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

[ed2962]

His ego won't let him walk away, since Obama had two terms Trump will try to rewrite the law so that he gets three.

I'm imaging a scene where he declines to run yet claims that his presidency was the greatest in history. He'll claim that he's leaving office to make America even greater from the private sector where he has more freedom.

[JCAll]

I'm imaging a scene where he declines to run yet claims that his presidency was the greatest in history. He'll claim that he's leaving office to make America even greater from the private sector where he has more freedom.

Accomplished everything he promised to do. Every single thing. Except the things he didn't do. But that was the Democrat's fault. Greatest President ever. Bigly.

[worstblogever]

Not true. I had been seeing him on Bill Maher for years. The audience knew who he was. If anything his appearances there probably boosted his profile. You get to be more than a 2 minute talking head there than on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

In fact, his first appearance goes back to 2005

I can recall Nina Turner popping up on MSNBC as far back as 2011, as well.

[worstblogever]

Perhaps this is timely... a Wonkette article that notes how there are people who claim to identify as Bernie Sanders supporters who are ratf***ing the Democratic Party by attacking rather impressive progressives like Kamala Harris, Kristin Gillibrand, and Nancy Pelosi. Usually by singling out one vote as "proof" they're not a true progressive, and often times even incorrectly stating how they voted.

Seems familiar, somehow.

[Kirby101]

All the people who claim that Hillary was terrible and that anyone else could've beaten Trump seem to have forgotten the decades long effort state level Republicans put into suppressing voters.

The suppressed votes in WI, MI, FL and NC alone were higher than his margin of victory in those States.

https://www.thenation.com/article/wi...-won-by-23000/

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-cas...-258b5f90ddcd/

[Kirby101]

I don't think they even have to try too hard to suppress votes. I mean, a lot of his votes came from people who knew he was terrible, but voted for him anyway.

They certainly did, and it was his margin of victory, see links above.

[worstblogever]

In 2014, 2015, as well as 2016, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of the sitting U.S. House Representative from Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, Trent Franks. In our first look at Rep. Franks, we had to let everyone know that there's nothing wrong with your eyes, his mouth is kind of weird, as Rep. Franks was born with a cleft lip and palate and required surgery to correct it. That’s honestly one of the least weird things about him, as he’s declared Barack Obama an “enemy of humanity”, segued debates on the House floor about a balanced budget amendment into a discussion of abortion and Nazis, claiming straight married couples “deserve” the legal rights they get as opposed to gays and that LGBT advocates are “intolerant” of Christians, claims there’s nothing in the Bible that obligates Christians to help the poor, demanded investigations into President Obama’s birth certificate, and to top it all off, once said in an interview that “African Americans were better off under slavery”.

Franks is one of the, if not the most fervently anti-abortion Republican in Congress (and that’s saying something), and accidentally revealed that the GOP knew about the Center for Medical Progress’ fraudulent Planned Parenthood “sting” videos before they were ever released to the public. He has compared legalized abortion in the United States to both slavery, and the Holocaust, and gone on the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch and promised God's Judgment would soon fall upon abortion providers as it once did upon those who worshipped at altars to Baal (because that sounds perfectly sane).. Franks has gone on FOX News to say that ISIS was going to work together with Iran (even though they are sworn enemies of one another) and attack America with a nuclear weapon while President Obama would be out golfing, and that he waswas regarding President Obama’s executive orders on immigration as saying that they were the “death of the Republic”.

After Donald Trump got a lot of Russian help to win the 2016 presidential election, and the intelligence community began to reveal the extent of the Russian attacks upon our democracy, Trent Franks went on MSNBC to say that if the Russians hacked our elections, it actually was a form of public service:

“I’m all for doing what’s necessary to protect the electorate but there’s no suggestion that Russia hacked into our voting systems or anything like that. But the bottom line is if they succeeded, if Russia succeeded in giving the American people information that was accurate, then they merely did what the media should have done.”

Remember that, going forward, that Trent Franks is pro-treason, and supports attacks upon our democracy.

But that wasn’t even the stupidest thing he said since we last covered him, not by a long shot. Rep. Franks was arguing in favor of tighter border security, giving the example that in his mind, it would be possible for terrorists to smuggle a nuclear weapon across the U.S./Mexico border by hiding it inside of bales of marijuana:

“The reality, Brianna, is that we have to measure all of the costs, ancillary and otherwise, and make the best decision that we can. But I can suggest to you that there are national security implications here for a porous border. We sometimes used to make the point that if someone wanted to smuggle in a dangerous weapon, even a nuclear weapon, into America, how would they do it? And the suggestion was made, ‘Well, we’ll simply hide it in a bale of marijuana.’”

THAT… is especially stupid. Not that we’re experts on smuggling or terorrism, or what have you… but if you wanted to sneak an object across the border, packaging it inside of an illegal substance that border agents are already on the hunt for would be a pretty stupid plan. And, y’know, when all those drug-sniffing dogs that the border patrol has start losing their damned minds, they’re not just gonna find the giant stacks of weed, they’re going to seize the nukes inside that little sticky-icky cube. But, y’know, Trent Franks is a f***ing moron.

And, we’ll add that in late May of 2017, as news spread of Montana Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte body-slamming a reporter on the eve of his election against Rob Quist, Rep. Franks bitterly says liberals share the blame for Gianforte’s attack, saying:

“The left has precipitated this tense, confrontational approach throughout the country in recent months.”

There were no Democrats that even talked about attacking the press, and several Republicans that had before Gianforte actually physically did so. But in Trent Franks’ warped mind, the left are secretly behind everything evil that’s ever happened in our country’s history, including when a Republican flips his s*** and decides to give some poor guy from The Guaridan a Rock Bottom.

Trent Franks just won his eighth term in Congress in 2016, winning office over Green Party candidate Mark Salazar with 58% of the vote, because and Democrats haven’t even bothered challenging this nut since 2012. Thus, he’s returned to Washington, D.C. to vote for some of the most aggravating and unpopular legislation seen in Congress in decades:

• January 12th, 2017: Rep. Franks kicks off the new session of Congress by co-sponsoring HB 490, a federal “fetal heartbeat” anti-abortion bill that would effectively ban abortion at 6 weeks, when some women don’t even realize they’re pregnant yet. He gleefully celebrates its introduction with fellow CSGOPOTD Janet Porter, Steve King, and Louis Gohmert.
• February 16th, 2017: Franks votes for HJR 69, to make it legal for hunters on wildlife reserves to kill several species of hibernating bears or wolves while they’re sleeping. Because… well, the logic really isn’t there as to why, it’s just awful.
• March 16th, 2017: Trent Franks votes for HR 1181, which would allow veterans deemed mentally incompetent to continue to own firearms, and not have them taken away without a judge's written order. We feel safer already.
• March 28th, 2017: Rep. Franks votes for SJ Res 34, which allowed internet providers to sell the data information of their customers' internet usage to businesses. Well, so much for privacy.
• May 4th, 2017: Franks votes for the House GOP's healthcare plan, that would kick roughly 24 million people off their health insurance plans, allow up to 28,000 more people to die a year, give $50,000 in tax breaks to millionaires, and would eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions which would include such medical conditions as pregnancy (current or past), post-partum depression, or prior sexual assault. Oh, and a provision in the bill would make sure that Franks would be allowed to keep his healthcare plan as it exists under the ACA, which would be repealed for the rest of the country. He and his Republican compatriots threw themselves a beer bash to celebrate taking away healthcare from millions and then gloated about it with Donald Trump at a White House press conference, as well.
• June 8th, 2017: Trent Franks votes for HR 10, the GOP’s attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform, because what the country really needs is to allow the big banks to make the same mistakes that imploded the economy only a decade earlier.

Trent Franks is still only 60 years old, and is as far on the lunatic fringe of Congress on the issue of abortion as it gets. Even with his many outrageous remarks, his district leans +13 in favor of Republicans, and he has not had a serious challenger in a primary or a Democrat to threaten him for several years. Thus far, the only Democrat to register to go up against him in 2018 is Brianna Westbrook, who seeks to become the first transgendered member of Congress. With Arizona’s 8th already reasonably more red than blue, well… we’d like to predict history will be made, but if Westbrook pulls it off, it would be a HUGE upset.

[Dalak]

Perhaps this is timely... a Wonkette article that notes how there are people who claim to identify as Bernie Sanders supporters who are ratf***ing the Democratic Party by attacking rather impressive progressives like Kamala Harris, Kristin Gillibrand, and Nancy Pelosi. Usually by singling out one vote as "proof" they're not a true progressive, and often times even incorrectly stating how they voted.

Seems familiar, somehow.

I think your link here is off, it's the story about Trump holding hands for Stairs.

[wjowski]

When you decide to play someone else's game, you agree to play by their rules. You may not like the rules, you may complain about those rules, but you don't get to change them unilaterally. If you play the game by your own rules, you probably won't win. You can try to change the rules from within once you win, but until then, you have to play by the rules that are there right now.

There are managers in Major League Baseball who hate the Designated Hitter rule. They absolutely hate it, and think it was a mistake to institute it in 1973. But when they play games in American League stadiums, they employ the designated hitter rule. They could ignore it, or insert their pitcher into the line-up after one inning, but they don't. Why? Because they know that it would drastically reduce their chances of winning the game. You play by the rules as they are, not as you wish they were.

You'd probably have more of a point if Dems haven't been losing continually since 2010.

[worstblogever]

I think your link here is off, it's the story about Trump holding hands for Stairs.

Sorry, here:
https://wonkette.com/621199/sure-guy...-kamala-harris

[Tami]

The Republicans are falling out of love with Trump

Republican Shadow Campaign for 2020 Takes Shape as Trump Doubts Grow

WASHINGTON — Senators Tom Cotton and Ben Sasse have already been to Iowa this year, Gov. John Kasich is eyeing a return visit to New Hampshire, and Mike Pence’s schedule is so full of political events that Republicans joke that he is acting more like a second-term vice president hoping to clear the field than a No. 2 sworn in a little over six months ago.

The would-be candidates are cultivating some of the party’s most prominent donors, courting conservative interest groups and carefully enhancing their profiles. Mr. Trump has given no indication that he will decline to seek a second term.

But the sheer disarray surrounding this presidency— the intensifying investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the plain uncertainty about what Mr. Trump will do in the next week, let alone in the next election—have prompted Republican officeholders to take political steps that are unheard-of so soon into a new administration.

Asked about those Republicans who seem to be eyeing 2020, a White House spokeswoman, Lindsay Walter, fired a warning shot: “The president is as strong as he’s ever been in Iowa, and every potentially ambitious Republican knows that.”

But in interviews with more than 75 Republicans at every level of the party, elected officials, donors and strategists expressed widespread uncertainty about whether Mr. Trump would be on the ballot in 2020 and little doubt that others in the party are engaged in barely veiled contingency planning.

“They see weakness in this president,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. “Look, it’s not a nice business we’re in.”

[Tami]

A new website named after a Founding Father is tracking Russian propaganda in real time

A website launched on Wednesday by a former FBI special agent-turned disinformation expert claims to track Russian propaganda in near-real time, as it spreads via Twitter accounts that have been linked to Russian influence operations.

Clint Watts, who garnered national media attention after testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee about Russia's ongoing cyber and propaganda war against the West, spearheaded the project called Hamilton 68 — a hat tip to the founding father's Federalist Papers No. 68.

"In the Federalist Papers No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote of protecting America’s electoral process from foreign meddling," the site reads, alluding to Russia's interference in the 2016 election. "Today, we face foreign interference of a type Hamilton could scarcely have imagined."

Watts worked on Hamilton 68 with JM Berger, a fellow with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism who studies extremism and propaganda on social media; Andrew Weisburd, a fellow at the Center for Cyber & Homeland Security; and Jonathon Morgan, the CEO of New Knowledge AI and head of Data for Democracy, a volunteer collective of data scientists and technologists.

[PaulBullion]

Perhaps this is timely... a Wonkette article that notes how there are people who claim to identify as Bernie Sanders supporters who are ratf***ing the Democratic Party by attacking rather impressive progressives like Kamala Harris, Kristin Gillibrand, and Nancy Pelosi. Usually by singling out one vote as "proof" they're not a true progressive, and often times even incorrectly stating how they voted.

Seems familiar, somehow.

In related news, I heard that millionaire Bernie Sanders isn't in the top 10 progressive Senators anymore...

[PaulBullion]

You'd probably have more of a point if Dems haven't been losing continually since 2010.

They actually gained seats in both the House and the Senate last year.

[mojotastic]

The Reynold Journalism Institute did a study with 8,728 people about the most and less trusted new outlet in America.

https://www.rjionline.org/stories/wh...people-told-us

Occupy democrats is the least trusted, Cnn is in the middle and the most trusted is the Economist.

As mentioned earlier, although the sample size was big (>8,000), there are a few biases worth noting:

Survey respondents were not randomly selected, and voluntarily filled out the survey.
Survey respondents tended to be geographically near the 28 newsrooms, many of which were local, that made the survey available on their websites.
In terms of political orientation, the audience skews towards liberals.

Michael Kearney, an incoming professor at the University of Missouri, did statistical analysis of our 8,728 questionnaire responses. Read the full report, including methodology and lots of charts.

As we expected, people who rated themselves likely or very likely to trust the news were more willing to fill out journalists’ questionnaires than people who don’t trust the news. They account for 67.3 percent of responses. The other 32.7 percent — people unlikely or very unlikely to trust the news — perhaps have even more to teach us.


The questionnaire asked respondents to name three news brands they typically trust and three they don’t. Kearney took a look at brands that came up at least 10 times and compared how often they were mentioned as trusted versus mentioned as not trusted. These lists show the relationship between positive and negative mentions. The responses were opened ended, and some answers aren’t actual news brands.

Mentioned as trusted:

The Economist
Public television
Reuters
BBC
NPR
PBS
The Guardian
The Wall Street Journal
Los Angeles Times
The Dallas Morning News
Mentioned as not trusted:

Occupy Democrats
BuzzFeed
Breitbart
Social media
Trump
Infowars
Yahoo
Internet
Huffington Post
The Blaze
The analysis also compared the political learnings of respondents with the brands they mentioned. We found, for example, that users who mentioned Rachel Maddow as trusted were more liberal than average, while users who trust Rush Limbaugh were more conservative than average. Not shocking, we realize, but the full chart is worth checking out. Liberals most often cited The New York Times, NPR and The Washington Post as trusted, while the brand most listed by conservatives was Fox News.

There’s only so much we can learn from these limited questions, which is why we followed up with in-depth interviews. Our partner newsrooms collectively sat down with 81 news consumers for about an hour each to dive into what people are looking for as they decide what news to trust.