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

[aja_christopher]

On the Russia thing, I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm relaying the facts, as I understand it. If there's a portion of my earlier statement you disagree with, what is it?

Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.

I disagree -- you are trying to tell me what to think when you say "we'll have to go on what we have now"... and then go on to exclude the recent revelation Russia may have funneled funds into the Republican party via the NRA.

Rational people are still waiting to hear from witnesses in the Manafort case as well -- especially given his close ties to Russia (and Pence).

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ripaska-680630

No, "we don't have to go on what we have now" -- as I've said at least four times already: we can wait for all the evidence to be presented in the upcoming hearings on Russian interference and then make a decision based on ALL of the evidence available.

Well, I can at least -- you do what you want.

With regards to disagreements in general -- you actively support a party that routinely engages in voter suppression against people who share the same skin color as me.

What else needs to be said?

[PaulBullion]

Re "flaws": I don't think anyone in 2016 voted on the matter of perceived flaws, but in terms of self-interest, individual or group.

Two words:
voter turnout.

Anecdotal evidence: My own (idiot) brother said a few days before the election that he didn't know if he could bring himself to vote for Hillary now that he heard that she had used the Clinton foundation to enrich herself. That was false news, of course, but it did depress voter turnout if my (idiot) brother is anything to go by.

[heretic]

Any piece of baggage less would just have meant more space for another pizzagate, Seth Rich assassination, tearing babies from the womb, stealing from her own foundation, etc etc. It would not have mattered. They were never gonna let her win.

And on the "baggage to successes" ratio, Sanders would have looked worse.

Let us be frank here, if 'The Republicans Do Not Say Bad Things About Them' is the main criteria for Democratic candidates... how many would there be?

[PaulBullion]

He's running. And I bet Hillary and Bernie are running too. Can the Democrats not find anyone who is under, say, 72?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/were-midst...opstories.html

Eric Holder is a spry 67 and you completely ignored the news about him "positioning himself."

[heretic]

Traitor McBonespurs questioning other people's patriotism only a few days after bowing down to Putin...

-----
[I]"NFL Anthem Protests: President Trump Wants Players “Out For Season/No Pay”

https://deadline.com/2018/07/nfl-ant...ay-1202430760/

One would almost think the man is far more concerned with the symbolism of Patriotism than the substance of what they are (politely) protesting.

[aja_christopher]

Detailed, but informative.

-----
"Russians and the American right started plotting in 1995. We have the notes from the first meeting."

"In a congressional hearing last fall, Glenn Simpson, the man whose research helped lead to the now-infamous dossier on Russia and President Donald Trump, let slip a bombshell revelation about Russian infiltration in the United States.

“I would say broadly speaking, it appears that the Russian operation was designed to infiltrate conservative organizations,” Simpson said. “They targeted various conservative organizations, religious and otherwise, and they seem to have made a very concerted effort to get in with the [National Rifle Association].”

While Simpson’s comments drove ongoing investigations into relations between the National Rife Association (NRA) and now-sanctioned Russian officials, another aspect of the Russian strategy has received far less attention: Which conservative religious organizations were targeted by Russian operatives? And who within those organizations proved susceptible to Russian infiltration — or even helped further the Kremlin’s aims?

A series of interviews and never-before-seen documents, including testimonials and diaries obtained by ThinkProgress, sheds new light on how the relationship between the Religious Right and Russia first began, and how it led to several collaborative efforts in the years to come.

In examining both the individuals and organizations involved, it’s evident that as the 2016 presidential election was heating up, those same Religious Right figures — some affiliated with groups that were reportedly funded by sanctioned Russian officials — went out of their way to defend the Russian regime. Now, with Trump in the White House, relations between Russia and American social conservatives have waned, but they’ve hardly disappeared...."

https://thinkprogress.org/history-of...-a6bdd326841d/

The rehiring was pretty much inevitable, but I do agree that it'd be great if the guy were to get better work.

It was only "inevitable" because people spoke up, Mets -- otherwise, despite ten years of loyal service with no raise, that guy would be sitting at home right now fighting for unemployment and health care benefits that Republicans have already essentially decimated as best they could.

Racism and injustice don't go away of their own accord -- people have to speak out and ensure that they have no place in our society.

[Mister Mets]

It was only "inevitable" because people spoke up, Mets -- otherwise, despite ten years of loyal service with no raise, that guy would be sitting at home right now fighting for unemployment and health care benefits that Republicans have already essentially decimated as best they could.

Racism and injustice don't go away of their own accord -- people have to speak out and ensure that they have no place in our society.

It was inevitable when it got to be a social media story.

I'm not suggesting this means racism and injustice will go away, but I wonder what the larger legal questions are. Should there be any laws to ensure that he couldn't have been fired? Or is it good enough to have a system where a company doesn't want the bad press that comes with firing him?

I disagree -- you are trying to tell me what to think when you say "we'll have to go on what we have now"... and then go on to exclude the recent revelation Russia may have funneled funds into the Republican party via the NRA.

Rational people are still waiting to hear from witnesses in the Manafort case as well -- especially given his close ties to Russia (and Pence).

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ripaska-680630

No, "we don't have to go on what we have now" -- as I've said at least four times already: we can wait for all the evidence to be presented in the upcoming hearings on Russian interference and then make a decision based on ALL of the evidence available.

Well, I can at least -- you do what you want.

With regards to disagreements in general -- you actively support a party that routinely engages in voter suppression against people who share the same skin color as me.

What else needs to be said?

You quote me out of context a bit. "What we'll have to go on is what we have now" is a statement about evidence in the future. It's not about anything we have to do. I get that you disagree about the evidence, but it isn't any sort of command or effort to tell you what to think.

The statement was also preceded by a qualifier about how it is possible that there is evidence that will change things.

There may be cases where we're talking past one another. My comment about the effects of the election is mainly about decisions that influenced voters or the outcome of the election. Much of what's investigated isn't in that context. If the NRA is friendlier to Russia, this isn't part of the who really won 2016 argument. If the NRA was able to spend extra money on the 2016 election that would be part of the argument, although much of this is based on what we already know about the election spending.

As for voter suppression, I think those concerns are often exaggerated. Some of the reasons in the article aren't due to discriminatory laws, but due to social customs. These would require different fixes, and an articulation of a different standard.

"More than one in 10 blacks and Hispanics missed the registration deadline to vote in 2016, as opposed to just 3 percent of whites."

"And black and Hispanic respondents were twice as likely as white respondents to have been unable to get time off work for voting."

"For example, 37 percent of white respondents reported that their parents had taken them to a voting booth when they were children, versus 24 percent of black respondents and 18 percent of Hispanics."

There was a link to research indicating that poll site changes affect African Americans, although the examples are a bit complex.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/...blacks-n468251

A change in North Carolina reduced a disparity between white voters and African-American voters when it came to distance from polling sites.

And, importantly, even after the changes, black voters are still closer to early voting locations on average than white voters (though blacks are more likely not to have a car, so they may still face a longer journey by time). Before the changes, blacks were 2.90 miles away while whites were 3.77 miles away, on average, according to Busa’s numbers. After the changes, blacks were 3.14 miles away while whites remained 3.77 miles away.

But Busa’s analysis underscores how even minor changes to election systems that might have been intended to be neutral can nonetheless have the effect of hurting racial minorities more than whites. In this case, that might have been because white neighborhoods are more likely to have amenities like parking, leading election administrators to put polling locations in those areas.

[aja_christopher]

As for voter suppression, I think those concerns are often exaggerated.

How very convenient for you... and the party you support that actively works to suppress my vote.

Anyway, I don't think my concerns are "exaggerated" based on the evidence I've seen, so we can agree to disagree.

Speaking of evidence -- I had almost forgotten about good old Carter Page and his Russian connections...

-----
"FBI releases Carter Page surveillance warrant documents"

"The more than 400-page document released Saturday, which includes the initial October 2016 FISA warrant on Page and three subsequent renewals, is heavily redacted.

It states that the FBI "believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government."

"The FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government," the application states, adding that "there is probable cause that such activities involve or are about to involve violations of the criminal statutes of the United States..."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/polit...ant/index.html

[InformationGeek]

Looks like Trump isn't happy with North Korea, but frankly... there's one thing about this article that's jumping out at me.

When he emerged from his summit with Kim Jong Un last month, President Trump triumphantly declared that North Korea no longer posed a nuclear threat and that one of the world’s most intractable geopolitical crises had been “largely solved.”

But in the days and weeks since then, U.S. negotiators have faced stiff resistance from a North Korean team practiced in the art of delay and obfuscation.

Diplomats say the North Koreans have canceled follow-up meetings, demanded more money and failed to maintain basic communications, even as the once-isolated regime’s engagements with China and South Korea flourish.

Meanwhile, a missile-engine testing facility that Trump said would be destroyed remains intact, and U.S. intelligence officials say Pyongyang is working to conceal key aspects of its nuclear program.

More money? MORE MONEY? What's going on here?!

[heretic]

Looks like Trump isn't happy with North Korea, but frankly... there's one thing about this article that's jumping out at me.




More money? MORE MONEY? What's going on here?!

The Trump admin tried to quietly buy them off. Seems self-evident.

[JCAll]

Looks like Trump isn't happy with North Korea, but frankly... there's one thing about this article that's jumping out at me.




More money? MORE MONEY? What's going on here?!

It's almost, ALMOST, like NK is doing what they always do and what everyone said they were doing.
Like the president is an idiot or something, but that can't be it...

[Kevinroc]

Trump trashed the Iran deal and tried to prove he could make a deal with NK to "prove" himself better than Obama.

Welp...

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Trump trashed the Iran deal and tried to prove he could make a deal with NK to "prove" himself better than Obama.

Welp...

And by all indications Iran was doing what was agreed on and having inspections etc. Trump was just trying to one up Obama and failed in spectacular fashion.

[JCAll]

Trump trashed the Iran deal and tried to prove he could make a deal with NK to "prove" himself better than Obama.

Welp...

He proved he was stupider than Obama. That a kind of win, right?

[Tendrin]

OH WBEE-EEeeeeee…


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.b9f19dbab6ef

Republican Ashley Nickloes is the only woman in a seven-way primary race to fill a congressional seat held by one family for five decades. She’s also the only military pilot in the race, running against a litany of odds, including the strong possibility that she’ll lose to a popular career politician who hunts Bigfoot and made it easier for Tennesseans to eat their roadkill.

Burchett's first election to public office was in 1994, when he won a seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives. He served in the house for two two-year terms, from 1995 to 1998. In 1998, he was a successful candidate for a four-year term in the Tennessee State Senate, representing the 7th senatorial district. He succeeded Clyde Coulter "Bud" Gilbert. He twice won re-election to the state senate, serving a total of three four-year terms, from 1999 to 2010.[6][7]
Roadkill

In 1999, Burchett received national media attention for sponsoring a bill to legalize the eating of roadkill, that is, wild animals killed by vehicles, before notifying the county game warden.[9][10] He defended the proposal as a "common-sense thing" intended to prevent edible meat from being wasted. Eating roadkill was already legal - as it is in most places - but required prior notification to the county game warden. Burchett's bill allowed processing and consumption of roadkill before notifying the game warden. Burchett proposed the bill after being contacted by a constituent who had been penalized for giving a needy family the meat from a deer that his vehicle had accidentally hit on the highway.

Burchett declared November 16, 2012 to be Official Knox County Bigfoot Day.[19] He is an avid Bigfoot hunter and aficionado of various conspiracies on the subject.[citation needed] Many of his campaign signs and stickers feature images of Bigfoot.

He seems fun. Wikipedia indicates he's had some fun financial irregularities too.

I mean, it's not 'I killed my mom' crazy but... :P