Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

06-30-2017 , 02:45 PM
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-enquirer.html

Quote:
According to three sources familiar with the private conversations, what happened was this: After the inauguration, Morning Joe’s coverage of Trump turned sharply negative. “This presidency is fake and failed,” Brzezinski said on March 6, for example. Around this time, Scarborough and Brzezinski found out the Enquirer was preparing a story about their affair. While Scarborough and Brzezinski’s relationship had been gossiped about in media circles for some time, it was not yet public, and the tabloid was going to report that they had left their spouses to be together.

In mid-April, Scarborough texted with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner about the pending Enquirer story. Kushner told Scarborough that he would need to personally apologize to Trump in exchange for getting Enquirer owner David Pecker to stop the story. (A spokesperson for Kushner declined to comment). Scarborough says he refused, and the Enquirer published the story in print on June 5, headlined “Morning Joe Sleazy Cheating Scandal!”

The Morning Joe co-hosts decided to talk about the episode a day after Trump inaccurately tweeted that Brzezinski attended a New Year’s Eve party at Mar-a-Lago “bleeding badly from a face-lift.” (A photo from that evening backs up Scarborough and Brzezinski’s denial of this.) While the Enquirer denies that Trump encouraged Pecker to investigate the MSNBC hosts, Trump himself has pushed the story publicly. Last August, he tweeted, “Some day, when things calm down, I’ll tell the real story of @JoeNBC and his very insecure long-time girlfriend, @morningmika. Two clowns!”
I love stories like this, that are basically sourced by every person involved under the cloak of anonymity. "Reince Priebus and Rex Tillerson were recently involved in an explosive shouting match with Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, according to all four people involved in the explosive shouting match, but whom we are not naming for some unknown reason."
06-30-2017 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Because gerrymandering alone isn't actually the only problem and I'm pretty confident (too lazy to link) that the effects are dwarfed largely by the fact that Democratic voters, black AND white, are largely concentrated in some very small geographic areas.
Eh, it's definitely not "dwarfed". Gerrymandering alone favors Republicans by about 15-20 seats.

Concentration of liberals is clearly a major effect as well, but it can't be magnitudes larger than that.

Agree with the rest of your post, though.
06-30-2017 , 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
This ties into the 1984 vs Idiotocracy conversation Dvaut and I had yesterday. This isn't the usual dystopian setup where the president uses the Ministry of Disinformation and state police to attack his foes, he's using angry tweets and The National Enquirer.
Also on the Idiocracy side of the ledger, the President spends his time in the Ministry watching relatively low rated cable shows and pleading with the hosts to stop saying mean things about him or else a story detailing the already publically known information that the hosts are involved in an intimate romance will be made public.
06-30-2017 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
55.2% current majority in the House
58.8% majority right before 2010 loss of House by Democrats
53.0% majority right before 2006 loss of House by Republcans
59.2% majority right before 1994 loss of House by Democrats

That looks easy enough to me. if you have a solid message and campaign.
I understand skipping over part of a post that you don't like or doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, but to keep pushing your point about Democrats messaging hard while ignoring so many statements about cheating, is disingenuous.

Do you think Trump is right to ignore Russia's past, current and future medling attacks?
06-30-2017 , 02:56 PM
Wow a troll's post is disingenuous? I for one, am deeply troubled by this.
06-30-2017 , 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Also on the Idiocracy side of the ledger, the President spends his time in the Ministry watching relatively low rated cable shows and pleading with the hosts to stop saying mean things about him or else a story detailing the already publically known information that the hosts are involved in an intimate romance will be made public.
What's incredible is that he actually does straight-up have the FBI/NSA/whatever at his command! We're sort of lucky that he's a pop-culture flake instead of a modern-day Nixon, because if Trump really had Nixon's competence he could call on some seriously dangerous operatives to do his axe grinding.

Russia is an example of what an evil person with actual competence can get away with given the power of a major country.
06-30-2017 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
What's incredible is that he actually does straight-up have the FBI/NSA/whatever at his command! We're sort of lucky that he's a pop-culture flake instead of a modern-day Nixon, because if Trump really had Nixon's competence he could call on some seriously dangerous operatives to do his axe grinding.

Russia is an example of what an evil person with actual competence can get away with given the power of a major country.
I agree the only thing separating Trump and a truly dangerous and destructive menace is any sort of emotional stability and about 50 IQ points.
06-30-2017 , 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
It really is staggering how many people cannot accept the fact that our democracy is no longer legitimate. I guess that's to be expected, after all the propaganda that our system was perfect and its checks and balances could defeat anything. But it really is time to face the music at this point.
To the extent our democracy was ever legitimate, it wasn't because electoral districts weren't gerrymandered. They've always been gerrymandered. Voter suppression is also not exactly a new thing.
06-30-2017 , 03:18 PM




One of these guys also believes OJ was innocent
06-30-2017 , 03:27 PM
18 USC 872

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both;  but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
06-30-2017 , 03:27 PM
Neither the president's nor the vice-president's states are complying with the voter rolls request

Of course Alabama is hand-delivering theirs
06-30-2017 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
To the extent our democracy was ever legitimate, it wasn't because electoral districts weren't gerrymandered. They've always been gerrymandered. Voter suppression is also not exactly a new thing.
It's really true. This fascist corporatist state was never really legitimate. It was a country built on the backs of enslaved Africans and murdered Native Americans.
06-30-2017 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Sorry I wasn't more clear. I agree the Supreme Court seat was stolen. I don't agree the ruling on the travel ban represents some subverting of the Constitution.
It's a subversion of the Constitution no matter what the Court rules on. The Court has been stolen, it is illegitimate, and continuing to treat its rulings as normal and legitimate court rulings is totally insane. This Supreme Court is a farce. We must never forget that.
06-30-2017 , 03:57 PM
See, now that a seat on the court is completely and utterly stolen, it doesn't matter how they rule on anything. All the rulings are illegitimate. A stolen court can't make a legally binding determination. Preposterous.
06-30-2017 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
It's a subversion of the Constitution no matter what the Court rules on. The Court has been stolen, it is illegitimate, and continuing to treat its rulings as normal and legitimate court rulings is totally insane. This Supreme Court is a farce. We must never forget that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
See, now that a seat on the court is completely and utterly stolen, it doesn't matter how they rule on anything. All the rulings are illegitimate. A stolen court can't make a legally binding determination. Preposterous.
I don't think this logically follows, especially considering the "stealing" of the seat was all about norm-violation and did not involve the breaking of any laws.

I mean if Gorsuch starts ruling in ways that are incompatible with the law I'll be right there with you but I don't think you can argue that any and all Supreme Court rulings are now affronts to the Constitution or whatever it is you are trying to say.
06-30-2017 , 04:24 PM
One thing on the voter suppression/voter ID fight... I think the Democrats need to come to terms with the fact that they are in a permanent battle on the issue as framed, and their best case is holding their ground and their worst case is becoming a permanent minority party via voter suppression.

This is because the Republican base believes that voter fraud is a thing, believes Democrats do it a ton, and believes that voter ID is easy to get and it's not a hardship. They're wrong about all of this, but it doesn't matter. They're true believers... and the Republican elites know that it's a road to permanent majority status, so they're not going to back off.

So the Democrats have a fight they can only lose, and thus they need to find a better way to play the game. Fight it until you have the majority, then introduce a bill to:

1) Require voter ID in all states, with allowable forms being driver's licenses, state ID, federal ID, etc.

2) Require all states to register all voters when they turn 18, and issue the ID over the Internet. Require states to offer voter registration at DMV when people who aren't currently registered to vote show up to renew their license.

3) Make it very easy to update your information when you relocate, etc, and automate as much of this as possible.

4) Simplify the process of obtaining federal voter ID that all states must accept if you lose documentation, etc. Make it possible to do this online or over the phone and through the mail.

5) Secure the election systems from hacking

Call it something fun like the "American Democracy Protection Act," or the "American Election Security and Improvement Act." Republicans will obviously oppose this, but you ram it through by any mean's necessary serving two purposes: improving voter turnout in your favor and taking away an issue they made up to suppress votes.

The other thing is that even if this approach fails, it tells the Republicans that they're not freerolling on the issue. Right now they're freerolling; that's UNACCEPTABLE strategy from the left.
06-30-2017 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
I don't think this logically follows, especially considering the "stealing" of the seat was all about norm-violation and did not involve the breaking of any laws.

I mean if Gorsuch starts ruling in ways that are incompatible with the law I'll be right there with you but I don't think you can argue that any and all Supreme Court rulings are now affronts to the Constitution or whatever it is you are trying to say.
The Seat was stolen in plain violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is now completely illegitimate.
06-30-2017 , 04:43 PM
So let's say I come to the committee that decides the BCS bowls or whatever. I go up to one of the legit members of the committee and just kick the **** out of them and force them out of the room. Then I sit down and start holding a meeting like I'm a legit part of the committee. Would this fly in your organization? As long as my decisions were pretty reasonable, you'd let me remain on the committee, even though you know my seat was completely 100% illegitimate?
06-30-2017 , 04:55 PM
lol einbert.
06-30-2017 , 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
The Seat was stolen in plain violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is now completely illegitimate.
It's not without precedent for the Senate to refuse to consider a SCOTUS nominee. Andrew Johnson was so despised by congress that they actually changed the number of seats on the court rather than let him nominate someone.
06-30-2017 , 05:21 PM
Einbert what is your solution to the stolen Supreme Court seat and frankly, the illegitimacy of the Government of the United States?
06-30-2017 , 05:21 PM
The supreme court seat is not a big deal.

1. not-gop wins 50% senate, presidency.
2. kill filibuster because norms are dead, prisoners dilemma you can't cooperate after defection.
3. appoint 10 new SC justices. Snap confirm.
4. re-litigate everything. Stare decisis is a fake word.

the rules have changed. time to play by the new rules.

if you can do step 1 it's not a problem and if you can't do step 1 it's hopeless.

a return to coloring inside the lines should be a negotiated outcome, not given away on day 1.
06-30-2017 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
I've already mentioned that in my first post on this subject earlier today, and I acknowledge the effects. It reinforces my point: that Democrats have deeper problems than gerrymandering. And very specifically, I was responding to iron -- that in a very specific respect, gerrymandering which creates minority-majority districts does a very important, critical thing for black people. The left and Democrats should take that thing seriously even if we acknowledge majority-minority districts are a catch-22 for Democrats; their presence particularly in the south means that lots of Democratic voters are packed into districts to ensure minorities are a critical mass of voters in districts and therefore effectively ensure the election of minorities to legislative bodies. But they ultimately serve as a burden on Democratic electoral power on the whole. If we did away with that prohibition in the Voting Rights Act, and/or existed in some hypothetical world where districts were drawn up in a non-partisan way, where racial minorities aren't packed into districts -- that may very well end up making the Democrats a whiter, less inclusive, more segregated party. Such a hypothetical world means Democrats are going to be competing for southern and rural white sympathies -- consider the effects that would have on candidate recruitment and messaging across the party, and then later on priorities when/if Democrats were successful. Without being Socratic and coy: I think it's almost inevitable and not debatable this would make the Democrats far more racist, far more committed to flattering angry white sensibilities. Democrats have been able to ditch *some* of that reflex on the whole, particularly after the mid 1990s because so many of those voters are lost in hopelessly Republican districts. That wouldn't be the case if we changed the map around. That's not a trivial thing and we need to think critically about it.

This ain't fence jumping to say poconoder is correct that all Democrats need is messaging help; but Democrats have a problem here that's beyond simple fixes. I've made this point before, but the GOP has a very simple job to do on the whole -- keep taxes low and keep whites agitated and anxious. By the fact that Democrats have a bunch of competing virtues and priorities, we have these knotty problems and competing interests. There's no easy way for Democrats to make a bunch of electoral reforms that doesn't jeopardize the character of the party as one even half-heartedly committed to social and racial justice. Gerrymandering I think is on the whole pernicious but that prohibition in the Voting Rights Act to allow for majority-minority districts allows for a substantial number of black legislators in a country still overflowing with angry racists. That's important to me, and rolling it back and leaving everyone to play nice and hope for the best without statutory support may return back to the ante Voting Rights status quo where both parties elected leaders are largely made up of whites and black representation is hard to find. Modern America has proven the absolute durability of white supremacist sympathies; without majority-minority districts, I suspect the Democratic party could easily be overrun by a bunch of Tim Ryan clones running all over the south, the midwest, in rural districts, justified by Welp This is The Only Way to Win mentality. That's a hard outcome to stomach but I find it almost inevitable.
Another spot on post.

Democrats have willingly segregated themselves (for lack of a better term) into urban areas. This leads to even non-gerrymandered HoR district borders to tightly pack the Democratic vote.

For example: Ohio. I live here. It's 4 Dem 12 GOP. And sure, a non-GOP gerrymandered map may not be 4/12, but even a reasonable map that isn't terribly gerrymandered may be 6/10 even though the aggregate vote statewide may be "deserve" to be 7/9. You can draw a district around Toledo, Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown/Akron and Cincinnati. Makes those blue. But the Democrats vote sink themselves into cities.

And then the Senate. That's something totally else. California has two Senators. Idaho has two. It's always going to be an albatross around the Dems necks.
06-30-2017 , 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
Neither the president's nor the vice-president's states are complying with the voter rolls request

Of course Alabama is hand-delivering theirs

Kobach will be on his own enemies list.

https://twitter.com/derekwillis/stat...74911484567552
06-30-2017 , 06:10 PM


cooper reading to the president in the start here, a passage he might have heard before somewhere.

      
m