC chair friendly with the Clintons were to make a public statement about how she is concerned about Hillary's health and considering replacing her, the ensuing pressure could force Clinton to step down.

Apparently, the guy who assaulted Rand Paul was his neighbor, and they have been having an "ongoing feud."

I can't see a pleasant guy like Randall not getting along with his neighbors, can you?

I'm kind of glad it was a neighbor, since that's preferable to it being someone who went after Rand Paul because he was an elected official.

Gillibrand has one thing going for her - no one in the Senate has opposed Trump more often. Last I checked, she was the only person to vote against every single Trump appointee - something even progressive darlings like Sanders and Warren couldn't say.

She hasn't voted against everyone, but she has voted against more nominees than anyone else.

For example, everyone voted for David Shulkin for VA Secretary (He was the token Democrat, and had been Obama's VA secretary; By all accounts, he is currently doing an excellent job.)

It's an open question about whether it's a good thing that she voted against some people who got more than 90 votes (IE- James Mattis, Elaine Chao.)

what gets me is that HRC wins the popular vote but is the only one left without a job

Sanders is still a Senator

and Orange Foolius is where he is

oh and people still want her "locked up"

It's the norm for someone who is out of office (or at the end of their term) when they run for President. See Al Gore and Mitt Romney.

Clinton's win in the popular vote does highlight how inept her campaign was, in the criteria that mattered.

[Mister Mets]

I would add that the term has expanded in the years since it's popular acceptance to include people act as such things outside of the internet as well. It's less common without the anonymity that the internet provides though.

This is true.

Some trolls are lovable, though. Like the Hawaiian kind that welcomed Trump there today:

I think they're probably not doing that all the time, which distinguishes them from online trolls, whose main interactions about politics are in bad faith.

They also tend to say things they know aren't true - such as claiming the US Civil War was not about slavery.

I think I covered the lying in the "bad faith" part. It's pretty much impossible to make a bad faith argument while only saying things you know to be true.

[daBronzeBomma]

Looking at 2020 ...

I think it will come down to the same three factors that it sideways does: 1) the economy, 2) voter turnout and 3) hope-peddling.

The economy always comes down to that two questions "Are you better or worse off now than you were four years ago?" And then "Will you be better or worse off in four years with this candidate?"

Voter turnout is crucial for any changeover. Whether or not voters legitimately turn out is the question, as there are many voter suppression tactics that are employed (including deliberate misinformation). And then there is gerry - mandering done by both sides when they are in control. Also, genuine disillusionment with the voting process may keep some voters away from the booths.

Hope-peddling is the easiest one to answer. It all comes down to charisma. And charisma often comes down to oration and how comfortable the candidate is with public speaking.

In 2016, Hillary had the economy on her side, but didn't have the other two down against Donald Trump.

Same deal as Al Gore in 2000 against George W. Bush.

The next presidential nominee for the Dems HAS to be a phenomenally charismatic orator who excites voters, something Bernie Sanders did and Hillary didn't.

Who is the most charismatic orator in the Democratic party right now?

[Tami]

U.S. Must Invade North Korea to Wipe out Kim Jong Un's Nuclear Weapons, Military Leaders Say

This is what would happen if we had a Military Dictatorship.

A ground invasion by the U.S. military is the only way to eliminate North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In late September, Rep. Ted Lieu and Rep. Ruben Gallego, both Democrats and veterans of the U.S. military, sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis highlighting their concerns about the prospect of war with North Korea. They requested a detailed report on the potential consequences of such a conflict.

"We’re just trying to get the administration to explain to the American people what a war in North Korea would look like," Lieu said. "People need to understand if there is military conflict in North Korea we would be going to war against a nuclear power."

Mattis issued his response via the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was sent to Lieu on October 27 and obtained by Newsweek. "The only way to 'locate and destroy -- with complete certainty -- all components of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs' is through a ground invasion," said the response, written by Rear Adm. Mike Dumont.

This is the first time the U.S. military has made this assertion, according to Lieu, who's concerned too many are under the false impression the U.S. could easily neutralize North Korea's nuclear arsenal via a military strike such as the one Trump ordered against the Assad regime in Syria back in April.

[SuperiorIronman]

They wont invade North Korea unless they damn well have to. You can't dismantle the nuclear option without a ground force and that will cause major political conflict with allies, not to mention the sort of precedent it sets up regarding this administration. Further "we could go to war but not do ________" will absolutely come up when it comes to the next election season meaning if people don't like how it's handled, then Trump and his administration have a half-life. Even further, the money the administration keeps asking for is harder and harder to come by as the companies that work for the federal government have less and less money to allocate. If you can't support a war effort then you have to fight it with what you have which causes conflict internally as you divide resources which is problematic considering how much time can damn well be spent in war.

He wont do it.

[Tami]

They wont invade North Korea unless they damn well have to. You can't dismantle the nuclear option without a ground force and that will cause major political conflict with allies, not to mention the sort of precedent it sets up regarding this administration. Further "we could go to war but not do ________" will absolutely come up when it comes to the next election season meaning if people don't like how it's handled, then Trump and his administration have a half-life. Even further, the money the administration keeps asking for is harder and harder to come by as the companies that work for the federal government have less and less money to allocate. If you can't support a war effort then you have to fight it with what you have which causes conflict internally as you divide resources which is problematic considering how much time can damn well be spent in war.

He wont do it.

This is Trump we're talking about. If he thinks it will make him look macho in the eyes of his True-Believers, he'll do it in a heartbeat as long as no one ties him up/stops him.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Looking at 2020 ...

I think it will come down to the same three factors that it sideways does: 1) the economy, 2) voter turnout and 3) hope-peddling.

The economy always comes down to that two questions "Are you better or worse off now than you were four years ago?" And then "Will you be better or worse off in four years with this candidate?"

Voter turnout is crucial for any changeover. Whether or not voters legitimately turn out is the question, as there are many voter suppression tactics that are employed (including deliberate misinformation). And then there is gerry - mandering done by both sides when they are in control. Also, genuine disillusionment with the voting process may keep some voters away from the booths.

Hope-peddling is the easiest one to answer. It all comes down to charisma. And charisma often comes down to oration and how comfortable the candidate is with public speaking.

In 2016, Hillary had the economy on her side, but didn't have the other two down against Donald Trump.

Same deal as Al Gore in 2000 against George W. Bush.

The next presidential nominee for the Dems HAS to be a phenomenally charismatic orator who excites voters, something Bernie Sanders did and Hillary didn't.

Who is the most charismatic orator in the Democratic party right now?

Warren probably.

[Tendrin]

Josh Marshall on Brazille:

There are also lines in the agreement about the campaign’s rights to review emails that went out about any primary candidate. That might create more control. But it’s not clear to me what that amounted to in practice. Those parts aren’t entirely clear to me.

The upshot is that this is significantly different from what Donna Brazile claimed in the book excerpt published in Politico. But it also includes levels of control pre-general election that would have have as a surprise to many. It’s a surprise to me. As I wrote in yesterday’s post, there’s nothing here that remotely qualifies as “rigging” the election. That is inflammatory talk and frankly a smear. Just why Brazile went that route I do not know and don’t care to speculate. But she did everyone involved a grave disservice by being willfully misleading, deeply self-serving and inflaming already existing divisions in the party that will be hard to repair as it is.
Indeed, the “rigging” language doesn’t even make sense if you have any real understanding of what the DNC actually does.*The primary schedules are set up way in advance of the actual campaign, long before anyone at the DNC had any idea Sanders would mount such a strong campaign. The DNC doesn’t administer the primaries; the states do. Basically the DNC couldn’t “rig” process even if it wanted to.

This agreement isn’t nothing. No candidate should have this kind of say during the primaries even if it’s about things for the general election. But it’s very different from what Brazile describes and it doesn’t remotely mean anything was “rigged”. That’s just a smear intended for political effect.

This was all about Brazille's career and her trying to win favor with the Bernie wing of the party which she I suspect she sees as ascendant and trying to keep her career from being over.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...le-of-nonsense