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

[Carabas]

"The attack on @sarahjeong is part of a deeply troubling trend of far right agitators trying to get journalists fired." -Lydia Polgreen, editor-in-chief of HuffPost

So, this is another right wing conspiracy? right?

I'm not seeing the conspirational part. It seems all very out in the open.

[BeastieRunner]

TEAM Mueller update: Roger Stone has been subpoenaed.

More Manafort trial news:

Manafort’s consulting firm reported a $1.2 million loss in 2016.

The bookkeeper said the reliability of the financial records was becoming doubtful, again saying she was unaware that Manafort controlled companies that were paying the firm or loaning the firm money.

Gates has been linked to the loans and hiding money overseas for himself now.

Gates’s annual income from DMP is recorded as $240,000, but hid money as stated.

Documents submitted show that DMP did not pay any taxes in Cyprus between 2011 and 2016.

Bookkeeper then says she pleaded with Manafort for money to pay bills.

He got "loans" but she never saw them show up.

A tally from early 2016 showed Manafort owed more than $1.1 million to pay off credit cards and other expenses from lavish spending.

All the emails were shown.

The bookkeeper asked for money in 1/16 . Manafort had taxes that were due that day on a New York City property he owned. He failed to pay.

Davis Manafort Partners (DMP) was hemorrhaging money, too. In an email to Rick Gates in April 2016, the bookkeeper wrote the firm’s medical insurance was going to be cancelled because the bill hadn’t been paid. She said to send money “ASAP.”

Team Mueller gets to bank fraud and show Rick Gates inflating firm income by $4M.

They show a paper trail demonstrating that Manafort ordered the inflated amount and how he came up with it so "they won't get caught."

They showed Gates sent financial documents to two banks indicating Davis Manafort Partners made $4.5M in 2015.

She said that was “four million more than what was reported on the documents that we created.” Her firm recorded the company making about $400K that year.

Team Mueller detailed, with documents and emails, the effort to inflate the income.

Gates and the bookkeeper had several heated exchanges over her unwillingness to send over editable word documents vs. uneditable pdfs.

Gates asked for $2.6M to added, showing a previous email Manafort had requested. She says she cannot; the firm operates on a cash basis, recording money when it comes in rather than when it is earned.

Gates then went around her back to another person in her firm.

Laura Tanner, the "new bookkeeper" said “per email with Heather,” she should add the $2.6 million to the 2015 income.

It's unclear what Tanner did.

Team Mueller showed jurors an attachment Gates sent to Bank of California. “It is similar in some respects” to the DMP financial statement prepared by the bookkeeping firm, she testified, but she said the disclaimer was missing, the font was different, and “the numbers are different.”

[JackDaw]

You don't see a difference between insulting and attacking the, on average, most powerful and privileged group in society towards attacking the downtrodden?

The insults may be more “understandable” when directed at the “on average”most powerful group. Although it’s just as easy to understand that any person raised by racist parents may well turn out to be racist. I can’t recall anybody ever arguing “Let’s be tolerant of X’s racism because he had a poor upbringing”.

Overall her utterances seem to be so extreme and lacking discernment (come on it’s blatantly obvious that not all white people are the same) that it’s hard for me to understand how she can serve on editorial board of a newspaper with liberal values.

Do you disagree?

[Iron Maiden]

Interesting how the either Deutsche Bank or the Bank of Cypress turns up when you hear about financial shenanigans of those in Trump's orbit or the Trump family. They must all have been persona non grata by the U.S. financial institutions that would loan large amounts.

[Tazirai]

Trump administration revokes Obama-era fuel economy standards



I mean I get the Obama did it gotta roll it back mentality. But for a regular Trump voter why in the world would you want less gas mileage? No one is saying you have to buy a Tesla or anything. Ignore all the pollution aspects which gets tricky with climate change deniers etc.

Focus strictly on being a benefit to anyone's pocketbook by having more efficient cars out there. How is this a bad thing? I mean they will go to rallies and cheer this BS but why? How is this good for any of them personally?

For the Trump voters, how does this make America great again? I get you hate regulations. But this LITERALLY saves you money.

[Mister Mets]

This is not to mention the idea that Scientologist can use this against psychology to claim it's against their values to seek out medical attention for mental health issues, or even doctors for help in case of an emergency.

Or hell, some religious evangelicals probably would be using it to keep from going to the doctor for help in the first place. Like hey, you know that cancer, doctor saying that you have to take medicine that is against your beliefs, well the new RLTF will help you pray your illness away.

What's the problem here?

Somehow, I don't think the guy who lost to the only 3rd continuous term for one party since Truman is someone to listen to when I want to win an election. Other than trying to dissect how he managed such a rare feat.

There are two alternate explanations which would explain why that was a great period for Republicans (Jimmy Carter would represent the only time a party held the White House for just one term since McKinley was elected.)

It could be seen as a historically poor period for Democrats in terms of their appeal to presidential voters.

It may also be that Reagan was awesome, which explains how he beat an incumbent President, and why his VP would go on to win 40 states.

The NYT have released a statement about the hire:


What it boils down to:

That's a bit misleading, isn't it?

I'd imagine the guy would be just as pissed if the Times insisted she delete the problematic tweets.

Her claim is that her comments were meant to be parodies of right-wing comments, which puts it in a different context than someone who thinks one race is superior to another.

Plus, I can't take this stuff seriously. Conservative outlets hire and (and keep employed) many people that say shitty things or racist things or controversial things. And their only response generally is, suck it up.

I'm not going to hold NYT to different standards.

The objection is about the hypocrisy of the Times and other mainstream media outlets (which are ostensibly nonpartisan and not meant to be counterparts to the conservative press.)

[ouroboros]

I'm clear on the definition of strawman and how it applies to the majority of your arguments -- such as acting as if all "liberals" sit around defending Antifa when you're the only one continually bringing them up.



That you do so to defend Nazis and the Klan says more about you than it does about the "liberals" that you are debating.

------
1. An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2. A person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

You really ought to cite the source(s) of your definitions.

Now, it's possible for common phrases to shift in meaning over a period of years, so I would not be surprised to see that many people have started to use "straw man" improperly, with the result that it becomes an accepted usage that some dictionaries duly report.

Nevertheless, the correct definition is presented at length by Wikipedia:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

Now, if you want to use the improper form, there's nothing I can do to prevent you. But I don't see the advantage. Why not just say, "your argument is irrelevant" or "your argument is weak?" This is essentially your response, deflecting from my argument that Antifa is wrong by saying, "but nobody brought it up here."

Of course, since you can't prove your ridiculous assertion that I'm guilty of 'trying to defend "conservatives" and blatantly racist right-wing organizations, such as the KKK or Neo-Nazis,' I'm not surprised that deflection is about the only weapon you've got.

[aja_christopher]

You really ought to cite the source(s) of your definitions.

Argue with Google -- it's the first thing that comes up when you type it in.

Other than that, I'm done with this.

[aja_christopher]

Double post.

[BeastieRunner]

More Manafort trial updates:

The defense takes the cross examination.

The defense contended that Gates was responsible for any financial wrongdoing and that he sought to manipulate Manafort and his finances for his own personal gain.

Manafort’s defense has been that miscommunication in a small, complicated business, with the deliberate subterfuge of Gates, led to accounting errors.

The bookkeeper agreed with the assessment that Gates was Manafort’s “right hand man.”

“He [Gates] handled a lot of the business affairs.”

She said Manafort was largely the one who made final decisions on the finances for the firm and himself. “He [Manafort] approved every expenditure on the personal and business side. He signed off on all records. Period.”

Judge admonished the defense for failure to continue questioning.

Defense abruptly ends cross examination.

Philip Ayliff, a Manafort accountant, takes the stand.

The accountant at the firm Kositzka, Wicks and Company testified that Manafort was essentially on the hook for any problems with his taxes.

He read from engagement letters sent to Manafort every year, which covered DMP and several other entities Manafort controlled. All entered as evidence.

The letters warned Manafort that the firm, “Will not audit or verify the data you submit. Our engagement does not include any procedures designed to detect material errors, irregularities or illegal acts.”

Manafort personally signed those letters every year from 2012 to 2016. Into evidence they went.

Manafort also signed off on tax returns from 2011 to 2014 in which he claimed to have no foreign bank accounts, according to the documents introduced by Team Mueller.

The accountant testified that clients would be given a form telling them that failure to report such accounts could lead to substantial civil or criminal penalties.

“We ask clients about foreign accounts every year. We wanted to make sure clients were adhering to this rule, because the penalties are very severe.”

Starting around 2010, the accountant said, because the IRS was “placing more emphasis” on foreign bank account reporting, they asked more insistently about foreign accounts.

Judge admonished Team Mueller for attempting to treat the accountant as a expert witness.

[worstblogever]

Team Mueller gets to bank fraud and show Rick Gates inflating firm income by $4M.

They show a paper trail demonstrating that Manafort ordered the inflated amount and how he came up with it so "they won't get caught."

They showed Gates sent financial documents to two banks indicating Davis Manafort Partners made $4.5M in 2015.

She said that was “four million more than what was reported on the documents that we created.” Her firm recorded the company making about $400K that year.

Team Mueller detailed, with documents and emails, the effort to inflate the income.

Manafort is f***ed. Like, how can a jury not convict a man after evidence of the crime is shown, witnesses confirm he did it, and they have literal e-mail messages from the defendant here he talks about doing it and "how to not get caught"?

Mueller's team, man. Those FINCEN lawyers who Mueller assembled have a 100% conviction rate, and it doesn't look like there's any defense Manafort's people are gonna be able to present to break their streak.

[BeastieRunner]

Manafort is f***ed. Like, how can a jury not convict a man after evidence of the crime is shown, witnesses confirm he did it, and they have literal e-mail messages from the defendant here he talks about doing it and "how to not get caught"?

Mueller's team, man. Those FINCEN lawyers who Mueller assembled have a 100% conviction rate, and it doesn't look like there's any defense Manafort's people are gonna be able to present to break their streak.

Yet Fox is prattling on about the finger waving Team Mueller got.

Not that the defense blew themselves up today.

They painted Manafort as a control freak and ended up proving it further.

Among other things.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Manafort is f***ed. Like, how can a jury not convict a man after evidence of the crime is shown, witnesses confirm he did it, and they have literal e-mail messages from the defendant here he talks about doing it and "how to not get caught"?

Mueller's team, man. Those FINCEN lawyers who Mueller assembled have a 100% conviction rate, and it doesn't look like there's any defense Manafort's people are gonna be able to present to break their streak.

Is there any chance that Trump will pardon him? That would be an utterly ridiculous intervention that would fly in the face of tradition and executive restraint, buuuuuut, y'know...

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Is there any chance that Trump will pardon him? That would be an utterly ridiculous intervention that would fly in the face of tradition and executive restraint, buuuuuut, y'know...

Exactly. Trump couldn’t spell restraint, much less practice same. While he’s more than willing to let Michael Cohen rot in prison, he might well pardon Manafort if he doesn’t roll over on him.

[Carabas]

Is there any chance that Trump will pardon him? That would be an utterly ridiculous intervention that would fly in the face of tradition and executive restraint, buuuuuut, y'know...

After Manafort does this kind of damage to Trump? The words snowball, chance, and hell come to mind.

Besides, what benefit would it be to Trump? Pardoning him won't put any of this back in the bottle.

ETA: okay, if Manafort still has money maybe he can buy a pardon. Bound to happen sooner or later, the way Trump's been using them.